User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Withdrawing

Withdrawing nomination? (Archive 29)
If you nominate someone else for adminship, and they accept, do you always have the power to withdraw the nomination before it has run its course, thus declining adminship from the candidate, or will an established consensus prevent that? I suppose people who nominate themselves can always withdraw their nominations no matter how many people support them. &mdash; J I P | Talk 04:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I notice this too... people are taking the " Nominations which will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will" line into heart I see :). I don't know if there's anything wrong with it as the passage seems to allow it Ryan Norton T 04:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But what about nominations that will clearly pass? Can the nominator remove them too? I don't think they can, but I want to be sure. &mdash; J I P | Talk 04:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say no. A nominator can start a vote but not withdraw it (unless it is badly failing or the candidate chooses to refuse the nomination).  In strange cases, I guess a nominator could change his vote to neutral or oppose.  Never seen that happen though.  Dragons flight 04:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... /me looks concerned... android  79  05:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The question was, of course, purely academic. &mdash; J I P | Talk 05:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I knew that. Looks like I forgot to add ":-)" to my above comment, oops. Just ignore me... android  79  11:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * No. A nominator merely introduces a prospective admin to the community for the purpose of allowing others to express their opinions. The nominator is not a sponsor and this is not a private club. If the nominator decides for some reason that they no longer wish the person to be an admin, they should vote "oppose" like anyone else and state their objections. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought as well. I just wanted to be sure. But what about the removed nomination for User:Acetic Acid? &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that a nomination simply gets the voting started. If a nominator changes his mind, he can remove his vote – traditionally the nominator gives the number one vote. But if others have already started voting in support, he can't cancel the process that he has started. I imagine it would only happen either if the nominator is a bit eccentric, or if the candidate has done something pretty awful – in which case it's likely that many other "support" voters would change their votes to neutral or oppose at the same time. If it's not mentioned in the policy, that's probably because it hasn't occurred to anyone so far that it could happen. Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If Redwolf24 didn't pull the nomination, I would have rejected it. I never accepted the nomination, so I think he did the right thing. Acetic  ' Acid  00:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Closing withdrawn RfA (Archive 45)
In order to prevent a pile-on, I closed this RfA after the nominee withdrew his request. I hope I didn't break the rules (since I'm not a bureaucrat, or even an admin.) Please correct me or follow up behind me or do whatever is necesary to maintain order in the RfA system. (Just don't block me.) --TantalumT e lluride 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reasonable maybe, given the low number of edits for the candidate. But, closing such RfAs shortly after they have begun seems to set a standard of X number of edits in order to apply for adminship. There is no such standard. ANYone can apply for adminship. User:Raul654 became an admin with just 30 more edits to his credit than Bugs5382. Again, see discussions above; early removal of RfAs by non-bureaucrats lacks consensus. --Durin 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I think the issue is not edits, but that the nominee withdrew. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 14:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (laugh) Right you are. I was in too much of a rush with my earlier comment. --Durin 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Widthdraw or fail? (Archive 62)
I know my RFA wont succeed (ok, I still have hope =D) but I think it is better to "go down with the ship" than withdraw. I believe extremely strongly that I am a great candidate for admin.

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


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


 * Tough to say. One the one hand, there's a sense among some users that withdrawl shows a lack of "commitment" on the part of the candidate; on the other hand, some users will wield a failed RfA like a sword of Damocles in later RfAs. But a tactical withdrawl can be useful if your RfA is being disrupted/trolled; otherwise I'd say let the process continue to completion, and take the lessons learned for a future attempt (I haven't read yours lately, so I don't know what's going on there or what your current % is). -- nae'blis (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. There are a few more oppose votes than support, however I think in a few months should a user nominate me again it will pass soundly.
 * I am utterly committed to this RfA and any future ones, but I don't want my steadfastness to be used against me even if it is a gross misrepresentation ex: "Doesn't know when to quit and back down" --mboverload @ 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having looked at it now, I don't think 40% passing is something to be ashamed of. The ones I usually see get accused of obstinate tenacity are the 10% and less success stories... -- nae'blis (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am proud of my RfA and the support votes I have gotten =D --mboverload @ 23:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * It used to be one could wait one month before trying again, now it seems even a two month wait is too short for some (not for me though, it seems a silly measure). But do yourself a favor and don't rush to do RFA 2, wait three months to avoid the "too anxious to be an admin" label. I wonder what others think on this issue. NoSeptember  23:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * lol, is it too eager to be an admin if a different user wants to nominate me in 2 months? =D --mboverload @ 01:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally agree, but I have seen these comments and it takes so little to defeat a nominee. Most nominators will wait without withdrawing their offer to nominate you if you ask them to.  The whole timing issue includes not accepting a nomination when you have been in a recent conflict in which you violated policy or got blocked and so forth. I'm talking in generalities of course. It depends on the candidate's situation, but if you fail the second time for whatever reason, it becomes harder to pass the third time, it is up to the candidate to only proceed when they are the most attractive as a potential admin. Declining a nomination or two can work wonders for you, look at CSCWEM and BD2412.  NoSeptember  09:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually have feelings that are opposite most of the people here. One of the jobs of a admin is to be able to read consensus and act accordingly.  I much prefer to see a candidate withdraw a failing RFA once the outcome has become obvious and the commentary associated with it has become stale.  For me this is a sign of good judgment, maturity, and an interest in not wasting other people's time.  I'm not saying that anyone needs to panic over an early negative response, but most failing RFAs are pretty well concluded by the fifth day or so.  Dragons flight 23:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually, if the outcome (ie failing) is clear by the sixth or seventh day, we close the nomination. It is very rare (Durin can provide the stats) if not impossible to see a failing candidate (<70%) succeed on the final day. Another thing: The RFA is not a cumulation of support or oppose votes: Its a measure of aptitude, so leaving a badly failing candidature present for exactly 168 hrs is a waste of everybody's time and bandwidth. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the insinuation that my RfA is a waste of time and bandwidth =( --mboverload @ 10:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that he was insinuating that *your* RfA specifically was a waste of time/bandwith, but rather, that in many cases, once the outcome is obvious, it would be better for everyone involved to take part in some other activity (stub sorting or something, I don't know) rather than continue to pile on to a candiate, possibly damaging thier association with Wikipedia beyond repair. I would say that in a case where an RfA had gone nearly full term, and there was still useful commentary taking place, it should be left open; if there is nothing but "Oppose per ...", then the candidate isn't gaining anything, and leaving it open only provides them more opportunity to be hurt. If the RfA has made it past the first few days and the candidate is gaining something from the RfA, it's probably best left open. If not, there isn't any reason to leave it open and risk hurting the person. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. If you want to close the RfA a couple days early that's ok with me (I don't think we're there yet =D). --mboverload @  12:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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