Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 109

Response to recent bullying
I came to theRFA page when another editor rightfully told me something like "Stop bitching about trigger-happy and conclusion-jumping admins. Where have you been during their RFA". And now I am here to express my opinion: I wrote in my vote: "wikipedia does need professional police", meaning people who spend only 10% in the main space of which 75% is the "rv" edit summary. I stand for my opinion, for my right to express it. I am sorry that I didn't took part in RFA earlier, and I am planning to weekly "canvass" this page no matter what dirt diggers say. `'Míkka 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * only a person who has genuiine experience of pain of editing and disputing may be an admin. A person who wants a baton to deal with vandals and other "bad guys" is not trusted. The real tough job for an admin is to deal with "good guys".
 * And the 'crats are free to discard your "canvassing" with your pointy votes. Judge users on THEIR merits, not on YOUR "pain." And refrain from referring to all criticism as "bullying" per WP:NPA. K. Scott Bailey 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of ugly bullying, seen by naked eye without any alphabet soup of policies. My votes are my opinions I entitled to. Instead of addressing my clearly bulleted reason for my voting you are headlong in all sorts of accusations and threats. This is not "criticism", this in personal bullying and I prefer to call a spade a spade. `'Míkka 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You call a spade a spade, as do I. Thus, I refuse to be backed off my criticism of your canvassing opposes with little or no explanation as WP:POINT while referring people back to the many diffs (especially those regarding your dispute with BrownEyedGirl) pointed out by other editors who see it the same way as I do. Calling a spade a spade cuts both ways. When people see something YOU are doing, they may well "call a spade a spade" also. What you do NOT have a right to do is attack those people by calling them "bullies" because they have the temerity to disagree with your pointy votes. K. Scott Bailey 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable. I don't think your comments have been disruptive; I understand the opinion you are expressing, and have no intention of ignoring you, though a bit more user-specific detail where possible, rather than a mere copy-paste in a dozen nominations, would probably be better-recieved. Mr Bailey, please note that not all 'making of points' on Wikipedia is disallowed: only the disruptive kind, and this appears to be thoroughly innocuous. I guess that you have only noticed Mikka's actions because they began abruptly -- well, we all must begin at some point -- and because he happens to have used the same text in a number of RFAs. Had he employed subtle differences of phrasing, I doubt his arrival to RFA would have caused remark. &mdash; Dan | talk 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikka is right. 90% of the adminitis pain comes from non-writing admins who come here for all sorts of reasons but building an encyclopedia. --Irpen 18:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't always agree with Mikka's votes, but I, too, am concerned with some of the recent challenges. Let people have their say; keep it civil and don't treat it as a steel cage death-match debate. Majoreditor 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikka, on the risk of being yet again accused of wikistalking you, I feel compelled to comment here, asking why you didn't take your concerns here in the first place? Indifferently opposing ~10 users just is not the way to do it. In my humble opinion. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mikka's concerns are valid, but there's surely a more polite and constructive manner to go about it, instead of copy and pasting the same vague unhelpful message. This may be less confusing to other users. Comments along the lines of "Seems like the latest point voter has arrived" aren't really helpful.  Majorly  (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. But, like Mikka says above, I too prefer calling a spade a spade. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply saying "I don't like this" is unconstructive (and I wouldn't say they were "reasonably explained" if you had multiple editors asking for you to explain them), and is the primary reason (as near as I can tell) that you've garnered such a reaction to your edits. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not bullying, it's people disagreeing with you. You've left highly unconstructive opposition !votes on RfAs, and what's worse, most of them were very generic, which gave the impression that you were judging them on some whim of a requirement (and that exact requirement you weren't exactly forthcoming with). Loading every response with personal attacks like labeling it "bullying" or "wikilawyering" doesn't do anything but make you look all the more pointed. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's people who call me names and ascribe me all kinds of evil intentions and threatening me that my votes to be ignored by burokrat. You are not criticizing my expressed opinion, you are bullying me. My "oppose" votes were reasonably explained and I fail to see how the word "unconstructive" is applicable at all. We are voting here, not teaching other people how to live (at least I am not going to without being asked or given a pressing reason). There are other places for this. But if you insist on me being "constructive", here is my piece of advise:
 * in the future if someone finds some vote or opinion "inconstructive" or otherwise unlikable by you, they must write "please clarify" and explain what exactly is unclear to them, rathrer than troll my user talk page with tons of accusations.
 * `'Míkka 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I went to your talk page because it was a problem across multiple RfAs, and I didn't feel like asking the same question on multiple pages. If you don't consider three separate editors dropping you a line about your edits a sign that perhaps there's something amiss with your editing pattern (and also refer to it as "tons of accusations"), I'm not sure what benefit there is to talking to you, as you're coming across as extremely obstinate. I happen to disagree with your assessment that we're voting, not "teaching"; RfAs should be constructive, regardless of whether they pass or fail, as everyone (myself included without a doubt) has room to grow as an editor, and a sub-purpose of the RfA process is to provide that feedback (even a fully-passing RfA can contain some information on how to become a better editor).

I'm Sorry Mikka But your comments have been precious little but unsupported vague opinions. Let's look at the evidence (and I admit my bias as nominator). Requests for adminship/Accounting4Taste
 * Your comment introducing this thread "I wrote in my vote: "wikipedia does need professional police", meaning people who spend only 10% in the main space of which 75% is the "rv" edit summary."
 * You oppose the above RfA based on "Brief scroll thru last 1000 edits shows that like 90% of his work is greeting of newcommers and other non-encyclopedic work."
 * I produce evidence that this 90% figure is totally wrong.
 * You now change tack by using my figures to say that 90% of his work is now "not encyclopedia building" yet earlier you stated it was 90% greetings.
 * You then decide you've looked through 3,000 contributions and found no evidence of encyclopedia building

So basically you opposed, where caught out (and frankly even at glance at the talk page would have shown the wanabee kate tool results indicating multiple and sustained edits to one article) and changed tack. Sorry, but this is poor. To them come to this forum moaning of "bullying" is, well, unworthy of an administrator of this project. I'm trying to keep calm here but I am, bluntly, disgusted by your actions at RFA recently, your accusations of wikistalking and your frankly nearly trolling comment :"I am sorry that I didn't took part in RFA earlier, and I am planning to weekly "canvass" this page no matter what dirt diggers say". I feel I have approached you in a pleasent and civil fashion, as have other editors, and for this we get a bullying allegation. This is poor form. Pedro : Chat  19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Qualifier. I assume that you mean encyclopedia building to be actual writing of articles. If you can present the evidence that the Encyclopedia Britanica, Encarta or any other recognised encyclopedic work was written first draft, with no articles quickly decided by editors to be unimportant and no articles that on balance the editorial team decided where not right for the work then of course your 90% figure would be dead right. Pedro : Chat  20:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's best for a potential admin to have experience in all areas of editing the encyclopedia, not just in vandal-whacking. It's also valid to ask the user how they view adminship. (Or, you can infer their view of adminship by their participation in discussions.) If they view it as some sort of police force or some kind of power trip, explaining your opposition in those terms might help to persuade other editors in their decisions. On the other hand, a lot of admin candidates approach adminship as having a mop and bucket. I think you've been coming to the conclusion lately that a lot of admin candidates are just looking to do police work, whether or not the candidate has said anything specific regarding such an attitude. If you have doubts about a candidate's attitude, you could ask questions and try to prove or disprove your doubts, instead of just making an assumption. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the end, the fact is that people are allowed to have their opinion on RFAs, and, much of the time, so long as it is not completely nonsense, it is allowed. So be it. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 19:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with AD; I think this comment sums up most of this discussion. Mikka's comments may have been one-size-fits-all and, in a few cases, a little harsh...but I think the collective response might be a little out of proportion to the "offense." The `crats obviously know what the score is and are capable of evaluating the Support/Oppose comments for themselves. Dppowell 21:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mikkalai's comments are quite in order, and I even agree with him to a degree. We should definitely be looking at article editors as administrator candidates.  I myself decry the tendency to oppose adminship candidates on the grounds that a candidate has not "enough" edits in areas such as project space.  Whilst a complete stranger to the policy and process debates taking place in project space could still wield the extra tools to useful effect, someone who had little experience of editing articles and cooperating with other editors through talk pages should not be trusted as an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikka doesnt like discussing conflicts, is violating WP:Point. Look at block log and contributionss. 86.143.1.88 20:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, I may agree with you, but there are better ways to express an opinion, such as "Candidate needs more edit space experience". There is no need to aggravate people unnecessarily, or to WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point here. I don't even understand how anyone could believe that there was, since Mikkalai isn't acting disruptively and moreover he is stating a view which he clearly agrees with. It would certainly help, I think, if those who cite WP:POINT would occasionally read it with the intention of understanding what it is and is not about.


 * I can't understand what is wrong with a statement of the form "Candidate needs more edit space experience". It's informative and useful to the candidate. --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant that "Candidate needs more edit space experience", without any further comments, is sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Compare with Insufficient contribution of actual encyclopedic content. Fighting defenseless teenage jokers is not what builds the character of an admin. I don't think we need professional police here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I take your point. It is a little harsh. --Tony Sidaway 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec'd x 2) Tony. There's nothing wrong with a statement "Candidate needs more edit space experience". Except when consensus shows they don't. And throwing around "policeman" comments is not helpful. I agree WP:POINT is not an issue here, however, and more people should be careful before refering to it. Pedro : Chat  20:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider it very pointed to say "I will consider opposing to each and every self-nom". Statements like telling someone to grow up and saying that the "The plank goes lower" and "Good luck bragging and waving it left right" in response to being thanked for RfA participation, while admittedly not pointed, are certainly poor form on their own. EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 20:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read and try to understand Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before claiming that Mikkalai's statement of intent is against that guideline in any way at all. I agree with you that Mikkalai's words, if you have quoted them correctly and in appropriate context, are unnecessarily brusque, but that's a different matter. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is a vague suggestion in the above comments such as "I consider it very pointed to say..." and "...doesn't do anything but make you look all the more pointed", that the guideline is something about making "pointed" statements (whatever that might mean). It isn't.  It really is important to read guidelines if one is to cite them. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I do consider it disruptive to blanketly oppose RfAs for a personal catch-all reason (such as "self-noms are de facto instances of power-hunger"-type statements) with no actual clue as to how to improve, which is why I feel "point" isn't a bad phrase to use. I'll try to refrain from saying it from here on out, but that's my take on the situation, and why I chose to cite that guideline. (and in the second quote, "look all the more pointed", I was trying to say that it casts a malicious light on the purpose of the edits; possibly not my best-phrased statement, I'll concede) I will say that some of Mikkala's later opposition !votes were much better explained and phrased. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A comment lost in my ec'd contribution earlier. Take away the blue link. Mikka's contributions at RFA are making a point. What point that is and how valuable it is to improving Wikipedia is anoher issue. I personally think the "point" (unblued) has been made. He doesn't want anymore admins unless they are pretty much only article writers. Good for him. The community by and large disagrees with this idea, per this discussion and responses to his opposes at RFA. However he's still entitled to make it. When he finally realises Wikipedia is about consensus and not his own personal viewpoint I'm sure we'll all be happy. Pedro : Chat  20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedro, just because the majority of the community thinks one way doesn't mean the rest of the community should shut up and let them have their way without hearing the opposing view point. Consensus means the minority accedes to overwhelming (>2/3) majorites and it ALSO means that the majority has respect for the minority and won't move forward without their assent.  All too often, consensus at Wikipedia means "majority rules".  That's not what consensus really mean.  It really means unanimity but since that is too hard to reach, we often substitute overwhelming majority.  For what it's worth, I was on the fence and getting ready to vote against KWSN when the RFA closed.  One more oppose vote might not have made a difference but a few votes might have.  We all have a right to express our opinions.  I do, you do and Mikka does.  Edit warring is disruption.  Expressing a minority opinion is not.  --Richard 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct - just because one is making a point does not mean one is making a WP:POINT. The word "point" seems to have become a Forbidden Word. There is nothing wrong with doing something to make a point on Wikipedia.  WP:POINT says "do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point". It does not say "Do not do anything to make a point on Wikipedia".  Mikka has made a point through his opposals, but he has not disrupted Wikipedia in any way whilst doing so, so WP:POINT does not apply. People really do throw that shortcut around too much.  Neil   ☎  21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd say that's a fairly accurate assessment, actually. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Terminology now clarified, I still feel that the comments and general behaviour by this administrator is upsetting. I hope that Mikka will review this discussion at leisure and perhaps regain confidence in the RFA process, whilst also understanding that scrutiny and refutation of comments is not akin to bullying. Experienced admins, inexperienced admins (e.g. me) and editors have generally found this recent line of reasoning to be outside of the communities general view. Whilst consensus is driven by new and exciting innovation, negativity and introspection cannot further this work. An aside. Can we all, just for a moment, be proud to be wikipedians and take pride in our constructive efforts here? Pedro : Chat  21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Neil. It DOES disrupt the project, by unduly influencing the RfAs of potentially very good admins, simply to make his point. It's the DEFINITION of a violation of WP:POINT. There have been examples of piling on in an RfA with an "Opposer per Mikka" vote, when Mikka has no other reason for his oppose than "no police", et al, which stems directly from a 48hr block he received for edit warring. His pointy opposes directly affect the RfAs of all those admins who might do good work if they are promoted, but may not be should his votes infect others with his "no police" virus. Also, his talk page deletions--while within policy bounds, are outside the bounds of common courtesy, and below the level of courtesy one would expext from an admin. K. Scott Bailey 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it disrupts the project. These type of comments are scaring people away from RfAs and introduces stress and drama that are unnecessary. Mikkalai needs to understand that his experience with the soviet bureaucracy does not need to be projected in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet again a Jossi could not help but demonstrate his opinionated attitude and urge in mentoring. This admin is my favorite running example of wikipedia laborous policing I cannot cease to stumble upon again and again. `'Míkka 00:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I urge you to read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and try to understand it. If Mikkalai believes that some editors are approaching adminship from the view of "policing" Wikipedia and believes this to be inappropriate (and it's a reasonable view) he's perfectly entitled to state that view and to urge opposes on that view.  Others are entitled to agree with him, and you are entitled to disagree with him.  Describing his opinion as a "virus" is, I hope, inappropriate.  His actions have absolutely nothing to do with WP:POINT, and you'd realise this if only you would actually read the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is NO consensus on the criteria for adminship. There are some common criteria but some editors have their own criteria that differ from the more common ones. Some editors think that a minimum of 6 months and 3000 edits is a threshold; others disagree. Mailer_diablo used to have a 1FA (at least one featured article) criterion (I tell you now that Mikka's criteria are far less stringent than 1FA.  If 1FA was a widely used criterion, I would not be an admin now.

Someone else had a WikiProject endorsement criterion. Some people vote against self-noms without considering any other criteria.

Mikka looks for someone who does "substantial article editing". What exactly is this? Something more than 10% of edits apparently. Does he have a right to his opinion? Yes.

Is it disruptive? How disruptive can one !vote be? Does every RFA candidate have the right to pass with 100% support? No, obviously not.

If you don't agree with a !vote, say so and say so with civility. If enough people agree with you, then that !vote won't influence the RFA.

So, in conclusion, we should understand that every editor has the right to express an opinion. If lots of people start expressing opinions we disagree with, then we should discuss that here.

'nuff said? --Richard 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard, no one is questioning that people can have an opinion and express it. That is not the point of this debate. What is being questioned is the lack of tact (to put it mildly) in making these opinions public. !vote away, but be mindful of how you make your comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or rather, DO NOT vote (even with an exclamation mark in front of it). State your opinion, as Mikkalai does, though perhaps more tact might be helpful.  I agree with Mikkalai that this seems to be a case of bullying.  The speciousness of the criticism is becoming a little nauseating, frankly.  --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I really think the slightest hint at a caustic comment causes alarmists to cite civility. I really think people need to be less sensitive. As much as we are taught to refrain from 'crying lawyer,' I think the same caution should be used when it comes to civility issues. Lacking tact, being caustic and phrasing things unlike an Oxford graduate is rarely what I truly interpret to be incivility. Being a dick and being incivil are two completely different things. Telling an editor that their contributions are unhelpful is not the same as telling them they suck. Being nice all the time is generally regarded as good form, but I'd rather editors toughen up and try to interpret certain statements instead of ignoring them and complaining about civility and pointiness. We are getting lost in uppercase links. the_undertow talk  00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever heard of conflict escalation? It starts somewhere ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In particular, it starts when some admins usurp the right to tutor others in what's good and what's bad. In my case it starts when an admin named Jossi joins the discussion related to my edits. In my 4 year experience "conflict escalation" may start from a typo followed by accusations after  mindreading and guessworking instead of asking to clarify a possible misunderstanding. Wikipedians are people not robots. The true striving must be to quench conflicts by asking and talking, rather than  cry panic and play insulted (especially on someone else's behalf) and try prevent them by all totalitarian means. `'Míkka 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can one "quench conflicts by asking and talking" if one is perpetually deleting anyone's contribs to their talk page who have the temerity to "ask and talk" about things they don't want to hear? That would seem to be ENCOURAGING conflict, not "quenching" it. K. Scott Bailey 10:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If a person is not wanted, don't be an obnoxious dick. the deleted so-called "contribs" have no relation to wikipedia content creation: they were attempts to justify the ugly campaign against my valid and explained vote. There are multitudes of formal avenues for conflict resolution. Also, your remark is yet another example of polite but disgusting way of "ask and talk", akin to can one person be good is he is constantly refusing to discuss why he is beating his wife? For an exercise,
 * please explain what is the purpose of your question as you see it
 * please explain what is the purpose of your question as I see it
 * `'Míkka 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK since I don't see an answer, but a yet another police action in my talk page, let me explain. The problem major with "wikipedia police" is their idea that "quenching a conflict" means to beat the hell out of an opponent, to force him to crawl on all fours, licking the wounds and admitting their misdeeds. The rule Forgive and forget does not exist for them: they are eager to prove that they are right in their jumped conclusion, that they do know good from bad and they deserve to bear the proud baton of an admin. They don't remember that the main goal of wikipedia is to write encyclopedia articles, not to teach each other how to live. They want to extend the conflict as much as possible, because this is more fun for them rather than to write encyclopedia. They love to dig dirt in person's history to prove that yes the opponent is inherently bad person amd must be hit on his head with his old sins on each convenient occasion. I may go on and on, but I don't think such perosns will modify their behavior after reading from their opponent. `'Míkka 18:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You do have a habit of removing people's concerns from your talk page instead of discussing them, even valid concerns. I do think it inhibits conflict resolutions and exacerbates things. 1 != 2  16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No I do not. Please take a look into my talk archives. You do have a habit of jaumping at conclusion based on limited observation. I do sometimes remove obnoxious opinionated policing after some discussion on a topic. And I did it again 15 minutes ago. Instead of directly answering on my quections above, the person came to my talk page again to prove me how bad I am. `'Míkka 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You most certainly do have just that habit, I am surprised you deny it. Fine, here some diffs:   . I could find more if I pressed the "Next 50" button on you history, surely these people are not all "obnoxious opinionated policing", and even if it was "policing" you need to realize the community is supposed to police itself.  1 != 2  15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do. I hope people DO look at your talk archives. You routinely delete any contribs from people you smear as "bullies" and "police", simply because they dare to question your actions. The several editors who have attempted to contact you via your talk page (which is what it was designed for) have their contribs blanked from your talk page, and are kicked in the teeth as "trolls", "bullies", and "police", in both your edit summaries and your contribs to this thread. Do you not understand that we are not out of line to leave messages on your talk page? We are not "stalking" you (another favorite personal attack of yours), but rather attempting to engage with you on why you're engaging in the behavior you choose to engage in. This is not "policing", it's engaging as members of a community, which WP is, whether you like it or not. K. Scott Bailey 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No I do not. You are insinuating. You thorougly see nothing wrong in your actions, including the text above, and therefore this is my last reply to you. `'Míkka 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do. The proof is right there, in your talk page history. Several editors have approached you in a civil manner about the same problems I saw in your RfA opposes. You summarily deleted every comment left on your page by all the users who were simply asking for an explanation. And then you have the temerity to accuse those who dared question you of being bullies, stalkers, and trolls. Yeah, it's me that has the problem. K. Scott Bailey 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please notice how conveniently this discussion was professionally carried away from my statement of my reasons and right to vote as I see fit. This whole section is a perfect example of laborous and industrious killing the messenger, red herring and other tricks of demagogy. Instead of discussing my position (see the section top), the whole skein of threads is all about big bad Mikka. `'Míkka 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It called wiki-PC. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)c


 * Mikka do you really think everyone here is wrong about your behavior being inappropriate and you are right? Are we all out to make you look bad and troll you? Or is it possible that your actions are being disruptive and we are being sincere in our objections? Instead of defending your own actions you are more prone to accuse others of mistreating you, something more common from our new users. 1 != 2  15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Mikka thinks that, but I do. He is attempting to discuss a very real problem -- admins who have no interest in the encyclopedia and just blunder about grousing at AN/I, ordering around encyclopedia builders (janitors, sadly they are not, much of the admin core behaves as if they are governors and gods), threatening to block people for having a discussion, writing vast tomes of Wikilaws.  And he has done nothing but express his opinion in RFA.  Instead of engaging his opinions (and thus proving his point, really) he was instantly threatened with blocks and had all sorts of irrelevant alphabet soup thrown in his face.  Mikka isn't some troll, he's a longtime contributor to our project and an administrator in good standing and the way he's been treated is absolutely appalling.  Since when is expressing an opinion on Wikipedia an "action" that needs to be "defended"?   --JayHenry 16:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with JayHenry's comments above. I think some people have a tendency to micromanage RfAs (or other areas of the "administration" of the encycloped). Some management is good. Too much is overbearing. The arbitration request filed on the topic (WP:RFARB) is a good example. Carcharoth 12:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
Wikidudeman says:
 * Too many people are becoming administrators who simply aren't qualified for it. The results are wheel warring, admins breaking 3rr, lack of civility, etc, etc.

This isn't an isolated comment. There are many similar comments about the existing administrators. However I'd never seen anyone who has made this assertion ever back it up with evidence.

Perhaps somebody would like to compile a list of RFCS on user conduct, and use of administrator privileges brought on administrators in the past six months or so, in which there has been consensus that the administrator has acted uncivilly, wheel warred, or broken other policies including but not limited to the three revert rule. I don't think anybody has done this.

Perhaps that same person would also like to look at arbitration cases brought, for further evidence of seriously abusive actions by administrators. I don't think anybody has done this.

I say that this is necessary because, on the face of it, there is no reason to believe these assertions that we have many administrators who are unfit to be administrators. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony,
 * for starters, we have quite a few admins desysopped. Please take a note of the yearly rate.
 * 25 admins were forcefully desysopped. Among voluntarily desysopped there are, as it goes, "alhough nominally by user request, are not entirely voluntarily". It is safe to gusee that there are at least 10 of them, so we have 35. This is less than 3%. But these are really-really bad admins. Despite all this fuss, wikipedia as a whole is rather lax towards bad behavior. Admins are not robots. They make mistakes, they improve. By the black cat effect, bad cases are remembered longer, quite a few active wikipedians have skeletons in their cupboards. So I find it not unreasonable to estimate that between 5x and 10x, i.e., 1/6 to 1/3 of admins made bad judgements at one point or another.  `'Míkka 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I randomly clicked thru the first half of the list of admins (got lazy to finish it :-) and among 52 randomly picked admins I found 6 admins blocked for misdeed, 4 admins blocked by mistake and 4 admins shoot themselves in the leg (both on purpose and by mistake). It gives a further estimated 1.2% of "misdemeant admins". `'Míkka 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If your figures are correct, it is, as you say, a very low number. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that at least 1/3, and probably all admins, have made bad judgements.  All editors, without exception, are expected to make bad judgements occasionally.  It's how they handle the effects that matters.
 * But I'm asking not just for evidence of substantial numbers of desyoppings (because there have not been any). Other concrete evidence of bad behavior by admins should be abundant in the RFC and arbitration pages, if it exists. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I heard you from the first say. Be patient. It takes time. I've just quickly "skimmed the cream" `'Míkka 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence at Admin Review? Bearian 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such page now, what a sirprize. Administrator Review is deactivated and preserved as "historical". Requests for review of administrative actions and Requests for review of administrative actions are long ago redirected to Requests for comment/User conduct. You must be a 'bot to filter admins in the histories of RFC & RFA. `'Míkka 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go back to the RFAs of these rogue admins, is there any way to tell that they had the wrong attitude or the wrong reasons to become admins? I'm curious to see if there's a way to tell which admins will go wrong based on their actions and attitudes before adminship.  I'm seriously interested in this -- I'm not trolling.  It would be good for the RFA process if there was a way to predict admin performance.  I'm sure it depends on more than just edit count and percentage of edit summaries.  On the other hand, it's possible that adminship changes an editor's viewpoint in a way that can't be predicted at the time of an RFA.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your question is understandable. I have thought about this myself recently and came to a conclusion that RFA is not broken only because it works to filter out real bad people and I don't think that admins must be ideal people. Lont tale short, I am thinking about a proposal that it is not the number of edits to be counted nor smart answers to RFA questions. It is an experience in dealing with people that should be counted. A possible solution would be kinda admin apprenticeship: active participation in various conflict resolution procedures: "Third opinion" "Mediation", etc. And the skill to be valued most is not to "nail down the bastard", but to find a solution for a conflict. Another suggestion is that "handling people" and "handling content" requires a totally different set of human skills, and hence must be covered by two different user privileges, rather than a single "admin". `'Míkka 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Míkka, While RFA does sometimes filter out the worst people, it has two problems: 1. It doesn't filter out the people who will cause problems down the road who's previous behavior could predict such or lack of any behavior for that matter due to lack of time here. 2. It frequently gets rid of the most qualified people who simply edit the most controversial articles and thus unavoidably make enemies from POV pushers.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the administrator issues that I've noticed are generally resolved when others (Generally other administrators or admin hopefuls) complain that things are being taken out of proportion and then precede to quickly attempt end further discussions on it. Generally this applies to all but the most extreme incidents of bad editing, however it's worth nothing that most likely some of the people who have been desysopped in the past were much better editors and made mistakes much less often than some other administrators who never have been desysopped. I think that anyone who frequents the administrator notice boards will see how big of a problem this is. I would provide examples but I don't want to get accused of making accusations against specific editors so I'll let anyone here who has the time to just briefly browse the admin notice boards and their archives and see what I mean.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's assume that I do frequent the admin noticeboards (which I do) and I don't see the evidence that you purport to see. Could we have less of this vague handwaving, please?  Demonstrate with examples that a substantial number of existing administrators are abusing their tools.  Your claim, you get to substantiate it. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Providing links to discussions about admins isn't the same as making accusations against said admins. Don't worry. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here and here are just two examples. I won't discuss their validity here.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both archived now: here and here respectively.  I think that even you will agree that Moriori's odd behavior is untypical.  I can recall this happening once before in my three years on this site.  Dbachmann's inappropriate behavior was, as you see, quickly and capably handled by other administrators.  Of course we all have very different expectations of administrators, but these cases don't at first sight seem to support the idea that there is substantial rampant, unchecked abusive behavior by sysops--indeed, given the outcomes, rather the reverse. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on that page and you'll see new ones coming up often. Note also that if a non-admin had done what Dbachmann did, it's highly unlikely they would have been unblocked so quickly.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I watch the page more or less constantly. See also my comments (at the end of the section cited, on an alleged case of highly abusive sysopping, here.  --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with RFA
I've recently decided that the real problem with RFA (well, one of them, anyway) is that people get very emotional about it. Many editors seem to regard opposition to RFA as some kind of terrible thing, almost like a personal attack of some sort. Where did this bizarre outlook come from? The same emotions seem to get in the way whenever there's talk about removing the bit- people get very defensive. No opinion given about someone's suitability for adminship should ever be regarded as a statement about whether they're a good person. Yet we very frequently see people talking of who "deserves" the bit. It's about exactly one thing: would giving the bit to a particular editor help the project? All other arguments are bupkis. Yet, these other arguments seem to dominate. Am I way off base here? What causes this, and how can we stop it? Friday (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the cause is the misguided notion that a successful RfA is affirmation of the candidates efforts and hard work. It's really just an extra set of responsibilities, but most people see it in terms of what they've done, not what they'll do.  Leebo  T /C  14:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As most of us don't have precognition, the only means we have to guess at what they'll do is to look at what they've done. Past performance isn't a guarantee of future results, but it's a pretty solid way to bet. Argyriou (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)It seems to me that it must be perceived as a kind of personal attack to oppose an RfA, no matter how gently done or how well intended. (And I have opposed, so I'm recognizing as I type this that sometimes this is necessary. And I'm talking about the reception of the opposition, not the offering of it.) If it was simply a consideration of "potentially no value added" by giving the tools to a nominee, there'd be no reason to oppose. After all, the reason these tools are restricted is because some people might misuse them (intentionally or otherwise). Declining them to an individual is, in my opinion, putting them into the category of people you suspect of potential misuse. Removing the tool is even more emotionally delicate, since there you aren't saying, "I think you might misuse the tools", but "I think you have". I don't suppose it's possible to question somebody's judgment to that level without making them feel a bit under attack. :) About all we can do is remind people active in such discussions to be respectful&mdash;as the RfA page does&mdash;and encourage people who are not respectful to reconsider their approach. I think RfA requires almost herculean acts of "assuming good faith", particularly on the part of a nominator or nominee facing significant opposition. It would be nice if everyone contributing could remain sensitive to the feelings of others. But if everybody did that, we wouldn't need so many administrators; certainly, there'd be no AIV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Leebo. When editors realise adminship is a chore and not a medal, and that no-one is "desrving" of it just "ready and prepared to assume the responsibility" RfA might calm down a bit (not that it will ever happen). The oft quoted "no big deal" is used far too often in the wrong context. Having admin rights is no big deal. What administrators can do is a big deal. One admin range blocking the US senate, or the UK Parliament (for example) would be sure to get Wikipedia a good slagging off in the media, no matter how quickly it was undone. (WP:BEANS on toast anyone) . Admins are merely responsible custodians of the good name of this work; This is proved by looking at the uses the tools bring - the ability to remove or revert inappropriate content, and to use preventative blocking to maintain integrity. Admins are not better editors or better people. Pedro : Chat  15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pfft, speak for yourself; I've got a big shiny medal on my wall that says "I am an admin on en.wp, which makes me a better person than everyone else". I make sure to remind all my friends of this in real life, too... in an unrelated matter, nobody returns my phone calls. Strange. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Try printing out all your barnstars, or making shiny aluminum-foil versions of them, and pinning them to a hat. Wear it to all social functions.  Hell, never remove it.  Works for me!  -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Friday that RfA would be a better place if less emotionally charged, but I'm not sure how that can be achieved. In many cases we expect to smile while rocks are thrown at them - candidates have to maintain the highest levels of civility against a criticism that can be quite harshly expressed. WjBscribe 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this has been brought up umpteen times but there is also the variable that all participants in RfAs bring individual standards of achievement to the table. IOW, the yardsticks seem to be from an inch to a kilometer with some editors using circles, cubes and buildings rather than a linear standard. As much as I'd like to believe standards for granting adminship could be distilled to a fairly basic set of applied benchmarks, the reality is participants in RfAs give undue weight to all sorts of stats or personal prejudices. Add to this some participants who have a limited understanding of the actual day-to-day activities of an admin and you have an unrealistic view of adminship. Some people don't get that the "mop and bucket" is not just an funny metaphor but a surprisingly apt description of daily activities of an admin: housekeeping and cleaning up messes. You even see it in some of the self-noms particularly who think it's all power and prestige and a kind of award for their "service" to WP, ie, being longtime editors. And it's not like the reality isn't laid out thoroughly in, say, the three main questions in RfAs or the descriptions of admin responsibilities. Hell, I'm halfway through my own RfA and I'm still not sure I have an accurate sense of the daily responsibilities I will be picking up if I'm promoted. If I, having done a little research and observation as well as a year of editing before committing to the process, am still unclear, it suggests a more general lack of understanding. (I'm apparently in a philosophical and rambling mood.) Pigmanwhat? /trail 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the real problem with RFA is the focus on RFA. It seems to me that we take too much consideration into RFA as a process and thus lose sight of the purpose of RFA, which is to promote new administrators. It is impossible not to have controversial or even rogue administrators, no matter how good the process may be. I'm not saying RFA is the most efficient way to promote, but our focus is to attain more trustworthy admins, not quibble about and straw poll on what the opinion is of RFA.  bibliomaniac 1 5  A straw poll on straw polls 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bibliomaniac15 reminded me of a fear I see often in RfAs: That once promoted, new admins might just go hog-wild (if I may use a phrase) with their new powers. Additionally that somehow the new admin will not be accountable for their actions, that they will be able to do all sorts of bad things without being noticed. As if they would disappear from most editor's radar with the use of the buttons. Does that ever really happen? Yes, I know there are occasional de-sysopings but, really, how realistic is such a fear? I think I'm actually asking this question, not just in a rhetorical sense. Pigmanwhat? /trail 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree- the worry about someone going hog wild is not a very valid concern. Of far greater concern are those who demonstrate a pattern of poor judgement (or even, occasionally, other problematic behavior), but without doing anything crazy enough to get emergency desysopped.  Those are the admins who do the most damage.  Friday (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RFA Ended
What happens if an RFA ended? Mine has ended on October 12, 2007. TobytheTramEngine 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your RfA does not have the questions answered, and has no support or opposes etc, so ther is nothing to do with it. Qst  17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, some questions I tried to answer aren't encyclopedic. TobytheTramEngine 17:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weren't encyclopedic? I don't understand, if the answers were not encyclopedic, wouldn't that mean you had no encyclopedic contributions (I'm sure you do, just enquiring). Qst  17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Oh. Shall I be more careful? Well, it's too late for me to answer the questions. Sorry. TobytheTramEngine 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, if you created the RfA as a self nom and changed your mind, you are allowed to re open it, if you feel you're ready for adminship. Qst  18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to Requests for adminship/TobytheTramEngine, you haven't completed the form; the questions aren't answered. Once you've done that, you need to transclude it to the RfA main page, or no one can see it. That being said, it's unlikely that your request would succeed at this time. Your only 4 Wikipedia namespace edits are to this RfA and the RfA main page, while you have only about 750 edits overall. I recommend you read Guide to requests for adminship if you're unfamiliar with the process.  Leebo  T /C  18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Leebo's advice seems correct. The end time would be adjusted to 7 days after you added your nomination to WP:RFA - it doesn't mean anything before then. I have to agree with the assessment that you prob don't have the amount of experience that is currently expected of adminship candidates. You seem to be doing good work though. I you don't want to run for adminship at this time, you can request the page be deleted by adding db-author to it, otherwise transclude it as suggested. WjBscribe 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do need more experience here. I am sure that if you would get some more experience here, and a constructive member of wikipedia you will get promoted to adminship someday. Do not get upset over it. Cheers!--SJP 03:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

New bot proposal
Just drawing everyone's attention to Bots/Requests for approval/WenliBot. Comments about it should probably go there. &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Finally, that silly little counter which is almost never accurate and updated has some use. :) -- Hdt 83     Chat 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad news for editcountitis patients - they won't be able to watch and update tallies like a hawk who has the ability to update tallies. :) J- ſtan TalkContribs 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Everybody knows updating counters is for wimps. My patent pending device is obviously a true man's solution.  bibliomaniac 1 5  A straw poll on straw polls 04:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a condition known as edit-counteritis which is a prognosis of the more advanced stage of editcountis :D -- Hdt 83     Chat 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What percent is considered "consensus"?
I keep seeing that admins get to be a admin by consensus. Is consensus a certain percent (like 70%) or simply a majority or something else? Stupid2 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Roughly 75%, but ultimately Bureaucrats decide. Dragons flight 05:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So if u have below 75 % you can still become an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupid2 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The crat makes the final decision. Except in unusual cases, promotion will not be granted with less than 75% of support, but as with anything there are exceptions to that rule. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Bureaucrats have "discretion", but most outcomes follow a 75% rule pretty closely. If I remember correctly, there have only been ~3 admins (out of ) promoted with under 70% support. Dragons flight 05:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We've also had cases of candidates not being promoted with well over 75% support (for instance, Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff). It really isn't a vote. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When the vast majority of candidates who have under 75% are not promoted and who have over 75% are then it is indeed essentially a vote. Even if it's not supposed to be, it's a vote.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, while we are not voting, the reality is that if they have over 80%, they're pretty much a shoo in. Under 70%, very rarely do they make it. It's the 71-79% where bcat discretion normally comes it, with under 75% usually a no, and 75-79% usually a yes. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And that isn't a vote, how?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of the 71-79% range. If there is 71% support, but the crat sees the oppose reasons as being fairly weak, the user will be promoted; vice-versa, if there is 79% support, but the oppose reasons are especially strong, the user won't be promoted. The job of the crat is to determine consensus. If fewer than 7 out of 10 people commenting on the RFA support the candidate, that is hardly a good consensus. If more than 8 out of 10 users support a candidate, that is a pretty good consensus. Mr.  Z- man  19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it does usually reduce to a vote. Where opposition is unusually well argued, or unusually poorly argued, however, then you'll notice that it isn't really a vote.  This applies, but to a much less noticeable extent, to reasons for support.  The reasons do make a difference.  If you've ever read one of the bureaucrat discussions prior to closing a controversial RFA, it should give you a clear idea of what bureaucrats are looking for and how they treat the opinions given. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats need to focus more on the arguments made and NOT the % of support or opposition. Even if there is a "fuzzy area" of support and opposition opposed to a hard number where above is support and below is opposition, It's still a vote. Vote is defined as "a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative". This means that the number of support should be irrelevant. If there is a 90% support but the opposition arguments are valid and damming, it should be a failure. Alternatively if it's a 30% support and the opposition arguments are totally lacking or are absurd, it should be a pass.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If the opposition arguments are valid and damning, then more than 10% of Wikipedians will agree with them. We are reasonable people after all.  Or if 90% of people are willing to overlook those arguments, then one has to ask how significant are they really.  Dragons flight 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an appeal to popularity. Just because a lot of people buy into the first few oppositions without actually ever even looking into them doesn't men that they are anymore valid than if no one else bought into them.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you surely assert that participants are agreeing with meritless arguments? There seems to be two assertions of the mentalities of participants here: one asserts they are inherently rational people, and the other asserts they are inherently blind fools. — Kurykh  00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucrat's decision is a careful balance of interpreting the wishes of the community (and counting heads is the best way anybody has come up with for doing this) and weighing the arguments presented. In general, the bureaucrat is bound to act according to the community's will: if nearly everybody agrees that a user should be an admin, a bureaucrat must act accordingly. Tradition gives us a few more-or-less arbitrary numbers by which to gauge how clear the community's opinion is: above 80% support -- clear consensus in favor. Below 70% support -- no consensus (in which case the user is by default not promoted). Below 50% support -- clear consensus against. The latter two categories give the same result and as such are often confused.

This leaves a 'gray area' between 70 and 80 percent. When the numbers fall in this range a bureaucrat is obliged to give thorough consideration to all arguments presented in the nomination. The burden of proof is generally thought to fall on those opposing a nomination to explain why it should fail, rather than on those supporting to explain why it should succeed, because the latter job is often done by the nominator according to a formula. The opposing arguments, being generally less formulaic and more personal, are often lengthier and require more careful study. Within this gray area the bureaucrat must judge the cogency and relevance of the arguments and produce a decision based on his informed discretion.

In certain rare cases in the past, bureaucrats have chosen to extend the discretionary range beyond 70%-80% (in either direction). Most such instances that I can recall have been highly controversial. It is not clear at this time whether the community prefers to allow bureaucrats this additional discretion.

None of the above is officially written anywhere, though I believe this is an accurate description of the community attitudes that guide the RFA decision-making process. &mdash; Dan | talk 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's imagine that a RFA is at 60% when it closes. The opposition are all either POV warriors who oppose based on trivial reasons or people who basically said "Oppose per above" without even reading the oppositions. What is the closing Bureaucrat to do?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, they would probably start a "bureaucrat chat" to discuss it. A situation like that should not be handled unilaterally. Mr.  Z- man  00:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean they "should" start a bureaucrat chat to discuss it?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's what they do most of the time when such situations arise, do they not? — Kurykh  00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A bureaucrat cannot begin to judge whether people who write things like "Oppose per above" have done so without reading the other oppositions -- there is simply no way to tell. If the numbers are within the discretionary range, the bureaucrat can judge the arguments themselves; if User Thus-and-Such has written nothing more than "oppose per User So-and-So" and the bureaucrat decides So-and-So's argument is no good, then Thus-and-Such's input is equally invalid. This all follows fairly clearly from what I have written above. However, if a user writes only "oppose per above", it is impossible to tell what part of the 'above' that user is referring to. It is furthermore unclear whether the default position should be to include that user in or exclude him from the numerical reckoning. Here the system of judging by numbers comes up short, and nonscientific human judgment ("a living and breathing thing, with something of the demoniacal in it" -- Mencken) must fill in the gap.
 * In the situation you propose -- if the nomination closes at 60% support and there is strong reason to believe that the opposing arguments are without merit -- I would probably invoke the extension of bureaucratic discretion that I have mentioned, despite its questionable authority. In doing this, I would certainly have to stake some part of my reputation and the community's opinion of me on the decision, and would accordingly only act if I were certain I were right. If I had any doubts, I would convene a 'bureaucrat chat', which has been used a few times in the past with varying success; whether the community favors this practice is likewise in question. Please note that I have now departed from my descriptive mission above and am speaking only for the way I prefer to act.
 * These 'borderline' situations are not uncommon in RFA. If we prescribe a formula to cover all cases, the outcomes will be consistent but arbitrary; if we allow bureaucrat discretion they will not be arbitrary -- the process will conform to each situation, and act according to context -- but it might well be inconsistent, because there are many bureaucrats, none of whom thinks exactly like any other. The subtle differences in each bureaucrat's decision-making faculties are magnified by the fact that RFA allows only two outcomes, promotion and non-promotion. If a few details of an RFA tip the balance from 'no consensus' to 'promote' in one bureaucrat's mind but not in another's, the pair will appear to disagree much more than they really do, though their judgments may in fact be highly similar.
 * Does this make sense? I fear I'm not explaining myself very well. &mdash; Dan | talk 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is not what "should" be done since common sense dictates what "should" be done in iffy situations, my main concern is if it is indeed done in such situations. I don't want bureaucrats judging solely on the % of support without ever even looking at the actual evidence and arguments made. I think that there should probably be a discussion for ALL RFA's where a few bureaucrats discuss it before making a decision. Even if it seems obvious.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that, while bureaucrats are chosen for their judgment, this would put less weight on the actual community and more on the crats' idea of what is a "good reason" to oppose. If 90% of the people commenting support the user, the 10% in opposition should not be able to determine the outcome just because they have a "good reason" that the other 90% apparently does not care about. Unless there is some sort of vote fraud (aggressive canvassing, sockpuppetry, etc.) the community should generally have the final say. Mr.  Z- man  23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there would be 90% support if there were very good reasons to oppose. I don't think this has ever happened so it's not an issue. The real issues is when we get for instance above 75% support but the oppositions are damming and clearly show that the editor is unqualified to be an admin and the only reason that the other editors who supported aren't changing their votes is because they unwatched the RFA and editors generally rarely change their votes to begin with. The closing bureaucrats should examine the RFA closely and perhaps 3 or 4 of them should come to a consensus on the RFA based on the community consensus. The bureaucrat discussion should be public and the discussions should be detailed. If there is a consensus for support then the nomination succeeds, if there is no consensus or a consensus against then it fails. The bureaucrats decision could also be appealed once by the community and 4 different bureaucrats do the same and discuss the RFA and it's evidence and attempt to come to a conclusion and that conclusion would be final.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA closer script
I made User:PxMa/rfacloser.js which can be used to add the archive templates for RfAs. The parameters are p for pass, f for fail, and h for hold. Only the bureaucrats can use the p and h, but the fail might be useful for those "snowball" closes. It's pretty basic, but still useful :).  Ρх₥α 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks cool, Have you tried it? Does it work well? Any input from anyone else who has tried it?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Works fine, but again it's very basic :).  Ρх₥α  18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Basic, as in?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not very many features...  yet.  Ρх₥α  18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything wrong with it:) Maybe we should give it a try? Cheers!--SJP 23:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What browsers is it compatible with? Acalamari 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not expert, Acalamari, it will probably only be Mozilla Firefox, as most other scripts are only compatible with Firefox. Qst  20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just tried it and nothing happened. I clicked the "archive" button and it didn't do anything.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tally
Can re remove this tally (0,0,0) from the RFA template? M er cury   17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't like? the_undertow talk  17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Every time somebody suggests removing the tally, it seems there are equal numbers in favor of keeping it as there are in favor of removing it. - auburn pilot   talk  17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It just adds to the idea that RFA is a vote and not a discussion. Keeping it doesn't make sense. Closing Bureaucrats should read the entire thing without even getting an idea for the # of supporters but simply their arguments.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Auburn, I looked, can you linky :) I don't mean to bring up again if its already been discussed. M er cury    18:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find a link...it's somewhere in the archives here or the talk page of Template:RfA. - auburn pilot   talk  20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some scattered talk in Archive 88, Archive 96, and Archive 97; those are not the discussions I was thinking of though. Reading through the early archives, it seems there used to be something referred to as a "toctally" (discussed in Archive 17) that included the tallies in the table of contents. The subsequent archives seem to indicate the tallies were added to the basic template as a compromise with those who hated the tallies in the TOC. - auburn pilot   talk  20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, so I am against removing it. Cheers!--SJP 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't really see anything wrong with it either, myself. GlassCobra 22:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the tally, please, it's useful. Neil   ☎  22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be fine either way. I do think that the tally reinforces the idea that RfA is a vote, which it shouldn't be. J- ſtan TalkContribs 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Neil. It is useful. It is helpful for a candidate to know how he/she is doing. Also, I do not believe it is right to say "Rfa is not a vote." It is more than a vote though. Cheers!--SJP 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "it is more than a vote" is that the actual vote counts, but the opinions count more.--SJP 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. The point I was making is that on sight, the tally makes RfA look like a ballot. Not every vote is counted, and opinions are more than just numbers. J- ſtan TalkContribs 00:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying J-Stan, but I believe that the good in having the tallies, out-weighs the bad. I do not think that there is much bad too it, other than it may look like a ballot at first. That is really not, in my oppinion, a reason to get rid of it. Cheers!--SJP 00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote (oops, !vote) to keep it - if I'm skimming down the list & see someone with 100/2/2 or 0/10/0 I know that I don't need to bother; it saves pointless pileons & investigating editors who's fate has effectively been decided. —  iride  scent  01:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To SJP: I guess so. Again, I am flexible in this matter, I was just making one argument in favor of removal. J- ſtan TalkContribs 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So Iridescent, what happens if, in the first case, those two opposing editors have raised some concern that the other commenters have missed, that may actually sway the overall opinion of the candidate? And what happens if, in the second case, those ten opposers turn out to be sockpuppets or trolls, or turn out to be raising only irrelevant concerns? --bainer (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think (as I have said before) that the tallies should be removed, for a number of reasons:
 * The tallies encourages the perception that RfA is merely a straight vote. While there is undoubtedly a weight-of-numbers component in the assessment of consensus here, it's inappropriate that the first thing anyone sees on a request, after the username, is some numbers.
 * Another consequence of them being the first thing anyone sees on a request is that they are potentially prejudicial. Participants should be reading the nomination, the questions and answers, and the opinions of their fellow editors, with an open mind, not with some numbers in their head: that runs the risk of clouding their judgment, consciously or not.
 * They're entirely redundant to Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report, which contains all the information the tallies do and more, is easily accessible to anyone who wants to seek it out, and is bot-updated; given it has links to all the current RfAs, it can even replace WP:RFA altogether, and indeed many users put this on their userpages to that end.
 * The only real argument I've ever seen in favour of the tallies is that they are useful, but I don't see how that is the case when clearly they are redundant, prejudicial, misleading and regularly inaccurate. --bainer (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Iridescent I believe has made a good point. As for Thebainer's scenerio that he uses as an example:that is very unlikely to happen. Cheers!--SJP 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This again??? FWIW I'm for keeping it, easy way to get a general feel for a nomination, some !voters only participate in borderline cases (not wasting their time with a 99-0-0 that they would have otherwise !voted in) and can draw in more editors. — xaosflux  Talk  02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep it, it helps and does not harm. If you don't like the tally, don't look at it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the tally should be kept as its usefulness is in monitoring discussions when I comment with support on any RFA, I just watch the tally if theres an increase in oppose I'll revisit and consider what is being discussed. Gnangarra 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is helpful. Also, the "harm" in it is far outweighed by the helpfulness.--SJP 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've yet to see any evidence that the tally reinforces the idea that RfAs are just a straight vote. I'd say leave it. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I second EVula's stance. No one has produced evidence to show how having a tally makes people (unfamiliar or new to the process) think its a vote.  SashaCall   (Sign!)/(Talk!) 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We've been through this discussion hundreds of times, we should probably wait for the outcome of the RfA request for comment. Qst  19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Delicious irony
Those in favor of keeping the tally: 11

Those in favor of removing the tally: 3

This tally is brought to you by "EVula is avoiding work and enjoys having fun on the RfA talk page" cabal. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (please note I'm not suggesting the discussion is over. I'm just tallying the arguments because I'm bored)
 * Make it 11 in favor, including me. Bearian 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, how delicious the irony is! J- ſtan TalkContribs 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm neutral. I don't know where I was counted. J- ſtan TalkContribs 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I ignored the neutrals; I wasn't that bored. :P EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this poll, and couldn't be bothered to participate anyway, but I strongly support keeping the tally. WaltonOne 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template Change
In view of my deeply unpopular Neutral at User:LaraLoves RfA, and ensuing commentary, I would like to propose this change . (less the typo) I'm not that WP:BOLD or disrespectful to the process to just do it, and instead would invite discussion. Note the point here is to clarify that "hidden" RfA's is IMHO a bad thing, and nothing at all against the specific RfA that has led to my line of thought Pedro : Chat  20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that this is necessary; if someone has an RfA watchlisted before it is created, and participates before it is transcluded, is that really impacting the RfA? It still has seven days from the time of transclusion; even if an RfA had 30 supports before it was added, there would be seven days for people to oppose it. (though I doubt such a situation would occur, I can easily imagine an RfA garnering a handful of supports before transclusion, especially if they watch the candidate's talk page. I know I've run across several RfAs pre-transclusion like that) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think that this proposal would be useful, to avoid pile-on supports or opposes (unless it's an obvious SNOW-bank). The nominator could be exempt from this, since they're the first people to know about it. I don't think that it's a reason to oppose on an RfA; LaraLove is a relatively popular editor, and people could be checking her contribs from time to time. That could happen with any well-known editor. I do think that pre-transclusion votes could be a sign of possible canvassing, though. J- ſtan TalkContribs 21:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the RfA I Neutraled on (note not opposed) very much out of this I'm sorry EVula. Watchlisting an uncreated article (in this case RFA) is not something most users will know about (granted RFA is not spread across the main page but you can find it). If this project is the encyclopedia anyone can edit then deciding on admins and 'crats should also be open to anyone (ignore the with account bit for a second as not germane). To imply that an RfA is open to all, only provided that you watchlist it prior to creation (where we could, potenitally, be presented with a de-factio fifty/seventy odd support prior to non watchlisters) goes against the spirit of consensus and openess we enjoy on Wikipedia. Pedro : Chat  22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that it's open to only those who watchlist a non-existent page; I'm saying that !votes that happen prior to transclusion are just fine, primarily because it doesn't actually prevent those who don't have it transcluded from participating. Seriously, how often does this happen? Once or twice a year? This is hardly a major problem. If we had RfAs that were running without ever being open to the general public, then we'd have a problem. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Mega admin fails second attempt at RFA for exactly my above reasoning. Hence notes in termplate save embarassment and potential loss of great admins. Sorry EVula but you're wrong with "Seriously, how often does this happen". One time is too many. Let's just put the note in and solve the ambiguity. Pedro : Chat  22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A question can't be wrong. :P EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unneeded change. People have a week to comment "ensuring that all Wikipedians intereted in the RfA process have an opportunity to comment" is not really true at all.  Majorly  (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So anyone editor can transclude with 50 (arbitary figure) supports, reset the time, and all is fine. The week after will just take care of itself because everyone else will fully review every tiny detail of that editors contributions. Pedro : Chat  23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW - Majorly - "Not really true at all" - where's the lie my friend ? Confused? Pedro : Chat  23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That simply won't happen. The most will probably be five before someone transcludes it. You cannot be suggesting five make such a difference? And that's the maximum as well. Suggesting that it is always transcluded to ensure everyone has a chance to comment is the "lie" (sorry, didn't phrase very well). A week is a long time, everyone will easily have a chance,  Majorly  (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The most that will happen is 5? Pedro : Chat  23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's coming along two years ago :) We've learnt from it.  Majorly  (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this as similar to the argument a while ago about a bot closing RFAs to new comments exactly when they end. Why does there have to be such a specific start and finish time? Why are comments outside of that time, as long as the user has accepeted the RFA and it has not been closed yet, a bad thing? Mr.  Z- man  23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transparency. Pedro : Chat  00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Process  Majorly  (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Difference on Wiki (this context)? Pedro : Chat  00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Aren't those that vote support before transclusion still going to vote support anyway? Can't users vote oppose before transclusion? Just a question. the_undertow talk  06:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally, people wouldn't !vote before the transclusion, but yeah, people can oppose before pre-transclusion just as much as they can support. I think it's just much, much rarer. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't care for it and would never do it. However, I feel that every rule made bars some freedom we had before, so yeah, I pretty much hate change. the_undertow talk  06:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(←) I feel inclined to comment considering the obvious. First, I can see where there is an issue with CSCWEM's RfA. However, there should be some understanding in some cases, Pedro. 10 days/53 supports before acceptance vs. 3 hours/5 supports before transclusion is quite different. I accepted mine, 5 people voted (all of which have since stated how they came upon it), then it was transcluded within 3-4 hours. Candidates are given 7 days from acceptance. I think any votes cast after the candidate has accepted, whether or not it has been transcluded, should not be of issue providing the time between acceptance and transclusion is not unreasonable.  Lara  ❤  Love  06:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Lara, what part of "nothing at all against the specific RfA that has led to my line of thought" did I not make clear? This is nothing to do with your RfA. With regard to the second part of your comment, I'm keen to graner opinion on wether the RfA template should include advice not to post discussion prior to transclusion. If the general consensus is that it doesn't matter that's fine by me. I personally think it's a bad thing. No-one else does. End of discussion, and no change to template. Pedro : Chat  08:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Lara, what part of "nothing at all against the specific RfA that has led to my line of thought" did I not make clear?" A combination of "In view of my deeply unpopular Neutral at User:LaraLoves RfA, and ensuing commentary" and the part where you dropped your support of my RfA a month and a half after pushing for me to go for it. I think that's the part! XD
 * Seriously, though, how can you honestly say that my RfA has nothing to do with this? If my 5 votes in a few hours before transclusion wasn't an issue for you, there wouldn't have been a mess about it in my RfA. So, obviously, my RfA played some part in your decision. Also, consider your example is from 2 years ago. So if my RfA has not led to your line of thought, what suddenly spawned it after so long?  Lara  ❤  Love  13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lara, you're mis-reading this totally. "nothing at all against the specific RfA that has led to my line of thought" i.e. I'm not here at talk grinding some kind of axe about your RfA (the nothing at all against the specific RfA bit) but clearly your RfA was what started my line of thinking (the that has led to my line of thought bit). Pedro : Chat  13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion
How about: Thoughts? --bainer (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) People shouldn't comment until the candidate accepts the nomination (there are probably other reasons why this would be good), and
 * 2) The candidate should probably be instructed to transclude the nomination themselves when they accept it.
 * Totally agree that people shouldn't comment until the candidate indicates acceptance. Particularly as the candidate may not wish to accept, and a flood of supports may put them in an awkward position when declining. Regarding transclusion I'm not bothered wether it be the candidate or a nominator. Pedro : Chat  12:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from the weather report saying that the sky clearly is NOT falling (and will not fall), I don't see any reason why Requests for adminship/nominate couldn't be altered in such a way that each separate RfA page includes a gentle reminder that no one should vote until after the nom is signed and the page is transcluded. The nominee should be gently instructed not to sign until after transclusion. The RfA front matter could be similarly altered... But this is all procedural; this "once is too many" talk is, to put it politely, excessive. Over and out. --Ling.Nut 12:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just remove the initial votes left before translusion and leave a note explaining that X votes have been removed? If caught early enough, that would deal with it. The problems come when this sort of "running start" is not spotted until later. Carcharoth 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NO NO NO a thousand times no! I suggest in cases where people make an oopsie/accident, the community 'crats et al should rise up and do this: absolutely nothing. The warning is there as something that can be referred to in the... vanishingly small possibility that someone *deliberately* games the system. --Ling.Nut 12:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ling.nut, please leave comments here in a polite manner, this is a discussion, not an "I'm right, you're wrong" page. Qst  12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Qst, I'm gonna answer that once, and only once. If you have replies to my answer, save them; i won't reply to your replies. Such tit-for-tat interchanges are pointless and distracting. Here's my reply: You're wrong about the way I am speaking (pun intended). I am in fact discussing; no power moves etc. here. But thanks for expressing your assessment. --Ling.Nut 13:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is Ling.Nut that there isn't any warning advising people not to comment in the support/oppose/neutral section prior to transclusion. I suggest there ought to be. Nothing major, but I can't see what harm it would do, and I can see that it would bring a (albeit minimal) benefit in not having RfA's "start" prior to them being made "public" by transclusion. Pedro : Chat  13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Ling.Nut gets excited when he posts about things sometimes. It's his style.
 * I disagree that votes should be removed. I think it's disrespectful to the voters. Perhaps there should be some code added that candidates/noms should remove before transclusion. A notice that it has not been transcluded, so please don't vote. A div to color the page red or something.  Lara  ❤  Love  13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Hi pedro, I'm cool with the warning idea, as i said. Moreover, when people have an oopsie, some diligent RfA watchers can and I presume will leave them a gentle reminder on their talk that they made a no-no. I think it's rude to remove votes... UNLESS there is evidence of gaming. If the incident is significant enough to appear deliberate, THEN the warning can be invoked and votes can be removed. Sound good? --Ling.Nut 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OH PS (why do I always think of things afer I press save?) I think only a 'crat should have the authority to do the requisite mass vote-striking, in case of gaming. --Ling.Nut 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that on balance removing the votes could be seen as rude. I also think a polite note in the instructions asking people not to vote prior to transclusion is a good thing. As for Lara's suggestion about having a line to be removed on transclusion indicating an untranscluded RfA in some way I like that too, unless it makes things overly complex. Pedro : Chat  13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * RfA is probably one of the least complicated processes I've encountered on Wikipedia. Add the line at the top of the page, add to the instructions and the edit window that it needs to be removed during trasclusion. Simple. Whatever keeps people from needlessly losing support during their RfA. It's stressful enough as it is. I'll draft something up.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that I said remove the votes and add a note explaining what has been removed. When you leave a note behind, everything remains perfectly clear. The closing bureaucrat can still see what happened. Or if that is too aggressive, mark them in some way, with archive tags, or put them in a different section. The crucial thing is that people arriving at the RfA be aware that voting started before the normal 7-day span, and can adjust their perspective accordingly. Carcharoth 14:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of my thoughts, as ripped off from AfD.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This solution is too simple and elegant. Reject, please complicate and uglify immediately. --barneca (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I KNOW!! Let's make a banner like that one they had for advertising the donation request. Big, flashing, seizure-inducing! Will that help? Hahaha. :p  Lara  ❤  Love  14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Seriously, yes that's better but Id go along the lines of "discussion within the support, oppose or neutral sections should only be made after the RfA has been transcluded to the main page" - basically get rid of the word votes! Pedro : Chat  14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Still not convinced that this is a big enough issue to warrant any action. We've got two examples of this happening, nearly two years apart; I'm uncomfortable holding it against a candidate that their supporters jumped the gun, and removing !votes just to have them put back a few minutes later seems like following process for the sake of following process. Besides, how should we inform the early !voters? Leaving a message on their talk page strikes me as a form of canvassing, and unless there are dozens of !votes before the transclusion, it's not a major issue in the grand scheme of things. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How can it be canvassing to tell people who've already voted that they voted early? The only point of this is to avoid the "running start" effect, when people arrive and see 10 supports already there. I am presuming, of course, that it would be 10 supports. If there were 10 opposes there, the effect would be the same, but the other way. People would look for the reasons people supported/opposed, and would mostly be swayed in that direction. They shouldn't, but it is human nature. Carcharoth 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. EVula, if you are concerned about canvassing, think about how the people voting early found out about the nom? Would all of them have had the page on their watchlist? Carcharoth 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a canvassing concern (for me) because a note left on a talk page isn't just visible to that editor, but to everyone else who see the page (very different from seeing something on the candidate's pages). I've seen plenty of RfAs and RfBs fail, despite having a very solid (and post-transclusion) "running start", so that's not a particular concern for me. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think for the sake of transparency, people should only comment after the nom has been transcluded - and that includes asking optional questions. If I'm nomming someone and somebody comments prior transclution, I generally leave a friendly message asking them to remove it until transclution - no-one seems to have a problem with that. I don't think it really matters who transcludes them nom, providing the candidate has actually stated that they've accepted the nom.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see what damage this does. I would agree it is poor form, but if you try to enforce any sort of prohibition, it is just going to cause problems. I can see people edit warring over this, then if the candidate gets involved... it will not end well. Leave a note on the users' talk pages informing them of how the process works. If they remove it until the transclusion, great; if not, oh well, they would have supported anyway. Maybe they had a good reason; they saw User:X was being nominated but they were leaving for a week-long vacation. Assume good faith, don't treat wiki-process like scripture, and don't edit war over votes before transclusion. Mr.  Z- man  03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of talk page at RfA
Folks, I can not figure out how to make the nice, neat chart that other talk pages have, so I probably did this (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2) incorrectly. Can somebody help us out and fix my syntax error? Thanks in advance. Bearian 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mathbot will add it.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mathbot won't add the talk page stuff. Done. --barneca (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biohazard2000
Requests for adminship/Biohazard2000 is a request that was not transwikied. The editor is listed at Suspected_sock_puppets. -- Jreferee    t / c  13:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedied under G6 (housecleaning). Improper format (just two paragraphs), created back in August, and Biohazard stopped editing four days after it was created. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about timing
I have been nominated, and I'm ready to accept and reply to the 3 questions. Now it turns out that I won't have much time until 21 hours from now - but I want to be here for people's questions. Would it be advisable to wait with my acceptance, or should I rather accept it and add a note for people to wait, or does it not really matter? &mdash; Sebastian 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advise accepting the nom, answering the three questions, and leaving a note that you won't be able to answer the questions until tomorrow. It shouldn't matter too much either way though.    Sasha  Call   20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [ec] I thinking noting that you won't immediately be able to answer additional questions would be sufficient; I doubt someone will oppose just because you didn't immediately respond. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, folks! &mdash; Sebastian 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)