Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 180

Nominations
Is there any point to dual nominations? or even three co-nominators. Frankly all you need is just one nominator and everybody else votes. South Bay (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably it shows that multiple people believe the candidate would make a good admin. → ROUX   ₪  02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Advocation is the highest form of Wiki-flattery. Seriously though, it's a form of friendly gushing and rallying. Beyond three gets obnoxious though. High profile nominators can make a strong case for the applicant.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some do not like more than one nom, but there seems to be a defacto agreement that 3 noms is the limit.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, is there a history of more than four at any time?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Requests for adminship/Phaedriel 2 had 10... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably would have opposed per some kind of cabalism.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CO NOMINATION IS PRIMA FACEA EVIDENCE etc etc? 87.112.16.11 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think co-noms and co-co-noms are iconic more than anything. But yes, I agree that multiple co-noms are unnecessary. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Necessity probably depends on the co-noms: I see no harm in 10 co-noms if everyone of them talks about a different aspect of the candidate. That way, they are supplementing each other and can be quite necessary. On the other hand, 10 co-noms that all say the same thing is boring repetition. Regards  So Why  09:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends. 10 co-noms seem to much. But yeah, 3 or 4 co-noms is okay. It shows people that these people have bestowed their trust on the user. Pmlin  editor  10:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10 co-noms with full, well-reasoned explanations is fine in my book, but 10 one-line co-noms is just stretching it. There's nothing thst says they can't go in the support section. (Requests for adminship/Cobi 3 comes to mind) ( X! ·  talk )  · @632  · 14:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my estimation the nominating statement is the least important part of an RfA and I accord it little weight. The only purpose it serves is to showcase some of the candidate's strengths.  I will take them in to consideration, but a persuasive nominating statement is still a reflection on the nominator, not the candidate.  Thus co-noms have even less weight in my decision making process.  After-the-fact co-noms are downright stupid - it serves no purpose except to allow supporters to voice their opinion twice, once in the nominating statement and once in the "support" section.  Excessive nominations are obnoxious but not necessarily a reflection on the candidate so I try not to hold that against them.  Shereth 16:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My RFA had six nomiations, and I ended up making a comment on the talk page as people had many concerns over it. I believe Phaedriel's 10 and my six are some kind of "record" whatever that is worth (i.e. nowt). I believe my RFA did create some subsequent discussion regarding this, and that no RFA since has had so many nominators (which is a good thing). With no disresapect to my nominators, it's pretty clear now that a strong support may be better than throwing in another nomination at times. Interested, Wisdom, that you might oppose based on cabalism BTW :) Pedro : Chat  21:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was kind of speaking extemporaneously. I'm not entirely sure if I would have. Depends on the time period. Attitudes and perspectives change. Now I might, back then I likely wouldn't have. I believe Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3 started off with an air of cabalism that a user pointed out. This was related to votes being cast before the nomination being accepted/transcluded though, which is another matter, but somewhat related.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed my friend, you hit the nail on the head. The changing shift in what is "acceptable" and "common practice" at RFA is dramatic in very short time periods. Look at my second RFA (as linked) - "article writing so what" "really active at AIV" "really great at the helpdesk". Not likely to see those kinds of comments now to be honest. And I'd also argue the WP:AGF and WP:DEAL was a fair bit stronger in peoples minds back then as well. As for you third RFA, abd the "cabalism" crap - well - my comments there speak for themselves (but that is not really relevant to this thread I guess). Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomming is a brave and sometimes necessary thing to do, because you can't check every contrib, and nominators can and do get blamed for oversights. OTOH, when someone has an opportunity to nom or co-nom and doesn't, that could just mean that they don't want to have their hands tied by COI if things come up in the RFA that require vigorous discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When nominating people or advising on nominations, I generally recommend no more than two noms for the simple reason that it clutters up the top of the RFA if everyone and their cousin is tossing in a nomination. More practically, when I comment at an RFA and see 3+ nominations, I usually apply a slightly higher level of scrutiny to the candidate.  Among other things, I look for why the candidate felt the need to have three people nominate him, since sometimes it is the sign of someone trying to overcompensate for problems in their past (lack of article work or blocks being the two factors I remember).  Also, as Wisdom states above, it can indicate cabalism (although it didn't in his case), and so I might look to see if all of the nominators are Wiki-buddies of the candidates.  Lastly, I look at the reputation of the people making the nominations.  If a candidate blindly accepts poor nominations from people with checkered pasts, that can indicate to me that they lack good judgment.  This isn't saying that only RFA regulars know how to nominate people, but if a nominator was blocked in the last month, has fewer article creations than the candidate, or has a war zone for a talk page, that does reflect a bit on the candidate's judgment to seek out or accept a nomination from them.  MBisanz  talk 17:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi folks, I had taken this page off my watchlist for the WP:NODRAMA thing, but just stopped in to see who was running at the moment. Since this particular thread didn't seem to be contentious, perhaps I can post a thought.  While the number of noms is certainly a topic for discussion, I might add another tangent to it.  I think the who is doing the nom is important too. (I got very lucky in that regard).  I think that when an established editor and/or admin. writes up a nom for a candidate - it carries with it both positive and negative aspects.  I believe that if the nominator is established and respected - some folks will support on the belief that nom has a habit of showing good judgment.  On the negative side, I think there are times that some folks will oppose simply out of spite, in a manner that they perceive as getting back at the nom by proxy.  To be honest, anyone that's been around long enough to have a successful RfA, has somewhere made an edit that we could construe as a reason to oppose.  Hopefully, the end result will be a consensus on the candidate and their qualifications, but I'm not always sure that it works out that way in every case. Just IMHO — Ched :  ?  19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BAG nomination
Hello there. Just to let you know that I (Kingpin13) have been nominated for BAG membership. Per the requirements, I'm "spamming" a number of noticeboards, to request input at my nomination, which can be found at Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Kingpin13. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rights' names
Does anyone know the history/reasoning behind the names given to various rights, or even if there is any? The Administrator/Sysop "title" is of interest, but so are the other non-obvious ones, namely Bureaucrat and Steward. This is perhaps a better question for Meta, but I figured I'd plumb the knowledge here first. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 23:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sysop comes from 'system operator', an older term for what we now call network administrators. Basically someone with some extra tools to keep stuff running smoothly. I have heard the Bureaucrat name was chosen in order to emphasise how dull and boring the job is. Checkuser and Oversighter are drawn directly from the software names. I imagine Steward is meant with the connotations of 'guarding', as they have technical tools available to them across WMF projects. Founder is obvious. → ROUX   ₪  23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious about how "administrator" came into being, because, at least to me, it denotes a higher "status" than it it really has. The others make sense, thanks for the information Roux. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Wiktionary, an administrator is "one who administers affairs; one who directs, manages, executes, or dispenses, whether in civil, judicial, political, or ecclesiastical affairs; a manager", so it's pretty easy to tell how that one came into being. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually exactly why I inquired. Sysop/Administrator is pretty standard anywhere with a large amount of computers that needs running, but our sysops sure as hell don't operate any systems.  The "mop and bucket" analogy seems to be pretty accurate, and as such those who we call Admins are probably a better fit for the name of "Steward" (or "Janitor," really).  Stewards seem to me to fit best the classic title of "Administrator/Sysop," as their rights were essentially created out of that of the sysadmin developers. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 00:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time Administrator was created in May 2001, Wikipedia was running UseModWiki, which has a sort of shared-password scheme for site administration (see AdminFeatures). The terminology predates both the present user-rights system and the mediawiki software itself. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in the first year of Wikipedia, the term administrator was a whole lot more appropriate. The administrators were the ones with access to the database, in order to delete, block, etc. ( X! ·  talk )  · @174  · 03:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the reason why admins are no longer officially called "sysops" is to distinguish them from the real system operators, our "sysadmins". As such, the term "administrator" is, as Julian says above, no entirely inappropriate. And I guess people back then objected to be called "janitors". ;-) Regards  So Why  11:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is probably also worth noting that we can edit the local names of any userright group, so it could anything people wanted.  MBisanz  talk 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Actually, mop-and-flamethrower™ is more descriptive than mop-and-bucket, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! How did you get a flamethrower!? All I have is this lousy M-16 >:( J.delanoy gabs adds  14:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A small subset of Wikipedia admins. Useight is second from the left. Useight (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Admin WITH clue
 * Admin WITHOUT clue
 * -- Avi (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They're all reasonable choices, I think ... "janitor" and similar words would be twisted by some to be demeaning, while words that suggested power and influence would be inappropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A solution in search of a problem, methinks, but in any event, thesaurus.com lists the following as synonyms for "administrator": CEO, ambassador, authority, boss, bureaucrat, captain, chair, chairperson, chief, commander, consul, controller, custodian, dean, director, exec, executive, front office, governor, head, head honcho, head person, inspector, judge, leader, manager, mayor, minister, officer, official, organizer, overseer, person upstairs, premier, president, prez, producer, superintendent, supervisor. Bureaucrat is obviously out of the question. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Person upstairs" is an absolutely divine solution, Julian! Also, "quaestor" is an option... —Animum (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA cutoff
Currently, there does not seem to be a definitive answer to the question of the discretionary range. The so-called "consensus" has been 75-80%. (Many opposers at RfBs have replied to the candidate's answer of 70-80% with "Since when was it 70%? It's always been 75%!") The RfA page, however, says 70-80%. To top all this, in practice, the range seems to lie around 70-75%. Any opinions? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The process has naturally evolved in the years since the 75% was established. People's attitudes towards RfA change over time, and it's only natural for the standards to change. The people who say "Since when was it 70%" are the ones who haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to the area, and so they haven't been informed of the evolution. ( X! ·  talk )  · @311  · 06:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Percentages and consensus are inherently opposed. A standard percentage is a byproduct of consensus, not the root of it, and using vague numbers lend themselves to that desired fluidity. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine percentages will continue to decline over time. Just call it Bill Mazerowski syndrome, if you do "he's close to" or "his statistics are close to" enough times, eventually you elect nonentities.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Given your statements, I'd say that the discretionary range is between 70% and 80%. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say that's where consensus currently lies. However, I don't see many fail with 80%.  hmwith  τ   14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RfB cutoff
Is the 85-90% cutoff appropriate? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'll comment, given that my recent RfB closed at 77%. I think that in general, 85% is a reasonable cutoff, if not a bit too high. At my RfB, there were some questionable votes (on both sides, I might add), and the closing bureaucrat even remarked that I was closer to promotion than a percentage would typically suggestion. Requests for bureaucratship/Riana also comes to mind; in that particularly request, there was an unprecedented level support compared to about 40 opposes which, in my opinion, were not terribly persuasive. Borderline RfBs are, however, rare. That said, bureaucrats are expected to be nearly universally trusted within the community, so of course one would expect nearly unanimous support. On the other hand, 'cratship is a fairly simply and straightforward position; in fact, the name "bureaucrat" was, as I understand it, chosen to emphasize how dull the job is. Going by that argument, the standards at RfB should be made more lenient. Additionally, RfBs are extremely uncommon, and usually occur only once every few months—too infrequently to apply a strict percentage cutoff. As such, each request should be taken on a case-by-case basis in my opinion. Taking all that into consideration, it seems to me that 80% to 90%, give or take, would be a good recommended range for bureaucrat discretion. Just my $0.02, though as it's going on 2:30 am, my thoughts might not be entirely in order... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 06:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See Requests_for_adminship/RfB_bar. Nathan  T 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason that this being brought up again? It was mentioned here while Julian's RfB was active as a "this isn't clarified" percentage, which baffled me just as much then as it does now. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Content contributions
Is it necessary for adminship candidates to contribute significantly to articles, as opposed to doing process work? In my opinion, editing is unrelated to an admin's tasks, and so should not disqualify a candidate, though it may help a candidate who makes particularly good article contributions. However, a significant proportion of !voters oppose for lack of content contribs. It would be interesting to discuss this. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One school of thought believes that an admin with the knowledge and experience in the difficulties associated with article building would perhaps be less deletionist or trigger-happy with the delete button. Useight (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The best admin would be the one who is well rounded, the one who manages to combine article-writing and project administration. People who are more well rounded are less likely to "burn out", and will likely become better admins. Meanwhile, admins which focus only on the drama-filled sections of Wikipedia such as XFD, DRV, and ARBCOM are likely to burn out and storm off in a huff. ( X! ·  talk )  · @309  · 06:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy pages have grown to huge, unwieldy, size. Wikipedia attracts many editors, from many different cultures.  Creating content is the only purpose of wikipedia.  Creating content that conforms to policy, in harmonious collaboration with many other editors is a good thing.  Showing harmonious collaboration with other content producers is a good thing.  Sometimes content creators might need extra buttons.  They could ask an admin to do it for them, or they could apply to get the buttons.  People who create content, that conforms to policy, while harmonious collaborating with other editors, or managing to solve disputes in a calm civil manner will should be much more likely to get extra buttons.  As mentioned above, not creating content might be a sign that an editor is not aware how personally some editors react when their created content is sent for deletion. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP raises good points, so does Useight. But the question has to be treated with more than a "yes" or "no" answer. I think that process-heavy users can be great admins, they just need to demonstrate that they understand the importance of content work. They do not need to be able to do it themselves (after all, not everyone is an artist), they do not need to be able to write GAs or FAs but they should show that they know how important those things are. I like to use myself as an example here (sorry!): I do not write GAs or FAs because I lack the skill to do so but I save dozens of new articles from speedy deletion by adding references, cleaning them up, rewriting them into stubs, etc. I know how important content work is. So does the fact that I cannot contribute well in that area make me a worse admin? I'd like to think not (although I know some people think so).
 * On the other hand, a user who tags every new article that is not created perfectly for speedy deletion instead of trying to save them, will probably make a bad admin, even if they have several GAs or FAs to their name. So the answer to the question probably is this: Significant content work is not necessary for adminship but admin candidates should demonstrate that they know that such work is important and how others who create such work will react. We cannot force people to do work they are not suited for in favor of work they are suited for - that would be a stupid waste of resources.
 * I disagree with X! though, I do not think that content work makes a difference whether people burn out or don't. Conflicts happen in all areas of the project and the question whether someone will burn out is determined on their tolerance to such stress, no matter where it occurs. Regards  So Why  10:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not write GAs or FAs because I lack the skill to do so but I save dozens of new articles from speedy deletion by adding references, cleaning them up, rewriting them into stubs, etc. -this, in my opinion, makes you an excellent admin. I'd have little hesitation supporting someone who showed similar work. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think people equate article work with experience, which is true to some degree. Writing an FA or a GA requires a basic knowledge of core policies like NPOV, NOR, RS and other related policies like MoS, etc.  That said, I think the community does accept specialists who show a knowledge of policy and an awareness of their limitation with articles.  Examples I think would be Werdna (mediawiki coding), Seth lustiger (regex), Davidgothberg (templates), Closedmouth (tagging and patrolling), Jarry1250 (bots), OverlordQ (bots), and Mufka (patrolling and tagging).  It isn't so much "how many articles did you write?", but "are you competent to work with the community and know where your personal competencies exist?"  MBisanz  talk 12:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) When and whether users burn out, and whether a particular admin candidate is likely to burn out should not be a consideration at RFA, as there is no limit to the mops we can hand out. Content contributions are relevant and IMHO are one of the things that can indicate that a particular candidate is here to build an encyclopaedia not as a gamer treating the place as an MMORPG or New Page Patrol as a shootemup arcade game. However content contributions are not the only way to establish that - we need editors and reviewers here as well as authors, and I think it pointless to argue the relative value of those skills. Recently being a content contributor has become almost a negative at RFA as those contributions get taken apart and critiqued - presumably by those who have concerns about the GA and FA processes. RFA is subject to fads and fashions and I guess it is only a matter of time before someone starts opposing for lack of article rescue work or of GA/FA reviewing. But IMHO the issue at RFAs is can we trust this user to wield the tools well, and that means things like civility, neutrality, wikiexperience and cluefulness. I can think of a number of RFAs that failed despite the candidate having FAs and or GAs, and some that failed because the candidate was only a vandal fighter; but it would be very unfortunate if the "oppose lacks GAs & FAs" view grew to the point where that alone could sink a RFA, both because of potential damage to the GA/FA process and because reviews at wp:FAC are reviews of articles by reviewers who are free to fix such faults as they find, not audits of a particular users contributions.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm much more likely to vote for someone who's gotten credit for a FA or two, more likely to use common sense when it comes time to evaluating content disputes that are resulting in bad behavior.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with the idea that mistakes made in article writing, including GAs and FAs, can be cited by opposers at RFA. But as a practical matter, it's difficult to know how to weigh the opposition rationales that concern things that don't usually seem to be a problem at GAN.  It would be helpful if the people who often bring up GA/FA problems at RFA would come up with a list of things that they think are problematic enough to mention at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "It would be helpful if the people who often bring up GA/FA problems at RFA" ... you mean me? Here you go - Plagiarism. Original Research. Violations of BLP. These are three ethical based content policies. They get at both the ability to trust an individual and also their knowledge of policies in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, and well put. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re to Ottava, I'm not aware of either Plagiarism or BLP violations in GA or FA work coming up during an RFA, and I would be rather surprised if an article with BLP issues got through FAC. But may I take it that your omission of grammar and spelling from the list was intentional and in part to reflect our cosmopolitan editors?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as how you can say that when I have seen you vote in RfAs where I mention just these kinds of things. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By "coming up during an RFA" I meant as a concern about a particular candidate, I certainly remember a recent RFA where you discussed Plagiarism, but it was in the context of something to check for, not as something you had found that particular candidate doing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See Juliancolton's recent RfB for an example at the very beginning of the opposes for plagiarism being brought up. It has happened before. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary benefit (in my opinion) to having administrators who have also had experience as content contributors is the same reason why anyone in an "administrative" capacity should have experience in doing the very tasks they administrate. Being a good editor does not make one a good administrator, but an administrator should at the very least be able to put themselves in the shoes of the rest of the editors they are working with.  Prolific article creation, a laundry list of FA/GA contributions, DYK mentions and the like are rather immaterial to one's abilities to wield the mop, but at the very least a demonstrable understanding of how things look from the editor's perspective is a must. Shereth</b> 16:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but an ability to jump thru the appropriate guideline and policy hoops indicates the candidate has the ability to learn, comprehend, and apply said guidelines and policies, which is something administrators are tasked to do. There's a correlation between the two, but not an especially strong one. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think people too often equate FAs and GAs to experience. I like RfA candidates to have some experience with content, but I don't really care if their articles have been arbitrarily promoted to a random class after being screened for misplaced dashes and such. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think candidates should show a significant contribution to the content, whether it be through cleanup, rescuing stubs by adding refs and expanding them, contributing to GA/Fx discussions or articles, contributing free images, or what have you. I also think they should show some experience with policy and guideline discussions, and applications of those to the content work they are doing. I don't think they should be required to have a GA or FA/FL/FT under their belts to be considered for adminship, though having one does show an ability to work through a somewhat rigorous process to create something better. It shouldn't be required, though. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a project to write an encyclopaedia, so content contributions are just about the most important ones. And when I say "content" I include such tasks as copyediting, reviewing, category management, etc.  Similarly, the most important admin tools are editing tools - the ability to move a page over a redirect, the ability to merge and unmerge histories...things like that.  And yet, it's precisely in this are that we need to be able to trust admins - they can see deleted pages, they can do history merges that would leave people tearing out their hair for weeks.  It's true that things like blocking and XfD closes cause the most drama and do harm to community spirit, so we do need admins who understand policy inside out.  But admin tools are also valuable to people who avoid all these "administrative" tasks.
 * Getting an article through FA is important because it requires the ability to follow NPOV and other core policies. It also forces you to give up ownership of the article and implement the suggestions of other editors.  It forces you to deal with criticism.  So it's a good place to judge temperament.  Having written FAs shouldn't earn you RFA support, but a FAC page is a good place to learn about an editor.
 * A lack of mainspace edits (or a low proportion of mainspace edits) should be a red flag. It doesn't disqualify you, but it should make people look a bit more carefully at the candidate.  Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if you are going to show a POV in articles, it likely will be a lot earlier than an FA. If a user makes a POV version on an article, it will be detected not too long afterwards. ( X! ·  talk )  · @180  · 03:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There are many wars over POV at FAC and at FAR - look at the Intelligence Design page, or at something like the Roman Catholic Church FAC. POV is one of the things that comes up quite frequently at these processes. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarify: Obvious POV. ( X! ·  talk )  · @085  · 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I agree totally here. In my mind one can make an argument the very best admins would be ones with only gnomish experience in many hundreds of articles. A focus on one article, or a subset of articles will (perhaps unjustly) indicate problems with POV. I'd far sooner hand out the bit to a gnome than someone with a dozen FA credits all of which happen to be around the Growing Acceptance of Intelligent Design, Global Warming as a Fact and the Rights of People from Macedonia arbitary subjects but I guess many will get my gist.
 * Whilst I agree that we are here to create (not write - create) an encyclopedia to do that it must also be credible or the aim is futile. The admin tool set really is not relevant to writing an encyclopedia - but it is relevant to creating one. Pedro : Chat  22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I already passed RfA, what with these standards... Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-)With regards to content contribution, I've posted my thoughts here enough times, but for the record, I have content contribution as a contributing factor to my decision, but not the only, nor even most important issue. I will support a good content contributor who has less of a showing at the "maintenance" sections, as long as I believe that they will not abuse the tools (and pass my more important criteria, such as non-automated inter-editor behavior over a reasonable to significant span of time). Conversely, I would support a wikignome, even if they have contributed less to the actual content sections, as long as they demonstrate that they understand the principles of teh encyclopedia and that their maintenance work will support that. Each candidate is unique, thankfully, and has the ability to contribute in his or her own way. It all boils down to have they demonstrated enough onwiki experience for me to be able to trust that they will act, as best they can, to further the aims of the project, and that their decisions (judgment) will be made with that in mind—fully knowing that their final decision may not be the one I would have made. I think it artificially reduces the pool of acceptable candidates to require hard floors on either content or maintenance work. Evaluate each candidate in the totality of his or her work—specialist admins are not a bad thing at all. So much for my tuppence :). -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think FAs are a requirement, although they may show patience in the face of conflicting and often pernickety comments. However I'd prefer to see some substantial content contributions because:
 * They will reveal whether the candidate is over-commiteed to certain causes (see Pedro, 22:05, 22 July 2009)
 * They will show how the candidate deals with differing views about the content and/or balance of emphasis within articles - the kinds of points on which disputes are likely to start. Wikignoming seldom raises such issues. (no disrespect to Wikignomes, they've cleaned up a lot of my bloopers)--Philcha (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I don't think that users should have to be active in GA, FA, and DYK areas, but some article work is needed, enough that the user knows how Wikipedia works, what article conflicts are like, and policies that come into play only when article-writing. However, as long as the user appears to have enough clue, it's not an issue to me.  hmwith  τ   14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we do not hand out limited adminships, I want to see some article building. I don't insist on an FA or GA, but at least some.  Otherwise I may oppose or at least withhold my support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

New tool in the arsenal: WikiBacon
I've been developing a new tool called WikiBacon. The idea is to figure out how two users are related- how have they collaborated, and how did they first meet?

Some sample output is here: User:TedderBot/Bacon Results

You can make a request or comment on the bot in the following places:
 * User talk:Tedder
 * Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot

I was thinking of RfA when I designed this, though it is certainly useful in other situations. Hopefully others will find the concept useful. tedder (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much more detailed than this. I like it ;) — Ched :  ?  06:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Useful for CU too. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 11:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also useful for stalking allegations.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you use IRC? If you could make this bot responsive to IRC commands and have it idle in the #wikipedia-en-spi channel, or make a page where a query can be submitted available on the toolserver, the folks at SPI (myself included) would make use of it. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't be making an ircbot out of it, but a CGI interface will be happening soon (next week or so). My toolserver application is pending. tedder (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's not the case, would it be possible to output the data in JSON or XML format? That way, Nixeagle would be able to easily implement it into his IRC bot. ( X! ·  talk )  · @173  · 03:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea, X!. The only problem is that it's slow (2 minutes-15 minutes, depending on # of contribs), so it would need to be an async request/response. We could talk about the reasons why it's slow, but it's probably more appropriate for somewhere other than WTRFA. tedder (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as it's in a machine-readable format, I'm (and Nixeagle too) happy. ( X!  ·  talk )  · @189  · 03:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How should candidates respond to NotVotes?
Imagine a candidate (or anyone) disagrees with a numbered comment. How should that editor respond? Should they leave it until the RfA has finished and then ask for clarification so that they can improve in areas where others have voiced concern? Should they direct comment to the talk page, asking for (or providing) diffs? Could their method of discussion change your mind about your comment, moving you from support to oppose (or backwards) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Usually a response is added by doing something like this:


 * 1) Oppose - blah blah blah! User:Example
 * What now? User:Example2
 * ...if that answers your question. If the discussion under that comment is long enough, it'll usually be moved to the talk. As for changing views, I suppose anything is possible. If you feel the nominee has been too aggressive in responding to opposes, that can be a reason to oppose. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 10:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think this can be answered on a general basis. It depends on the RFA so far, on the candidate and on the !vote in question. If it's an unfounded accusation, the candidate can probably safely be expected to respond asking for proof (although they might want to let someone else ask that question). If it's a general, verifiable reasoning for the candidates shortcomings that needs further discussion, it should imho be taken to the talk page unless the response can be kept short and does not invite further discussion (like the candidate admitting to a mistake they made or thanking for the feedback.
 * As for the other question, unless someone displays a serious amount of stubbornness or incivility when handling those !votes (one that was previously not evident from their contributions), the well-known stressfulness of running for admin (or even crat which is much more so) makes me focus on the candidate's contributions to base their !vote on rather than their conduct in the RFA. But there are many cases where people were influenced by a candidate's behavior at an RFA, most of them because of how the candidate treated opposing !voters. Regards  So Why  10:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My own RfA I believe turned on my keeping my cool in a very contentious situation. I responded only to correct factual mistakes, apologized for getting in voters' ways, and spent the rest of the time combining dentistry and manicuring.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh ... so I wasn't the only one who managed to shorten the distance from their finger-tips to the keyboard during the infamous "7-days". — Ched : ?  03:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an RfA candidate vote for himself?
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a serious question. It has occurred to me that nowhere in the rules does it prohibit a candidate from voting for themselves (or opposing, for that matter). I figure it just must be taken for granted by anyone serious enough to run for adminship that they can't !vote for themselves or that if they did, it would make them look desperate. Is it worth adding a sentence such as "the candidate may not vote, but may respond to the comments of others" (replacing a sentence consisting of the second half of that), or am I just being too pedantic? (or, alternatively, does it actually say somewhere else that the candidate cannot vote, and I just missed it?) Ditto for RfB and any other elections. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 23:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the context of a discussion rather than a vote, it would be pointless as the questions at the top of the page give the candidate an opportunity to explain why they think they are suitable. What more could a support vote convey? There's no rule against it, but common sense should say don't do it as some people will probably frown on it, perhaps as either naive that the process is a vote and they can influence it by casting a vote (or maybe even cynical for the same reason). Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly it is not against policy, but it is against the norm. If someone were to vote for himself, major shunning would surely ensue. Kingturtle (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see this as a solution in search of a problem. As you said, no one serious enough to run would vote for themselves, so there really is no point adding this. The Earwig  (Talk &#124; Contribs) 23:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Supporting yourself would be pointless, and opposing yourself would just be bizarre. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the only reason I see for opposing yourself is if you were passing with flying colors, and you just wanted to bring some humor and light-heartedness to RfA (which should happen a lot more). ( X! ·  talk )  · @129  · 02:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen a candidate oppose themself happen at least once--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that they were opposed for opposing themselves. I lol'd.   GARDEN  10:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unrelated note: that very same editor may well be at RfA again very shortly.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't make sense to oppose yourself. If you didn't want to become an admin, you wouldn't have accepted the nomination. Tim  meh  23:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you wanted to set a record for reaching consensus with the lowest percent support? ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 23:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd still be pointless. If someone is so intent on being childish and getting recognition that way, the bureaucrat would be more likely to say "unsuccessful" in such a close call. Tim  meh  23:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most records are set by either the childish or stupid. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 00:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The rest are set inadvertently. :) Tim  meh  00:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since successful RfAs require consensus, the candidate's !vote it would only ever matter less than a blank Support. I'd assume any bureaucrat would ignore any such activity by the candidate. Besides, as you said, it would probably look terrible and count against them. Still, if the nominator(s) can !vote, the candidate might as well be able to. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 23:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's supposed to be a discussion rather than a vote, so the candidate casting a vote would demonstrate either a lack of understanding of the process or just poor judgement. If we finally admit it's a vote the candidate voting wouldn't be welcome as it would appear cynical. Nev1 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can vote for yourself, but 1) the vote will be statistically irrelevant, 2) the closing bureaucrat is hardly going to count it, 3) it will generate oppose votes. So doing it isn't the world's best idea. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's against the spirit of RFA to vote for yourself. RFA is a discussion about the candidate, not with the candidate and as such, the candidate involved cannot participate in the discussion at hand because they are by definition unable to judge the candidate (i.e. themselves) objectively. Regards  So Why  10:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Voting for yourself can only generate one of two actions. a) People opposing you for wasting 2 seconds and a few bytes of their life. b) People supporting you for wasting 2 seconds and a few bytes of their life. So by all means, as it's a 50% chance of success, vote for yourself. &mdash;Dark talk 11:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that voting for yourself is against the spirit of RfA, and ultimately counterproductive. However, I don't agree that the discussion is "about the candidate, not with the candidate". The amount that optional questions have increased and the usual interplay of questions seems to indicate a substantial dialogue between nominee and community. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't acceptance of a nomination (or a self-nomination) an implicit support of said nomination anyway? It kind of goes without saying that a candidate would support themselves and that makes the idea of voting for oneself a little superfluous ... <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why do the noms !vote too? By nominating the person, you've already made the point that you want them to be an administrator. ( X! ·  talk )  · @911  · 20:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory, the nominator can change their mind in mid-RfA when the opposers comes up with something really nasty. Jafeluv (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And an oppose vote could be considered as a withdrawal from the process, about the same a striking out the nominees own acceptance! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it really, even without withdrawal from the candidate? I don't know if that has ever happened, but there was at least one occasion where the nominator swiched to "moral support" in response to the candidate's answers to questions. Jafeluv (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any precedent for that, but I imagine in a situation where a nominator later chose to oppose the candidate, the RfA would continue uninterrupted - unless it was a SNOW type case, anyway. As a corollary, XfD discussions don't automatically close just because the nominator withdraws - it depends on what, if any, discussion has taken place so far. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (reply to X!) I've never understood why nominators bother putting in a !vote, either, as it is wholly redundant. The entire nomination statement is a giant, fluffy Support already. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally don't support my noms until their last day or they reach 100... and there have actually been a few that I simply forgot to support (Xeno being the first.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it have made a difference if you had supported? Jafeluv (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On one it might have...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I have the last 9 minutes of my life back? Haha. Law type! snype? 06:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider 9 minutes a low price to pay, compared to the normal drain that WT:RFA inflicts upon your time on this planet .. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 14:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WT:Requests_for_adminship/ThaddeusB
What I'm getting from this conversation is that some voters have a legitimate question over whether votes that simply say "oppose" will be "counted" in some sense, and they weren't sure how to respond. The crats have a pretty consistent position that they want the community to shoulder the burden of deciding general principles of what "counts"; then they get to apply the general reasoning to the particular case. Anyone have feedback on how we handled this, and whether bare "oppose" votes count? - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not going to comment on the specific example, (I haven't followeed it closely), but in general I think bare oppose votes can be put into one of two categories. When there's already a number of opposes with reasons in an RFA, and another oppose is added without specific comment, my opinion is that it should be treated as an oppose per the reasons already given.  Just as a bare support is treated as a "per nom".  When there's no real oposition, and a lone oppose is added without reason, then there's no real reason for the crat to worry about it.  A 94% passes just like it would if it was 97% or 100%.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's fine for an individual voter to react differently to "oppose" (with no rationale) than "oppose per above" ... maybe you want to ask the voter or the community for details on what's going on ... but do we actually want to suggest to the crats that they discount the first but not the second? - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem I have with people henpecking over these types of opposes is that supporters with similar statements are not questioned. I regularly see "Support, why not?" or "Support, about time!" or "Support, he's great!" or the like.  Rationale to the effect of "Support, does fantastic work at AfD" is never given a second look while someone with "Oppose, shoddy CSD work" is often pressured for clarification or diffs.  AfD has, of late, become an extremely unfriendly sort of place for people who choose to oppose nominations that otherwise enjoy broad support; while it may be unfounded, it is certainly doing nothing to dispell the idea that RfA has become rather cliquish.  If we are going to ask (or expect) that bare oppose votes (or those with minimal rationale) be discounted, we must expect the same of supporters of the same caliber. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 14:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with that. While it'd be nice if everyone provided lengthy explanations and gallons of diffs, the nature of RfA - and of Wikipedia culture - is that good faith is assumed. That means, if there is no pressing reasons to oppose, then a "support, per nom" is sufficient. Does every voter who does this actually look through contribs? Unfortunately, no. My point is that the default !vote is, and should be, support. Opposes need reasons more than supports do. Tan   &#124;   39  14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this concept is part of the reason why RFA is what it is. If I think "User-x" wouldn't be a good admin, I can't just oppose or I get jumped on.  I have to come up with multiple of paragraphs and dozens of diffs explaining that "User-X" not only shouldn't be an admin, but should probably be incarcerated somewhere.  RFA might be a nicer place if we just let people oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree that "Support per nom" should be sufficient as there is an implicit rationale given (the nominator's rationale). But what about the other types I mentioned? "Why not" or "He's great" or the like? I suppose my fundamental disagreement is that a "default" !vote should be "support". I will grant you that it is in line with the notion that adminship is not (should not) be a big deal, and therefore we should be OK with granting the bit to anyone who isn't likely to cause problems. That said, you are placing an unfair burden on people who are expressing one type of opinion while not expecting the same of the rest. I personally believe that all participants should be placed under the same expectations. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 14:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that "Support, looks good, no problems here" implies a "per nom". At least, it does when I !vote that way. You all realize we're re-hashing arguments that have been orbiting for years now, right? ;-) Tan   &#124;   39  14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I say "no qualms here", "looks good to me", or similar statements, I'm implying that the user meets my criteria.  hmwith  τ   14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know, this discussion is even more circular than Triton's orbit. Sometimes I just can't help myself though.  WT:RFA should be classified as a drug ... <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I can't agree with this. We already have too many admins around here that shouldn't be. If RfDA was available it wouldn't be a problem but assuming good faith is not a valid enough reason to reduce standards. AGF is an editorial guideline, not a criteria for adminship that should let anybody through the door. It's a double standard to allow support without a reason but not oppose without a reason and if you push someone for a reason they will give whatever they can come up with. I agree with Cube lurker, a lonely oppose isn't anything to make a big deal about and if it is among several others it should be a sign of one more person simply agreeing with the reasons already given. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 15:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To some extent, we expect a bit more from 'oppose' votes because they carry proportionately more weight. Absent sockpuppetry or other obvious organized disruption, no adminship request will pass unless it clears a threshold of ~75% support.  Similarly, a request won't fail if it is above 80% support.  (No matter how often we bang on about how RfA isn't a vote and how the bureaucrats' role is to decide whether or not a consensus exists, in practice they only ever get to exercise any discretion inside that narrow window.)  That means that every 'oppose' vote has the same effect on the outcome as three support votes.  With that extra punch comes a bit of extra responsibility.
 * Leaving the numbers issue aside, adherents to the 'no big deal' school of adminship candidate evaluation should naturally expect more from an oppose vote. A 'support' can be read as "I didn't see anything wrong here, so go ahead and promote", whereas an 'oppose' says "Red flags have been raised in my mind".  It is reasonable (under those interpretations) to expect some specific evidence or substance to back the latter statement; followup on the former would have to be some sort of futile effort to prove a negative.
 * If we assume that most candidates who fail at RfA are interested in eventually being successful, detailed, evidence-supported oppose votes can also provide guidance to the failed candidate on what needs improvement; it also provides feedback to potential future candidates about what sort of expectations the community has for its admins.
 * Finally, let's be honest. A vanishingly small proportion of RfA voters have the time, inclination, or even skills necessary to independently and exhaustively examine the background of each and every candidate.  The 'oppose' voters are the canary in our coal mine &mdash; a well-formed vote draws attention to specific issues that need further community consideration.  That doesn't work without clear statements and (ideally) diffs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In essence, a bare support is "I agree with the nominator." It's not usually necessary to add "and here's why" unless you add something that you think might help inform other voters. But if you oppose, you really do have to say "and here's why."  We all know you can't say simply "I disagree" full stop on article talk pages and expect to get anywhere... why should be any different on RFA?  Auntie E.  17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With all respect to this opinion why is "I agree with nom" any more credible than "I don't agree he'll make good admin"? It doesn't give any indication that the supporter is actually making an informed decision. If there is to be any requirement it should be that all voters verbosely explain themselves to be counted. But I don't see this happening, as already said by many what is the bloody big deal in one or two oppose among a hundred supports. If we have a standard that a number of people, let's say 40 should have voted to determine an accurate outcome then 10 people opposing should be a good indication that there are some real concerns and not all of them need to explain that they agree with what is already said. No wonder this ship is sinking when people make such big deals about nothing. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinion "I agree with nom" is based on facts that are laid out to support the nomination. If the oppose !vote is based on contrary facts laid out by previous oppose commenters, then there should be no difference in credibility.  If the oppose !vote is saying "The facts are wrong (or I have contrary facts) but I am not going to tell you what they are" then, as in real life, people may tend to discount that opinion.  Suppose one person tells you in detail why a candidate for public office should be elected - past community service, a reasoned stand on important issues, a reputation for being highly ethical, etc...  One bystander says, "That makes sense. I'm for him."  A second bystander says nothing more than "I'm against him."  You are trying to evaluate whether he is a good candidate.  How much weight would you personally put on the second bystander's opinion, under those circumstances? -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk  19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It always amuses me when people question whether an oppose will be "counted" when it really can't affect the outcome. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean you weren't planning to promote him to "super-mega-power-administrator" based on the particularly high support percentage? ~ mazca  talk 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, where is RfSMPA? I want to apply. Tan   &#124;   39  15:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I was going to promote based on the fact that Thaddeus' check cleared. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some shopping to do... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't discuss this without mentioning the specific instance that brought this up, in which a user "strongly opposed" but declined to say why, other than "for a reason that is very important to me but trivial to others." It was noted in response that RFA is a discussion, not a vote, and that some reason must be given if the comment is to be taken into account. It was also noted that, from the point of view of the nominee, a bare "oppose" without a reason that can be addressed would not be appreciated and (I would add) wouldn't help that person change any potentially problematic behaviours. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that "a 'support' can be read as 'I didn't see anything wrong here, so go ahead and promote,'" and at the very least the qualifier "per User:X" is required for opposes. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And by the way, it's worth noting that the user has entirely reversed their position and changed to "support." Exploding Boy (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As a thought experiment: what would happen if someone left a polite message on users' talk pages in the future whenever they voted support or oppose without even hinting at any issue they're supporting or opposing over? Something like this: There are legitimate concerns at RFA over supporting and opposing votes that give no reason at all, and some of us have decided to try something new ... leaving this message on users' talk pages and asking for a little bit more ... anything, really, that would give us a clue what you think is important, such as "I like their WP:AfD work" or "per User:Dank's oppose".  We're not saying that any of these apply to you or your vote, we've leaving this note with everyone who registers a vote without any rationale, but here are some of the things that are worrying people: 1. Some people think RFA is more like a vote and some think it's more like a discussion, but most are agreed that pushing RFA in the direction of being a pure vote is the wrong way to push it, and votes without rationales do that.  2. An RFA is supposed to be morale-building when it passes, and informative when it fails.  "Support" (with no rationale) is a lot like "Why the hell not" or "Better than nothing" ... not very encouraging to the candidate.  "Oppose" (with no rationale) doesn't give this or any other candidate useful information about how to pass a future RfA.  3. There are concerns that some people aren't reading anything in the RFA and don't know anything about the candidate they're voting on.  It's not required, of course, but selecting at least one reason of the reasons given to support or oppose would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The specifics in this instance is an oppose among what is now over 100 supports. Though RfA is claimed as a discussion it is very much a vote that decides the outcome unless the vote is indeterminate. In this regard a "strong" oppose is no different than any "normal" oppose, it is still only counted as one vote. And besides it was only 2 people that made as though it was a big deal as if there wasn't any more important issues to discuss instead. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 19:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many models for consensus. Many of them call for a sort of roll call, in which those who object to the motion on the floor can provide explanations for their opposition. These objections can then be discussed, and solutions can be proposed to move toward consensus. It is unusual in these models to find the need for those in support of the motion to have to provide rationale, unless the opposition far outweighs the support. Kingturtle (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It’s worth further discussion, but I would start by applying it only to the bare oppose. I wanted to pass along some thoughts on this issue, but I see that User:TenOfAllTrades beat me to the punch. We aren’t discussing a random person picked from the street, or even a random editor, we are discussing someone with a substantial track record, probably nominated by someone well-known and respected. Which is not intended as an argument for automatic pass, just an argument that “support” is the expected default, and shouldn’t require extensive support. In contrast, “oppose” is not expected, and, given typical ranges, carries much more weight. I see nothing wrong with placing a larger burden of proof on “oppose”. A well-written “oppose” with specific examples, may give pause to someone inclined to support, but previously unaware of such instances. The opposite is less likely to occur. Having said this, bureaucrats are supposed to weigh the strength of the arguments, not just the count, which increases the importance of adding specifics to an ‘oppose’, but also increases the burden on “support” in case the proportion is in the problem area. If I see 20 out of 100 opposed, with solid reasons, and 80 simple supports, I’d be inclined to close negatively. So at the risk of making the proposal unwieldy, I think it should go to bare ‘oppose’ if the proportion  of bare “oppose” is low, but should go to both if the proportion is in the critical middle range. --  SPhilbrick  T  18:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to gather data, I'd be willing to try this just with the bare oppose votes. I (and a lot of others) have concerns about applying standards to the opposition that we don't apply to the supporters ... but, unlike some of the others that hold that position, I don't think it puts us on a slippery slope.  If it causes problems, we'll catch it before it does any real damage. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Generic question
Every time these kinds of discussions pop up on WT:RFA, there is a question that keeps popping up in my head: What is the ultimate goal of this discussion? Are we seeking to create a set of criteria by which the b'crats are going to gauge consensus? Are we really planning on coming up with a list of "Rationale(s) which are to be automatically stricken from the discussion"? I believe I have mentioned it before, but as I see it this is the reason we have bureaucrats to begin with - so that we have someone trustworthy and level-headed who we believe can measure the consensus of a discussion. If we are going to get in the habit of preemptively striking out certain types of !votes that we do not like, aren't we effectively changing the process from a discussion into a (gasp) vote? Last I knew, editors were welcome to express any opinion in a discussion, so long as it is not offensive (or otherwise violates general editing standards). If user ABC wants to oppose user XYZ because "aliens visited me in a dream and told me this user should not be an admin", they should be allowed to express their opinion. No reasonable person, let alone one of our bureaucrats, would allow such a !vote to influence the outcome of the request, but it's just plain bad precedent to start telling people what they are or are not allowed to do in a discussion.

tl;dr version : Why are we getting caught up in trying to do the bureaucrats' job for them? <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because many crats have said on many occasions that it's not their job to figure out which kinds of votes matter and how they matter, that's up to us. It's their job to apply our consensus to each individual case. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other reasons too. You might laugh if I say this is WT:RFA so I don't want to digress too far ... I'll be happy to have a discussion about all the possible benefits of RFA-related discussion, but only on the points people are already interested in talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair I can see how the discussion could easily wander off onto one that was more about WP:CONSENSUS than WT:RFA so I can understand your hesitation to digress. There's an awful lot I often feel compelled to say regarding this particular subject but in the end, they often get left unsaid because it is only marginally germane to the discussion .. not to mention the fact that (as has been stated above) these kinds of arguments tend to be cycled at WT:RFA every so often and it's probably not worth going blue in the face over :) <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to discuss matters of RFA, consensus, and pretty much anything else any time on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between us needing community input on general topics (such as the prima facie argument) and actively figuring out the "legality" (for lack of a better phrase) for each and every objectionable !vote. I, for one, don't need community input on whether I should consider a single opposition !vote that is followed by no commentary from the participant. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh, I never knew that "tl;dr" stood for "EVula's thought every time this pops up." Not a particularly accurate acronym, but it's at least shorter than "EVTETTPU." EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope we're trying to improve RfA by encouraging discussion. comments in the numbered list, and responses to those comments on the talk page.  People sometimes say that RfA is hostile.  They're right, it is.  Maybe allowing vigorous discussion on the talk pages of each RfA will reduce that hostility.  Maybe a candidate who can keep calm and polite in the face of hostile, and perhaps irrational, opposes would convince a few people to switch from neutral to support? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps we'll realise at some stage that RFA is a vote, irrespective of people's exclamation points (or marks) before the word (-: Stifle (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RfA is a !!vote? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic Research Study Survey: Final Call
Thank you to the Wikipedia community for your participation so far in this ongoing research study, and for your response to our previous post on the Request for Adminship discussion page. We plan on keeping this survey open for one more week and would like to encourage anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to participate to take the survey described below.

As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut, we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate.

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am confident that the WMF wouldn't want me to honestly respond about my RfA experience here. ^__^ Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporting / Opposing but showing evidence of not reading candidate's page
A recent RfA candidate had a userbox clearly asking people to call them female. Many supporters and opposers said "I like/dislike this candidate. he will make good/bad use of the tools".

What happens here? Do we say that those people were just looking at real diffs and these things happen, or do we say those people weren't paying enough attention for their notvote to count as a full notvote?

The actual candidate is not important, and I carefully waited until the RfA finished before asking this. I'm asking about general pronciples, not that specific example. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're full of interesting questions. :) I think it would depend on the vote; if it was clear that they hadn't really looked then you treat as such and it should be clear to the closing 'crat. I don't think the userpage really shouldn't make a difference upon the candidate, unless it was an extreme case. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, I couldn't care less what gender the candidate is. Therefore, I probably wouldn't pick up on a userbox stating as such. I don't think it's required to study every detail of the candidate in order to make a decision - especially based on userboxes. Tan   &#124;   39  00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the mutability and unpredictability of gender on the internet, I'd say it shouldn't matter. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say you can't really extrapolate from the failure to read a userbox to mean a failure to thoroughly investigate the candidate. If people do what I do the first port of call is Special:Contributions, not their userpage. Ironholds (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost never consider an editor's userpage. Instead I check out their contributions like Ironholds said. So I wouldn't call this a failure to investigate the canidate thoroughly, but instead I would just call it an innocent oversight.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 00:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)This is true. In the example I'm thinking of there was a userbox, and a paragraph of text, and these were on the same page as a much quoted essay. So, do some people become swayed by a few sensational diffs and jump on a Support / Oppose notVote while others are taking a more complete view?  And does it matter? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They read it, they were all up in a buzz about the IP comments, and they made a real effort to say he/him/use the masculine form. It is pure bigotry and vitrol, its really a shame that in this day and age that sort of intolerance exists. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate to call it bigotry, if it was anything but an accident. I would assume good faith. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Failure to peruse 100% of someone's userboxes in detail is hardly cause to throw around accusations of bigotry and vitriol, I should think. If there's a malicious attitude, that's one thing, but if someone makes a simple mistake, just correct them and move on. Far from finding it shameful, I'm quite happy to be part of a community where no one much cares if the person they're talking to is male, female, or anything in between -- if anything, that strikes me as a lack of bigotry, no? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just bad writing/research, since it's easy/lazy to assume everyone on t3h intartubez is male. Everyone has their own criteria, and if some people can overlook a block, reading a userpage is by all means not necessary. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I I think you're extrapolating too much if you're jumping from "doesn't know the editor's gender" to "isn't fully considering the candidate." As many people have said, an editor's userpage is hardly the most informative page when scoping out a candidate; even if they do, they would likely be looking at the text on the page (such as "I got [such and such] to FA status") than a mass of userboxes (which, let's be honest here, few people outside the user themselves actually care about). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on - this isn't just about a userbox. Many people made reference to text on the userpage. Those same people ignored another block of text on the same userpage.  I mention the userbox because it's not just a small userbox, or just some text, it's both, and they're on the same page as the essay.  So, do people jump on dramatic diffs and notVote based on partial information?  And does it matter if they do?  If they're missing clear obvious stuff on the same page as the dramatic difference are they also missing the real, useful, contribs the condidate has made that are hidden away in history??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's a good sign when that happens. Lady Justice is blind, and I can't think of any reason why it should matter if a candidate is male or female. English unfortunately doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun, and different people use different words for referring to someone whose gender they don't know or about whose gender they don't care. I personally like the Spivak pronouns, which is why I created genderneutral, but they're not well enough established, so that I also use "he/she", or even "he" or "she" without checking an editor's gender, when everyone else uses that pronoun. &mdash; Sebastian 02:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * English has a perfectly good gender-neutral singular pronoun, used by many of the great writers, including Austen and Dickens, up to and into the 20th century: "they". The first time it was even suggested that "they" wasn't a good gender-neutral singular pronoun was in a nasty little grammar by Anne Fisher, published in 1745. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't bother trying to change the minds of the prescriptivists. ;) Irbisgreif (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stating the obvious, I prefer "editor" myself. Dekimasu よ! 04:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried introducing "sie" when neither "he" nor "she" is appropriate, but it never really caught on. – ClockworkSoul 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone actually complained to me when I used "they" when speaking about them him saying "I'm not more than one person". I find it totally impractical that you need to know a persons gender just to be able to speak correctly. Luckily, we have gender for that. Jafeluv (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally impractical? Welcome to the English language. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at least it's not like in German and Russian where every inanimate object, animal and abstract idea is arbitrarily referred to as either "he", "she" or "it" :) Jafeluv (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Grammatical gender is kinda convenient, actually. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer the order She, He, or IT... ;-)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not always "he", "she" or "it", sometimes it - at least in German there are words where every gender is correct, gramatically speaking at least. That does not mean that I like it when my girlfriend refers to butter as an "he" (when it's clearly a "she") 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that because she the butter is so fatty? ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why you little... Nah, it's because she likes to speak in Bavarian dialect and in that dialect, many words actually have different genders. Trust me, you are lucky that the English language does not have such problems xD  So  Why  15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ouch... I remember the Bavaian dialect... you can actually communicate with her?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, when talking to me, she usually talks High German and I'm native to Munich anyway, so I can at least understand Bavarian even if I don't actively speak it. She just uses such "incorrect" genders sometimes in her High German. And funny enough, she uses pure Bavarian when talking to her monther - it's if someone turned a switch!  So  Why  16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's called code switching. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider "he" gender neutral. Chances are, 99% of "females" online are males anyway, so they can't possibly be "really" offended, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather long thread on wikien-l a few years ago indicates not. And yes, I recognize the humor ;) . ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 02:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See Requests for adminship/Fabrictramp wherein the nominator (me) was unaware that the candidate is a woman. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lowest edit count?
I was just wondering, what was the lowest edit count a user had and still passed RfA?  Triplestop  x3  01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we should probably narrow down the question. Do you mean edit count on en.wikipedia, or global?  lustiger seth is probably the lowest edit count to pass RfA in recent memory, having had only about 100 edits on en at the time that he passed ... but lots more on other WMF wikis.  But you probably meant to exclude outliers like that, as well as RfA's from the very early days of Wikipedia.  Thus I don;t have an exact answer for you but I suspect the lowest passing edit count in recent enwiki history is somewhere around 4000.  kotra and Mazca had fairly low edit counts at the time they were promoted, and they had very few opposes.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 01:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see my RfA brought up as an example of a low-edit-count one. I suppose it really was, though: strangely none of the opposes I got were actually based on edit count at all, even though I was the lowest in a while. Outside of lustiger_seth's (which is excellent at scuppering any RfA statistician's point) the lowest one I can think of recently is Gazimoff from about a year ago, who passed with just under 3000 edits. ~ mazca  talk 10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is probably a difficult question to get a meaningful answer for. As time has gone by, minimum standards seem to become more and more stringent.  While it may be rare to see a candidate pass with less than, say, 5000 edits, it wasn't that long ago that many had less than that.  My own RfA a couple of years ago passed and I was shy of 3000 edits at the time.  The further back you go, the lower the minimum gets. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at historical cases, you can find interesting things like Rdsmith4 passing with 1,500. Overall edit count isn't important because it is the total contribution, not the number of edits, that really matters.  I've spent 5 edits trying to get a | set properly in a template and written an entire DYK in a single edit.   MBisanz  talk 06:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Much depends on whether you use automated tools like huggle which whilst useful can dramatically increase ones edit count. That's why if you look through successful RFAs you often see hugglers mentioning the other things that they've done. 3,000 manual edits doing a wide variety of things on the 'pedia will probably take much longer to do than 9,000 Huggle edits, and the person whose done them is much more likely to be ready to be an admin than a specialist who has done the same sort of thing many many times.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Hermione1980 passed with <1000 edits. That is the lowest edit count for a regular RFA nomination which I can remember. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to be picky, the lowest edit count was Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot, which has only ever made one edit (and that was after the RfA closed). <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 09:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)