Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 19

Removing votes before their time
Please be careful with this. Unless a nomination is clearly a joke or prank, or the nominator or nominee asks for the nomination to be withdrawn -- and even then with a moment's discretion -- please discuss here any urge to remove an RfA vote before it expires. +sj + 05:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Votes should run their course. If the nominee feels set upon, noone should object to his/her removing it themselves. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship states "Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship." The vote had been static for days and it was apparent that he would not get a consensus, much less a 50-50 vote.  Not that it means anything, but there was a consensus on IRC to remove.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; 06:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Recent consensus appears to have been worked out over the past months--that we leave nominations unless the nominator or candidate wants it removed, or if it has no chance of succeeding AND is a magnet for sniping and argumentation. I think you know the ones I mean. They shouldn't be removed just for housecleaning. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think IRC is generally bad for Wikipedia - it creats its own momentum. Secretlondon 13:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. It violates principles of transparency and I'm amazed that, as slooooowly as some things seem to happen on Wikipedia, how quickly IRC can raise a necktie party. :( -- Cecropia | Talk 15:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * And it's hard to reach consensus on IRC, since most people on the channel ignore most comments or requests. If 10 people are actively talking, and two respond to  a suggestion and one likes it (and the other gives no opinion), is that consensus?  Nine abstentions?  etc. +sj +  18:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Bah. This is anti-IRC groupthink. :) -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 11:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed policy change

 * I'd like to propose a change in RfA policy. I'd like the section that reads:
 * Nominations which are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 100 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes shows that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.
 * To be changed to:
 * Nominees who are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 500 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes show that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.
 * Additionally, I'd like "if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship." to be defined as "if it is highly, highly unlikely that the nominee will recieve even a majority" or something of the like. I think we're too lax on RfA policy, and I've seen several instances where candidates who had really no business even being listed were allowed to stay listed for the entire week.  Unnecessary, I think.  Just an idea.  Opinions, please?  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like the policy section to be more clear. For example, I didn't know what the tally was for (the "0/0/0" thing) until I looked through the archived talk. That should be clearly explained. Also, I think 800 edits and three weeks should be the minimium, and there should be SOME guidelines about what "consensus" means. Neutrality 00:35, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Three weeks is way, way too little. You can't have gotten to know someone in three weeks. I would rather specify what has previously been the approximate comfort level: three months and about 750-1000 edits but as a caution rather than a hard number. Something like: "Candidates and their nominators should be aware that candidacies below three months on Wikipedia and about 750 to 1,000 edits are apt to be below the comfort level of enough editors that an otherwise worthy nomination has a good chance of failing, so it is would be good to consider whether it would be better to wait a bit before making such a nomination." -- Cecropia | Talk 01:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * A month and a half sounds fair as a minimum. Neutrality 01:20, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm actually with you two on this. I was aiming low in hopes of garnering more support.  I think 1½ or 2 months should be the bare minimum, and 2000 edits IMO.  I especially like Cecropia's proposed statement.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * See the most recent poll. Why a month-and-a-half? I agree that there should not necessarily be a HARD minimum, but we are trying to see where people's comfort level is. Both polling and people's reactions on votes show a lot of people getting antsy under 3 months. Only one editor specified less than three months as a hard minimum. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll go farther - 3 months is the *bare minimum* amount of time someone can have been here and get me to vote for them - that is to say, any less and I automatically vote against them. Even then, I am not comfortable with someone who has been there only that long. &rarr;Raul654 01:13, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think three months is a reasonable guideline for adminship, but it's too high for calling someone "obviously unqualified". This is for handling "HI I AM A NEW WIKPEDIA USR AND I WNAT TO BE A ADMIN!!1 WAHT DO U THNK????" -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I generally vote for anyone who has 2+ months and 2000+ edits under their belt, unless IMO they're not right for the job. Just wanted add my "bare minimum opinion"... blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How about: Nominees who are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 500 edits and less than two months membership, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes show that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no reason to pull nominations early. If you really feel that a nomination should be pulled early, I think the right thing to do would be to ask the nominator or nominee is they wish to withdraw the nomination. As to the minimum though, I am personally beginning to feel that I may make 3 months a hard minimum for my own voting, I prefer wording that warns the prospective nominator/nominee that the nomination is likely to fail. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed timelag between nominations
I would like to propose a one month time interval between nominations of the same person. I.e. if a person is nominated for adminship and fails to gain adminship there should be a wait of one month before they can be nominated by anyone again.Any nominations within that month long waiting period can be removed straight away without waiting for a vote. What do people think? theresa knott 10:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It seems to me that if a candidate cannot muster enough support in a one-week period, he/she is very unlikely to do so the next week either, or the next.  A one-month interval should be regarded as a bare minimum.  I say this because it seems to me that no candidate ever gets rejected, unless there are serious concerns about his/her suitability.  Giving one month's space for reconsideration seems very generous to the rejected candidate.  I don't see how anybody could object.David Cannon 11:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Another point: There will always be problem candidates, who are out to waste everybody's time. Someone, whose user name I've forgotten :-(, brought up the issue about a month ago.  He/she pointed out that a problem candidate could be rejected, then immediately force another vote.  We again vote no, so he calls another vote.  We vote no yet again - and then find ourselves faced with yet another time-wasting voting exercise.  How long should that be allowed to go on for?  I think your proposed one-month moratorium is an effective way of dealing with such trolls. David Cannon 11:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Theresa. One month sounds good. About the repeated case described by David Cannon: I am sure we could vote to ban such users from adminship for longer periods if necessary. But I haven't seen such a case yet, and lets hope there won't (wasn't) be one -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - David Gerard 23:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The AC could easily decree a longer ban for particlular users. I chose I month for all users so as to minimally inconvenience non troll nominations (Sometimes people object because of "not enough experience") I too can't see how anyone could possible object, so I intend to be bold and and add the phrase to the page once a certain nomination has run it's course, unless there are any objections in the meantime. theresa knott 23:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Neutrality 00:28, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Do we actually need a rule on this? Renominations within the same month happen so rarely, it seems rather pointless to make a rule for it. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poll &mdash; Nomination guidelines and self-nomination
It is understood in all the below questions that a nomination posted contrary to these rules can be summarily removed by anyone. In all cases time would be counted from the withdrawal or end of the first nomination and the posting of the next. Poll will be evaluated in one week (2004 July 18)
 * If this poll is to have any credibility, shouldn't it have been publicized a bit more widely? older &ne; wiser 16:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * So, publicize a bit more widely! It still hsa six days to run. ;=) -- Cecropia | Talk 18:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Q1: Reposting by same nominator after unsuccessful nomination
If a nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time should intervene before the same nominator can repost the failed nomination?

No rule
 * 1) Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
 * 2) David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Common sense. Most people have it.
 * 3) Michael Snow 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree with Snowspinner - I oppose a rulebound and mechanical adminship process. If someone makes a premature renomination, just let it get voted down.
 * 4) I'm changing this title from "Immediately (no delay)" to "No rule" since it best fits the above votes (and my own). anthony (see warning)
 * 5) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  15:44, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) This will just encourage people to use sockpuppets to renominate for them. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One week

Two weeks

One month
 * 1) Spectatrix 03:21, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * 2) Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  04:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) If a nomination fails, I don't think it should be reposted by the same nominator -- but if we're going to establish a rule for those lacking wisdom, let's say one month. Cribcage 04:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5)  Agree with Cribcage (above) and RickK (below) -- should require different nominator; one month is a fine guideline if we're setting one. +sj +  15:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Graham  &#9786; | Talk 09:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7)     ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) David Cannon 11:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) I'd really prefer a longer period, such as 3 months as Acegikmo1 suggests below, but I'd accept 1 month. - UtherSRG 14:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) EddEdmondson 15:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Quadell (talk) 17:04, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) In my own experience, I've had several people vote against my nomination, but say they would be willing to reconsider after a month. This seems a natural period of time.
 * 14) David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) theresa knott 18:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Frazzydee 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Gauss 21:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 22:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Timwi 14:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other time period (how long?)
 * 1) Three weeks. Neutrality 02:42, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Three months. Acegikmo1 13:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Whatever is reasonable. anthony (see warning)
 * 4) Two Months. Ilyanep (Talk) 02:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not at all&mdash;a different nominator should be required
 * 1) Rick'''K 21:20, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Sam [Spade] 00:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Exploding Boy 15:05, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Q2: Reposting by a different nominator after unsuccessful nomination
If a nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time should intervene before a different nominator can post a new renomination for the same person?

No rule
 * 1) Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
 * 2) David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) A different nominator should be allowed to re-post immediately. There may be valid reasons for doing so.
 * 3) Timwi 14:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Michael Snow 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) See above.
 * 5) anthony (see warning) (see above)
 * 6) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  15:44, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Such a rule requires that someone is actually going to keep track of who last nominated someone, and when they did that. Why add additional work like this when there isn't really a problem? Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One week
 * 1) Neutrality 02:42, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Two weeks
 * 1) blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  04:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Frazzydee 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Three weeks

One month
 * 1) Spectatrix 03:21, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * 2) Cribcage 04:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Graham  &#9786; | Talk 09:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4)     ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) David Cannon 11:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Given the nature of sockpuppets and cabals, it really doesn't matter if it is the same nominator or a different one. See my response above for Q1. - UtherSRG 14:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) UtherSRG is quite right. EddEdmondson 15:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) theresa knott 18:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree with Uther (but still think 'different nominator' should be required).  Until there are restrictions on who can be a nominator, these two options are very similar, and shouldn't have different time-frames for a renom.  +sj +  15:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 22:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Three months
 * 1) Three months. Acegikmo1 13:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Acegikmo1 -- three months. Rick'''K 21:22, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Also three months. Sam [Spade] 00:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other time period (how long?)

Q3: Reposting self-nomination
If a self-nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time before the candidate can self-nominate again?

No rule
 * 1) Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
 * 2) David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Again, a vote to keep the rules concerning adminship and the nomination/vote process simple.
 * 3) Michael Snow 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) See above. Also agree with anthony's statement below.
 * 4) See above, though with this case I think less leeway should be given to people clearly abusing the system. anthony (see warning)
 * 5) I agree with Anthony.  -- Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  15:46, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) The amount of time a user leaves before re-nominating themselves can tell you a lot about that person. It's useful to know if someone is so obsessed with adminship that they renominate every couple of weeks. Would the problems with Aplank or Pumpie have been noticed if they hadn't been constantly listing themselves here? Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two weeks

One month
 * 1) blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  04:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Graham  &#9786; | Talk 09:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Views on users can change a great deal in a month, especially if the objections were around lack of experience. Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Quadell (talk) 17:07, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) It seems to me that requiring a different user nominate you (if less than three months have elapsed) will be inviting sock-puppet nominations.
 * 6) David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) - I would say "three months", but the pathological will merely use sockpuppets.
 * 7) theresa knott 18:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Timwi 14:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Three months
 * 1) Neutrality 02:44, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Spectatrix 03:22, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Cribcage 04:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5)     ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 11:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) David Cannon 11:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Acegikmo1 13:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) UtherSRG 14:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) EddEdmondson 15:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) GeneralPatton 21:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Rick'''K 21:22, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Sam [Spade] 00:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) +sj +  17:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) (if you can't find someone else to nominate you, now may not be the right time to renom yourself)
 * 17) Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 22:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Has to be longer than nominated by someone else. If they are an otherwise good candidate they will be noted on the first 'visit' and possible get nominated anyway

Other time period (how long?)

Never&mdash;one self nomination per editor

Q4: Converting self-nomination to regular nomination
Should an editor otherwise eligible to nominate be entitled to convert a self-nomination to a regular nomination by endorsing or sponsoring the nomination, and then move the nomination to a regular spot?

Yes, at any time after the candidacy is posted
 * 1) Why not? Neutrality 02:44, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Cecropia | Talk 02:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Spectatrix 03:22, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * 4) Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Yeah, sure, I don't see why not.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  04:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Cribcage 04:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Graham  &#9786; | Talk 09:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) What an excellent idea!     ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) David Cannon 11:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC).  Yes, I think this is fair enough.
 * 10) Sam [Spade] 00:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Of course... Timwi 14:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  15:47, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only at the end of the self-nomination period
 * (what does this mean? - Acegikmo1) A: Allow a sponsored nomination when the self-nomination has run its 7 days unsuccessfully.


 * 1) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No


 * 1) Acegikmo1 13:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC). Some editors have different standards for self-nominations and nominations by other users.  When a user is nominated by someone else, it is evidence that the user's work has been noticed and his or her trust has been earned by a member of the community.  Allowing what is really a self-nomination to be "converted" makes this feature an afterthought and destroys an important distincion.  If a user wants to endorse a self-nomination, that user can vote in support of it.
 * 2) Ace said it well enough. - UtherSRG 14:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Indeed EddEdmondson 15:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Rick'''K 21:24, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) At least certainly not without the self-nominator's permission. What if some controversial and disruptive user decided to sabotage a self-nomination by hijacking it and "converting" it into a "regular" nomination? --Michael Snow 22:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Changed vote - agree with Michael Snow Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) If it ain't broke...
 * 10) +sj +  17:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think all noms should be by others; in the rare case that someone is unknown and feels like nominating him/herself, this is a small but important aspect of the nomination.
 * 11) Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agreed with Acegikmo1
 * 12) [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 22:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) There is nothing to be ashamed of about self-nominators so no need to 'endorse' other than the standard voting we already have
 * 13) Agree with VW every vote in favour is an endorsement. theresa knott 22:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Status of self-nominations must not be reduced further.
 * 15) Exploding Boy 15:07, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Agree with most of the reasons above. anthony (see warning)
 * 17) Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 02:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) I see no need to class self-nominations as lower standard. Votes in support of a self-nomination are an endorsement of it. Angela 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Q5: Prior votes on a converted nomination
If we allow self-nominations to be sponsored to become regular nominations, what do we do with the votes already cast?

'''Wipe all the votes to start fresh. Voters who already voted will have to recast them.'''


 * 1) Acegikmo1 13:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) UtherSRG 14:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Hopefully this won't happen, though. anthony (see warning)

Retain the votes and count on the voters to change them, if they want
 * 1) Neutrality 02:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Spectatrix 03:23, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  04:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Cribcage 04:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Graham  &#9786; | Talk 09:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7)     ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) David Cannon 11:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC).
 * 9) Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Sam [Spade] 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC). But see my vote on the previous question
 * 13) Why would anyone want to change anyway? They either think they'd make a good admin or they don't. theresa knott 22:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Timwi 14:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Vacuously true :). anthony (see warning)
 * 17) Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 02:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  15:48, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) I oppose the endorsement idea, but it if happens, please don't let it become a way of allowing any user to just wipe out the previous votes. This could be misused by trolls to remove valid votes and waste people's time by making them vote again. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Q6: Remaining time on a converted nomination
If we allow self-nominations to be sponsored to become regular nominations, what do we do with the time already spent?

Start the time all over again as a new nomination
 * 1) Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Acegikmo1 13:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) UtherSRG 14:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) But see my vote on the two above
 * 6) anthony (see warning)
 * 7) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  15:49, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Retain the same end time
 * 1) Neutrality 02:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Spectatrix 03:24, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * 3) blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  04:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Cribcage 04:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5)     ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) David Cannon 11:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC).
 * 7) Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) GeneralPatton 21:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Sam [Spade] 01:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) theresa knott 22:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Timwi 14:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) anthony (see warning)
 * 16) Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 02:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) If someone is going to be rejected, restarting the time limit just wastes the time of voters as they have to see the nomination stay on the page for longer. If the person is going to be supported, it will annoy them that they now have to wait longer before becoming an admin. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let the new nominator or the nominee decide one of the above


 * 1) Graham  &#9786; | Talk 09:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) anthony (see warning)

Q7: Tired of voting on this page every couple of months
Yes
 * 1) Dori | Talk 15:35, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Assuming you mean this talk page. Hell, I'm tired of voting in general. "This should be no big deal."  anthony (see warning)

No
 * 1) Cecropia | Talk 16:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) Nobody has to vote, or even pay attention to the votes. These are non-frivilous issues and provide guidance for nominations and a "paper trail" (OK, byte trail) of opinion rather than argue the same issues over and over on the project page.
 * 2) David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Not at all. Neutrality 00:53, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) There's a new poll every few months? Doublethink
 * 6) theresa knott 22:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Exploding Boy 15:08, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Voting = compassion for the community.  Heh, "byte trail".  -- Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  15:52, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Why would you be voting if you're tired of it? Wikipedia won't be any the worse if you skip a vote every so often. :) Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

self-nominate once; other comments on time lag
I would propose that users only be allowed to self-nominate once. If they are not accepted, they can then await nomination by another user.

It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for us to ask the nominator to wait for a month before making further nominations after one fails. I believe that the business of nominating someone for adminship should be a more weighty one than it is presently, with a good deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the nominator, both during the vote and during a mentorship period afterwards. UninvitedCompany 01:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that if a self-nomination fails essentially because it was a self-nomination--i.e., "not enough work for a self-nomination" then one or both of two things should be allowed, notwithstanding other policy: (1) a sponsor should be able to put up the nomination again any time after the self-nomination fails, after that a one-month (or whatever) rule would apply and/or (2) during the course of voting on a self-nomination, anyone wishing to stand as a nominator or sponsor of the self-nomination should be able to declare so and move the nomination into the regular section. I haven't though out whether the votes should be wiped and the clock started again, but maybe we should consider that. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to complicate the proposed month's wait between nominations. A month's wait won't lead to disaster - David Gerard 18:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree with David. I like to keep things simple. In fact I feel that having all these different possible time periods overly complicated - but that's just me. I like everything very easy to remember. theresa knott 18:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The poll still has time to run, but it looks like a consensus is shaping up to be a month except three months for another self-nomination. That's not too complicated, I think. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Letting people self-nominate only once will lead to people previously rejected going around dropping annoying hints all over unrelated talk pages that they want to be nominated. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Change in Nomination policy
I know that this policy will probably get shot down for being too elitist, but I think it might go a long way to fixing the nomination problems. What if someone could only be nominated by an existing Administrator? When you think about it, if someone can be nominated by anyone else, there is no reason to try and self-nominate, when a sock puppet account could easily do the same thing. Ideas? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:35, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * It would be shot down as too elitist, I imagine. I think, though, that part of the point of having a nominator is that editors see who the nominator is, and this helps in itself to evaluate the nomination. If a sockpuppet does the nomination, that says a lot. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:55, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be placing restrictions on the nominator (e.g. 500 edits and 3 months as a registered user). Acegikmo1 16:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * To nominate? That seems fair. Maybe that should be the subject of another poll but let's wait for this poll to be over. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Acegikmo1 18:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * +sj +


 * I would support either of these proposals, because they would make the page much less contentious. Anyone who is likely to gain adminship should have no trouble convincing an admin to support them, so I doubt if there would be any actual change in who gets granted adminship. UninvitedCompany

I would not support only admins nominating. We would be accused of forming a cabal (I know we accused of that already but those accusations don't count because they are groundless) theresa knott 22:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there has to be some kind of filtering system in place. I, too, would oppose denying non-admins the right to nominate, but I think admins should have the power of veto.  I propose that anybody should be allowed to nominate anybody, but if five or more current admins object to a nomination, it should be nullified and the vote cancelled.  I think an objection from five admins would never happen without a good reason; this provision would be an effective filter against such joke candidates as Plato and avoid the wasteful clutter we saw on the page yesterday. David Cannon 12:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's not impose that kind of filter... it's already allowed for anyone to remove a nomination that is obviously going to fail. Plato's nom could have been removed well before it was.  However, I do think basic limitations on who can nominate others would be helpful, and would limite the abuse of having people who really want to be admins nominating everyone they work with, for in-kind support.  +sj +  17:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The idea of a certain number of opposing admins creating an automatic veto has two main problems. The first, and most important IMO, is that a few admins could overrule a majority of other admins who had voted in support.  That is contrary to the consensus guidelines currently accepted.  The second problem is using a hard-and-fast number, such as "five" in the example above.  Five admins is what percentage of the total number today?  Six months from now, five will be what percentage?  With the rapid increase in the number of admins, any hard number becomes an ever-decreasing percentage of the total number of admins.  SWAdair | Talk  04:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with this at all, why should we administrators have greater power in this reagard? If a nominee is not elegable he or she will not be voted for regardless of who nominated him. This would reduce clutter no doubt, however i think we can deal with that at the cost of getting more people to do maintenece tasks. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason   18:09, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're right. I oppose my own proposal now. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:36, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I oppose this because people should be allowed to self-nominate. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, my proposal that any nomination by someone other than an admin would be treated as a self-nom. But never mind, i think the system is fine as it is. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:49, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

The poll above
What is with this poll and all its new proposed rules? Haven't people been pointing out that "trolls love rules", and will figure out how to game them? It's pretty clear to me that the poll was prompted by attempts to use this page in a disruptive manner, not because we have serious problems with adminship nominations otherwise. Can't we simply say that obviously unqualified candidates, and those who obviously lack community support, may be removed before 7 days are up?

And what is with all this discussion that talks about self-nominations as not being "regular" nominations? This page is called Requests for a reason - it used to be quite routine for people to request their own adminship, and nominations were actually more rare. We shouldn't be treating self-nominators as second-class, just because it hasn't occurred to anyone else to nominate them yet. --Michael Snow 17:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Michael, I posted the poll, and the response seems to indicate it's useful. I'm not big on codifying every single thing, nor do I believe in adding layers of rules or bureaucracy. What I do want is some straightforward guidance from the community on what is tolerated and what is not. Trolls will always find a way of trolling, but there seems to be developing consensus for a time limit between potential trollings. The current situation where any user may remove a nomination is untenable because "obvious" means different things to different people.


 * As to self-nominations, many people do consider self-nominations "lesser." Many people do lean on their knowledge of the nominator to help them evaluate a candidate. This is just an opportunity for a respected (or hated, or unknown) to say "yes, I'm willing to put my name on this nomination as though I made the original nomination, and have the community evaluate that." In fact, perhaps it would be useful for any signed-in editor to feel free to co-sponsor (effectively show depth of support) for any nomination, to help the community evaluate potential sysops. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The idea of a nomination coming from several different users is an interesting one. It's also one I don't oppose at the moment.  Still, I feel that self-nominations should remain just that.  Can't users show depth of support by explaining why they voted in support of the candidate (or more superficially by saying "strong support")?  Acegikmo1 17:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, they could. I wouldn't discourage that one bit. But since a lot of people do consider self-nomination "lesser" (a lot say, "I would support, but for a self-nomination I want to see more...") this is an opportunity for someone to stand up and say "I should have nominated this person!" No reason we can't keep a note like "this was originally a self-nom now sponsored by..."


 * I don't want to lose sight of the fact that these are guidelines vis a vis self-noms and sponsored noms. We can all still vote anyway we please for any good or stupid reason, and we still have to demonstrate the same consensus for any nominee. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I better understand what you're proposing now. I don't oppose an ex post facto endorsement itself.  However, I think self-nominations and nominations created by another user are quite distinct.  They are different in their very genesis.  Hence, allowing a nomination to change categories seems dubious to me.  I would support allowing another user or users to endorse a self-nomination, but I think that allowing a nomination to simply change categories is a bit delusory.


 * I'm not sure what the appropriate solutiont o this would be. We could place (Endorsed) after the username heading in self-nominations, much in the way that articles on FAC are followed by (Contested) or (Uncontested).  We could create a third category for endorsed self-nominations.  But those choices seem rather political and unnecessary.  If you have any ideas other than chaning the category of the nomination, please post them.  But right now I think that simply allowing users to expound their reasons for supporting a self nomination is enough.


 * Acegikmo1 18:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If no consensus is reached on endorsing self-noms as regular nominations, I don't see any reason we couldn't look for support for your suggestion as a compromise. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have a better understanding of what the poll is for. Part of what bothers me is the way the questions are phrased - they presume in advance that a time lag is desirable, and give no option for people to actually oppose the time lag. Granted, there was some discussion before that, and a handful of people liked the idea, but you can't just assume there will be no opposition. If I oppose a time lag on principle, or even just oppose the idea of using rules to enforce a time lag, there is no way for me to vote in the poll (well, except for Question 7, I suppose). That makes the poll biased and seriously flawed.

I wouldn't mind simply adding to the guidelines a suggestion that if a nomination fails or is removed, people should consider waiting a reasonable period of time before renominating, to prevent pointless efforts. --Michael Snow 18:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No, all the poll questions have Immediately as a first choice. I don't think anyone has chosen it. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I missed that because in a grammatical sense, Immediately is not responsive to the questions posed, and I was looking for an option more like oppose. I still think that the questions are structured in a way that presume the desirability of the lag, and at least if we required professional opinion survey techniques, they'd have to be thrown out. Anyway, I've rewritten the introduction on the page so that it advises people to wait before renewing a nomination that didn't succeed the first time around. --Michael Snow 21:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this really that big an issue? I mean, does it take that much time to just constantly oppose nominations of Plato? And to remove them once they get to 0/12/0 again? Snowspinner 23:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * If that were the only thing I did at Wikipedia it wouldn't be a big deal, but with the number of polls, votes, and various requests (requests for adminship, mediation, comment) -- and actually trying to edit articles and comment on talk pages in my spare time -- it really is a problem to have to weed through the frivolous and non-serious requests. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My 2/100s of a dollar is that we spend so much time in wrangling that some guidance is a good thing. It is not enough IMHO to use a general phrase like "remove if obviously unqualified." If we can't come to a consensus on a more straightforward rule, I would advise people to quietly vote against the obviously unqualified nomination, let them sit for the seven days, then they are removed. If we consider them trolling, extensive arguments on the RfA give the trolls exactly what they want. Calling for sanctions against them (which will not happen) are icing on the cake. It's like pulling a fire alarm and then watching all the pretty trucks racing to the scene to deal with nothing.


 * Since my above scenario is unlikely to happen, I'm looking for an agreed timeframe so that there is a time period between trollings. If we combine that with being more cool toward the trollings, maybe we can get some work done. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe that one of the reasons Quickpolls failed was because of the number of rules associated with the procedure. I don't want to see RfA turn into the same overly bureaucratic type of page. Adminship is meant to be no big deal, so shouldn't RfA be no big deal as well? Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I created How to create policy perhaps as a kind of rebellion against this over-codification of the rules. I would be interested in comments. Pcb21| Pete 09:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Minumum number of supporters?
Current policy seems to be to grant adminship on the basis of the ratio of supporters to opposers. What if, say, a candidate had 2 supporters and no opposers? Would that be good enough? My personal opinion is that a candidate should have a minimum of 10 supporters. If a nomination goes through with less support than that, I believe this to be a sign that the nomination has not received enough attention, and it should stay on Requests for Adminship until the minimum is met. If you've never heard of these users before, don't just ignore them and abstain. Go explore their talk page, look up a few of their contributions. You don't need to be someone's friend or diehard fan in order to support their nomination: you just need to satisfy yourself that the person is reliable. "No big deal", remember? On the other hand, I think there is such a thing as too much support. I'm worried about these votes becoming popularity contests. I've decided that I'm not going to add my name to long lists of supporters. I don't need to voice my support for a candidate who's a clear shoo-in anyway, and doesn't need more support. From now on, I plan to vote only when: Woggly 09:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) My vote can make a difference
 * 2) I have an opinion to express in an actual debate regarding a candidate
 * 3) I have a comment or some new information to contribute
 * 4) The nomination has not aroused enough comment, in my opinion.


 * Your plans seem very sensible. As of the minimum number of supporters, it is probably best not to prescribe a hard number but rather say that the a bureaucrat should feel free to leave a note saying they are extending the vote for a day or two if the numbers seem a bit thin. Pcb21| Pete 10:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe that many voters silently follow the guidelines you have just enumerated. I have never seen a vote here draw fewer than 8 or 10 votes in the history of the page, and since there are a number of users who scrutinize all nominations closely, I doubt that approval with only a handful of votes is a practical problem. UninvitedCompany 18:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * There's no need to fix something that isn't broken. Nominations are always voted on by enough people to make it clear.  Nominations of well-known people do get more attention than nominations of less-known people, but I don't see why that's a problem either. Isomorphic 20:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necessarily a problem. However, I'm aware that in the past people have become admin with as few as four votes. I'm not saying that I feel these people have not been good admins, but it does sort of strain the meaning of "consensus" now that we've put so much emphasis on numbers. When a person attracts very few votes while others at the same time are getting dozens, I wonder why those particular users attract so little attention--when we know that a lot of people are looking at the page but so many don't want to look into that user to consider voting one way or the other. This isn't a high priority for me, but I wouldn't be upset if a minimum of 10 positive votes or so were agreed upon as a minimum. If the ten votes were not achieved in a week, we could extend for a day to see if anyone wanted to "tip the balance" to demonstrate better consensus. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * As a four-vote admin myself (admittedly, that was almost a year ago, and RFA was a much quieter place then), I think a threshold would be wise, but a looser one, perhaps, than suggested above. I would encourage bureaucrats (full disclosure -- I am one) to "seriously consider" extending a vote which has, say 6-9 supports unless the bureaucrat can see that among those support votes are several long-time trusted contributors, and that a vote only is forced to extend with less than 6.  If, say, a user with a lot of contributions on more obscure or less well-traveled topics had the support of Angela, mav, Mkmcconn, Kingturtle, Wesley, Ed Poor, and a couple of others (to select a few names from the list of people I know have been here a bit longer than me), and no opposition, I'd be in favor of promoting, and to heck with a 10 person minimum.  If I recognize one or none of the 7 names I see, it makes me more suspicious of sock puppets or groups of friends conspiring, which is about the only reason I can think of to set a minimum number of supports.  Are we comfortable with a softer rule like this?  Or does it reinforce the idea of a cabal too much?  I don't think so, but then I've always thought the cabal was a pretty stupid conjecture, and I certainly don't feel like a part of one. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. When I ran for Bureaucrat I said I wouldn't let admin nominations run for many extra days because a bureaucrat wouldn't make a decision on a close vote. However, having said that I would prefer we have understandings in place to make it necessary for bureaucrats to have to make these close decisions as little as possible. If sockpuppets are suspected to be involved, I would think someone would bring that up and that in itself would generate interest in the nomination. So without a "hard" minimum, what would you say would be a reasonable "soft" minimum that a bureaucrat could simply promote without having to get out the analysis pad? -- Cecropia | Talk 23:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10 seems reasonable to me -- if there are 10 supporters and no one's raised any objections or concerns, I can't think of a good reason to be otherwise suspicious. I'd honestly argue for a bit fewer, but I don't see any need in fighting for a number that would cause fighting.  10 seems to have a consensus here, and so I think there's no good reason to push lower to a number that might be more controversial to others (after all, I'm a bit biased, being a 4 vote admin myself :-).  Certainly, as UC noted above, few nominations, if any, have that little traffic these days. Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In an odd kind of way a 10/0/0 vote might be more indicative of a useful person to have as admin than a 40/0/0 one (so long as ability to the job and "attendance" requirements are met). The person with 40 votes is clearly known to the mainstream where we have a lot of strengths. A 10/0/0 shows the person is widely respected but swims in different pools - useful for spreading admin coverage. (I should put out that Snowspinner who has about 40 votes will regardless make a fabulous admin, I was talking about the general case) Pcb21| Pete 08:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Given the volume of participation on this page, I agree with those who say no minimum threshold is necessary. --Michael Snow 18:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

recently created admins page shows that every admin created in last 2 months had at least 12 yes votes. Andris 09:20, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Poll results
Are the results of the poll above going to affect policy and place restrictions on nominations?

Acegikmo1 19:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Which poll? The one on resubmitting nominations or on minimum votes? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about the one on resubmitting nominations. The minimum votes proposal seems like more of a discussion now, though I'm interested in whether it will have any effect as well.  Acegikmo1 19:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the way I read the poll results, most editors expect at least a one-month gap before resubmitting a nomination. The implication is, as with too-early nominations, that the renomination would garner criticism just for being early and maybe it shouldn't even be submitted until the month is up. So far, we haven't had any examples to test sentiment in a real-life setting. As to the "minimum," consensus has been that it's ultimately for a bureaucrat to figure out. It seems to me that if someone gets less than 10 votes in a week, it should be extended for a day to see if one or more editors take an interest to look at the nomination again--that way the decision can stay wholly with the voters. What do you think? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Should the one-month minimum for nominations by others and the three month minimum for self-nominations be included in the instructions on the main RFA page (under Procedures and guidelines)? I'm not sure if it would be proper to add it or whether there is a more formal procedure for implementing new policy made on the basis of a vote (or whether that vote can actually change policy).


 * I agree about the minimum number of voters being decided ultimately by a bureaucrat (with possible extention if a nomination garners less than 10 votes). But again, should this be stated explicitly on the main page?


 * Acegikmo1 20:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think, we shouldn't overregulate Wikipedia. Bureaucrats are people, and I suppose with enough IQ. The policy works, why to change it? Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree about overregulation but I don't think this is a question of changing policy, but of trying to gauge sentiment on possibly dicey situations. A word on the admin page similar to what we already have could explain to community attitude without saying you must, you can't. Maybe an opening statement like:


 * There are no hard and fast rules for posting a nomination for admin except that the nominator and candidate must be logged-in users, that is, editors with usernames. In theory someone could get a username and be nominated for admin the same day and become an admin a week later if consensus is reached that s/he should be one. In practice, however, the community has expressed the feeling, through practice, debate and polling, that many will vote against an otherwise good candidacy simply because they don't feel the user has been a Wikipedian long enough, has made enough edits, or has broad enough support. Nominators would do well to consider this sentiment before posting a nomination so that a person who may well be an excellent editor and would be a great admin is voted down simply because it was too soon.


 * and:


 * A person becomes an admin by virtue of consensus. Generally that means that almost all editors expect to see a 75% to 80% positive vote for a person to be promoted. In the event that a person has fewer than 10 positive votes total, even without opposition, a bureaucrat may extend the vote day to day to see if more editors can be encouraged to vote in order to reach clear consensus. Ultimately, the community has expressed the opinion that a Bureaucrat should make a decision in cases where it appears clear consensus for or against can't be reached, rather than leave the nomination "hanging" for an extended period of time, by examining the votes, editor comments and other material available about the candidate.


 * My direction is to express what the community finds tolerable but make it crystal clear that it is the editors who are responsible for vetting the candidates and that bureaucratic judgment is a last but possibly necessary resort. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) (P.S.: We might consider a separate page like What does the community look for in an admin? Some guidelines)

The longer we make the opening instructions (partly by piling on more rules and guidelines), the less likely it becomes that people will actually read them. Correspondingly, it also becomes less likely that any rules and guidelines we do have will actually be followed. When I rewrote these instructions earlier based on the poll, I felt it was necessary to cut and condense things considerably, and I still believe the remaining instructions are more long than is desirable. As has been eloquently argued elsewhere, Wikipedia policy is best expressed in brief, clear statements, accompanied by examples if necessary.

The pressure to keep accumulating more guidelines suggests that Cecropia may be right that a separate page is best. However, such a page is only useful for the guidelines about what people look for in an admin; it should not be used for administrative regulations related to RfA itself (i.e. nomination and removal, or quantitative guidelines for assessing vote results). Those should be kept to a minimum, and I think the general statements we already have are being used to good effect when called for. --Michael Snow 17:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I've removed around 500 words from the intro. The meaning is basically the same as it was before but now shows less signs of instruction creep. Angela. 14:11, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to an admin, but I really think someone needs to remove about 500 or 600 more. Isn't it roughly common sense that the Table of Contents should be visible upon loading the page, without scrolling down? The current intro is waaaaaay too bloated. (And Michael's right: The longer the text, the fewer people will slug through it.) Cribcage 15:09, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)