Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 40

Death of Editcountitus, usher in account age-itus
Well there's good news: Editcountitus votes seem to have died. But there's bad news, or at least bad in my mind, but obviously many people will disagree: people opposing based on account age. There seems to be two plausible reasons to oppose on these grounds: not enough experience, and 'better safe than sorry'. As for not enough experience: I believe if you can trust someone to ask before acting when they're not sure, they'll be fine. Plus adminship isn't a big deal, there's nothing to worry about. As for 'better safe than sorry' - yeah, it's also better safe than sorry if we ban every user who hasn't been here since 02. Every adminly activity can be undone instantly and none can cause enough damage to really worry about, excepting image deletions. But I figure if you're gonna spend 3 months just to delete some images, you wouldn't have too much trouble waiting yet another three months, but can you really picture someone putting in 3000 edits just to vandalize like that? Adminship is no big deal, and even if a user only has rights for a month, and uses em well, and then runs off... Wikipedia still had that much help (referring back to the lazy admin thread). Really, why not set two year standards? RFA's can be stressful enough, this just contributes and I never find it a valid reason to expect someone to wait 8 or 10 months. sorry for the rant R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Raw edit count is not a good or accurate way to guage how trustworthy someone is; how long they have been around definitely is -- particularly when taken in conjunction with the answer to the question - "has this done anything to suggestion (s)he is not trustworthy". &rarr;Raul654 23:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My problem is drawing the line way too far ahead, like 6, 8, or even 12 months. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, like the people whining about editcountitus likely wouldn't want someone with 40 edits to be an admin. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we can all keep citing the mantra "adminship is not a big deal" but the obvious fact is that it's not a small deal either. We're just not sure of the exact size of the deal. And since admin candidates are held to higher standards than admins themselves, it doesn't hurt to be careful. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It hurts if someone gets so annoyed they run off... and I had to laugh at the candidates are held to higher standards than the actual admins. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's bad if people leave (or indeed, get angry) over a failed RFA. However, it is fact that candidates are held to higher standards. A nomination can fail over a recent incivility, or lack of edit summaries - and reactions are scant if admins are uncivil or lack edit sums. For instance. So it seems that a nom is a bigger deal than the actual adminship. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing though, but the dichotomy is funny. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I explained my main point, or even mentioned it (heh <_<): The problem I have with this is the same as the problem I had with editcountitus. I get annoyed when people judge someone based on ONE criteria. How about you pay attention to some other merits, it's truly infuriating. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I entirely agree with that. I was surprised to read (above here) that someone thought we once had a requirement for admin candidates to have made a featured article, when this in fact was a sole person's criterion (who stopped using it after some people pointed out what was wrong with it). Wise words from some book I read, the penalty you pay for wanting simple answers is being wrong - consistently. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agecountitis has become the same as editcountitis in that people use it as an automatically disqualifying factor and as soon as they see that this user hasn't been around for a full year or this user has less than 1000 edits then they stop even looking to see how good of an administrator (or bureaucrat) the user might be just because they don't fit this one criteria. That's a very flawed way of looking at things and making a decision.  Jtkiefer  T - 06:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Having lost my previous RfA due to editcountis and agecountis, I know just how unfair it was. Durin helped to try and persuade users not to use these for the basis of their votes and to instead concentrate on the quality of edits. I have now applied again for adminship and Aranda56 has kindly agreed to help me out in adding my RfA since I had trouble entering it in.Wikiwoohoo 20:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We're sorry we already have enough administrators and if we voted one more up then the entire wiki would collapse seriously though, good luck on the nom. and if you don't get it this time it's probably not you it's everyone else. Jtkiefer  T - 21:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It is necessary to participate in Wikipedia for a considerable duration in order to understand the community. "The way things work around here" is not well captured by the policies, and though there are a number of resources to help with this, there is no substitute for participating. Because many Wikipedia processes inherently take days or weeks -- AfD, RFA, featured articles, and the very process of consensus editing itself -- high levels of activity alone are insufficient. Unlike using edit counts, using duration of participation doesn't reward any unwanted behaviors (such as serial edits) and is difficult to game. It also takes to to judge someone's editing style and style of engagement with the community. I have long used six months as a guide, though in some cases I'll support a little sooner. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I would also add editsummaritis - I saw one candidate fail mainly because of using only 60% of edit summaries, and another is deep trouble for that. Renata3 13:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * While no "-itus" (so no editcountitis, no agecountis, no editsummaritis and certainly no vote-recorditis) should play a significant role in RfA's, I think editsummaries ARE important, for both other editors and RC patrollers. Since admins are often viewed by the newbies as 'role models', they should try to set a good example. I would never vote against someone for just a lack of editsummaries, but I can imagine it could play a role in determining a vote. --JoanneB 13:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Joanne. They are one part of my vote not a clincher in themselves. Summaries show the conscientiousness I expect of admins and help others watching a page. Marskell 13:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

They are important, I suppose, but I think those who vote oppose becuase of a lack of edit summaries are either being lazy (and not looking beyond the surface) or are just looking for a reason to vote no. Being an admin is no big deal, so why would someone vote oppose for that reason? Just bring it up as a piece of advice in your support or neutral vote (if you feel THAT strong about it), but don't vote oppose because of it. Looks petty.Gator (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Or, you know, people who don't bother with them are being lazy. As a watchlist starts to bloat edit summaries become more and more helpful. Marskell 14:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with JoanneB, but it's more than that. The use of edit summaries is often indicative of an editor's attitude towards WP guidelines and policies. There is a strong correlation between someone's ability and willingness to follow Edit summary and their adherence to other WP standards. It is no coincidence that many admins named in RfCs for civility also have poor edit summaries.
 * At my job, I often reject candidates based on the fact that their resume is riddled with typos or poorly formatted. This is not because the prospective engineer's job would include a lot of prose writing or copyediting, but because an engineer who can't be bothered to proofread their resume will often exhibit the same attitude on the job as well. Use of edit summaries is a "marker" associated with the ability and willingness to follow our policies, guidelines, and common practices&mdash;all crucial for a successful admin. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but on a scale of 1 -10 of importance in my decision to vote to support or oppose, that's a 3. Much more important things.Gator (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

RFBs
I am sometimes a little bit at loss with the bureaucratship self-nominations. It really seems to be a matter of anyone's guess whether we "need" more bureaucrats, and self-nominations hardly seem motivated by pity towards the overworked existing bureaucrats so much as guided by thinking of these ranks as some sort of hierarchy in the community. I would propose some sort of nomination system similar to RFA. According to Bureaucrats, we have 11 active ones. I never hear about them having an unmanageable backlog. If they do, let them announce that they could do with another member. My suspicion is that 11 is already more than we really need. If at some point we decide to give bureaucrats additional powers, such as usercheck, we may need more, because they will have more duties, but all the more carefully should candidates be selected. So, my suggestion is really that we recommend that before you nominate yourself for bureaucratship, you get in touch with one of the bureaucrats and inquire about their workload, do they think another bureaucrat would make sense, and would they support your nomination. dab (&#5839;) 09:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the harm is in having more since as I've said several times (nobody seems to have read anything I wrote on my RFB and apparently don't seem to care what I think) there will be a larger workload in the future that should be accomdated now rather than later, more users = more RFA's, also hopefully the devs will be able to fix the issues with renameuser which when enabled would need a constant group to work on requests as to keep minimum time between the request being made and processed. I for the life of me don't understand yours and others exabureaucratiphobia (an irrational fear of excess bureaucrats) since like RFA there shouldn't be a limit to the number of bureaucrats and I for the life of me don't see why people are afraid of electing new bureaucrats.  Jtkiefer  T - 10:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record the bureaucrats likely won't get checkuser rights. In a somewhat controversial move, the arbcom decided to give half of their number checkuser rights. See Requests_for_permissions for the discussion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * that's great then. checkuser was only meant as an example of a possible increased bureaucrat portfolio in the future; jtk, I am not "afraid" of bureaucrats, I simply don't see why we should elect any if we don't need them. You say that bureaucrats should be elected now because there may be an increased workload in the future. This is very well, I just don't happen to share that impression. Most of the time, bureaucrats just do 'menial work', but every now and again, a bureaucrat needs to make a controversial decision (75% 'consensuses' with many sockpuppety votes and much mudslinging). I have always been happy with our acting bureaucrats' decisions, and I like to elect bureaucrats with care, so that people may remain happy with their future decisions. For the life of me (not quite) I don't see why you must be a bureaucrat at this point, and why you seem to take it as a personal rebuke if people tell you "thanks, jtk, but we'd like to see you be an admin for some more time first, even if we thought we needed more bureaucrats". This is nothing personal, not even in the abstract sense of 'personal' current of Wikipedia. I would not have voted support in this case even if I thought your admin record was spotless. But the above suggestion was intended to be independent of the present case; I said that I would be more willing to support future candidates if they had an active bureaucrat backing up their nomination. dab (&#5839;) 11:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (copied from the RfB): I'm going to chip in my two cents here to this discussion, given that I've opposed the two recent RfBs based mainly on the issue above. Bureaucratship is vastly different from adminship, and parallels between the two should be taken cautiously. While adminship "isn't a big deal" (the often referred clichè by now), bureaucratship is a big deal. We only have a handful of bureaucrats (22, I think?), and all of them are highly regarded users that we have absolute trust in. While I'm not saying that we don't trust you, all of the bureaucrats (if I remember correctly from last time) had significantly more than three months of adminship under their belts and the vast majority had been on Wikipedia for more than the amount of time you have been here. You were granted admin rights August 29; it is less than three months since you were granted adminship. Time, while certainly not the sole factor to be taken into account, is a huge factor in bureaucratships. Time shows commitment to the project, and our bureaucrats should show the highest level of commitment to the project. Time allows us to adequately analyze a bureaucratship candidate, and time can often distinguish good men from great men. Bureaucratship is a big deal, and we must not let our standards slip &mdash; it is an elite position that should only be granted to those that have proven their trustworthy-ness. Those that stick with the project, through rough times and good times, often prove themselves worthy of bureaucratship. Time is the greatest test that candidates face. In addition, we must also draw on past precedents &mdash; is it really fair to apply different standards to bureaucratship candidates when there has been little change in the way bureaucrats work? Combined with the fact that there is no pressing need for more bureaucrats (though I would never oppose solely on such grounds), I must oppose your candidacy. Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 14:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is long stading practice on wikipedia that we don't do anything until we have exusted the option of doing nothing. I assume this applies to getting more buracrats.Geni 15:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, the working pays off in the long run but laziness pays off now approach. Jtkiefer  T - 19:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * when it comes to the manageing side it appears to work on wikipedia for the most part.Geni 20:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well you can all begin your party now, I withdrew my nomination. Jtkiefer  T - 20:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We haven't exusted the option of not haveing a party.Geni 21:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't blame you if you did, it seems that there are at least a few editors who are violently opposed to me ever becoming a bureaucrat and then there's an entire group who are strongly opposed to us having any more bureaucrats ever. I don't see why we don't just remove the instructions for requesting it then if everyone is so against us ever have any more bureaucrats.  Jtkiefer  T - 21:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a real problem with expecting a user to edit for around a year before being made a bureaucrat. We have over 600 admins and about 20 bureaucrats. It's never been easy to become a bureaucrat and I just don't see a compelling reason why that should change. There's no backlog on RfA and username changes are often disabled. I'm puzzled by users becoming annoyed when they've only been here a few months and their RfB fails. It doesn't mean they're a bad user or admin; it just means that the community doesn't (yet) judge them to be among the 3% of admins who are promoted to bureaucrat. Carbonite | Talk 22:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I share the same feelings as Carbonite. As I stated above, time is definitely an important factor for such a big deal as bureaucratcy. RfB candidates shouldn't take those votes personally. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah but should it be one that overreaches all overs and makes all other criteria irrelevant? Jtkiefer  T - 23:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Trust is the criteria that overshadows all others. It's very difficult to determine trust based on a few months as an admin. Time is important because it's something that can't be inflated or distorted (unlike edit counts). I obviously don't think we should have strict time standards, such that a user who's been on Wikipedia for 366 days passes an RfB while one with 364 days fails. Since every voter has different ideas of time standards, opposition on the basis of insufficient time will decrease as the candidate's tenure increases. In general, the opposition is high when the candidate has edited for less than one year. Again, keep in mind that a candidate in an RfB is claiming to be one of the top 3% most trusted admins on Wikipedia. It takes time to prove such a claim. Carbonite | Talk 00:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is it's become more of an elite status position than one based on the interests of Wikipedia. I don't think there's any administrators I wouldn't also trust as bureaucrats, and there's no reason for people not to be promoted. I tried running for the position a year ago on a campaign of it not being a big deal, without success. Since then the situation has only worsened, and getting in is more a matter of winning a popularity contest then actually being a trusted editor. The only reason people have trouble accepting a new bureaucrat is because there's so few at present that adding new one comes across as a very "big deal". I find this in direct contradiction to the attitudes that makes wikis work so effectively in the first place. Sarge Baldy 00:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, both adminship and bureaucratship have become fairly elitist (I'm probably one of the few admins who will actually admit it) and I don't know if there's a way to reverse that trend. Jtkiefer  T - 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * People keep saying to let the bureaucrats ask for help: Well, if you check my bureaucratic nom, you'll see Nichalp conominating, and Nichalp is a bureaucrat, that is if I recall correctly. ;-) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, the issue is simply one of time. Redwolf24, I opposed your RfB for the same reason I opposed Jtkiefer: time and nothing more. Many users have stated in this discussion their feeling that a user should be with the project a significant amount of time before being granted Bureaucratic rights, and I fully agree with that. Even if the Bureaucrats were clamoring for more colleagues (which they are not), I would still have opposed both of you, because neither of you meet my time criteria, and I will oppose any nomination that does not (for the record, I'm looking for ten months to a year). You are both great editors and great administrators, but Bureaucrats should have been with the project long enough to gain a strong sense of perspective, having observed and watched the Wiki grow and develop as they grow and develop as editors. Personally, I hope that adminship is not elitist. In my mind, we need all the good administrators we can get, so I feel that granting of administrator rights should be liberal, but that granting of Bureaucratic rights should be very conservative. Evilpheonix
 * To be honest, I sometimes wonder why anyone wants to become a bureaucrat. Given the amount of scrutiny and high standards they are subject to, they really can't do an awful lot more than regular admins. I really was surprised when I found out that all they can do was promote admins. It's an important job to be sure, and one requiring great responsibility, but I really do feel they should be given more to do (eg. desysopping)Raven4x4x 12:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There has been discussion of that but it hasn't gone anywhere since desysopping is extremely rare and can only be done at the order of Arbcom, Jimbo, or the almighty Wikimedia Board and only a handful of users have ever had to be desysopped. Jtkiefer
 * Yes, but remember Wonderfool at wiktionary? What if someone did that here? What's easier to find, a bureaucrat, who's been watching, and knows what's going on, or a steward at meta who has to go and confirm there's been abuse while it continues? Wonderfool didn't do that much damage, considering there's not even that many admins there to revert him, but there are a handful of admins here who know where all the most important MediaWiki pages are, and could easily screw up wikipedia a lot, which is why I think bureaucrats should be able to desysop, just to stop the people in mid-tantrum. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You've piqued my interest, but I can't find anywhere on Wiktionary as to what Wonderfool actually did. You're right that an admin could do an awful lot of damage, and I'd have thought it obvious that we need some way to remove those that cause problems. Please tell me that there is something to stop a rogue admin unprotecting then deleting the main page? I'd hate to think what that would do.
 * I also seem to remember hearing somewhere that blocked admins are able to unblock themselves. Does anyone else think this is a really bad system? Raven4x4x 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * you are talking as if we have never had a rogue admin on wikipedia. We have. They were deadmined by a developer in extreamly short order. As for deleting the front page you are aware that an admin acidentialy managed to perform a pagemove on it recenty?Geni 17:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No I wasn't aware of that, but I think I can imagine the effects. How recently was it (I've only been here since July). If you got the impression that I thought there had never been a rogue admin on wikipedia, it's because I don't know of any specific cases as I probably haven't been around long enough to run into any. That's the reason why I'm interested in this sort of thing; I'd like to know how bad the possable consequences would be so I can make up my mind on policy and the like. Raven4x4x 00:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, the Main Page move event happened because the new admin was trying to impress someone with a demo of "How easy it is to edit on Wikipedia", temporarily stepped away to answer the phone, and returned to learn that the innocent user had actually pressed the buttons to move the Main Page. The side effect was that this potential new user will NEVER edit Wikipedia again, for fear of screwing things up again. This is documented in the archives of the Main Page from last month or so. --Ancheta Wis 18:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have wondered the same thing for a long time now. Why on Earth would anyone want to be a bureaucrat? Becaming a bureaucray is far more difficult than becoming an admin. All you have to do to become an admin is be on Wikipedia for a few months and don't vandalise. To become a bureaucrat, OTOH, you have to become familiar with many other recurring Wikipedians, be active at being an admin, and participate in Wikipedia community functions. And what do you get for becoming a bureaucrat? The ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats. That's it. Really, nothing more. Admins, OTOH, get three powerful new toys: deleting pages, protecting pages, and blocking other Wikipedians. I have asked this question before on the Help Desk, and someone said that perhaps I would want to become a steward, but I don't think I do. Becoming a steward is even harder than becoming a bureaucrat, and all you get is the ability to set arbitrary user rights. &mdash; J I P | Talk 20:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To help the project maybe, to be there in case more people are needed for the job especially since as it is if for some reason one or two of the few bureaucrats who stalk RFA are unavailable or god forbid leave the project either temporarily or permanently having extra is better than having too few so the question I have to ask in response is why are people so afraid of having a few more bureaucrats especially since even the staunchest critics of having more bureaucrats admit that only on a rare occasion have never really had an administrator who has gone an administrator who has completely rogue and only a few who have ever even had to be desysopped (Stevertigo's the latest) and that the chances of having a bureaucrat go rogue are tinier then the biggest troll's :). Jtkiefer T  00:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your reply was rather hard to parse, as the sentences seem to run on from each other. I'm not afraid of having more bureaucrats, I think there should be more of them. I just don't want to be one myself as I see it's too much of a hassle. &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing Pile On Nominations
I've brought this up numerous times before, and have always been told that it's not my right, but I'm removing PHDrillSergeant's nomination. If PHDrill or a bureaucrat chooses to overrule me, then fine. But I think common sense is the best route to take in this case. Ac e  tic  ' Acid  03:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Endorse R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There was a discussion a few weeks ago and "About RfA" was altered (by myself without complaint) to clarify de-listings by non-'crats: vandalism, improper formatting, declined or withdrawn. While the pile-ons may have an absolutely predictable outcome, it still qualifies as a non-'crat making a decision about consensus. Marskell 14:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought there was some agreement on the idea of a trial of instead of totally de-listing a pile-on nomination, you simply replace the tranclusion with a simple link. That way, if the nominee wants it to stay open (for comments on what they could do better or something), it is, but doesn't take up too much space on the page, but if they want to withdraw, then delist totally. I know a few people had said they thought it was an okay. -- LV (Dark Mark)  14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember two or three people sounded enthusiastic when I proposed that. We can try that for PHDrillSergeant, or wait for the next case. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That way, even if they were a self-nom who realised that they had not much of a shot, but still wanted to learn what they could do better, they could still have it open, but just not so prominently displayed. -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And it upholds the principle: no decision on consensus (however obvious it seems) unless you are a crat. No one can simply remove a nomination. Marskell 22:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless they withdraw. -- LV (Dark Mark)  20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless they withdraw--but removing a withdrawal is not a decision regarding consensus. That's part of the point. Marskell 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Before, I recommended giving users the option of voting for 'remove nomination', in especially bad cases. Of course, I was referring mainly to users with only a few score edits, not necessarily to Dr Sergeant

No, it's not about a non-crat determining consensus. We say that in the case of it being 70/25/0 and some jerk calls it failed. It's up to a bureaucrat to determine consensus, but consensus isn't a factor when the guy's 0/6/0 and he has like 70 edits. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed - the need to avoid forest fires is a more important need than the need to defer to a bureaucrat on cases that a monkey could figure out. Phil Sandifer 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * haha R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When we have at least one bureaucrat one hand 24 hours a day, by all means stop non-crats from delisting. Unfortunately, we only have about what, 17 bureaucrats still at wikipedia? and how many of them watch RFA? R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the link rather than a total de-listing as LV suggested? As far how many crats which RfA, I should hope all of them when they're logged in. Marskell 09:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A link? Why? People will still follow and oppose, and oppose reasons are VERY rarely constructive criticism, unless you think advice on when to run again is constructive. And re: bureaucrats again... Yes, we have a watchlist, but we don't have a giant NEW EDIT TO WATCHLISTED ITEM! banner like we do for talk pages. EVEN IF WE DID, they wouldn't notice it because we don't edit RFA, we edit RFA/Foo. We'd be lucky if the bureaucrats checked this page once an hour, and look at WP:BUR. Our bureaucrats are no longer our most active people, most of them have been less active than they once were (with a few exceptions) which again would probably be a reason I recommend more bureaucrats as there seems to be a decline in activity for most (not all) of them. The inactive bureaucrats were also very active at one point, but just slowed down. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A link for procedural integrity. If it's not vandalism and it's not withdrawn it lasts a week and consensus is decided by a bureacrat, end of story. They watch it enough to close two or three a day now and if they feel a pile on is particularly egregious they can always end it. And what, really, is going to make a newbie feel worse, coming back and seeing twelve "come back in two months" comments or noticing that their self-nom has been arbitrarily removed? Marskell 15:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And we should try to let nominees clearly going to fail know that withdrawal is a possibility. Recommend that they withdraw, but don't remove RfA completely. What if they want to keep it open? -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a neverending debate. It keeps cropping up, over and over and over again. Right now, the RfAs for Guanaco, KuatofKDY, Halibutt, and Niz are all failing badly. Why haven't they been removed and others do get removed? Where do you draw the line? --Durin 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The line should be when it is certain that a nomination is in bad faith, it is clearly WP:POINT, or the nominator asks for it to be withdrawed. Add a line to the instructions indicating that nominees have the right to withdraw a nomination if they feel it is going awry. Tito xd (?!?) 17:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Titoxd, lets give them the withdraw option, unless it is just a silly nomination, such as a two day editor running for admin. Voice of  All T 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In line with this, I have removed the line about nominations "clearly" failing can be removed. If it is re-inserted at least add with candidate's permission. Ultimately, I don't think it's needed because it already states withdrawn noms can be removed based on my earlier change. Marskell 11:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral, until you answer my new question...
I've noticed something of a trend in recent RfA's, where an voter will vote "Neutral, until you answer my new question(s)", accompanied by the posting of some number of new questions in the comments section (in Ianblair23's RfA, for example, Aaron Brenneman posted 5 such questions). For some reason, I find myself irked by such statements - as though the voter is demanding that the nominee jump through an extra hoop just for that voter. Additional questions may be appropriate, but I feel a more polite thing would be to just ask the questions, and then vote neutral without putting a condition on your vote. Obviously an editor who asks a question is looking to clear up some point that may effect their vote (and perhaps others). BD2412 T 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I do not see the problem. If the user does not feel like answering, the vote will simply remain neutral, which by definition does not hurt or help a user's chances. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it does become an issue when people say oppose until the person answers the questions. Jtkiefer  T - 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Seconded. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would hope that bureaucrats would ignore oppose votes made for this reason. Guanaco 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral votes are generally ignored by bureaucrats. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But not oppose votes. Guanaco 02:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I stangely feel the need to defend myself here. This user's contributions were extensive due to the nature of the area they focused on.  I found it very difficult to seperate out anything that showed more about what this guy was about, so after looking over like 3K contributions I posted some questions in the comments section, and made a note on the user's talk page saying "take your time".  When he really took his time, I then placed my name under "neutral" with the comment "Just waiting."  I'm not sure what the problem with this is, and I'd hope that other voters would pay attention to the answers (or lack thereof) to questions as well, so this isn't about "just [...] that voter".  brenneman (t) (c)  06:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, well you probably feel the need to defend yourself because I (rather unfairly) singled you out as an example, since yours was the most recent instance. And you did ask five questions. Actually, I commend you for quickly adjusting your vote to the responses once the questions were answered - I am irked even more when a voter votes "neutral [or opposed] until nominee does x", and then nominee promptly does x, and then the voter who made the demand seems not to notice for a day or two. I probably wouldn't even be complaining about these kinds of questions at all but for that aggravating factor. BD2412  T 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't you just ask the nominee on their talk page and not worry about adding it to the RfA? -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't see anything especially wrong with it as long as the question is meant in good faith (no "will you agree to completely stop editing any article related to your primary area of interest" like I saw a while back, or "why are you such a jerk" or something silly like that). If a question gives an admin a chance to address something which is clearly a significent factor in their RfA, then it can only be a good thing; heck, it's certainly better than voting based on editcountitis or so forth.  And, remember, the asking of a constructive question itself shows a level of trust for the candidate, since an untrustworthy candidate would just give whatever answer they thought was wanted and then forget about it the instant the RfA was closed. I think RfAs are supposed to be discussions, not just up-or-down votes; extra questions are one of the few things currently done that works towards this. (That said, there are limits, and I think the five questions recently asked of Mongo go over that...  despite the "briefly", they seem to basically be asking him to write an essay.  I have no problem with "what would you do if..." or "would you recuse yourself from/allow your views on X to influence..." type questions directly related to adminship things, though, when they relate to things that are clearly already significent factors in an RfA proceeding.)  --Aquillion 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well of course some questions would be appropriate, but where is the limit? If 20 people all want to ask an additional question, is that okay? I just see some questions that really could be answered on a talk page, not the RfA page. -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The first thing that came to my mind here was that I might have a problem if someone changed a neutral vote to a oppose solely because the nominee didn't answer the question(s). I suppose a question might be offered as a way for the nominee to answer an objection that would otherwise result in a oppose vote. It just seems like a neutral vote is like holding a vote hostage in some cases. I don't generally find neutral votes very useful. Rx StrangeLove 17:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rx StrangeLove's statement that he doesn't think neutral votes are useful in general, with a caveat. I think neutral votes are not particularly useful, unless they can be read as "undecided." Stipulating what exactly makes you undecided, or what you'd need to see to make a decision, can at least tell the nominee what that person would like to see answered. I don't think it's necessarily bad, then, to pose a question and say "neutral until I see the answer to this question," although I suppose it's all in the phrasing -- how you say something can be as important as what you say when it comes to ruffling feathers. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I may be over-reacting - but it's a peeve. BD2412 T 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why no mention of the Comments section? It's there for a reason--post questions in it (of course questions aren't actually comments, but you know what I mean...). I did two days ago and got a response. Marskell 20:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Chart showing growth of RfA nominations
--Durin 21:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice. Did you research the success ratio too? &mdash; David Remahl 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Durin, where do you come up with that stuff? Excellent. Also, in addition to the possible comparison to success rate, how does it stack up to the volume increase of registered editors over time....more work for you:)--MONGO 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to compare the number of successful nominations with 30+ support votes or find the average number of support voters per nomination per month? That would be some interesting data... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, this would be even more interesting if you could compare the rate of nominations with the rate of Wikipedia's user growth. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's the data I collect; Nominee, nominator, date of nomination, # of edits, # of article edits, date of first edit, # of support votes, # of oppose votes, # of neutral votes, close status as successful/unsuccessful/withdrawn. Most of this data from June 23 through October 6 is available. I don't maintain that page though; it's a real pain to generate automatically, and I don't want to do it by hand for obvious reasons. I do also maintain information over time on the number of admins, number of users, number of articles, the number of total pages, and number of edits. My data on this does not cover the same time period; I started keeping that set of data in August rather than June. I think doing comparisons based on admins vs. # of users is not a good idea. There is, I believe, a very significant subset of accounts which have been banned as socks, etc. One user could be responsible for a LOT of accounts. I think a better measure is admin growth compared to # of edits growth. Preliminary data on this, which I have been analyzing, suggests that we're maintaining the status quo; roughly 140-150 edits per day, per admin. Of course, we don't know how many admins are actually "active" in vandal fighting. I've thought about various ways in which to get a rough estimate of that, and may snapshot that variable from time to time. But, right now I don't have that data. I could make charts on all or most of the requests above. If you guys can kinda merge requests it'd be easier though :) What do you most want to see? --Durin 02:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous votes
Special:Contributions/208.1.137.98 -- this anonymous user has been adding apparent nonsense votes and decievingly signing them as " User:Dubya ". Coffee 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed his votes and placed a notice on his talk page. --Durin 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Judging by his/her comments on Rx StrangeLove's talk page I doubt it will make much of a difference. Jtkiefer T  19:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But, better to treat neutrally first. I've seen vandals turn around and become productive editors. --Durin 19:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course and hopefully he/she will create an account and become a productive editor including voting on RFA's. Jtkiefer T  20:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to have an issue with Tony (he started an article about him, since speedied). Probably not a long term issue. Rx StrangeLove 20:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably not but still something to keep an eye on. Jtkiefer T  20:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Check User Status
Is there anywhere on English Wikipedia where I can request this sockpuppet check feature? Voice of  All T 21:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Due to the new policy, only the ArbCom has the ability to set who is a CheckUser, and there were 5 CheckUsers just promoted, so I doubt it is possible right now. Tito xd (?!?) 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The assignment of CheckUser rights on en is the sole responsibility of the Arbitration Committee. At the moment, the Committee is not currently looking for additional people to give CheckUser rights to; if and when the Committee feels that more are needed, the Committee will (presumably) recruit additional candidates by whatever means it feels are appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Basing Votes
There are some votes I have noticed that are based on people's feelings towards each other, like "wikifriends" would support other "wikifriends" even if they would completely abuse powers, and people that are "wikienemies" would not support even if the user nominated was God(just using as example, if you don't believe in God then make what I'm saying whatever you want) him/her(some people say her, who? I don't know)self, they would still not support their RfA based on the fact that they dislike the user. I'm wondering if these votes should be counted or are the reasoning behind them wrong enough not to count them? Fahrenheit  Royal  e  19:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Users are welcome to choose their own stanards - always have and always will. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I know what we should do. We should discount the votes of anyone who's reasoning we a)disagree with b)think is wrong or c)generally don't like so much. Then, we can ask for people to submit their votes to this talk page for vetting before making them to ensure they will not find themselves ignored. That way, anybody who feels a bit miffed by the vote won't have to try to think of a new rule for why it should be ignored. They can just veto it outright. That'll fix it. RfA does not need any restrictions, and attempts to impose them will harm the process. If we are not free to control how we hand out admin powers, then the process of doing so will be meaningless. Why impose censorship here but nowhere else?. -Splash talk 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would vote for God. Really, I'd just vote for him without looking at contrib's. God wouldn't have to convince me. It's no big deal right—being an admin? But it's a super big deal—being God. So I'd just vote for him. I don't have any wikifriends, but he'd be, like, my first one. Marskell 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would oppose God, for being too unilateral. (Not to mention the fact that he's reluctant to help those in trouble...) -Splash talk 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - per RfA chiche #1. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 22:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - does not respond to email in timely fashion FreplySpang (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, God appears to be registered to AOL. Martin 23:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was just wondering because I think its just unfair to the person running if they get oppose votes just because a group doesn't like them. But alright, I understand. Fahrenheit   Royal  e  23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In the end, the final decision is made by the bureaucrat who promotes the candidate. If the bureaucrat decides that all of the oppose votes are worthless, he/she can do that. Of course, if he doesn't have a good reason, they may not stay a bureaucrat for long ;) I support God by the way, because I'm Jesus &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  03:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support God via St Anselm's principles of what's good. Celestianpower is a good admin. God is the greatest Celestian Power, therefore he'd have to be a greater admin that a standard Celestianpower. God would therefore be an excellent admin. QED. Grutness...wha?  07:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, God is the greatest Celestial power. Celestian isn't a word :) --Cel e stianpower hablamé 17:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * True. Fahrenheit   Royal  e  19:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Promoted even if nomination is not accepted
Can an editor be voted and promoted even if he doesn't want the job? There is a very senior member in fact pioneer of one of the groups here but is just happy being an editor. Metaphor: A policeman has to have a badge to do his work. The Janitor has to be apointed. I'm just asking. --Jondel 05:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Any even if they could be they could ask to be deadmined over at meta.Geni 05:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuh. I 'm sure he'd win by a landslide in elections. Just that he'll say no.--Jondel 05:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't vote for someone who said he/she didn't want to be an admin. —Cleared as filed. 05:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be imposing. Although he does a lot of the dirty work already.--Jondel 06:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that nominations aren't put onto the voting page until the nominee has accepted, so the answer's no. In any case, it would be an insult to the nominee for the nominator to say "I don't care if you don't want the job, I'm nominating you anyway". Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gruntness; while nominating someone without asking them would be rude, nominating someone you knew didn't want to be an admin would be a massive breach of the WP:CIVIL policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * there's that extra N again... sigh. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, sorry about that. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * S'aright. My fault for having a silly user name (it's a place in Scotland, BTW). Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  08:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're just accustomed to your air of grunting ;) --Durin 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And he is often one to take on the grunt work (as opposed to Grunt work)... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * :) Back to the discussion's topic, folks! Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally think people shouldn't be promoted to admins against their will. I just can't see any reason for it. I've nominated two people for adminship who declined the nomination, and that's fine with me. If someone is promoted to admin against their will, they could drop a quick note to a steward or a developer asking to be de-adminned immediately. &mdash; <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 20:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Respect others' wishes, I think. If they don't want it, then don't give it to them. If I offered you a coffee, and you didn't want it, would you like it if I forced it upon you? Enochlau 22:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually if coffee was forced upon me I'd just drink it so they'd leave me alone. But yeah, if they don't want it, they don't get it, it is very simple stuff. Quentin   Pierc  e  05:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

While "only the true admin would deny!", or the image of Speaker of the House of Commons being dragged with real or feigned reluctance to the chair, both appeal, I don't think it would be practical. For one thing, it would effectively preclude getting meaningful answers to the standard questions, even if refusal to accept the nomination in the first instance doesn't itself imply "if elected I will not serve". Alai 21:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)