Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 49

Wording
The page currently says "Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably as showing initiative and desire to serve the community". Really? Is there anyone who actually views a self nom more favourably than a nom from another established, trusted user? I think that sentence should be reworded, maybe replacing "view them more favorably" with something like "welcome self-nominations"? --kingboyk 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is ambiguous, but what is probably meant is "Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably than the people applying higher standards to them as showing initiative and desire to serve the community" --Joann e B 09:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know one person at least who prefers selfnoms to those nominated by others, and she usually makes a point of mentioning it... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Free cookies and extra bishpoints for the selfnoms! Wikipedia is not a snooty country club where you need to know people in the know to have the effrontery to apply for adminship. I will admit that some frivolous or trolling selfnoms have been known to bring the good-faith selfnoms into disrepute, but I can recall seeing quite a few frivolous or trolling or meatpuppet, or just abysmally ill-judged, other-noms, too. Wait, whether to link to some cases of each, now... nah. But if you follow RFA, you've seen them too. Bishonen | ノート 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your explanation, if you put it that way it makes quite a bit of sense. I think my senses had been blurred by a couple of self noms from people that were not nearly ready for it... I never let it affect my voting though, in neither direction. Hm. Couldn't you have told me about the cookies involved in self-nominations before I became in admin? ;-) --Joann e B 16:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, I self-nommed myself a while back (and made it in, too!). Where are my cookies? ::stomps foot and demands cookies:: —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I self-nomed on the mailing list and whined my way in. My cookies are 3 years overdue :\ :P &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have actually gone so far as to propose in one evil poll somewhere that only self-noms should be allowed. Plenty of people seem to view nominating others as some sort of fun hobby, and often their decisions regarding "qualification" are based on nothing more than editcounting, for all I can tell. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * When it was suggested that the self-nom section be gotten rid of and merged into the ordinary-noms a number of months ago, I suggested that we get rid of the other section. I don't think people thought I was particulatly serious... -Splash talk 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you get cookies if your self-nom fails? -- D -Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 16:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've nothing against self-noms at all, initiative is good. Indeed I was all but ready to self-nom myself but user:Phaedriel offered to nom me. I just wondered if the wording could be improved to reflect what I saw as the current situation. Maybe I was wrong :) --kingboyk 09:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Masssiveego and voting
I understand the current policy for voting, and while I'm all for contructive criticism if it's fair, I don't believe this user has made any significant contributions to RFAs apart from simply undermining the whole system. I've checked his contributions and he's voted about 20 times today, and only supported one candidate.

Now while I can't see anything he's done is actually against the rules, I do believe that adopting such an attitude as to vote Oppose to everybody could be considered informal voting. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions towards a possible resolution? mdmanser 11:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the same pattern s/he was doing a while back. I'll look for the link to the discussion on that in which my same complaint about this editor was essentially swept under the table.--MONGO 12:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Original comments...--MONGO 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 45. I figure the 'crats have this well-covered since his 'voting' pattern sticks out considerably more than a sore thumb. -Splash talk 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse we do keep a tab. :) Remember Boothy? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have always been bemused at the attention the routine oppose voters get, and the lack of attention the routine support voters get, and there are quite a few who support almost 100% of the candidates they vote on. A Community standard really does include the entire spectrum of voters, including the perma-support and the perma-oppose voters. I am closer to the perma-support voters, but would not want to discount any legitimate voter. There could come a time when RfAs are treated like RfBs and a cabal decides that we have enough admins and vote consistently to block all but the most excellent candidates. One never knows... NoSeptember   talk  17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference though...There are thousands upon thousands of tasks available to Administrators that need doing. One could literally make administering Wikipedia their job, do nothing but Administrative tasks a hours a day all week, and that would barely be a drop in the bucket of Administrative work to be done (and a very un-lucrative career path to boot). Bureaucrats on the other hand, have only RfA, Username changes, and recently apparently bot flagging. There is simply not that much Bureaucratic work to be done, and there is simply not much clamoring on the part of Bureaucrats that they're swamped with work and need the backup. Admins however, are very needed. Wikipedia can never have enough good Admins. I don't think you'll see they day where we say we have too many Admins. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 06:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I favor judging it on a case by case basis. It seems silly to oppose every nomination or support every nomination without judging the nom based on its merits. But if Masssiveego wants to oppose every nom, I don't have a huge problem with it. I grant that it's sort of annoying, but in the long run, it's really not all that disruptive. So the RfA for candidate X turns out to be 75 to 1 instead of 75 to 0, big deal. registered wikipedians are entitled to their opinions in RfA.--Alhutch 17:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Masssiveego voted against me, and brought along another oppose vote while he was at it. Ah, the good old days (2 months ago) ;-)  NoSeptember   talk  17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I had the luxury of going unopposed, but that was about 4 months ago. ahh, the memories :-) Alhutch 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason why people who always support are not criticised as much as people who always oppose because opposes are much more powerful. If only a quarter of the votes are opposes, generally it is no consensus. GizzaChat  &#169; 00:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's get this straight, here. There is no concensus anymore. Rfa has just become a vote, just like afd, mfd, etc. No more do people actually listen to a nominee's replies proceeding a vote, even if it places thier qualms at rest. What honestly needs to be looked at when a bcrat closes a vote is not the vote count proceeding a nomination but to answer the simple question of "does the problems brought by people interfere with being a good admin"...? "Does the canidate wish to improve the project..?"


 * Ever since the previous expansion of wikipedia's editor population, the integrity of conensus and the importance of votes has been poisoned and the culture thrown away from actual thesis and composition. If a canidate has a 110% opposition, but the only qualm brought to the table is minor cases of edit summeries or some other sillliness, then its obvious he/she should pass anyway. It's no longer about honesty. Its about people deliberately and maliciously setting out to poison the process of rfa concensus and against the culture of Wikipedia. That is absolutely unacceptable. -ZeroTalk 02:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. We elect these people as they'd do a good job and we trust their judgement. Give them some real power equivolent to the amount of paranoia surrounding the position. --Cel es tianpower háblame 09:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your concerns, but I think leaving the decision whether to promote or not sorely on the hands of a bureaucrat is something that would cause more controversies than we already have. Of course, I'm desperate to hear a solution to the problem and think that voting is evil.  F e  tofs  Hello! 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit summaries are not silly. I see them as one important indicator among many, as do a significant number of regular RfA participants. I admit I'm pretty far toward the "high standards" end of the spectrum of regular voters, but even so I support more often than oppose. We see new admins nearly every day come through this process, so I don't think this has become an insurmountable hurdle. Jonathunder 02:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Edit summaries are Very Valuable: I have tried to educate the dutch in this matter, but this was futile. I am flabbergasted however with the consistent 100% scores achieved on RfA. Which script does these measurements? Let's introduce it in holland! Zanaq 12:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I obviously made a huge mistake of not voting previously, as it's clear to me the standards before were set far too low. Either the ones coming in meet the higher standard, or they get opposed.  It's that simple, it is not suggestable someone try to claim disruption as Arbcom has already set it clear, Boothy443 has not disrupting Wikipedia with his voting pattern.  The previous RFA's were too easy, resulting in Wikistress.  The problem is quite clear, there is need for quality control, and higher standard. For now I help set that higher standard.--Masssiveego 09:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am flabbergasted at the lengths you travel to try to defend your voting procedure. User's are not to vote selectively to conform other's to a higher standard or to intiate a coup-out simply because armcom did not find Boothy's actions disruptive. From personal experience, rfa's are not easy, and to claim such bolllocks would be a travesty. The only problem with rfa is the fact that it is no longer carried out in true concensus fashion. You don't assist the process by "helping set that higher standard", you help by giving a nominee the credit he deserves, looking at his actions, history, and actually inquiring if this person's gaining of the tools would help make wikipedia a better place. This isn't a place where you vote just because you have scant else to do, or because you relish the thought of judging other people's faults. That isn't what rfa is about at all. -ZeroTalk 10:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero, Masssiveego is entitled to vote in the RFA and we bureaucrats are given the power to take into account the macro sentiment of the community based on the voting patterns and comments. Please have more faith in us. :) Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I do. :) There's no qualms there, I simply want to make it clear the rfa is not something we partake of simply as a pasttime. I have full faith in the system and take the ideal of this encyclopedia seriously. This is not a playground. -ZeroTalk 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet I reiterate what I said above, I can envision a day when a group of users decides that we need high standards for admins and routinely block all but the most superb candidates. Community standards can and will change. Masssiveego may not always be so unique (or Boothy, or Radiant, or ...) NoSeptember   talk  13:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If I could throw my 2 cents in, let me point out the following fact: Massiveego's votes again mean essentially zero to me, and, I suspect, to many other contributors. And here's why:

When I decide I will vote on a given RfA, I read through everyone's comments that has voted before me. Sometimes I know an editor up for RfA, but more often I have little to no exposure to this particular editor, so I have to trust the comments of the other voters.

But here's the thing: the votes which have any possibility of changing my opinion of an editor are the ones which contain content. For example, 40 votes of "Support. This guy is teh r0x0rz" don't really make me sit up and notice. However, just a few votes like "Support. I know this guy from the CrazyUser-OtherCrazyUser affair, and he was able to calm all participants down and we actually got a good article on Fly Fishing out of the deal" can sway my opinion.

Conversely, the content of an oppose vote matter a lot in whether they will affect my opinion. An oppose vote which has content, links to edit warring or other unsavory behaviour by a candidate, etc., in short a vote with a claim and with evidence, will make me sit up and think. These are relatively rare, and when someone takes the time to make such an argument I go through the links and take their claims seriously. However, votes such as "Oppose. This guy is teh sux0rz" mean zero to me. And, in short, Massiveego's votes are so content-free that it just washes over me and does nothing.

In short, ME's oppose vote does nothing to change my opinion of a candidate, and I am sure that this same is true for most people voting in RfA's. I don't think Megaman Zero has much to worry about. If this were a democracy, users like Massiveego could conceivably game the system, but this is not what we have here. --Deville (Talk) 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Deville, please don't mistake my rfa concerns for me being in state of distress. I am quite calm on all subjects pertaining to the encyclopedia. I only wanted to devulge how rfa isn't concensus. That's just a smokescreen. This is nothing but a by-number voting system when the cards are laid on the table. -ZeroTalk 16:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, not at all, not trying to imply that you are distressed...;) But I would say that, depending on how people decide to vote, it may or may not be a by-number voting system.  Let me explain.  If someone comes into an RfA knowing which way they will go, and they don't even read others explanations, then that is, in fact, a straight vote.  And, admittedly, sometimes I do this:  I know an editor from earlier interactions, and I have an strong opinion of that editor's contributions from personal experience, so therefore I vote based on that.  If everyone does this, it is a vote.


 * But, on most people up for RfA, I haven't had much personal experience with that person since we edit in different spheres. Then I read through all of the comments, and way the evidence presented by the previous commenters, and also note who the previous commenters are.  For example, if I don't know the user up for RfA, but I see a "Strong support" from another user I know and respect a lot, this will push me hard towards voting for the user up for RfA.  And of course similarly if the comments are for Oppose.  Also, if a supporter makes what I think is a strong and valid claim for the user up for RfA, this can also sway me.  In short, I feel that in most cases my Support vote is not "I like this guy and I am voting for him" but "I feel that the arguments presented by the other users in favor of the user up for RfA are compelling and convincing, and I am voting for their arguments."  If this is really how most contributors on RfA votes act, then this makes it no longer a "straight vote", but an "affirmation of concensus".


 * On the other hand, I agree, if most users are voting while ignoring others' comments, then it is a vote, or a popularity contest. But I don't think that this is true, based on everyone's claims of what criteria they use to determine how to vote.  --Deville (Talk) 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, his participation just smacks of trolling. "Needs another year", "May not be emotionally qualified for the job"... these are the kind of things you say to get a reaction out of people. It just seems too similar to the way some people troll on Usenet, figuring out language that makes people upset... and repeating a zillion times. Personally I encourage people (especially candidates) to just ignore him when he's like that, don't confront him... if he doesn't get a reaction he'll probably lose interest. --W.marsh 16:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I highly encourage users to focus on the candidates, and on the vote on hand. Persons in question could either put in more time, learn to handle wikistress, or they can drop themselves from the election at any time. As some former Admins who seem to have a nasty habit of burning out, and finding out they really find they liked being users better before. It's possible communitty members might have asked too much from certain candiates. It may be best deal with such peer pressure, and weed out candidates that are better suited for other tasks for the best results. The qualified will always garner votes. I would like to leave all confortations about my votes to this page, away from the RFA on hand. There is a time and place for everything. Dealing away from the issue topic on hand on the RFA may be considered a disruption, and could be treated as vandalism. --Masssiveego 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a solid point to be made for the fact that RfA candidates should be able to handle oppose votes - even to the point of not receiving the promotion - with grace and maturity. However, Admin burnout is something of a mystery to me, as no admin needs to do significantly more than they were doing before. bd2412  T 03:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I must disagree with Zero.  Any weakness, error, or mistake made by an Admin has high consequences then a user would have.  It is far more diffiuclt to correct a mistake an Admin makes, then what a user would have done.  To allow even the slightest uncorrected problem in an Admin will be difficult for all users.  Any possible crappy power tripping admin with an agenda are users that do not deserve admin privilges.  Any and all positives are nothing once an Admin loses their mind, and play Caesar on Wikipedia.


 * It is important those who are selected as Admin be like U.S. Marines. Dependable, trusthworthy, and loyal to Wikipedia cause.  Semper Fi, Always faithful.   I want troubleshooters, not troublemakers.  It is best to point out their mistakes, and stop them before they become admin.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Stop the  possible problem Admin before they happen.


 * If users have truely screwed up, users might think of getting another screen name, and a different IP address, and start all over from scratch, and rebuild with only all good edits. --Masssiveego 09:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not disagreeing with me. Becasue I did not say anything like that. I am well aware of the points of a strict rfa voting process, and endorse it. I merely raise the point of weather or not your votes are based on a merit of a canidate. From various rfa's, most of your votes are clearly outside the norm, and even at times completely off base, so much that fellow users had to correct your thesis. The point of rfa is assist the project by endowing a user with more tools for matinence. Its not about voting because you have nothing else to do. Go write some articles. -ZeroTalk 15:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I am voting as it is clear Wikipedia needs me most here, where the Adminship process. I am unable to write articles at this time as researching each canidate and evaluating their responses is taking a huge section of my time. It is fully within the merit of the canidate is it's clearly obvious each canidate that I have oppose is severily lacking in something that makes for a good neutral admin.  While I am outside the norm from your perspective, I do admit to making mistakes.  While the RFA process is to give the user more tools, these tools have been misused by admin in the past causing a great deal of trouble.  Again the only quality control to prevent such abuses in admin priliges is to carefully pick the best admin.  I like to think of it as yanking a thorn out of a lions paw.  Sometimes the lion cannot hunt with a wounded paw.  A pillar with a crack in it, will fail when too much pressure is exerted on it.  So I must insist on working on this part of the Wikipedia process until fellow voters understand that we are all responsible for the admins actions if we do nothing to correct them when we see the problem and clearly know it is wrong.  --Masssiveego 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I felt that, although you're one of the most frequent voters, you don't have the right temperament or control for consistent rfa voting. I'm sorry I can't pin it down closer than that. If it's any consolation, many opposers of rfas already adress your points, and I have no reason to doubt that their assessments were made in good faith.


 * I don't think you quite understand the deal with rfa. You don't have a golden finger in the concensus, merely a option to be included. If you use it to diverge away from building the encyclopedia and/or make misleading claims, as you did, you may find the votes ignored. If you falsely claim that you handle the quality of rfa, then that false claim will be rejected. I don't think you're in a position to lecture anyone about selecting admins when you are defeating the purpose of the encyclopedia by not contributing to it.


 * The environment in which we edit Wikipedia determines the quality of the project. Attacking canidates and not showing refrainment hurts Wikipedia. Comparing rfa to a weapon of war agaisnt unsuitible persons hurts Wikipedia. -ZeroTalk 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not for you to judge whether or not he has the right temperament to be voting here. As long as he's a user in good standing, it's his right to vote here, however he pleases. Consensus comes from the opinions of everyone, and his voice is one voice in the system. If he's spending time researching candidates, I applaud that. If he wants to vote oppose, let him. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, having looked at his voting statement, there's no way I could have supported him. His concensus is numming, skipping any chance for most people to question him, and fielded a couple of tame questions that revealed that he was running on a populist ticket, based on the extraordinary conclusion that he showed a lead in the process. You're probably right. I seem to recall seeing confusion stuff, and rather ugly it was too, on various rfa's and it seemed to be related to the existence of falsified claims. A minor point, perhaps, in the scheme of things, but as wikipedia space becomes more cluttered with trivial and minor gripes and trolls I do feel protective toward the brand. Finally, I did not claim to make the construment of anyone not being able to vote or make a judge on such a thing. I don't believe that anybody had ever suggested that I am--until you did just there. Thinking out of the box is a wonderful thing, I welcome more user's to it. I however, realize there is no laudible backing of fact.


 * As one becomes an experienced editor, one must take these facts on board. I welcome him to vote away. I only question his concensus in doing so. -ZeroTalk 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And in the situation of elevating a misunderstanding, Dearest Masssiveego, please accept my deepest apologies if at any time you felt that I was seriously suggesting that you were not permitted to express your opinion. I merely want to eveicerate any cause for doubt on your part as to not have others asume otherwise. -ZeroTalk 03:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put, Evilphoenix. The point isn't to achieve a unified groupthink where everyone magically votes the same way, but to take many viewpoints into consideration. FreplySpang (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'd have a different opinion if he opposed my RfA, but I think it takes "round things" to be brave enough to be the only objection in a 100+ support RfA. I don't know how to swing my opinions on this issue. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My time is best spent working on this Admin situation. I cannot consciously work on building the encyclopedia knowing that sometime in the future I will only be forced to deal with such Admin anyhow.  Better to fix the quality problem before it gets any worse.  Still, may I have a clarification on the misleading claims?  I do like to learn from my mistakes, so do feel free to let me know when I'm wrong in the appropriate venue.


 * For qualifications, my post counts satisfies the minimum admin requirements for roughly half of the daily voters, therefore I think there are contributions may be suffiently to vote in these elections. I like to think the "weapons of war", the United States Marine Corps are the best examples of duty, service and commitment.  They are an excellent standard of what doing a good job is.  There is no question when the job needs to get done, send in the Marines.  I cannot think of another more suitable standard to determine what a good Admin should be like.  --Masssiveego 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have been voting now for months, and you say you are trying to help us select only good admins. That is your contribution to the encyclopedia given your limited time. I have read your standards at Requests for adminship/Standards, quite a laundry list of adjectives, but I wonder which are the most important in deciding your vote. Since most of your votes are oppose, does this mean that a person can't violate any of the items on your list and still be worthy of adminship? Do you watch the admins that get promoted, and have you changed your opinion positive or negative on any you have voted on? Would you vote differently today on any of these people? Are there non-admins out there that you think should be admins based on your standards (and have you told them to apply)?  NoSeptember   talk  04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * :My time is best spent working on this Admin situation. I cannot consciously work on building the encyclopedia knowing that sometime in the future I will only be forced to deal with such Admin anyhow.


 * Sounds like your user name is well chosen. Free clue: Nobody has died and left you responsible. Have you thought about actually doing something productive, like actually editing? --Calton | Talk 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I stated before either way I will be dealing Admin in some shape or form.. better to get them early. For now my contribution is voting on the Wikipedia admin elections.


 * 1. Since most of your votes are oppose, does this mean that a person can't violate any of the items on your list and still be worthy of adminship?


 * Generally speaking yes.


 * 2 Do you watch the admins that get promoted, and have you changed your opinion positive or negative on any you have voted on?


 * Yes, I have seen admin get promoted. I have no change my opinion on those who I have voted on yet.


 * 3. Would you vote differently today on any of these people?


 * Probably not.


 * 4 Are there non-admins out there that you think should be admins based on your standards (and have you told them to apply)?


 * If I come across one, and they want to be Admin, I probably would advise them to run. --Masssiveego 06:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One more question. When you do not vote on an RfA, is that an implicit endorsement of that candidate? Because I see you do skip some nominations that you could have voted on. NoSeptember   talk  16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well sometimes I do make mistakes. Other times I ran out of time, before researching the canidate in question, or unaware of the vote.  I had to skip many votes and wait to see of Arbcom results for Booth443 to determine what the rules of voting were.  For the most part a missed vote is just a neutral response to the canidate. --Masssiveego 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

RfB
So, it's kinda like a middle school dance. Everybody's waiting on the sides of the basketball court while cheezy music plays. But when one person finally steps out, seems like everyone else hops forward. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 12:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should elect bureaucrats like we do Stewards. Have a bunch of candidates run all at once, and promote the top vote getters. NoSeptember   talk  13:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the system ain't broke, so no need to change it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 13:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you were the one saying we should have a basketball shoot-out to pick our bureaucrats :-), or did I misread your comment? ;-) NoSeptember   talk  14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you did, he was talking about a dance on a basketball court, not a basketball game. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 15:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, from the perspective of one of the candidates, I didn't "wait" for anyone to submit a RfB first; I had already given the choice much thought and already began preparing the statement. However, ZScout's nomination beat me to it, and Jtkiefer immediately followed. I decided to wait another day or two before submitting, and it was coincidence that Essjay submitted a RfB prior to mine. If no one else had submitted one, I would have still gone ahead. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaaargh
Someone want to vote on Essjay's RfB? right now the tally displays......THe number of the beast!!!--Alhutch 16:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6660 is the number of the beast? Talk about inflation. -- Cecropia 16:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski
Could a bureaucrat please remove Requests for adminship/Bormalagurski? It is clear that he is abusing RfA to become able to close Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination) as a "keep", even though the only people voting "keep" there are he and his friends from the Serbian Wikipedia. I would remove it myself but am bound my own policy that only allows non-bureaucrats to remove declined or withdrawn nominations. J I P | Talk 11:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

17 day RfA - CSCWEM2
Not to be difficult, but the nominators of CSCWEM 2 appear to be angling for a 17 day RfA. Why did people wait until 10 days after the first vote to actually announce this to the community? We have been presented with a fait accompli of the worst kind. I'd appeal to the nominators, nominess and perhaps even the crats to haul this back within process and run the usual, 7 day RfA (without resorting to what I imagine must have been IRC). Do not be so presumptuous as to open an RfA with bunches of supports and then to say "oh, and is this alright with the rest of you". I expect better from a would-be admin and his supporters. -Splash talk 18:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Friend, CSCWEM had nothing to do with the RfA building 60 votes before he accepted - he had previously declared his intent to wait until April to stand for adminship again, and I think he was pressured to accept earlier than that by the massive groundswell of support. Also, with as many supporters finding this RfA (without any advertising of it that I have seen), potential opposers could have found it just as well, and voted to oppose. Hence, this is no fait accompli. bd2412  T 18:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's 10 days old before it's presented to the community. How is that right? -Splash talk 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as I was formulating my own response to CSCWEM II, Splash made his own comments regarding this RfA. I wondered how an RfA would suddenly appear, seemingly fully formed on a page that is always on my watched pages list. Unless a very good explaination is provided, this action is of itself enough imputus for me to exercise an opposition to it. I hope suitable reasoning is forthcoming to help defer my assumptions. Hamster Sandwich 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All votes to the CSCWEM nom before acceptance could effectively be considered co-nominations (in this case, a 60 user co-nom). You see a 17 day RfA, I see a RfA that's been 10 days in the making.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see an request being rammed down RfA's throat. -Splash talk 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing as Splash... it seems hopelessly prejudicial to keep an RfA relatively secret, where presumably only probable supporters will be told about it, until critical mass has been reached. I realize this is a special circumstance, but still, this does not seem like a good, transparent way to handle an RfA. --W.marsh 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my say on this issue. Firstly, I came across that page by accident. No one ever told me about it. I just happened to be browsing through CSCWEM's talk page. I had been waiting for that RFA for a long time. This is a most amazing thing that has happened to RfA. But let us not spoil it for CSCWEM because of this. If the red-tape of bureaucracy demands that this RfA be nominated again, I am ready to vote again. But the thing to keep in mind is that CSCWEM had nothing to do with it and this issue is no reason to vote oppose for a superb candidate. - Aksi_gr e at 18:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How can CSCWEM have nothing to do with it? He accepted the nomination when he should have declined. And since when was noticing it on a talk page they way we scrutinise our admins? -Splash talk 18:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You think he should have declined it, I don't. This is a matter of opinion. I think we should exercise some common sense here. This is not a controversial candidate. The RfA was definitely going to pass regardless of all this junk about hte nomination procedure. Is it going to harm Wikipedia if this passes? I doubt it. He's a good candidate, and he was going to pass anyways, so let it be.--Alhutch 18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comments on the RfA's talk. Johnleemk | Talk 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is extremely terrible for reasons I have explained here. If this was anyone but CSCWEM, I'd have opposed. I don't mind giving him adminship, but I do mind having an already foregone conclusion rammed down our throats. How we select admins is important - adminship is no big deal, but it's not that small a deal either. Johnleemk | Talk 18:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He withdrew, probably for the best. let's make this seamless next month.--Alhutch 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * CSCWEM has removed all votes from his nomination and is withholding acceptance until April. This makes all the above discussion obsolete, and will only help him in getting promoted. J I P  | Talk 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The votes are still there. This is almost RFC-worthy for those who have tried to pull this deceitful stunt. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, NoSeptember reverted CSCWEM's blanking of the page, and closed the RFA (as any bureaucrat would have done otherwise, I'm certain). Hence the votes are still there. NSL E (T+C) at 01:10 UTC (2006-03-27)

And whatever happened to adminship being "no big deal"? NSL E (T+C) at 01:17 UTC (2006-03-27)
 * I like the idea that adminship should be no big deal, but I think that through its actions, the community has decreed that it is somewhat of a big deal (in terms of certain standards for promotion) and no amount of repeating a 2003 Jimbo quote is going to change that any time soon :-(. NoSeptember   talk  01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination thoughts
So, here's what I propose, and perhaps needs to be better worded on the various Front Matters in the general area. When I prepare a nomination, I prepare it in a subpage of my user space, and ask the nominee to accept the nomination there and answer the questions there. I usually let a few days pass between my agreement with the nominee to make the nomination and actually making the nomination, so that I can think about what I want to say in my nomination introduction and to allow the candidate time to compose their answers to the standard questions. I keep it very low key, I don't discuss or advertise the nomination with anyone else other than the nominee. Then, once the nomination is in order, I perform a Move function from my User space to the appropriate RfA subpage, adjust the ending date to be correct from that moment forward, then I next link in the subpage from RfA. No one is allowed to vote on the page before it's linked from RfA, not is it announced in any way prior to linking from RfA. Those are the procedures I follow, and those are the procedures I would reccomend for all nominations. I believe this will prevent any controversy of the nature surrounding CSCWEM's recent nomination. Best regards, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 20:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We have a rule that we can remove an RfA from WP:RFA if it has not been accepted by the nominee. Why not just have the same rule for voting, that is, no votes allowed (except perhaps the nominator's vote) until the RFA is accepted and transcluded to WP:RFA. Then we can just revert anyone who votes early.  NoSeptember   talk  20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with NoSeptember here: no need to introduce too much instruction creep into the thing. Though I would make it the latter: no votes allowed until the nomination has been transcluded.  Equally I think bureaucrats should reserve the rights to withdraw an RfA like the one we have just seen, or exclude the votes that were made before the community at large got a chance to see it. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Gay flag.svg|25px|  ]] 20:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In a way that RfA was the opposite of the DFA proposal: vote before discussion as opposed to discuss before voting ;-). NoSeptember   talk  20:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with NoSeptember here. The best way to resolve this is to disallow voting until the nomination has been accepted.  It's very simple and it isn't prone to instruction creep.  --Cyde Weys 21:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I've got to be the dissenting voice here then, about reverting votes. I'd agree with the thought, in principle, but reverting votes may come across wrongly. Perhaps temporarily closing an unaccepted nomination from the time of nomination to the time of posting on WP:RFA (using a new template, the current template doesn't make it blindingly obvious an RFA is closed) might work? NSL E (T+C) at 01:08 UTC (2006-03-27)
 * It's not really reverting votes if they're not valid votes in the first place. Just say, "Voting doesn't begin until the nomination is accepted."  Anyone foolish enough to attempt to vote anyway gets what they deserve.  --Cyde Weys 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We can be nice about it by leaving a friendly note on their talk page inviting them to vote again once the RfA gets properly started. Regular voters will learn the new rule very quickly. NoSeptember   talk  01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that some users were irritated about early voting, but what exactly is the reasoning behind a rule like this? That early voting unfairly influences voters? —  The KMan  talk  01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea is that if someone had a negative experience with the user, all those early voters would never read about it before voting, because only supporters are likely to know about an RfA that hasn't been rolled out publicly yet. The same ideas that were behind the WP:DFA proposal. NoSeptember   talk  01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in my mind, I think the idea is that as much as possible we want to give each candidate the same level of consideration. Every Administrator has to go through RfA, and as much as we can we want consistency between RfA's. Allowing votes to occur before the page is transcluded to RfA allows a certain inconsistency to creep in, as there is no set way of defining who is aware of the RfA and how people come to know about an unpublished RfA. Posting an RfA page to RfA is the official way of announcing an RfA, and the idea is that no RfA gets undue consideration before getting posted here....each and every RfA should be posted to RfA in the same state....nomination accepted, questions answered, and no prior votes made before the page is posted to RfA. That way each candidate is given the same announcement, their RfA is published in the same way, and theoretically is more fair. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense Ëvilphoenix, you've convinced me. Regarding your comments NoSeptember, couldn't someone make the same argument for votes made on the first day of RfAs?&#160;—  The KMan  talk  01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they could make the same argument, but enemies have this habit of getting their votes and comments in early (after only about 10 support votes) so they don't miss many. NoSeptember   talk  01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA reform
Today has been a real eye opener for me, you could say. Would their be any objection to amending the the RFA nomination process, prohibiting votes prior the acceptance by the nominee? Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No (to having objections); I would strongly support this, as nominations aren't supposed to be open until the candidate has accepted and the page has been placed on the RfA page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to this. Pegasus1138 Talk 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (It shouldn't have been.) It's not entirely clear to me that this would work, although it is the obvious solution. People will vote anyway and though regulars will learn, the newer editors won't and it will be, with near every RfA, an unwinnable battle to suppress the votes (evil) until an acceptance. What would work is reversing the creepish change to the rules of a few months ago and simply posting all RfAs straight to the main page and leaving them for the candidate to accept or decline. Clearly, declined nominations with many 'preemptive' opposes are a problem in this scenario, although we did fine for a number of years with it....-Splash talk 02:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It begs the question "why are people creating RfA pages before both nominator and nominee are in agreement to proceed?" Don't create the page until just before its ready to be rolled out publicly. Mine was created three weeks ahead of time, fortunately, I was unpopular enough that no one voted for me during those three weeks ;-). NoSeptember   talk  02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because by convention nominees accept their nomination on the RfA page itself. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose an RfA equivalent of the new system with deletion. Names could be posted on a list with a note that, absent some objection within a set period, they will be promoted. If no objection was stated, the subject would be promoted without going through a discussion (because it would be clear that no one had any distrust to express towards the potential admin). If anyone objected for any reason, the 'crats would check to make sure the objection was not simple trolling, and if it was not, then the RfA would go to a regular discussion to determine consensus (I'm going to say discussion instead of vote because I am a boundless optimist). bd2412 T 02:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that is a good idea, as the scrutiny is part of the process. Back in the days of my RfA, I looked at it as a way to get input on my performance as an editor, not just as a request for added permissions; I'm pretty sure other editors see it the same way too. Also, it is too nebulous (e.g. "Is this comment trolling? Where do we draw the line?") to work. Part of the reason RfA is so numbers-oriented is that it makes it easier on the bureaucrats to make their decision; already those RfAs that fall in that 75%-80% gray area are controversial. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We have a 73% RfA that is controversial this very night. NoSeptember   talk  02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd trust the 'crats to know true trolling when they see it (e.g. an oppose by a brand-spankin' new account; or by an editor who has decided to oppose 30 RfA's in a row with the same explanation for each; or based on a single typo six months ago). Although RfA is a good place to get scrutiny, constructive criticism can always be dropped on an editor's talk page. Anyway, it's just a thought on getting non-controversial promotions through the system without the big hullabaloo that raises accusations that RfA is a popularity contest. I realize this may be received as an odd message, but while my own RfA was gratifying, it was also a bit excessive in the end. bd2412  T 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure I trust the 'crats all that much after tonight's showing. They didn't look at the reasoning for the pros and went straight with the number of votes, no matter whether the opposes were shown to have been based on misconceptions or plain not understanding of the issue at hand.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a mind-expanding idea. The simplicity of it is slightly overpowering. Some immediate observations: it would save everyone time in pile-on support RfAs and might help focus scrutiny a little on those that need it. OTOH, it would stand RfA squarely on its head. At present, we require a strong showing of support to promote; Proposed Admins would need only a showing of no opposition. Also, it is very susceptible to, let us say, "certain" users. Particularly the more recent, more creative kind. This is an interesting idea, though, that's for sure. -Splash talk 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know that we currently require a "strong" showing of support - I believe a 25-0 RfA would pass right now. I think I understand your concern about "certian" users - but there must be a way to control for possible abuses. bd2412  T 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting idea. I don't think it'll make that much of a difference; of the thirteen nominations currently up, only two are unopposed. More interestingly, is removing the mandatory questions (which would be a side effect of this) a good idea? Kirill Lok s hin 02:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I would not do away with the mandatory questions. That's a rite of passage! Just the voting - we would still have the questions. bd2412  T 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah; I took the "names could be posted on a list" part to mean that this would be a simple listing. Kirill Lok s hin 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After 2 edit conflects I agree with BD2412, I trust the B-crats decition, but RfA is becoming a popularity contest, users are getting 100 support votes easily, but RFA is also getting harder also, Moe Epsilon has had 5 failed RFA and Aranda56 has 6 failed RFAs and those two are excellent editors but with a weakness. --152.163.100.6 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we generally want to have RFA be easy for users suitable to be admins and hard for the ones that aren't. Where exactly the dividing line is to be drawn is a rather subjective issue; what may be a minor concern for some people is a major disqualifying factor for others. Kirill Lok s hin 03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to dredge up another old idea and throw it back on the table here (although it's been rejected several times before) = split admins between two levels (junior and senior or something like that) with the junior admins having lesser powers (rollback, time-limited blocks of anons only, deletions/undeletions in the article, template, and category spaces only, semi-protection, access to things only admins can see) and give those powers out through an easy process (like the above proposed prod clone); leave the major powers (deleting images and pages in the user and wikipedia space, blocking editors with accounts, permablocks, full protection) to the senior admins with a higher threshold (e.g. the one we have now for admins). People who do good work get some more power without a hassle, and they can be observed in the use of that power to determine when they are ready to handle even more. bd2412 T 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think the Prod style RfA would make much difference as the RfAs rarely goes unopposed. It might increase chanses that some candidate unknown to the RfA regulars would slip unnoticed, despite some people in the wider community having valid concerns. I do not think this is a good thing. abakharev 03:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the prod, because then the RfA would become quiet, and many things, including feedback would be diminished. It's a fair thing that increased responsibilty should be scrutinized.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow I think that "... article, template, and category spaces..." (emphasis mine) aren't as safe to work with as one might think; a number of recent incidents would likely have been even bloodier if multiple "levels" of adminship had played into it. Kirill Lok s hin 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The details are subject to change (i.e., I can see why you would want to take templates out of that equation). What is important is that a change is possible, and might prove beneficial - a setup of junior and senior (or regular and XXL, or whatever) admins would allow potential wielders of full admin powers to first be evaluated in their use of some admin powers. bd2412  T 04:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the template issue is really just a particularly extreme example. My concern is that a two-tier system will aggravate any disagreements between administrators, since some of the senior ones will inevitably try to pull rank on the junior ones.  (I suppose that it's a somewhat broader issue of admin interaction rather than one tied to this specific proposal, so it may be that this isn't the best place to bring it up.) Kirill Lok s hin 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this as occasion to warm over an old suggestion of mine, with a slight modification: what about declaring that all "votes" cast before acceptance are "nomination" or "co-nominations" of the candidate, and that one can either nominate, or "vote", but not both? That'd deter the n-ary nomination phenom, without ruling it out outright; it'd ever-so-slightly encourage self-noms (we get plenty of bad self-noms already, but encouraging good ones can't hurt);  it'd be a way to keep runaway situations like this in check. (The interpretation of noms vs. votes is I trust something we can leave our 'crat-corps to handle.) Alai 08:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thing is, this is a discussion, not a vote - every person who makes a comment in support of a candidate's promotion, whether counted as a co-nom or a vote, should be taken into account when the 'crat is seeking to determine whether there is consensus in support of promotion. Better to just ban co-noms outright, and ban votes before the RfA is posted. bd2412  T 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's both a discussion and a vote, or at least, as much like a vote as anything on wikipedia is. (Certainly more like a vote than, for example, the arbcom elections.)  I don't think this is really material to the above suggestion, though, as it doesn't change the value of the RFA as a discussion.  I have no particular objection to prohibitting co-noms and pre-acceptance votes, but I don't see the argument that it's "better".  It's a more restrictive measure to address the same issues, which I'd judge makes it more likely to be opposed as a proposal (by those fond of either, or as "instruction creep"), and requires implementation more likely to annoy people (when their co-noms and early votes are "struck out"), for no additional benefit.  Alai 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA Reform and DFA
My take here is that maybe if all RFA's are to have a "even start" that maybe the DFA process, which (in one of its incarnations) could be seen as a way to refine a candidacy and address issues, develop additional material, etc, prior to the formal RFA start would go against that? I'm not sure I agree with this "even start" idea, because if it is enforced there may be cases where there will be back channel dealings, and preparation of material off-wiki, etc... I've been a supporter of the idea of DFA being a precursor to RFA (although at this point it looks like a mostly failed idea, there have been several attempts to try it and none of them have really worked out well yet)... Am I right in reading that if this even start proposal goes forward it would kill DFA (as conferring an unfair advantage?) unless everyone did it? + +Lar: t/c 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's going to be a change preventing votes from before a nominatoin is posted to RfA. I think the system was self-correcting in CSCWEM's case. People saw a massive number of votes before the RfA was posted. They made inaccurate conclusions based on that, but CSCWEM saw the negative impacts and decided to withdraw the nomination. He showed a lot of class in so doing. It's an unusual one-off case. If this happened more frequently, then I could see an argument for changing the policy to disallow votes before posting on RfA. But, to change it based on one RfA alone seems...premature. --Durin 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If DFA were indeed a precusor to RFA, I'd see no problem with having both that and an "even start" to the RFA proper (were that felt necessary). Surely in that case DFA would simply in effect become a "central clearing house" for what happens on an ad hoc basis at present, largely on user talk pages:  am I/are you/is s/he ready to become an admin, you've been here for ages/have lots of edits/are a shoo-in, are a bit new/might not have any [blah] edits/could face some opposition currently.  Alai 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth

 * This discussion was moved to here from the Bureaucrats' noticeboard by Cecropia.

It has just been pointed out to me that I closed this RfA half an hour early. I didn't realise this at the time as the clocks went forward in the UK last night and I'm now operating at UTC+1 rather than UTC: the consensus was still only 62% (discounting the neautral votes) but I'm just wondering if anyone can advise the best course of action as I'm about to go to bed and am getting enquiries already. -- Francs2000 23:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 62%? When I counted, disregarding the neutral votes, I got 73%, but perhaps you count different there in UK :) → A z a  Toth 00:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a minimum of 6 more votes were needed to bring this up to 75%, and only 4 votes had been cast in the last 24 hours. This minor error did not change anything. We all make mistakes. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. (And it is 73%: 54/(54+20)=73%) NoSeptember  talk  00:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh but I do worry: I like to think I have a good reputation on here and I want to keep it that way. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Gay flag.svg|25px| ]] 00:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but this case was not really as close as it looks. With 20 oppose votes, you would need 60 support votes to get to 75% and 66 support votes to get to 77%, thats 6 to 12 more votes than in this case to even start to say this is a close call. Plus, a half hour on an RfA that has slowed down to a crawl is not a large amount of time. The good news for Aza is that many of the reasons for oppose votes are correctable on his part, he can try again and likely succeed.  NoSeptember   talk  00:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't heard that RFA had become a simple vote requiring precisely 75% or higher. In the past RFAs have sometimes been approved with 70% support. This one had 73%, was closed 36 minutes early, and the opposition was based almost entirely on the fact that the user contributes primarily in template space rather than main space.


 * I don't think Francs2000 was acting maliciously in any way, but when he somehow came up with the erroneous figure of 62% that was presumably far enough below par to forego any consideration of whether there was an actual consensus. Which is unfortunate because if normal consideration had been taken it seems plausible that this RFA could have passed. If even two of the oppose votes were considered questionable then it would actually be over the 75% thresh-hold.


 * Again, I don't think there was any ill-intent, but the fact is that this RFA was right on the line and could well have gone the other way. --CBDunkerson 00:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any truly unusual oppose voters when I scanned the list (anyone who would might be a newbie troll or sockpuppet). If regular voters use an unusual basis for their opposition, it is still hard to discount their votes for the simple reason that they are regulars and should be given the benefit of doubt. Besides, the error here was closing 1/2 hour early, and as I noted, only 4 people voted in the last 24 hours of the RfA, so even a single new vote in that 1/2 hour was unlikely. NoSeptember   talk  00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing a very important aspect of CBDunkerson's comments. When you combine the fact that Francs2000 was wrong both on the time of closing and on the current ratio of the voting, and the fact that two oppose votes (10%) had already changed their vote—one to support and one to neutral—that there was a case and an opportunity for handling the RfA differently.  It would not take "6 to 12 support votes" if one or more of the oppose votes was either discounted or the editor casting the oppose vote changed their vote. (The basis for including the "12" vote figure is lost on me, unless it is included simply to create an impression of WP:SNOW, as I don't see 77% in any of the discussions.)  I think it somewhat disingenuous that the liklihood of this occuring keeps being characterized as insignificant.


 * However, I find it more troubling that the extended discusion on the merits of the request for granting adminship for a narrow purpose (editing protected templates)—a purpose separate from the lack of edits in the main article space, which was the primary reason given for the majority of the oppose votes—seems to have been summarily ignored in considering this RfA. I don't find evidence in Francs2000's comments to suggest that this discussion was even read before closing, perhaps because of the erroneous assumption that consensus stood at only 62%.  Again, I have to say that I'm disappointed by how this was handled and it suggests to me that perhaps the process for granting adminship needs to be reformed. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's unfortunate, I felt it should have (or could have) been successful. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well. now that I have had a chance to read this RfA, I regret not voting. Next time, I'll be there to help push him over the top, but I expect it will go a lot more smoothly next time. NoSeptember   talk  01:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would point out, that at the current vote totals when closed, it would only take one oppose changing to support (which had already happened once on this RfA) and one additional support vote to cross that magic 75% threshold, or two opposes changing to neutral, or one oppose changing to neutral (which had also already happened on this RfA) and two additional support votes. I think, particularly given the entire discussion, that these scenarios are perhaps not so impossibly unlikely as has been suggested above. I'm just disappointed that this has been turned into a precise numbers vote and not one where common sense prevails. (I mean, even if just one additional oppose changed to support, that would be 74.3%...) I was under the impression from all of the contentious RfA's I've witnessed, that the closing bureaucrat was supposed to determine the validity of the votes, otherwise let's just write a 'bot to do it. Additionally, I see other discussions on this page (Bureaucrats' noticeboard) where close RfAs/RfBs are sometimes extended, instead of being cut short. I'm disappointed with how this was handled. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, especially with the bit about how the closer an RfA is to passing/failing, it seems to go totally by the numbers (which goes against what I keep seeing on RfB's lately). If it's only about numbers, why are we having humans perform promotions? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What's more, there were several oppose votes that gave reasons that had been proven to be misconceptions. They, at the very least, should have been discounted.  Any scrutiny at all by the crat and this RfA would have passed.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is required to list every single oppose reason they have. By discarding "oppose" votes, you are fallaciously assuming that they have only one oppose reason and that they listed it on the page. Support and oppose votes should not be discounted and ignored; if the result is close, the process should be extended or restarted at a later date. Talrias (t | e | c) 06:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While it would have been better to close this failing RfA the extra half hour later, this was properly done within Bureaucrat discretion. While true that 6 votes (and no further opposes) would be 75%, and even if a flurry of six votes in a half-hour is possible, it would have taken fully 26 additional support votes (and no further opposes) to reach the 80% which is the threshold beyond which we always promote without an extraordinary reason. Francs2000 made a simple error which did not impact the outcome. -- Cecropia 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't hide behind the numbers quite that easily. There were two oppose votes that were explicitly based on reasons that had been proven to be misconceptions.  Those oppose votes should have been discounted and considered neutral.  With that, AzaToth would have had 75% and he sure as hell had extraordinary reason for getting the tools.  If we can't expect our crats to put their thinking caps on when it's needed then who needs them?  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 04:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are disappointed by the result and I find no need to "hide" behind numbers. I did not make the decision on this nomination, so I can't address the quality of the voting. You assert that he had "extraordinary reason for getting the tools," but enough voters disagreed to put it below the threshold where the promotion should not have taken place without extraordinary justification. Who "needs" the bcrats? No-one really, which, I imagine, explains our princely salaries. -- Cecropia 06:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cecropia, the problem is that this RFA could have passed... regardless of whether the totals would have changed. As it stood at the early closing time this RFA had a greater support percentage than some which have passed. No, it was not in the 'clear consensus in favor' 80%+ range... but it also wasn't in the 'clear consensus against' 62% realm that Francs2000 somehow arrived at. Maybe a bureaucrat evaluating the case in detail and considering the misconceptions and histories of the voters might still have said 'it falls just short'. Maybe nothing would have happened in the remaining 36 minutes to change that. Or maybe not. We can't really know... and that's the problem. What's done is done, but it was very unfortunate. --CBDunkerson 12:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Without a dramatic change in the numbers this RfA could not have passed short of bureaucrat error. A few exceptions in the past does not change the basic day in and day out standards for RfA promotions, and 73% does not cut it.


 * Also, let me remind you all that how a candidate and his supporters handle a disappointment is important in the prospects of future nominations. CSCWEM and Naconkantari handled their defeats with equinimity and were/will be rewarded with broad support during their next try. Please don't harm Aza Toth's future chances by doing things such as adding mathematical formulas to WP:Bureaucrats in what I must consider an offhand way to suggest that bureaucrats are mathematically challenged. How you handle disappointment does matter. NoSeptember   talk  13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I have to say I find it rather insulting to suggest that my adding the formula to the page is in bad faith. Cecropia has gone so far as to accuse me of vandalism for adding it.  This is after Francs2000, who is one of the more active bureaucrats closing nominations, has come up with the wrong ratio not once, but twice.  There is legitimate reason for concern, and certainly the possibility for performing the calculation incorrectly is not a theoretical concern, but based in history.  The additions to the Bureaucrat page were entirely neutral and taking them as an insult is ridiculous.


 * As to "rewarding" candidates, or for that matter, punishing them, for actions taken by others, that seems to be taking a low road in my opinion. I hope those were comments born of frustration and not any implication of future behavior.  AzaToth has been the perfect example of how a candidate should behave and I'd appreciate if you would not take what is a discussion of legitimate concerns regarding how RfAs in general, and this RfA in particular, was handled, and denigrate it into a claim of sour grapes. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that your edit summary "add formula for calculating percentage to help math-impaired b'crats get this part right" was completely well intentioned? NoSeptember   talk  13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will say this about that. That edit summary is the most damning thing you will find in anything I have said or done throughout the entire AzaToth RfA and the ensuing discussion here.  The comment is perhaps on the margin of having malintent, but it was based on frustration with what I view as consequences of Francs2000 having gotten it wrong.  If you have taken offense from this edit summary, I apologize as I intended you no offense by it.  But we are still left now with the issue that the fact of the matter is that the equation was not entirely obvious, at least to Francs2000, yet apparently, it would be insulting to provide the formula with the instructions.  So I repeat what I asked below: you tell me, how can we make sure the numbers are being calculated correctly? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doug for your apology. The whole RfA process is very emotional for the candidates and supporters, and the bureaucrats as referees catch flak if they make a mistake while being unappreciated for their work day in and day out. When Francs was promoted I watched the discussion he had with other bureaucrats. He absolutely does understand the formula, the impact of neutral votes, the number of votes cast, and all the other little details involved. A calculation error is quite different from not understanding the underlying formula et al. While many spectators may not have a handle on promotion standards, I know that all the actively involved bureaucrats know that 73% doesn't cut it. It is time to look forward to Aza's next RfA, and not take this one so personally. NoSeptember   talk  14:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * and not take this one so personally The only thing I have taken personally is being accused of vandalism and bad faith for my completely neutral changes to Bureaucrats, not withstanding the above mentioned edit summary which I have explained. The discussion on AzaToth's RfA is not a personal issue for me, and until my character and motives for participating in the discussion here were impugned, I would have to say that my demeanor was impassioned, yet calm.  Apparently you and several others feel that Cecropia's comments on my talk page were perfectly in line, and on that I strongly disagree.
 * This discussion is no longer productive, nor pleasant, which I find extremely disappointing seeing as I have been operating under the assumption that the involved parties represented some of the best people here. If you want to respond to this or anything else, you can reach me on my talk page as I'm taking this page off my watch list. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 15:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll strike out my words about taking things personally, since I can't read emotions over the internet. Cheers, NoSeptember   talk  15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's condescending and patronising, that's why. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I give up. You tell me, since RfA promotion is apparently all about and only about the numbers, how can we at least make sure that the numbers add up correctly? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not just about the numbers, but the range of marginal cases is fairly narrow, and 73% isn't in that range. NoSeptember   talk  13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my impression... and seems to be contradicted by the adminships which have passed with less. However, if that is the case it might explain some of the apparent hostility and 'warnings' being issued. Please consider that many are under the impression that 73% is in the 'marginal range' and are making comments based on that view. Thus, the difference between 62% and 73% seems quite significant. If only 74.9% and up are even considered (other than for exceptions... though what makes them exceptions is then unclear) then the mathematical error could not have impacted the outcome. --CBDunkerson 13:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider CSCWEM's RfA (77%) to be the classic recent marginal case. There is a mile of sunlight between 77% and 73% (and an extra 12 or so votes needed to bridge that gap)  NoSeptember   talk  14:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you mentioned CSCWEM's RfA, that is illustrative of the fact that it isn't "all about the numbers." As with any "gray" action, I explained my action, which included many reasoned neutrals and the fact that the chief complaint (oppose and neutral) was that he didn't have enough time, which was a clear message that he should come back in another month or so. I'm surprised he hasn't. -- Cecropia 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your impression is presumably based on Luigi30's RfA that, by common consideration, was a new bureaucrat making a mistake. 73% is not in the marginal range. -Splash talk 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh goodness me. An RfA was closed at a level of support that, whichever way you spin it, doesn't earn a promotion, 36 minutes early. Big deal. Try a renomination after a gracious waiting period and when the nominee has addressed the concerns of the opposers. -Splash talk 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since June 27, 2005 there have been two RfAs that had less than 75% support that resulted in promotion. As noted above, Luigi30's was done by Rdsmith4, and there was some acknowledged error in that nom. That particular nom had 72.41% support. It should also be noted that Luigi30's nom was closed 2 hours early. The other nom was Freestylefrappe, which had 74.51% support, and was closed a day late. AzaToth's was at 72.97%. Also note that Freestylefrappe has been de-adminned and has left the project. Citing these two RfAs as evidence that Azatoth should/could have been promoted is, I think, not terrific support for the position.
 * There have been seven other nominations since June 27, 2005 that had a higher percentage than AzaToth's and were not promoted. The highest of these was 78.57%. 14 nominations between 75% and 80% have been promoted since June 27, 2005, and 364 at 80% or higher have been promoted.
 * AzaToth may re-apply at any time. It would of course be best if he waited a month prior to another nomination, but there is no reason why he can not reapply. There is also no reason to believe that the Wikipedia project is going to be harmed in any significant way by this one individual not being an admin right at this moment in time. --Durin 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to mar your statistics Durin, but I did promote one RFA with <75% of the votes. :) I can't recall the RFA though, but I put up my reasoning on the RFA talk. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing marred :). The nom in question was Freestylefrappe, which you promoted. I noted it above. --Durin 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why, oh why must I always make su much controversies? I accept that I didn't got promoted, I'm not angry, a bit sad thou because it seems trhat only 2% was missing. There is only one thing I would like to request, I would like to know what exactly made me not mop-worthy, so I can better my self on that part. Could any buerocrat answer that easy question? I'm not talking about missing percents here, there must be a specific issue that you object to. → A z a  Toth 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AzaToth, this is not a bureaucrat question. You were not promoted because the numbers weren't there. Please remember that the area of Bureaucrat discretion is 75%-80% except in the most extraordinary circumstances. It is the voters who opposed you that can give you insight. Read what their reasoning was, and you might ask some of them what you could do better to make them want to support you (or at least not oppose you) next time around. Good luck! -- Cecropia 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps I was misstaken, but I assumed that an RfA was just a guidance for a buerocrat to make his/her decission. → A z a  Toth 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AzaToth, this has been explained many times over the years, but I'll try to give you the short version for your understanding. Originally (over two years agp), there was no division between support and oppose votes. There were many fewer voters, with some RfAs having fewer than 10 votes total, and RfA was more like a discussion. Consensus was the key then and it is still the key now. Unfortunately, as the number of voters and admins increased, the numbers became more and more important. Over the protest of a number of "old-timers," the arrangement of RfA was formalized to support/oppose/neutral/comment. A nod to consensus-building was added with the "standard questions" to get the nominee to introduce him/herself better, and encouragement of back-and-forth discussion. BUT (you knew there would be a "but") it became increasingly common for those disappointed by the results of an RfA to do extensive "bean-counting" ("how come x was promoted with 77.4% but y was not promoted with 77.6%") then the involved bcrat (and some others as well, I try to support the other bcrats when they are being unfairly attacked--this was one such case) is expected to explain his/her reasoning in sufficient detail. And now we have a new phenomenon--an increased willingness to accuse bcrats of dark motives. I have sadly had to write to editors I have great respect for that they haven't been promoted, and have promoted some I really don't think were ready, because it is the community sentiment that counts most, not my personal wishes. In almost all cases, I have seen other bcrats do the same. So this is how we got to this extreme "numbers game." It seems many people understand numbers much better than reasoning. BUT (another "but") there is good news for you. Voters are much more willing than in the past to look favorably on a new candidacy than they were in the past, and many failed nominations get promoted the second, or third, or even fourth time. So read over those opposes, see how you can address them and how you would present yourself to the community the next time, then go for it! You can be re-nominated in just a month, if you feel ready. Cheers, Cecropia 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)