Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 67

Sections
Could we please change the layout of RFA pages to support per-section editing? With lots of questions, edit counts and edit summary histories, and some RFAs attracting over 200 participants, it's becoming very hard to find the place where one needs to "vote". Support, oppose and neutral need to have section headers so that "voting" is as simple as clicking the correct section and scrolling to the bottom. --kingboyk 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Someone tried doing this last week, but it didn't last very long, not sure why. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict!)I'm in favor of this. I've had similar problems and if I'm not one of the few people who have either supported or opposed within the first 20 or so, I'm stuck locating the proper area, and hoping that there isnt an edit conflict, else I'd have to do it all over again. Although its a small concern, I dont see what harm can be done in changing it. SynergeticMaggot 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- Szvest 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Would the various scripts that parse out the pages into summaries cope with this as-is, or would then need updated? (but yes, a good idea) Thanks/wangi 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the problems was an extremely long table of contents. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought we found a clever way around that, here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_65. Probably just need to update the template, as I think all the bots/monitoring programs could handle it okay. -- nae'blis 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the agreement with the general idea isn't clear already, let it be noted that I agree. Marskell 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I too would like to voice out my agreement with the general idea. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As would I. -- digital_m e (Talk•Contribs)  01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If anyone would like to check out some of the previous discussion, it can be found here.   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The changed needed to do sections without adding to the main table of contents has been prototyped, I thought there was general agreement to add it to the template by now, not sure though. I had heard all the bots were upgraded to work with it too. I am no fan of editcountitis but I think having more than one (and seeing the differences found) is useful. Perhaps they all should be subpage linked I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the new layout of RfA is horrible and it's very hard to find the right place where to add the comment. Sections would help, but I stil don't like this comments before votes stuff.  Grue   11:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Chacor 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean you actually have to actually read some of the comments before you manage to put down your own? How awful! Imgine what would happen if people actually started taking comments into consideration and coming to consensus? Why the sky would fall and the world would end! ;-) Think of all the poor WP:OFFICE and Oversight people we'd be putting out of a job if we had more decent admins! Kim Bruning 12:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, if practical. The way I get around having to scroll through endless pre-existing text is to CTRF-F for the next section heading. If I'm going to "support" I CTRL-F to "oppose" and paste in my vote there. I have trouble reading the text in edit view anyway, so I read their comments before hitting the edit button. :) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that sarcasm really necessary, Kim? I suspect that most people prefer to read comments in rendered form rather than raw wikicode.  Making it easier for people to find the correct place to edit and insert comments might encourage that discussion and consensus-building that you value.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's good humored sarcasm, it's fun! I wonder if we could do an experiment with both formats side by side, and figure out which is handier for consensus? Kim Bruning 16:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I usually only vote on RFAs where I know the candidate (or have seen that candidate's contribs). I saw one who I've seen around and was going to support, but after seeing the large and unwieldy RFA, I simply decided not to vote! RFA has become a huge, bloated beast, and it would take a helluva candidate for me to support. I rarely actually go to the main RFA anymore, because looking at those things makes my eyes bleed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the new sections (although I think the potential for edit conflict on anyone short of Phaedriel or Whilly on Wheels is probably overstated); what I don't get is why we sometimes need *3* edit count summaries, in addition to all the questions and the like. See Requests_for_adminship/Zsinj_2 for an example; one is linked, but it's still a lot of editcountitis. -- nae'blis 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the edit count summaries are really pushing it. If some people don't mind putting an edit count summary in their userspace (or maybe even have RfA candidates hosting it in their own userspace), perhaps those edit count summaries can be put there instead and have it linked in the RfA. That frees up the clutter from the RfA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could put the edit count summaries on the talk page? It would obscure whether or not comments/controversy has been moved there, but might be worth that for a more readable RFA. The questions should absolutely stay on the main page though, including optional ones. -- nae'blis 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes please (or a subpage). People should look at the contributions more than the edit count anyway. And I agree that the questions should stay, but could be below the votes for easier editing. Kusma (討論) 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The questions were moved above the support/oppose/neutral comments (not votes :) ) for at least two reasons, IIRC.. one is to encourage people to read them, and the other is to make it easier to comment, even if there are no individual sections to edit via... by having the support oppose after the questions you can scroll to the bottom quickly and then scroll up a bit. If we put the sections back in (with the noinclude trick so they don't show in the main TOC) that becomes less important, as long as you are willing to first click on the nom and go to its subpage. I am sorry that some folk don't like the questions first but I really really think it's a good thing to look at them and apologise in advance if people think that putting them first is condescension rather than encouragement. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the problems I have with the current format is the length of some of the comments and answers to questions - they can become ESSAYS! It gets very irritating after a while having to scroll through long prose. Chacor 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess different people look for different things. I don't want snap answers to easy questions, I want to see some evidence that the candidate is thinking long and hard about the question answered. A considered, thoughtful answer goes a long way to convincing me to support an otherwise borderline candidate. I'll gladly admit that's maybe just me, and I have a rep for windiness (many of my answers on my RfA were a whole screen ful or more). So the question then becomes, is one view better than the other (see Kim's comments above, he clearly wants people to read and think, and is OK if it takes them a bit longer)? If neither is... is there a way to accomodate both types of folk? ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get it wrong, if the candidate has a lot to say to questions 1 and 2 that's good. But I really don't need to read a whole chunk about every little small altercation a candidate has gotten into for Question 3, heh. Perhaps posting optional questions to the talk page of the nomination rather than below the compulsory ones, along with moving the comments (suggested somewhere above)? Chacor 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find the optional questions often more relevant than the standard 3, because they often are asked to get at specific issues that the candidate might have, and becuase they're not canned, the candidate didn't have 3 weeks to think about how to answer them, you get to see them think on their feet. So I guess the net here is I like the questions before the comments, I like all the questions, not just some, being there, I don't have a problem with length (even for question 3), and I think section heads would help ameliorate problems others might have. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw the addition of section breaks added to Eagle_101's RfA. Apparently those with expertise in markup have figured out a way to include sections without bloating the table of contents on the main RfA page.  Is this to be the new format?  If so, I like it!   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 09:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like it to be, and (after last time, haha) if there was consensus I'd change the template to put it into effect. Is there consensus? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, what happened? I thought we had the bots on board...? -- nae'blis 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminstation.
I'm not sure how to put my vote up, but can somebody help? I am very succesfull with English and Croatian Wikipedia and I learn quickly, I am friendly, I am a reverter and I love to help. Although I am only one month into being a user, that doesn't mean I haven't been using Wikipedia for years! I have. I know how to debate, be proper and nice and how to watch and be on guard. When you need me, I'll assist. How do I put up my name for administration (oh, yeah, I'm kind. I can relate to kids because I am a responsible, intellegent 11 year old. I will communicate with the kindly but firmly when adults have no contact. Things have changed oveer the years. Kids attitudes and minds are ruder, and they just seek comfort. Now I'm a kid of today and I will do what I can to help Wikipedia!) Who's with me? Put my name up and vote! If the vote passes, I will succeed to all duties and show pruod worthiness. If anyone has anyhting to say about this, please say so on my talk page. Thank you for reading this debate speech in order to become an admin. Thank you. *Appluase*. (I'm funny too, so kids will get along and be nice in response to a block or warning!) Lindsay1980 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might wish to review WP:GRFA and also the standards page. SynergeticMaggot 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. ForestH2  t/c 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on Masssiveego
Please vote, as I'm curious what you think.

User:Masssiveego/votingsurvey

--Masssiveego 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I encourage people not to feed this... he just seems hungry for more attention to be paid to his troll-esque behavior. --W.marsh 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * About what. :) Dlohcierekim 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for human resources at WP:CP
Dear human resources department,

We have a huge backlog at WP:CP that could benefit from some determined copyright specialists. Thanks. --Ligulem 11:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I go cross-eyed every time I look at it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New RfA format
Can I go on record saying that I don't like the latest RfA format that's just popped up for the last 2 or 3 RfAs; especially the location of the tally - almost every user has missed it, and in fact (aeropagitica) just moved it back to its original location in TruthbringerToronto's RfA however the template remains the same. Was there a reason for the change I cant see? - GI e n 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I agreed with the format change. But, I didn't take a careful enough look. I didn't realize the tally had been moved. I thought just the questions/responses had been moved. I agree with GIen; I think the tally should move back to the top. --Durin 17:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just read the archive re the new format. I think the location of the questions is great - encourages those contributing to read them with greater ease, but yes I can't see the rationale for the tally location. I guess once everyone gets used to it changes will be made - but in the last RfA I contributed to I was maybe the 5th or 6th person to do so and the first to update the tally. Just a thought anyway... - GI e n 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea is to de-emphasize the count. The raw count isn't the most important thing. It's ok if people miss updating the tally, the only time the tally needs to be correct is when it is closed. - Taxman Talk 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, I never actually thought of that. Makes sense, and, its just a matter of users becoming used to the new location. Thanks for letting me know :) - GI e n 21:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have in fact had to tally almost half of the current RfA's earlier today, and for Eagle_101, a few more times. Supports, Neutrals, and Opposers will be clicking the edit button for that location, in which they'd have to go back and edit from the top anyway, to tally. I like the new format change, but this requires two edits. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The move of the tally was agreed upon along with the rest of the reformat several months ago. For some reason it was never put in effect (probably because the person who made the change only moved the sections, and didn't do the minor things, like the place for a statement by the candidate, which I added along with the tally move). This way, the tally is only associated with the vote, rather than the entire RfA, to make it seem less like the vote IS the RfA, which was the same reason the vote was moved to the bottom. --Rory096 20:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, while people might be missing the tally now because it's new, they'll get used to it and know to correct the tally just on top of the vote soon. --Rory096 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Tax, the tally shouldn't actually matter. You can obviously browse and get a feel for where the review is at, but 76% versus 74% should not (in theory) influence comments, nor should seeing how far along the bandwagon has gone on an obvious one. Marskell 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it very useful to have the tally easily accessible at the top, as it's nice to check up on how progress is going, and sometimes I will look at numbers to see if I want to participate, e.g. close numbers might make it worth investigating, 0-24 is a waste of time. It would be very useful to have the table which is on BN on RfA. Tyrenius 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was only concerned with having to make two edits. I'm not bothered either way, where the counter lies. SynergeticMaggot 23:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just get rid of the counter? People often forget to update it and it highlights the vote aspect of RfA when it's really not a vote. There are plenty of automated counters that do the job just fine and if a potential !voter really wants to know the current tally, he or she can just look at the numbers under each section. --  tariq abjotu  01:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of removing it. I personally never update it, not because I "forget" but because it's not really very worthwhile as far as I'm concerned; usually someone else does it soon enough anyway.  Of course, edits made solely to keep the tally updated are, in my opinion, among the silliest on all of Wikipedia. Besides, Dragon Flight's tool will still parse the count anyway, and its page is a better reference if you really just want numbers. -- SCZenz 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I support that idea - especially as Dragons flight's tool works fine to show the tally. However I think that if it is removed a link to the counter should be put at the top of each RFA -> See the tally at Dragon Flights tool --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support removing the tally. Its not in the spirit of RfA and is a distraction from the main game which is for people to offer comments on candidates.  If its important, readers can also scroll down to the bottom to see the number against the last vote. -- I@n 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This makes more sense. My original concern was that the new location meant no one updated it - if the purpose of moving it was in fact to induce this effect, then it makes more sense to dispose of it all together. - GI e n 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DF's tool is more accurate in many cases for whose who want the numbers, and not having the tally makes it more of a discussion, less of a polling station. -- nae'blis 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What if we got really crazy and used bullets "*" instead of numbers "#" beside each !vote? I'd support this as long as the automated tools still counted correctly. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on splitting the standards page
There is a discussion on splitting the standards page (size > 90) into 4 sections here. Seeing as there is, so far, no opposition to this idea, I'll be doing it later today. I'm mentioning it here for the broader audience I'm sure reads this talk page than Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Standards. Comments on the idea are welcome. Picaroon9288|ta co 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do the titles Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D, Requests for adminship/Standards/E-K, Requests for adminship/Standards/L-R, and Requests for adminship/Standards/S-Z sound good? If there is no opposition, I'll go ahead soon. Picaroon9288|ta co 19:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. One thing I like is that you placed "S" at the beginning of the last section (typically a large group of names in any list). As this list is likely to expand, do you think that those breaks in the alphabetical listing will continue to hold up as rough equidistant breaks? - Jc37 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Section breakups per letter would also be useful for section editing. --Thunderhead 19:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing to be wary of: alpha sorting. There are editors who pipe their username so that it shows as something else.  Personally, I think they should be listed by actual user name.  What do you think? - Jc37 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether it will hold up; I originally suggested A-G, H-P, and Q-Z, the traditional breaks in the alphabet song. Then Grutness suggested what he called "London Phonebook" style (I've never been to London, nor have I seen their phonebooks, nor have I seen this style before) because the three that I suggested will be over 32 quite soon, if not immediately. But will an anti-vandal bot revert me when I blank 99% of the wp:rfa/standards page? Picaroon9288|ta co 20:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If memory serves, TawkerBot2 will only revert once under normal circumstances, so if it does get reverted, revert it back again. However, you're in the wikipedia namespace, so the bots might ignore you anyway. --Tango 20:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, good. Anyways, before I do the other 3, what do you guys think of A-D? Picaroon9288|ta co 20:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me, but I might suggest having links at the top (in a template box perhaps?) for the other 3 pages, for ease of navigation. - Jc37 20:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll definitely have links to the other three at the top and at the bottom of all four pages, once they all exist. I can't guarantee a nice looking box, however - boxes have always been my nemesis on wikimedia sites.  I'll try, though. Picaroon9288|ta co 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh noes, L-R is too long by itself. I'll do Requests for adminship/Standards/L-O, and figure how the final two (altogether P-Z) should be split with the halfhour, and probably sooner. Picaroon9288|ta co 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(starting the colons over : )

Suggestion: Add "L" to E-K, and split E-L in half. M-N-O-P; Q-Z. - Jc37 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't notice the suggestion in time, and I'm not an admin (yet ;)), so I can't do anything now. But I think it worked out all right.  Picaroon9288|ta co 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Archived Material
Was some discussion refactored or inadvertently deleted from this page today? I just referred a user to the discussion of "young admin candidates" that was going on on this page as recently as this morning, but it's not here any more, and I don't see a talk archive. Newyorkbrad 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was archived (check the page history) to the normal place (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives) as archive 66. There is an archive header at the top of this page!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the quick reply and I now see the heading (based on the first line there I thought the archives referred to the RfA's themselves rather than this talk, but I now see the second line is different). I guess I just wasn't expecting to see a thread archived to which I had contributed as recently as today! But no harm done, it was petering out anyway. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems I modified the page to use archive box so it is more prominent. I will add a link to archived RFA applications as well so otehrs dont get confused :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok done, what do you all reckon - look ok? it does overlap the top edit link.... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe keep a link to the latest archive directly on this page, save people clicking around. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Kpjas' RFA
Many users have opposed this editor's Request for Adminship based on "lack of experience" and "low WP space edits", apparently ignoring or not aware of this user's 5K edits on English Wikipedia, 37,000 edits on Polish Wikipedia (including 2,600 to WP space), and Admin status on Polish Wikipedia. While I feel these facts should have been mentioned in the nomination, it's disturbing that the majority of people have opposed or voted neutral based on "lack of experience" or "lack of dedication to the project", without digging a little (like checking Kpjas' user page, where his number of edits on both Wikipedias is listed at the top of the page).

As I have provided links on the RFA to relevent facts which support Kpjas' dedication and experience, a few opinions have changed, but I'm not even sure how many people will bother to check back on this RfA. I've asked a few user to reconsider their opinions, but I don't know how many will consider it. If this RfA fails, it will be because of a, IMO, somewhat poor nomination and many editors' willingness to overlook easily obtainable evidence. -- Firsfron of Ronchester 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not have supported him in his RFA, as his reply to the first question is very weak. He has indeed a low amount of English WP namespace edits. The fact that he is a terribly experienced user at the Polish Wikipedia doesn't mean he should be given administrators rights in the English. As I said, he does not really need administrators tools to do what he wants to do. -- ReyBrujo 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh BOGGLE! A dude from 2001 fails on edit count criteria?

2001. And 10Ks of edits across all wikimedia.

Just to be sure, 2001 is the year wikipedia started. It means we're dealing with one of the first and earliest contributors to wikimedia projects.

So... someone like that gets rejected for lack of experience? I don't know, I don't think many current admins pass under those criteria, somehow.

Kim Bruning 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'd say he was a good user and well deserves admin status on the polish wiki, however, as has been said, despite many edits (and obvious knowledge of policy) the poor answers to the question lead arise to another - will this person actually use the tools. He says so but if he cant put the effort into his RFA statements then it just doesn't feel like he wants or needs the tools. Thats not a good reason to oppose I admit but it's just a feeling people end up getting -> hence loads of opposes and neutrals. If he fills out his answers properly then the will sail through :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check the various time stamps. I originally opposed (and was the first voter period) because of all the things he said he wanted to do, the only thing that required the sysop bit was CSD, and his edits here show absolutely no familiarity with the deletion process.  Please look at the state of the nomination when it was posted and tell me if that looks like a person who is interested in being an admin and has some experience in admin-like areas.  I was actually thinking of recommending espernza's admin boot camp and a revote in 1-2 months.  It's hardly my fault (or any of the oppose voters) that the nomination did not mention that he was an admin on pl.wiki with 30K+ edits. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk to Kpjas why he didn't say that in his RFA. ForestH2  t/c 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's no excuse. The onus is on you to check. Kim Bruning 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't read Polish; so I have know clue if he's an admin. ForestH2  t/c 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, how would the onus be on Forest to check? Should he have gone through every Wikiproject and check their logs? JoshuaZ 02:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the most important attributes of an admin is the ability to communicate effectively. If a candidate neglects to include pertinent information in their RfA, it's not up to other editors to do the work for them. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to tell Kim. ForestH2  t/c 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Editors should be encouraged to go beyond the info included on an RfA and look at a candidate in greater detail, but expecting them to hunt for information on other Wikiprojects isn't very reasonable. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Change Wikiproject to another languge, by the way. ForestH2  t/c 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone expected anyone else to go hunting for information on other language editions. The info on user:Kpjas' number of contributions is found right on the top of his userpage. Who doesn't check user/talk pages when voicing an opinion?-- Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes I did. Whatever makes you think you'd get away with being so insular and lazy on wikipedia? :-P Kim Bruning 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (de-indenting) Well, I hope I haven't opened a can of worms by mentioning this here. I did not not and do not mean to imply that the oppose voters weren't doing their homework, but I do hope those editors who opposed based on "lack of experience" and/or "lack of dedication to the project" will switch to support, or, as Thatcher has done (completely to his credit), switch to neutral. I don't believe after this that anyone can genuinely oppose due to a belief of a lack of dedication to Wikipedia, and I think people who will come back and read the RfA after voting may switch to support... the problem is, many people won't check back.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (double edit conflict)I believe he did not comment on that because he does not deem that necessary for adminiship in this version. Otherwise, as stated, he would have informed that lack of WP edits would not be a problem since he is already knowledgeable in the general policies of Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, shape up!
I won't name names, but you'll know if I'm talking to you. If you placed an opinion on Kpjas' RFA, and actually reviewed the candidate beforehand, that's fine, this rant is not aimed at you. :-)

As per above on Kpjas' RFA... if someone says they're on the polish wiki, it doesn't hurt to check there. All the buttons and labels are in roughly the same places as on english, so it's not that hard to guess what's going on. (if you don't know the location of the controls by heart by now, perhaps you should get some more experience first?)

But ok, if that's one bridge too far for you, I can almost live with that.

The thing is, I found this information at the top of his user page. So could you. That's the first place you look when considering a candidate, and people simply did not look there. I don't mean to merely imply that the oppose voters weren't doing their homework. I'm willing to go out a limb here and suggest that maybe those specific oppose voters were acting outright lazy and stupid.

Please. We're all intelligent people here. If you make a mistake, that's fine. But don't go and compound your error by pointing the finger at someone else, or hiding behind this one mistake the other guy made too. That's irresponsible childish behaviour. If you're driving your car and the other guy makes a small mistake, you compensate for it, rather than cause a crash. Why do you think you're absolved of such responsibility on the wiki?

Even many of our teenaged contributors know better than that, so why don't you? Be a (wo)man, square your shoulders under the blame, and dangit, LEARN from your mistakes, and do better next time. You're a wikipedian, you're smart, you can do it!

I'm not saying you are stupid and lazy. You're likely very intelligent and probably score in the top 5-10% of any kind of test your countries' school system can throw at you. I'm just saying your current behaviour is stupid and lazy... ... But behaviours can be changed. Would you consider changing yours? :-)

Kim Bruning 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ''Note especially that I don't deny that you might wish to oppose for other reasons. I'm only pointing out that this one particular motivation ('lack of experience') simply does not compute in this situation. Kim Bruning''


 * Strong and heady words Kim, if you ever ran for adminship I would have to vote oppose just for this ;-) Seriously though although the words are strong the point s good, and sort of applies ot the general RFA voting climate IMO... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that "Lacks dedication to Wikipedia" is another reason why people have opposed Kpjas' adminship. 43,000 edits, and 5 years of experience just isn't enough for some people, apparently. :/ -- Firsfron of Ronchester 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * actualy the most trivial and most robust way to find out if someone is an admin on another wikipedia is to remeber that special:Listusers works on any mediawiki project.Geni 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It now seems to have gone the other way, from people opposing without checking to supporting without checking, and the normal questioning has flown out the window. I have added some questions to correct this. It is still necessary to examine the candidate as usual. Tyrenius 10:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * *sigh*. I'm too tired to go flame those supporters now too though ^^;; Thanks dude :-) Kim Bruning 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since the questions are supposed to be optional, isn't !voting based on them also optional? In which case, the supporters haven't failed to examine the candidate as usual... -- Firsfron of Ronchester 10:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, after the quote Titoxd dug up (basically pinning part of the blame for the transition from nupedia to wikipedia on Kpjas ;-) ), I don't think any question you could come up with could top that. Kim Bruning 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, *confused* what is this 5000 edits in 5 years thing that everyone is talking about if I see 43,000 edits up here? Anyway, I guess this falls into the pool of treating RfA canidates the same, and people figure "well, since you've been here for x amount of time, you should have x amount of edits." Edit counts rather than how long one has been here seems to outweigh the qualifications. -- Pilotguy (roger that) 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I did review, but I looked at contribs; it never even occurred to me to look at the edits on the Polish WP, so I've learned something there. I don't always look at the user page itself -- I've taken the attitude that it's what people do, not what they say, that counts. I'll take more time to look around in future. Mike Christie (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Mike, thanks for taking more time. I just cannot believe we've just gotten another "not experienced enough yet" vote on this RFA. Kim's comments seem more and more apt.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Timetable

 * ''Argh! This section is hereby speedily closed for being entierly non-encyclopaedic and wasting resources. The responsible malefactor(s) are hereby sentenced to cut down on WP:CP. --Ligulem 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Please do not modify it.

Please could we agree on a, say, weekly timetable for the "OH MY GOD! RfA is so broken it's going bust" hoo-ha? It's getting to be unpredictable when someone will try to have at it in a given week. I propose Thursdays, 15:47-16:00 UTC. -Splash - tk 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why Thursdays? I suggest a strawpoll. Marskell 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thursdays are slow for me. They just prevent it from becoming Friday for one more day. I am good with a strawpoll on the precise choice of day, but have no flexibility over the start time. -Splash - tk 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were paying attention you'd have noticed that we actually got some people to think more carefully on requests for adminship today. \o/ Kim Bruning 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but by the time I discovered today's (and I do believe you have doubled up on this week's quota) it was too late. Thus if we timetable it, we can be sure it's coming along on cue. Also, we could then archive the hoo-has after they have passed quietly by and compare over time if anything new ever comes up. PrePS: The first draft of your comment was nicer. There is no accounting for human nature. Post-PrePS: The second draft was less nice than the third. -Splash - tk 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * :-P I'll take monday morning. Is that ok? Kim Bruning 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you may be trying to cheat. -Splash - tk 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much useless clutter
Why do we have to wade through heaps of bilge these days just to get to the Support/Oppose/Neutral? I have my own way of evaluating a candidate. What is all this random trash doing in the front of the nomination? Couldn't it go on the talk page or something? --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The questions make sense to have there on the main page, they are rather part of the nomination, but the edit counts should go in the Talk page. Even better, maybe we should put the vote in the Talk page, and all the substance in the main page? Anybody? —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that would just be pretending it wasn't really happening when the simple fact is it is. The same reason that, whilst it is not a vote, there is only clumsiness available from blanketly replacing "vote" with "discussion" or "brawl". -Splash - tk 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We've always had the questions. Not bad but they used to be at the end. Until recently people coming up with all this editcount crap would be politely told to stick it. Now the crap gets pride of place. wtf? --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Encouraging people to actually discuss on the talk page instead of on the main page might be interesting - but at the moment people rarely look there. If all discussion was put there, then it would force people to look there to determine whether the candidate should be an administrator or not. I'm indifferent on the matter though; I have no preference, as I take in the users contribs and answers to questions into account mostly anyway. Cowman109 Talk 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If an RfA was on your watchlist you would see it pop up everytime someone edited the page. It would be quite easy to track conversations there, the same as the articles. David D. (Talk) 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony, although the material is useful to have at a glance. Also it does save server load from all the people having to run the edit counter individually. Much better to just stick all the raw stats on the talk page. JoshuaZ 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If anything the edit counts should be either removed or moved to the talk page - they encourage editcountitis anyway. Cowman109 Talk 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As discussed elsewhere the new layout is designed to take the focus off the edit and vote counting. I support that aim and anything that will encourage evaluating candidates on what matters and not counts. As mentioned below I'd prefer the edit counts removed completely, but moving it to the talk page would help some too. - Taxman Talk 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What really gets me down is the sheer amount of useless clutter I have to wade through to get to the discussion. RFA's didn't use to be this pointlessly HUGE. I never edit an RFA until I've had a very good look at a person's edit history, so what's the point of all the statistics? --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I also felt there is way too much emphasis on detailed statistical counts of all kinds. When Interiot's tool worked, it was simpler, a link was enough. (Hopefully the edit summary link my bot provides does not disturb people.)

PS: Tony, you could tone down your rhetoric, you have a point, but really, it does not need to be so dramatic. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If really needed, I suggest displaying only Article/talk, User/talk and Wikipedia/talk numbers. Voice of All's statistics are too exhaustive for my taste. Moving to the talk page is a good option. Or hide the tables with a NavBar (even if only the default skin is supported). -- ReyBrujo 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Essjay's tool does work. So the edit count stuff isn't really necessary.--Peta 03:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree w/ Tony. -- Szvest 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pussonally, I don't find the statistics useful beyond the broad distribution of edits across namespaces (oh so shoot me). The detail is rather heavy and the 2 decimal places rather emphasise the fact. That said, I suppose there may be those who find them useful for something and there's the outside chance that one day, for one candidate, they might actually hold a nugget of genuinely useful information. I'd be painfully in favour of moving the -itis to the talk page, but to work around the lack of visibility pointed out above, we should retain a link to the talk page where formerly there was a link to Interiot's tool and currently is to Essjay's. We could ask VoA to do that more or less right now, I'd think. -Splash - tk 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are using the monobook skin, you can use this script, as Essjay and some others use to collapse the page. As for stats, there is nothing to stop people from running Interiot's/Essjay's editcounter wich then means that people who use AWB to make meaningless hordes of edits get a huge unfair advatage over others. Thats why I run the stats, to test for that kind of stuff. Its like fighting stat misinterpretation with more detailed stats. Its a necessary evil with all the candidates that thing AWB will give them high edit count that makes more people support them. As for moving it to the talk page, I am afraid that not too many people would look there...on the other hand, if it was known that all the stats, overall and focused and in depth, then they could both complement each other there, so maybe it could work... Voice -of- All  03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA candidates are asking to be administrators, so they are not already admins
I'll be honest with you, I want to see a discussion on this issue. I see a lot of recent pushes by numerous users to grant tools to only those who are already pretty much admins without the tools. Why oppose someone just because they don't act like admins yet? Administrators noticeboard isn't "editors noticeboard", so many editors assume that they shouldn't get involved in those affairs. We have to remember the core of adminship: granting the tools. We don't have a limit as to how many admins we have, so why decline people who are not already acting like admins? They're asking to become administrators, so of course they're growing interested in admin tools. The true question is this: can they be trusted with the tools? It's not "do they need the tools". I'd rather see that all trusted users get admin tools so that they can use them if necessary. Why use a strainer to only provide them to the people who need them the most? Let's push aside statistics and use common sense: most people can get a gun with a background check, etc; they don't decline you because you're not a cop or a hunter. Heck, what if, say, the USA was invaded, and nobody (except for the few elite) had guns in self defense? Why not grant them to everyone who is trusted and proven, so that the defense of that country has a greater chance of succeeding? I'm going to develop this comparison even further by stating that a major factor to the start of the nuclear age was that the Japanese gave every non-criminal defensive weaponry. I assume you can tell where this comparison is going. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong but I do not ask myself, "can they be trusted with the tools?" or "do they need the tools".  i ask myself can they communicate? Do they show common sense? David D. (Talk) 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is not simply whether they have ill will, but if they also have a good idea of what they are doing. Since any regular user can do so many administrative tasks, why should they be made administrator before they have learned how to do the ones they are already capable of doing? The proper analogy would be only selling guns to someone who has gone to the firing range to practice shooting before. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely; a user should display common sense and a basic understanding, as well. However, I feel that too many voters are sending a message that they only want people who will use the tools a LOT, despite basic understanding and trustworthiness; a person should have shooting experience, of course, but they don't need to be a hunter or a cop to own that weapon. &mdash; Deckill e r 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with De on the specific issue of WP:AN. A candidate should obviously know what it is, but expecting them to have posted to it regularly doesn't really make sense. I have posted twice or thrice, but why would I follow it regularly if I cannot block people, delete/undelete articles etc? Similarly, I watch WP:DRV but it's pointless most of the time because I can't view the deleted article. Marskell 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a risk with no benefit in giving someone admin tools who doesn't need them. For the same reason admin tools are no big deal, it is no big deal if someone doesn't have them because they have no use for them. Also, if they have no use for it, that means they haven't worked in these areas and we can't evaluate their knowledge there; someone who would be roundly opposed for administrator because of their hasty decisions and strange interpretation of policy would easily get by, when they don't need them anyway. So, at best, they aren't going to use them, at worst they might make bad or disruptive decisions everyone disagrees with, and for candidates here only briefly, at very worst they may be a scheming vandal.

I don't see a problem. This criteria is often relaxed for long-standing contributors who are clearly reasonable and committed to Wikipedia as encyclopedia, recently Requests for adminship/MisfitToys and Requests for adminship/Arthur Rubin, where "at worst" turns into "may make inaccurate decisions in their infrequent usage, but is without doubt friendly, intelligent, and open to discussion". —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternate accounts
Is it wrong to have an alternate account as an admin, I have an alternate account --TheM62Manchester 09:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just a sockpuppet, so as long as it's not used abusively, nope. Good security idea if you use public terminals regularly. --jam  es (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For now, it only gets used infrequently, but could it run for RFA? --TheM62Manchester 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think it would get shot down due to obvious security concerns that will arise, although it's not explicitly forbidden I don't think - unless you're already one, I suppose. – Chacor 09:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See sockpuppet policy.  By my reading, admin sockpuppets not permitted per this policy. Also see discussion on talk about tightening restrictions on multiple accounts in any manner.  FloNight   talk  10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the policy is that whilst one individual may have >1 account either overtly or covertly only one of thos accounts should have admin powers at any one time.ALR 10:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree thats what it says :D as to TheM62Manchester's sock, it depends what you use it for? I guess from the name you use it when logging on and editing in public. right? If so I would say that is pretty good practice that way if someone is shouldersurfing or nicks your password (which could easily happen) then they dont get access to admin powers. If thats the reason you use that sock then I think you wont find many people to oppose it's use!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * no rule per se but thwe account would be unlikely to pass see Requests for adminship/Genisock2.Geni 10:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. --TheM62Manchester 11:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe anyone should ever have two admin accounts. However, a second account for limited purposes may be acceptable, or even a good idea.  I know of a particular user who has gone through RFA twice and failed; if he goes through again I will oppose because he edits from his high school library and has twice lost control of his account after forgetting to log out.  (It doesn't help that his library's IP is a persistent source of schoolboy vandalism, too.)  However, if he created a second account for editing from school that was not a sysop, and pledged to only use the sysop account from home, that would take care of that problem. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an https login availabe which solves the logging in over public wireless/other insecure connection problem, but there is currently only one server allocated to it and it's overloaded sometimes. If the devs reallized this was a desired option perhaps they would allocate the time to setting up another server/load balancing, etc. It's what I use when I need to log in on a wireless connection. Then I try to minimize my use of it by loading pages in a non encrypted tab, and only using the encrypted connection to edit. If you're only worried about your password getting taken and not a man in the middle impersonation, then it's probably possible to configure the https to be used only for log in, but edit in the clear. Should probably only carry this discussion on further at WP:VP/T. - Taxman Talk 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Location of tallies
I think we need to be consistent on where the running tally will be located. On some current RfA's its on the top line by the candidate's name, in others it's below the questions and just above the !votes. I don't have a strong view where it belongs, but right now TKE's RfA has two tallies running, one in each place, suggesting that we need to make up our minds. Newyorkbrad 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's to be expected, given that the older RFAs were already running when the template was changed. But whoever changed it should have gone to change the older ones too. IMO, let's stick them where they used to be, at the top. – Chacor 15:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ Chacor. -- Szvest 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there's any need to change old RfAs (did they do that when they first made the large change to the new format?). Soon every RfA will be at the bottom, and people will stop moving it and adding new tallies. I'm fixing them when people do do that, and I added a note next to the tally telling people not to move it.  In this particular case, the guy probably just didn't see the tally towards the bottom. See also . --Rory096 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many people are reading the older section, so I'll repeat an idea being discussed there. How about removing the tally entirely? In fact, what about removing the numbers beside each !vote and using bullets "*" instead? As long as automated tools can generate summaries, I'd support these ideas. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A mockup of what this would look like is here. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I'd thought of the same idea some days ago. :) Figured it would get shot down by all the editcountitis types. --Durin 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We could even go one step further and go AfD-style, merging the support, oppose, and neutral !votes into one section. --  tariq abjotu  22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's advisable, because a) with the de facto percentages in effect for RfAs, there's less room for the closer to weigh arguments, and b) it would break the bots again, and remove the advantage of edit sections. Some gauge of the percentages is relevant, but I think that's sufficed by having the bullets be numbered, and no explicit tally for people to forget. -- nae'blis 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nae'blis. RFA is a vote and I don't know why people pretend it isn't. Everyone who's so upset about RFA (which works very well) should redirect their efforts to AFD (which actually is NOT a vote, and is a total disaster). — GT 06:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer dropping the tally altogether and dropping the #'s so there's no count on the page. I still think it's better to separate supports and opposes though so the page stays cleaner and the reasoning is clear. Best would be to also stop pasting in the edit counts as that would reduce the number of people that vote solely based on those. We have way to many people not really evaluating the candidates and anything we can do to reduce that, we should. - Taxman Talk 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree, but because of the toolserver problems (as in it being lagged 75 days), people can only get counts with js scripts, which many don't have, and even if they do, it takes several minutes per candidate. I agree, the old way of just giving the link to the Interiot's tool page for the user was much better (have you noticed we barely ever have opposes based on edit summaries anymore?  That used to destroy RfAs...), but it's harder to get an edit count now. Maybe a subpage of the RfA? --Rory096 05:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Essjay's tool, as pointed somewhere above, should be enough. It is the Javascript script but running on PHP. -- ReyBrujo 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and it runs in real time? That's great, someone should tell Oleg Alexandrov. --Rory096 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the tally should be retained, was just trying to make sure there was only one tally in each RfA. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I liked the tally going on top. Then again, I already have the RfA layout script which is based off that, so its easier that way. (it collapses RfAs to show/hide items with the user name, ending date, and tally). Voice -of- All  03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actaully, I'd strongly recomment putting the tally back up into a useful location. Voice -of- All  01:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it at the top please. It is a pain to have to search for it. It took me extra valuable minutes to update my RfA records today, time I will never get back ;). Let's not go overboard on this vote vs. discussion thing, the tally doesn't hurt anything and doesn't need to be hidden. NoSeptember  01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Taxman. If the crat's want to count, then let them. We're there to decide whether a candidate should be an admin or not. Why do we need a tally, and why does it even matter? We can clearly read, and count for ourselves. SynergeticMaggot 01:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If we have to waste time counting, we will have that much less time to dig into the candidate's contributions. I use the tallies for the very practical purpose of seeing if an RfA is close and therefore requires some closer attention from me. Issues about the lack of serious discussion on RfAs should be resolved by something other than cosmetic tweaks like this tally thing. NoSeptember  02:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Top, please. Much more convenient. Here's a radical counting system. 'Crat goes through (privately) giving each "vote" a score between 0 and 5, and uses that total. Useless votes (like I'm opposing because it's Friday) get 0. Well researched original material and sound reasoning gets 5. "Support per everyone else" might scrape a 1. This applies on both + and - sides. Now that would be true to the spirit of debate, while also incorporating numbers, and no one would be able to understand it. It would be an interesting exercise or perhaps give the 'crat (and everybody else for that matter) a useful alternative view. Tyrenius 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping this is meant as A modest proposal. The crats should have full discretion. No need for us to tell them how to weigh comments. JoshuaZ 02:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Said suggestion would probably result in a lot of complaints, especially if a crat is seen as being to "close" to the candidate. You'd get quite a few queries as to how each was scored. Still, I suppose it could work if more than one crat did it, together. – Chacor 02:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now they're just counting. I've yet to see one RfA above 75% fail. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For myself that's just more or less coincidental. It just doesn't happen to occur that people have substantial, strong, and meaty opposition and still get over 75% support. As I've said before if I saw an RfA with said strong substantial well reasoned opposition and only weak supports, then I would fail it whatever percentage it came out at. Substantial, well reasoned opposition just happens to sink RfA's, and that's a good thing. - Taxman Talk 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not in jest, nor is it telling anyone to do anything. I think it would be an interesting and worthwhile comparison to make between a straightforward numbers count and an evaluation based on the substance of each "vote". I'm not proposing it for any official guideline. Don't worry! :) Tyrenius 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a radical idea: don't count. Either just take a look at the general amount of comments in the support and oppose camps and make your decision about whether you need to allocate time to evaluating the candidate or just look at the various bot summaries. If we still maintain a standard format and fix any errors, then the bots will be able to give the tallies anyway, even if we went so far as to take numbering out of the RfA's. Of the people simply saying "keep the vote tally", "keep it up top", no one has said what value they have that couldn't be gotten without them, nor how it's worth the cost in people simply focusing on vote counting. - Taxman Talk 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting people are voting because of the current tally? If the tally is 30/5/3 they'll vote support but if it's 26/8/4 they'll vote oppose? If you are saying that they will join the crowd when there are lots of support voters or lots of oppose voters, then I'll agree, but the specific tally is not the issue, and you can see at a glance if there are a lot of votes. The only way to prevent people running with the crowd is to eliminate the separate sections and have the support and oppose votes mixed together as with AfDs. The tally issue is a red herring issue, not directly related to the issue of people voting without seriously considering the candidate first. Getting rid of the tally will not solve that issue. I support getting rid of the clutter of statistics as discussed in the section above, but the tally is a small item, and does no harm.  NoSeptember  15:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No I'm not suggesting it's that big a deal, but it's one more little thing that swings it away from being a consensus gathering excercise. Every little bit helps, and as I said, there's no real upside to the tallies that can't be had without them. And no, I agree it isn't directly related to people not seriously evaluating the candidates, but I didn't say it was either. I agree moving that stats out to the talk page or just removing them would be more valuable, but I'd already said that, and this section happened to be discussing the tallies. - Taxman Talk 16:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see what need there is to move the location of the tally. As for doing away with it, again, I don't see the mischief that is allegedly being solved. Unlike an AfD on an individual article, there are enough participants on individual RfDs that keeping a tally is practical. Like NoSeptember, I find it useful to have this info handy. I also don't think it's much of an assumption of good faith to take the position that people are basing their votes on the running tally. I find that most editors here are anything but sheep. Agent 86 04:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense but if you're not seeing how many people are voting without evaluating a candidate at all, then you're not looking. - Taxman Talk 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing if those editors are "voting" without making an evaluation. To consider what is going through the mind of the editor leaving short comments is pure speculation, and it's good faith to give them the benefit of the doubt. I usually assume that short comments are made after the editor has considered the candidate. I know in some cases I myself, on occassion, have said little beyond "support" or "oppose", but in those cases, there's really nothing new left to say, but I still want to indicate my support or objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent 86 (talk • contribs)
 * What we do know is votes with no reasoning don't demonstrate that the person did make a thorough examination and are thus not as helpful in building a consensus. You can always say I believe they are trustworthy because... or I think they will/won't make a good admin because... - Taxman Talk 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tended to avoid updating the tally on RfAs I have taken part in, as I feel that in a consensus building exercise, opinions shouldn't be finalised until the discussion is concluded. And of course people should all think for themselves. But in my own RfA, I have found it interesting to know what the tally is. Although we have the usual batch of paranoia and me too edits based on inaccurate allegations and misunderstandings, (particularly on the oppose side of course ;-)), I have been very impressed by the work put in from all directions to ensure a productive outcome. Sometimes people object to questions about oppose votes, but I have found the genuine answers very helpful and I'm sure that they will make Wikipedia better. If I have time, I may make a summary of the main points at the bottom, as the discussion has ranged quite widely. Stephen B Streater 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That still doesnt justify a reason to have a tally. Once you've been nom'ed, and accepted, its out of your hands. The majority of participants in RfA run with the pack, unless they have a quarrel with the candidate or are just good diggers. SynergeticMaggot 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the tally from here, not the article itself. Stephen B Streater 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, the information should be for the crats, not for participants. As Taxman noted, the percentage means nothing if there is reason not to sysop a candidate. SynergeticMaggot 17:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think a crat could take himself a minute per request to scroll down to the last post, see the total numbers and analyze the votes :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Next thing you know we will have a proposal that we use the boardvote system for RfA. You leave you comments on the RfA page, but your actual vote can only be seen by those who have proper authorization to view votes cast. Won't that be fun ;). NoSeptember  18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

About the tally, I believe both Taxman and NoSeptember have made valid points: the tally can have a direct influence over how some people vote, but I sense that this influence is significative only in those cases where the count is largely in favor of one of the sides (typical bandwagoning -- stuff like 130/2/1 or even 89/3/2 if it's support; or 12/30/9 or the likes if it's in favor of failing the RfA). When the RfA is closer (not necessarily a close call, but if it is not so clearly "one-sided") I believe the greater influence comes from individuals who may "vote" and sway others to vote similarly (the well known "support/oppose per UserX"). Although I'm not entirely convinced that the presence of the tally does enough harm to merit it being removed, I must also agree with Taxman in the sense that it shouldn't be indispensable either, since we shouldn't be counting, but rather evaluating the candidate -- if any counting needs to be done, leave it to the Bureaucrats. However, as long as the tally is there, it is much better to keep it at the top, also because it makes our job of closing the RfA easier (part of the procedure is to make sure that the tally is updated to reflect the final result, and it is just easier having it in the header than having to rummage through the RfA in search of it (it just saves us one or two precious minutes). About the stats... that's also tricky. I do believe that those provide users with a "snapshot" of the candidate's activity distribution, which can be useful in determining whether the candidate has a good grasp of policy, good community interaction, etc.  But it also leaves the door open for editcountitis-based !voting.  I'd say this might be fixed if we could come up with a stat grid that, instead of giving out gross numbers, would give out only percentages -- that is to say, instead of reading Main: 3000; Wikipedia:2500; Wikipedia talk:1900; it would read something like: Main:45%; Wikipedia:38% and so on. As long as the total number of edits is also not given (obviously, or the real numbers could be deduced from the percentages), we'd have the activity distribution unattached to the sheer number of edits, which could help reduce the !voting based on editcountitis. But yes, the stats grid as it exists now is causing more damage than it is helping. Redux 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Summaries of the stats do no more good. You're still just as likely to get a vote of the form "Object, less than x% of edits in blah namespace" with no consideration of the fact that x% of votes in a given namespace tells us nearly nothing about a person's qualifications. - Taxman Talk 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Beyond the fact that it was more visable before, and "if it aint broke...", it was also easier to glance at an RfA and no whether it is worth voting or not. A 70/0 or 5/20 RfA is just not worth voting on, and I'd rather not have to search for the tally. Voice -of- All  21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. To get to 70/0 someone must have thought it worth expressing an opinion at 69/0. And even when supporting/opposing in a non marginal case, this is a good forum to suggest improvements. I do wonder how many early "voters" actually come and review the consensus building discussion later on and review their original opinions. Stephen B Streater 09:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Once passed a certain threshold most support votes are just pile-ons, sometimes with the clear intention to make it to WP:100. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that there doesn't seem to be much support for the mid-placement tally (whether or not the tally should exist at all is a different question), I've dropped a note on the RFA template's talk page to suggest moving it back. Don't be surprised if it's back at the top soon... scream if you think it's a bad idea, etc. -- nae'blis 14:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding my support to this.


 * On another tack, does anybody else think that RFA applications are becoming ridiculously bloated with unnecessary stuff? The questions and their answers may be of marginal use, but anybody who votes in an RFA without checking the edit history of the applicant probably shouldn't be voting.  Including the edit-count summaries discourages this by giving the impression that the candidate can be summed up using a tool.  It also encourages editcountitis.  I'd much prefer a return to the old-style application without any editing statistics and with the questions at the end. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded on the returning to the old style count, that was much better without the clutter one has to get through to the "discussion". – Chacor 13:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thirded, tallies at the top and move all the clutter to the top of the talk page (providing links as neccessary). Keep the edit count summary, but on the talk page, as it is a quick measure of the spread of a user's contributions, not just pure number of edits. And of course, as Tony says, everyone offering an opinion should be researching the content of those contributions. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit statistics have been moved on Winhunter's RfA
I think the generic RfA template needs to be edited a bit to reflect that the stats are no longer on the main page. I'm not sure if editing it would skew all of the other RfA's going right now, so I'm hoping someone who knows what they're doing will fix it up ;)  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already been done :)  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

An inquiry on a case study
I have an inquiry to make on users declining adminship, if they were being nominated by another user for a second or more times. Allow me to provide a typical case study. As some of the more expereinced editors on RfAs know, Computerjoe, who in my personal opinion is a great editor, recently declined his fourth RfA. However, I strongly believe that he would run for adminship in about a couple of months time. The point I would like to make is this; what if the user in question delays in accepting this nomination? For example, if he states that he would not officially accept this now but maybe in a few months time. This would result in keeping the RfA nomination at #4 instead of #5. Is this a correct procedure to follow if a user feels that he/she is not yet ready for adminship? Or instead of creating a #5 RfA in a couple of months, why not use the #4 RfA by asking the user in question to delete his earlier non-acceptance instead of creating a new #5 RfA page? Any comments on this would be greatly appreciated. NOTE: I personally delayed in accepting my own recent RfA by about two weeks as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  11:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ideally the RFA page shouldn't be created until the candidate agrees to be nominated. That's just a lack of communication on the part of the nominator.  In this specific case I would have no problem deleting #4, since there are no answers to the questions and no votes/discussion, so his next full nom would be #4.  There may be other specific cases suitable for deletion under the same principle as far as I am concerned.  In general I would say that the nominator should get the candidate's permission before creating the page in the first place, which would eliminate your concern in the first place. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A nom that isn't accepted never goes on the list, never gets seen by anyone not involved (unless they hunt for it), and no discussion or decision making goes on there. There's no need to archive it, so it might as well be deleted and replaced with a new RFA when he's ready. --Tango 11:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree on that. It seems significant when someone does decline a nomination in that it can give some insight into the individual's character.  That may be significant in the event of a future nomination. --StuffOfInterest 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A nomination that's not accepted can have two possible sorts of influence on the candidates 'image': on one side "Hey, this guy is honest/humble/patient/etc., great!", on the other "Hey, this is RFA 5, what's wrong with this guy?". When a candidate tells the nominator "No, I'm not quite ready, could you ask me again in two months?", this can be done on a user's talk page, in a conversation on IRC or via email or something like Skype, MSN or any other medium of choice. All of those will, most likely, remain unseen to the rest of the Wikipedia community. However, if the nominator is impatient and goes ahead and creates the nomination page, the nomination suddenly 'counts' - with the possible negative effect described above. The only difference was the behaviour of the nominator, not something that should reflect on the candidate. I think therefore that in cases like these, where the candidate doesn't accept, the candidate should be allowed to ask the nomination page to be deleted. --JoanneB 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I declined a nomination, and my current one is officially version 1. Of course, there have been many "you should be an administrator" comments of varying strengths, which could have led to a nomination if I had responded positively. It is this grey area which complicates things if you want to undertake serious research. Stephen B Streater 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If one of the people who told you "you should be an administrator" had instead created the page and said, "guess what, I nominated you", I don't think you should be stuck with that on your "record" so to speak. I do think that if someone agrees to be nominated the results, postive or negative, should be kept. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that accepted nominations are what is important, as the RfA process itself involves a huge amount of work and straightens out a lot of issues, in a way not reflected in any way by a "want to stand?" - "Nah" doesn't. Stephen B Streater 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think a declined nomination should go in the "count"; as mentioned above, there's no valuable information conveyed by the page, and it can either be overwritten by the next (accepted) nomination, or deleted outright and recreated anew. Obvious CSCWEM 2 was sort of a special case... -- nae'blis 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Declined' and 'withdrawn' are seperate entities. ~ PseudoSudo 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Declined nominations submitted by other editors should not count towards the subsequent numbering of the candidate's future efforts. If the candidate declined, whether aware of preliminary voting or not, this should not be rolled forward to any future "numbering regimes". This is entirely different to a failing RfA withdrawal. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My wicked side is prompting me to say Nobody asks you if you want a RFC, you just wake up one day with it. ;-) Whether to inform an editor if he wants to be a candidate is, from my point of view, simple. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia relying on the good faith of its editors. Until now, I haven't seen someone nominating someone else in bad faith. Thus, if someone nominates an editor, it is because he, personally, thinks the editor would be a good administrator. I believe any of us should be free to nominate whoever we believe has the necessary conditions for adminship, based on my assumption of good faith. The same way we edit a paragraph in an article without having to post an explanation of the edit in the talk page. It is up to others to interpret that as "a nice surprise" or "lack of communication". -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, "a nice surprise" could turn into a bad expereince for the user who was nominated. His RfA could turn out to be a disaster. And, if my memory is correct, there had been very few cases where someone had nominated a user in bad faith (please correct me if I am wrong about this). This could, of course be very subjective, but I can't seem to find solid evidence to back up my statement. Perhaps, some of the more veteran users could bring out a few evidence of these bad faith nominations. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Essjay's tool as the new count
Recently, Taxman noted that the edit count pasted on the page encourages editcountitis. I replied, saying that unfortunately there was no toolserver to generate a count like there used to be, when Mathbot simply added the link to Interiot's tool for that user. ReyBrujo suggested Essjay's tool (something I didn't previously know about), so I suggested that to Oleg Alexandrov. He replied saying it was slow and everyone using it might strain the server, so I'm now here. Oleg is right that it's slow, though much faster than tool2- it just took about 40 seconds to get my bot's count, which is only about 12,000. Still, 40 extra seconds for the removal of edit counts from RfAs is a trade I'm willing to make. Is the rest of RfA? --Rory096 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (I can easily have Mathbot link to Essjay's tool (which would reduce the amount of pasted edit count text) if people think that's the best decision. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I already use that method as soon as a candidate shows up. This can be implemented simply by changing the style in which the candidate displays their name -->. Or even better:  - can be used in order for those who want to check more than just the count. SynergeticMaggot 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We can create our own specialized RfA user template to show something like: NoSeptember (talk • contribs • count • block log) . NoSeptember  17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Add logs to it also from and an e-mail check from . Unless of course, I'm the only one who might see it as important :-) SynergeticMaggot 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Editcountitis IS a terrible affliction, but it has its uses for some assessment purposes. After Kate's tool, Interiot's development of that was THE BEST by far. I always found the monthly breakdown by namespace particularly invaluable, allowing better candidate assessment by easing the strain of wading through Special:Contributions manually. Now that it's broken, Essjay's implementation provides a pretty much up to date, working version, but with reduced functionality - pure numbers. It's faster than Interiot's javascript version, and all all credit to Essjay for that. Some questions though - why is Interiot's tool still broken, and can it be fixed; Why does Essjay's tool work, and can it be developed to include the original Interiot functionality?  -- Cactus.man   &#9997;  18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, Interiot's tool worked with the replication database, that is, the queries the tools make do not affect Wikipedia. Essjay's tools is basically quering all the contributions of the user from the live server, which may impact if (in example) we have ten >30k contrib users and several are trying to vote. I am guessing it is possible to add Interiot's functionality to Essjay's tool, but it would not be cached (that is, it would have to be calculated everytime someone clicks the count link), straining the server even more. -- ReyBrujo 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I suggested the tool based on a previous suggestion that was apparently overlooked :-) -- ReyBrujo 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that screen scraping is generally frowned upon by the sysadmins. If you start getting hundreds of people scraping edit counts off people's contribution pages, it's possible that that would result in an IP block of the scraper (assuming it was a single server) and/or removal of the scraping tools from WMF-hosted sites.  That's routinely done to those who scrape content for mirroring; you're supposed to use data dumps.  Note that I certainly can't speak for the devs or sysadmins, but it might be wise to ask Brion or Tim before doing this (I'm not sure they're even aware of current edit-count scrapers).  Either that, or take Tango's suggestion below. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If the only problem with just putting a link is the extra load, then why not run the counter once, put that on some other page (the talk page has been suggested before as a good place for it), and link to that? --Tango 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we also have to keep in mind that if we use the suggested method above, that the viewing will no longer be "fixed", as it would if we just moved it to the talk. Having a link to the count would provide up to date information, where as a fixed system does not account for a candidate taking the suggestions of an opposer/supporter. Examples would be if I said I oppose for no portal edits and the candidate goes and creates or edits a portal. I could then check up on his count and see that he has taken my advice, reached my criteria, and I then change to support. Also note that I know that portal edits are trivial, but then again, so are some editors criteria. SynergeticMaggot 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if your critera are such that they can be reached during the RfA, then they should be discounted. If someone is X edits below your minimum and they go and make X edits to the appropriate namespace, then chances are they are trivial edits just done to jump through the hoop. RfA should not be about creating hoops. --Tango 21:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tango to a point. When the candidate presents himself, he brings his "CV" with him of what he had done until then to become an administrator. Whether he decides to spend the seven day doing what he usually does, relaxing at beach drinking beer and answering the optional questions or accumulating edits because he discovered he could live sleeping just 2 hours instead of 4, I do not really for purposes of editcountitis. If you had 0 Wikipedia edits and suddenly edit in the current 700 AFDs, sorry, that is not what I personally am searching for. -- ReyBrujo 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm merely bringing it to the attention of the participants in the conversation, as the topic hasnt been brought up yet. The proposal moves the edit count from a fixed point to a dynamic in which the first viewer will see something totally different from the 10th (depending on the candidate of course). Its something to think about. SynergeticMaggot 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, that would've been the case back when Interiot's toolserver counter worked. I don't really see fixed vs. dynamic as an issue, as long as RfA participants who care about editcounts look carefully enough at a candidate's contributions to see any last-minute resumé padding. Having said that, until the toolserver issues are ironed out I think the talk page would be a great place to drop the count as Tango said, since it avoids the server load issue, reduces the importance of the editcount somewhat, and encourages people to actually look at the talk page as a side benefit. BryanG(talk) 06:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good compromise. People can still paste in their favorite data, but on talk. And the server performance is not affected. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Put it on talk at the start of the RfA with a link to de-clutter the main page, and any edits since then can easily be reviewed using Special:Contributions. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  06:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guiding Light
Could someone delete this? — The Future  00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleted =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) — The Future  16:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
How is the new RfA format (with the show/hide) done? I can't see any wikicode that would do that...and it only works on Firefox (not IE) — Mets 501 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a personal script in included that includes the script (via SRC). Actually, I noticed that that and another script were should not be in the package and just removed them. The script, made for bureaucrats (hence why it doesn't belong in the /admin package) at User:Voice of All/Bureaucrat/monobook.js, will now abort if the browser is IE, rather than through an error. I am amazed that  is not well supported by JScript (not  JavaScript), and am now convinced that no broswer shittier than IE exists. Voice -of- All  02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. My mistake.  I should have thought of that :-).  Thanks. — Mets 501  (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Small Problem
Under Winhunter's RfA, 25th support, the numbers totaling how many supports there are has sort of restarted. It's back to 5 when it should be at 30. Maybe if everyone voting support for Winhunter just put the number of votes so far instead of #. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 07:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing major. Just a minor formatting issue with indents and/or line breaks I'm assuming. – Chacor 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * t'is fixed. -- I@n 08:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)