Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 74

Healthy number of successful nominees

 * The following is a joke request for adminship that was run into the ground. Please do not modify it, just move along. 

Wow! I looked at the RFA stats on my talkpage today and they look wonderful! There's at least half a dozen nominees with 100% support! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Things seem to move in waves on RfA. One minute people are complaining that it's an nigh-impossible gauntlet that candidates are forced to endure; the next minute 10 of 12 candidates have 88%+ support. Maybe the process isn't quite so broken... SuperMachine 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon me if I hope the trend lasts, at the very least, through November 7th. ;-) EVula 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ALERT! EVula is overeager - everybody vote to oppose! :-) Jokes aside, there are usually several nominations at a time from inexperienced editors that are naturally bound to fail - these skew the counts and give a negative impression when you're monitoring RfA. If you remove such cases from previous stats, they should rise to this same success rate. Rama's arrow  17:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It almost always comes down to the quality and experience of the candidate. Yes, there are occasionally situations such as strong candidates being rejected because of their biases or weaker candidates being promoted due to IRC popularity. But these are exceptions, not the rule. SuperMachine 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * EVula's going to run? Oppose: Less than ten thousand edits, and less than five thousand to the main article namespace. And what's this? Only 13 edits to categories?!?!?!? Too inexperienced! ;) --Durin 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also seeing less than 99% use of edit summaries while editing the Obscure 1980s TV Specials page after 7:00 PM on Thursdays when it's not raining outside. I'm afraid I must oppose. - Mike  |  Happy Thanksgiving  02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just who does that jerk think... he... aww, damn. EVula 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * INCIVILITY! INCIVILITY here! We've got him! Get on IRC, spam e-mail everybody! Oppose, Oppose! (lols) We're running this joke into the ground. Rama's arrow  03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. He just used a dirty word! My grandmother was in the room, saw it, had a heart attack and DIED! --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Being "Neutral"
I have a question: the RfA is not supposed to be a vote, so it is fair to add that the count alone should not determine the outcome. Bureaucrats need to be vigilant about bad-faith opposes, etc. So shouldn't the "Neutral" people get some sort of weight in the final decision, even if it is very low. For example, Mr. X's nomination has 5-6 neutrals who feel positive, but uncertain. And it comes down to the wire with 74-75% support. Given that consensus is a grey area, shouldn't the bureaucrat feel some freedom in assessing the neutral arguments? Is it a good idea to allow 4 neutral-positives to make 1 support, as every oppose is worth 4 supports?

Basically, my question is if its not a vote and tallies aren't the end-all, then why not involve the neutrals a bit more with some weightage? Rama's arrow 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sometimes people are neutral but not entirely positive. For RfA/Ramsquire2, Siva1979 voted neutral specifically to avoid piling on another negative vote, while Husond and (aeropagitica)'s neutrals were of the "not so much with the support" variety. I think that, in very close situations like the one you listed, any bureaucrat should most certainly consider the merits of all neutral votes, but giving them undue weight would be dangerous. EVula 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'm not saying that a hard-fast guideline can be made. And definitely, neutral-tending-oppose must also receive weightage. But I'd like to discuss the role and importance of "neutrals" in a non-vote process like RfA. Perhaps "bureaucratic discretion," etc. A safe way is perhaps if a nom has 76% and the bureaucrat is unsure about promotion, wants to discuss at BN. Its fine, but perhaps a good bunch of positive-neutrals should also be accounted for. Rama's arrow  03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm definitely not trying to suggest that neutral-positives be counted as unofficial "supports" or neutral-negatives be "opposes," - no. A neutral is out of the count, but I just feel we should be clear about whether or not this can be useful in a non-vote process, a discussion/consensus-based process where the count is not the final decision-maker. Rama's arrow  03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And not to say that "neutral" weightage will make any difference on most of the nominations. But its one of those things we might like to discuss and be sure about with the future in mind. Rama's arrow  03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think Neutrals are not counted in the decision when the outcome is close? That's been current practice, if largely undocumented... -- nae'blis 17:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A potentially silly question...
... but why is "Why do you want to be an administrator?" not a default question? I understand that some people are perhaps a little hesitant to load up the RfA with a billion and a half questions, as RfAs are supposed to be moderately approachable, but this is a fairly rudimentary question. EVula 03:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the nomination statement and the Q1 answer requires that this question be addressed. Many people don't support if they feel the nominee doesn't really need the tools or have any real desire to serve as an admin. Rama's arrow  03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I kinda agree that this question should be answered in this way. A nominee's passion should be evident through and through. Rama's arrow  04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you invite cliches when you ask such a question. "I love Wikipedia" is a genuine feeling that most people here have, but a pain to keep reading in each nom. Rama's arrow  04:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While it's one of my favourite questions, I wouldn't make it a standard question. Usually, it's clear that the reward of having adminship is being able to serve Wikipedia better.  But sometimes, some candidates give me the feeling that they see adminship as some sort of prize, a competition, a proof that they are better than the average editor.  That can cause me to ask about people's motivations.  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, this is why I like self-noms... you're pretty much automatically going to be have to explain why you want to be an admin. It makes it seem much less like a prize someone is giving to you and more like a position you're applying for with a specific reason. --W.marsh 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, all of the above are fairly reasonable answers. I happened to answer Q1 and Q4 fairly differently for each other, so I didn't see the latter as necessarily being answered by the former. And I wholeheartedly agree that doe-eyed "I wuv Wikipedia!" answers would get very old, very fast. EVula 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a question...
I see a lot of people oppose RFA's because the user has a low amount of WP edits, thus meaning they have low knowledge of policy. But, what's the correalation between those things?-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the correlation is certainly there. If someone has only made 100 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, just purely on that they're less likely to be knowledgeable about policy than someone with 5,000 edits. But hey, I think I have ~5,000 edits to the WP namespace, and the other day I didn't know Subpages existed. I remind people that you can get many project namespace edits just from mindless comments in AfD and any number of other ways... so the quality of someone's edits is going to be vastly more important than the quantity.
 * Low WP editcounts doesn't actually mean a candidate doesn't know much about process and policy. So votes like "low wikispace edits suggest a lack of policy knowledge" kind of bother me... it's entirely based on a hunch, did you bother to check whether they actually have signs of policy knowledge beyond their edit count? Does the candidate demonstrate a lack of knowledge, by being confused or incorrect about important policies? Have you looked at their edits and there simply isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion? Then I can understand an oppose. But voting on an editcount alone is kind of silly... it really is just one step away from opposing because someone doesn't have enough portal talk edits, so obviously they can't administrate portals! --W.marsh 17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for an answer. I've always thought that WP edits have nothing to do with policy knowledge.  I've almost never edited a policy page, yet I'm pretty sure I have good grasp on essential policy.-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to User:w.marsh, I have a different perspective to offer. Let me preface my response with the following disclaimer: I am not an admin although I am in preparation for an RFA in the not too distant future.

OK, here goes...

Edit count in WP space alone does not determine familiarity with policy. However, consider the two obvious ways that an RFA voter can determine your knowledge of policy:


 * 1) Ask you a lot of questions based on hypothetical situations and see if your answers evidence such knowledge.
 * 2) Review your votes on XFD,WP:AN,WP:AIV and the associated explanations supporting your opinion.

Option (1) is not very practical because there are too many questions to ask and so it would be kind of hit or miss.

So, let's look at option (2). I'm not convinced that every RFA voter who cites low edit count in WP space actually reads the various edits made by the candidate. The argument runs more along the lines of "If the candidate hasn't voted in XFD or reported vandals to WP:AIV, then he/she probably doesn't have sufficient experience in admin-related tasks." Now I grant you that you can get a lot of knowledge from reading the XFD and WP:AIV pages without actually voting. However, we can't easily test whether you have read those pages and how much knowledge you've gained from reading them. So, we are forced to fall back on looking for your votes as the only reliable and practical means.

I understand that this isn't a perfect criterion but it is all we've got. Besides, until you have voted on an AFD and seen the opposite side win or reported a vandal and seen the admins ignore your report, you don't really understand how policy is applied "where the rubber meets the road".

Hope that helps.... --Richard 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good explanation. Put simply, though: more edits = more experience. Just like anything else, people who have more experience doing a thing are probably better at a thing. So, people look at high edit counts and assume the person has come in contact with policy either directly or inadvertently. My feeling is, you just have to reach a certain threshold and above that it really doesn't make much of a difference how many edits you've made. --Wolf530 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin school
I've noticed that someone has came up with this idea and boldly implemented it, I thought this sounds refreshing in the sense that it is an extension of admin coaching. Then again the page found itself on the half-bakery.

Perhaps it may be plausible as an official institution/department, while others want nothing of it, the rest want to get rid of it. Or perhaps we can merge some of the concept/ideas to existing processes we already have to help out aspiring editors in getting familiar with process? (Say, expand ER?) - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote of No Confidence
If we choose admins, how come we cannot choose to rein in unruly admins? You never know how an admin is going to act until he/she is actually an admin. I think there should be a process whereby admins can be desysopped by *us*. Juppiter 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, as a last resort, It would have to be after an RfC though, also what would be the consensus % to be desysopped, 80 like the RfA?

†he Bread 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, no.. leave the desysopping up to individual's free will or the ArbCom unless you want sockpuppet invasions by the hundreds trying to get admins desysopped, close calls like the Carnildo incident on RFA, or the other one-hundred possible controversies coming out of this. semper fi — Moe  00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Woah, didn't think of that


 * †he Bread 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I agree with The Bread that it should be used as a last resort. But the option should exist in cases where admins are unruly and wildly unpopular, but not necessarily breaking rules.  And the ArbCom can become corrupt as well. (-Juppiter, not logged in)
 * If ArbCom can become corrupt, and its members do have strong support in the advisory election, I don't see how a vote in which anyone at all can participate, both the people who voted for the "corrupt" Arbcom and random people with sockpuppets and agendas, would not be corrupt as well. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the problem with an admin being unpopular? Building an encyclopedia != popularity contest. Unruly admins are dealt with when they've actually done something worth dealing with; just because they've ruffled a few feathers isn't anything to be concerned over. EVula 05:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Been there, done that...Didn't work. Only ArbCom at the moment. - Mailer Diablo 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This thing has been run into the ground countless times, in the archives here and in multiple failed policy proposals. Grand  master  ka  06:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We do have this. --Wolf530 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no confidence in a scheme like this. Seriously. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should have a scheme for community-based desysopping, but the idea is currently dead due to too many failed proposals. Kusma (討論) 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose the question is whether or not ArbCom is enough, or there needs to be a more editor-centric process. --Wolf530 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bad admin behavior happen rarely enough that I would think there is no need for extra mechanisms to deal with that beyond the ArbCom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no need to throw another solution at a problem I don't really see.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that it is too easy for a bad-faith editor to use half-truths and misrepresentation to round up a group of people to criticize an admin. This proposal is not good for wikimorale.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Limit RfAs?
I propose that we limit the amount of times that somebody can run for RfAs per year. Also, have a minimum edit count requirement (unless it is something like abandoning an account and openly admitting who you were). What does everyone think?  J o r c o g α  10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The proposal regarding the number of times someone can run for RfAs per year is a good idea. It should probably be set at two attempts at maximum. This would encourage some contributors to take there candidacies a bit more seriously. I think there should also be a cap on the total number of attempts. Apparently, there is a candidate who ran for adminship on seven occassions . In such instances the candidate is not aiming for a community consensus. They are playing a Russian roulette. RedZebra 10:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should they take it seriously? Adminship is no big deal. Make it your mantra, ;) H ig hway Ringo Starr!  10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, adminship is no big deal indeed. The benefits coming with additional tools are, as far as I can see, rather slim. On the other hand, there is no shortage of ordinary contributors who can create a mayham with the tools that they already have at their disposal. There is no question that the admin tools should be given only to those who are not likely to abuse them. The fact, however, that you can submit your application for adminship over and over again considerably increases the chances of controversial contributors succeeding in obtaining admin privilegies. This is a serious flaw of the whole process and it should be remedied. RedZebra 11:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this a "serious flaw" that has actually resulted in bad consequences, or the kind of "serious flaw" that has only made you think of the possibility of bad consequences? If the latter, as it appears from what you've written so far, this seems like unnecessary instructions creep.  The current problem with RfA is that it's too hard to become an admin, that you have to jump through an absurd number of hoops because, of course, the kind of people who vote in RfA are going to disproportionately be the kind of people who like to make others jump through hoops.  We should be looking for a way to reduce this problem, not adding new requirements on for no good reason. john k 12:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necessary or helpful. Admins are needed to deal with backlogs that will growing - Wikipedia is growing and changing rapidly. And we can't expect others not to feel rejection and disillusionment if we say something like "No adminship for you! Come back, 1 year!" People eager to serve should have the right to ask for the tools, even if getting the tools is a privilege. Rama's arrow  13:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. H ig hway Ringo Starr!  13:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am withdrawing my endorsement of the annual limitation on the number of attempts a candidate can run for an adminship. Not for the above counter-arguments though. In reality, quite a few of the weak candidates would probably attract a number of sympathy or moral support votes in their second nomination (on the other hand, the cap on the total number of attempts would probably work well in practice). The proposal, however, can hardly be labeled as "unnecessary instructions creep". The suggested rule is simple and easily understandable: make sure you prepare your candidacy well because you can only have another go this year. If you are still unsure about your chances of success, request a review of your contributions. The argument that there are people who oppose a contributor's candidacy by setting unrealistically high standards stands, but it also begs a question about the reasons why a number of candidacies pass with 95+% of yes votes whereas other candidacies fare so badly? RedZebra 19:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Minimum edit count requirements have been shot down multiple times before. I don't see any argument here noting anything new to add to such a discussion to change consensus. As for limiting the number of RfAs per year, I just don't see the point. It's yet-another-barrier-to-adminship. We've got quite enough of those. People are already treating adminship as some lofty achievement and affirmation of status. It's not a status. It just gives you a small handful of additional tools, nothing more. --Durin 15:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the fact that editors oppose RfAs due to candidate trying too many times in a short period of time is a sufficient check-and-balance. Don't see anything new needed here. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet another solution looking for a problem. I don't think this is a good idea. --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Adminship is no big deal, but people's (voter) time is. The problem this solution is trying to solve is the issue (belief?) that many RFA voters actually investigate the candidate and their edit history. This takes time, every time. Being able to speedy close or discourage from starting a nomination that will fail anyway is a saving of everybody's time. Has there been a single example of an RFA succeeding on the third or more attempt within 12 months? If not, the addition of a simple rule to prevent them from starting appears to be a very small loss for a saving of everyone's time and effort. Even looking up and posting links to the previous RFAs is work saved. --Scott Davis Talk 10:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And just how many of the last 100 RfAs would have been eliminated by this rule? If it's only a handful, it does seem that this is a solution still searching for a problem.  Durin, do have that stat lying around? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not at hand. Though, given what I know off hand of this sort of situation, I agree; it's a small subset of the total RfAs. --Durin 14:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Scott's question, there have been several:
 * October 2004: Neutrality, third attempt in 3 months
 * April 2005: ABCD, third attempt in 2.5 months
 * May 2005: Marine 69-71, third attempt in 12 months
 * August 2005: Lucky 6.9, fourth attempt in 12 months
 * October 2005: Denelson83, third attempt in 2.5 months
 * November 2005: Alkivar, third attempt in 7.5 months
 * November 2005: Harro5, third attempt in 6 months
 * December 2005: Luigi30, third attempt in 9 months
 * February 2006: Guanaco, third attempt in 11 months
 * April 2006: Can't sleep, clown will eat me, third attempt in 2.5 months
 * April 2006: Lord Voldemort, third attempt in 7 months
 * July 2006: Jaranda, seventh attempt in 9 months
 * --  tariq abjotu  20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the ones this year: Guanaco withdrew one and was desysopped, a special case; CSCWEM withdrew one on a technicality, was not "3 attempts". An analysis of this kind also ignores the fact that these people would not have applied this many times if there was a limit. They still would have been made sysops in "9 months" for example, but there would only have been 2 attempts instead of 7. That's five 1-week periods in which 50+ people took time to investigate a user. That's a huge waste of time that would otherwise only be ameliorated by deciding to automatically vote against someone who applies so many times. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is guaranteed to result in fewer active admins, unless the threshold is set so high it makes no difference, at which point ... it makes no difference. Splash - tk 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds like instruction creep. While it is ill-advised to keep submitting RfA's time after time, the nom should already be aware of this and the !voters will feel free to !vote on the merits or demerits each time. It would be possible for a nom to pull it together and make a successful run after the 2nd go in a year. Why impose a limit? If a large enough group felt that multiple RfA's are a disqualifyer, they could !vote oppose out of hand. Some already do. Others take the time to weigh the candidate and can continue to do so.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - it's an excellent example of instruction creep. It would not make a significant difference to the workload involved in RfA, and would not make any improvement to the quality of selected admins, so it's completely pointless. --Tango 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to throw some more stats into this; if we limited the number of RfAs per nominee per year to two per year, the load on RfA would be reduced 2.1%. I do not see this as a strong argument for inducing more instruction creep into the process. --Durin 14:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how much instruction creep it would be. It's a simple instruction, much easier than answering any one of the several questions people ask. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Currently to open an RfA the only requirement is that you have an account.  Viewed in that context, this is quite a bit of instruction creep. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you only have an account with no contributions, someone will remove the RfA from the listing. If you don't follow the format on the template, if it doesn't get removed, it's not going to pass. If you don't answer any of the questions, it's not going to pass. If you don't learn about Wikipedia, it's not going to pass. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those are not requirements. There are many other things you could have listed in addition that most likely will result in the RfA not passing such as frequent vandalizing, trolling and sock-puppetry, but neither they nor any of the items you list are the basis of requirements for making the request.  We don't have to spell out and draw an arbitrary line that says here, at 999 edits you are ineligible, but here at 1000 edits you can apply, or you have to wait 90 days after vandalizing, but here at 89 days you are ineligible, or any of the many other arbitrary requirements we could reasonably choose.  The current process allows everyone to apply their own judgement and the closing bureaucrat to weigh the expressed views and act.  As an individual editor I am free to decide that I think it takes 10,000 edits to be suitable for an admin, or to decide that 100 high-quality edits is enough.  Community consensus of the different standards of many editors seems to be working without complicating it by trying to short circuit RfAs that will fail through the normal process anyway.  So I think it is absolutely the case that creating the first arbitrary threshold for an RfA is indeed significant instruction creep. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Would "year" refer to a January-December span or twelve-month period? (IE, if one was to fail nominations in October and November, could they try again in January or wait until the next October?)--Lkjhgfdsa 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those who think a candidate should only be nominated three times per year are free to oppose such a candidate's fourth nomination for that reason. It would be reasonable to add some text to WP:GRFA to advise people that getting nominated too often tends to not work. I don't think we need a policy to forbid it, thuogh.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to edit counter - suggestion
Several current RfA's have links to the edit counter tool posted, sometimes with the note that it's operating a bit slowly. Meanwhile, the edit count is available rapidly, just by hopping over to the talk page for that RfA, but often there's no cross-reference to that. Not to encourage excessive importance to the edit count or the edit counter, but it probably would be more helpful for the first person who wants to to run the counter, post the results to talk, and then post a link or cross-reference to the talk at the top of the RfA rather than post another link to the edit counter itself. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Or even better (not sure if it is possible), link directly to the talk page, where the link to the tool is found. Whoever arrives there first, clicks on the link, gets the data, and pastes it there. People would not forget about removing the tool link and replacing it with a link to the talk page that way. -- ReyBrujo 02:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree. The (non-database) edit counters actually use a lot of resources on the server side, and it's not healthy for people to be clicking the links all the time. -- Tangot a ngo 08:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the RfAs Ive seen users like myself or Voice of All link to a table on the talk page but also link to the counter for verification purposes. This seems ideal to me? Gl e n 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mathbot edits the page of each candiate anyway, I could have it as well as a note that the edit count is available on talk (assuming that people are actually commited to adding the edit counts on talk). Would that be a good idea? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please; I was going to suggest that but forgot about it. --ais523 09:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we get the opinion of a Dev about this allegedly problematic server load?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh please...what do we average, two-three new RfA's a day? The server load would be too small to measure if Mathbot simply ran the edit count for every RfA and placed it on the talk page. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mathbot doing it has been suggested as the solution the the server load problems, not the cause of them. Apparently, people loading the count themselves takes a lot of load, but I doubt that's true - it's the equivalent of one page for every 5000 edits. Assuming 5 new RfA's a day, 200 people checking the edit count for each and each candidate averaging between 5000 and 10000 edits (all gross over estimates), that's 2000 page loads a day. If I'm reading right, the backend servers (so, non-cached pages) send out about 3000 pages a second. So edit count requests would be an extra one thousandth of a percent. I may well be misinterpreting the stats, though. --Tango 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's by no means an ordinary request, though. All of the editcounters read edits from Special:Contributions in 5,000-edit intervals (the maximum allowed by MediaWiki), which is not the same as a query requesting 20 KB of text during a page view. These queries are expensive, and due to the relational nature of the database, it older edits take more to parse than newer edits (just look at my contributions in the Image namespace ... it takes forever to load, even though the amount of edits is only 50). So, these queries shouldn't be abused, as they can be a tax on the servers. Tito xd (?!?) 16:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if the contribs page strains the servers by 100 times as much as a regular page, it's still only a tenth of a percent of total usage. RfA is a tiny part of Wikipedia, so it's not likely to make any noticeable difference to the servers. --Tango 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the server load issue is probably lost in the noise, perhaps a more germaine issue is the amount of time it takes to load × the number of people loading it. That's a lot of wasted Wikipedian time that could be spent, say, having a discussion on RfA policy.  ;) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the load on Wikipedians is probably more significant than the load on Wikipedia. --Tango 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I made mathbot mention that the edit count is available on the talk page, see Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis for an example. I agree with the above comments that finding the edit count each time using Special:Contributions is kind of a waste of resources. (My bot also checks the Special:Contributions for the edit summary, but only the most recent 500 or 1000 edits.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's good. Now just one picky thing...do you think you could change the formatting to use spaces instead of tabs so that the column of numbers lines up?  It looks a little shabby the way it is now. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The bot does not create the edit count table on the talk page, it just adds a comment in the RfA nomination saying that people can take a look on the talk page for the edit count. This assumes some people actually bother to put the edit count on talk -- and they usually do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Indenting is about to wrap my window width. :) Oh, I thought having Mathbot add the edit counts to the talk page was part of the discussion here.  Why make it a manual process if it can be automated? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When I mentioned the load, I meant the load on the toolserver (hemlock), which is a single server handling a lot of requests for a lot of different uses. While I'm not sure whether the edit counters cause a significant performance impact, they are known to leave behind zombie processes (when users start a request and don't hang around long enough for them to finish), and use more memory than most web-based scripts (3 - 4 MB for each page of 5,000 contributions downloaded). As many people have mentioned, I'm sure the main Wikimedia servers can handle the extra strain being put on them, but the load on the toolserver is, I think, an issue that needs to be considered. - Tangot a ngo 07:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the edit counters didn't use the toolserver anymore... --Tango 17:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They do... at least the ones with URLs starting http://tools.wikimedia.de/ (hemlock's address). None of the edit counters used on the English Wikipedia use the toolserver (zedler) database anymore, though. - Tangot a ngo 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RfB standards
I was wondering, if someone ran for Bureaucratship, what would, on the most basic level, be expected? Some of the standards appear to contradict each other, resulting in unavoidable opposes (and only a few will sink an RfB). Here are the criteria I'd suspect most people share:
 * User is at least moderately active
 * User has experience as both an editor and as one who determines consensus by looking at discussions, see User:Voice_of_All/Consensus.
 * User has months of experience as an admin
 * User has good form, open-minded, and respectful. Some room for mistakes or disagreement should be tolerated.

There some criteria that are not as widely shared:
 * User demonstrates the need for more crats
 * User has never made major mistakes

And there some other criteria that seem to be sticking points however:
 * User will always follow the polls (exepting sock puppets/vandalism and attack votes) for <70% and >=75% no matter what. Crats that don't do this are ignoring the community.
 * User will not always follow the polls (excepting sock puppets) for <70% and >=75%; the "wider consensus" is considered and "nitpicking/no expanation" votes don't count. Crats that don't do this are ignoring the community.
 * User will not always follow the polls (excepting sock puppets) for <70% and >=75%; clearly bad candidates should not be promoted, this is about "whats good for the wiki" not "consensus on RfA".

Unless these are reconciled, the role of bureaucrats will remain clouded and RfBs invariably stressful and confusing. Voice -of- All  08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In 2006, we've had 18 RfBs. 4 have passed, 14 failed. More importantly; bureaucrat processes are not backlogged. We seem to be promoting bureaucrats well enough to avoid problems of being impossible to pass. --Durin 14:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, WP:CHU has been in serious need of more bureaucrat participation; there's been a backlog of up to a week, when I've been away. Warofdreams talk 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite true, but Redux has offered to help out again there and Essjay has returned today from a long hiatus, and worked on 5 of the 17 currently listed requests. --Durin 21:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see the answer to backlogs on WP:CHU being to create more overhead and take more time of highly trusted users. There are so much more important things to work on that help the project. Almost anything we do is more valuable to the project than changing usernames. Meaing, you're a good editor Warofdreams, and I'd rather have you do that. And clearly there's no major concern over CHU as I made a proposal to fix the backlog problem and I got almost no response if I recall. Simply reduce the acceptable reasons to request/grant CHU to those needed to comply with the username policy or for privacy reasons. - Taxman Talk 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And that still completely fails to answer what the consensus on the role and requirements of a bureaucrat are, which seems to have become extremely unclear ever since the Carnildo RfA. Voice -of- All  16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is certainly an issue regarding the definition of consensus, but it's not really a problem with RfB, it's a problem with RfA. Plenty of people have proposed plenty of possible solutions to this, and the general consensus has always been that, while not perfect, RfA does work. --Tango 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And RfBs have failed over the details of how consensus will work. It hangs on a thread. I just want to know what the requirements are and what the roll of bcrats are. I don't know why this is seen as another "we need to reform RfA thread". Voice -of- All  21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so much that, but it strikes me a bit as trying to nail down what is a valid oppose vote for RfB. Just as in RfA, people have their own ideas of what is a valid basis for oppose or support. There's never been consensus to prevent votes based on some predetermined criteria on what counts and does not count. The consensus issue is deliberately open-ended, and is so for a reason. --Durin 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if people disagree on the basic bread and butter foundation of their role, especially given the 90% threshold, RfB will become highly unstable. Many of the last ones barely passed, and with the issues after Carnildo's promotion, a tight situation has already gotten much worse. Voice -of- All  21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's perfectly true, but you can't fix that in RfB, you have to fix it in RfA, as that's what the disagreement is about. If you think you can fix RfA in some way that is better than all the other rejected suggestions, then by all means try, but I wouldn't hold your breath. RfA is very controversial at times, which means the job of being a 'crat can be very controversial, which means selecting 'crats will be inherently controversial. Getting an overwhelming consensus on a controversial issue is pretty much impossible (almost by definition), so RfB will always be very hard to succeed at, as you have to please everybody, even when they contradict each other. So far, a few people have managed that (I don't really know how), but such people will always be a minority. --Tango 14:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the numbers from Recently created bureaucrats there have only been 7 successful RfBs in the last 2 years with the following percent support 99, 97, 90, 93, 98, 92, and 98. That's a pretty small sample size to say many barely passed, and given 90% is not a set in stone bar to pass, I'm not sure you could say any barely passed. And I can recall only one that was unsuccessful and could be considered close in that time. But as Rx StrangeLove mentioned, the Giano arbitration case pretty much removed any uncertainty in the area of RfA. They want more or less numerical promotion within a fairly narrow band even if there are extenuating circumstances. Pragmatically I can see why, because if you follow the numbers nobody can really complain. - Taxman Talk 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous resources available to train, evaluate, and assist potential admin candidates. Do the 'crats similarly groom and prepare potential 'crat candidates? If not, would it be a good idea for them to do so? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a good idea for adminship; it's even less of a good idea for bureaucrats. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's seems to be renewed energy being put into admin coaching, don't think that's a good idea and by extension bureaucratship coaching probably isn't a good idea either. But on the larger question of their roles, I think the first 3 principles in Giano's arbitration narrows down bureaucrats roles (in RFA's anyway) which should ease some of the concerns people have in that area. Rx StrangeLove 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu's RfA - questions and nominations split
Seeing that the combined size of the nominations and questions in Tariqabjotu's RfA is more than 20KB (I saved it to a text file and Explorer said it was 24KB!), I have split the nominations and questions into their own pages. Please revert if the bots break. Kavadi carrier 13:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nominations
The issue of excessive of co-nominations has been brought up recently; specifically, see Requests for adminship/Tariqabjotu 2, where it was actually the basis of an oppose. I don't mean to support instruction creep (which is probably a valid argument against this), but could we have a discussion about whether a guideline limiting co-noms to 1 or 2 is in order? Not a hard and fast rule, but just a suggestion for potential co-nominators, would do the trick, in my opinion. Any other opinions? Picaroon9288 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that discussion, decided that limiting co-nominations was a waste of time. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have people also been opposed for having too many before? Picaroon9288 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rama's Arrow currently has seven conominators. I wouldn't oppose RA over that, as he's a fantastic candidate, but it's quite a minus for me, and I did protest here. With a less obviously wonderful candidate, I might have gone from Support to Neutral because of the plethora of co-noms. But there's absolutely no need for any rules about it, there are enough rules. We should do like with anything else we may dislike about a candidate or a nomination: !vote with our feet, nag, state that we would have supported but for that. (If that's the truth, of course.) Or if it gets on your nerves, why not urge the co-nominators themselves to not do that another time, how's that for a novel idea? Rules and guidelines are a last resort, not a first. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I've never understood why the number of co-noms is considered a big deal. What's the difference between a co-nomination and a longish early support !vote? Newyorkbrad 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's rediculous to oppose an RfA based on the number of co-noms, but I do agree that a limit to 2 or 3 might be a good idea. Generally, the more co-noms I see, the less likely I am to read them all. - Mike | Talk 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference, Brad, is that the conomination sits there calling for attention during the entire RFA, saying "This opinion is more important than a mere !vote", and i do believe people keep reading it. Whereas a longish early support will or may influence other people for half a day, and then is lost in the rush, and lost in the rising interest in numbers. I've noticed numerous times that if somebody places a particularly thoughtful and meaty support/oppose with interesting links in it early on, it'll get referred to during the first day, other people will !vote "per" it; the next day they won't, and it's often forgotten to the extent that somebody else will repost the same links with an air of novelty (and get referred to for half a day after it.) That's the difference: the greater pretensions of the co-nom, and the way the community accepts those pretensions over those of a !vote. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes, that definitely makes sense ... although I guess I don't see why the fact that useful information in an early !vote may get overlooked later on is supposed to be a good thing. Granted, one could respond that the early opposes get drowned out too - but in any RfA with a chance of passing, there are far more supports than opposes, so the substantive points in the oppose !votes do get weighed. I find myself in sympathy with the potential candidate who's got several people wanting to nominate and doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by rejecting their offer (although I suppose I already hear the response that anyone who can't bear to risk ever hurting another user's feelings isn't going to last here long as an administrator, anyway).... Newyorkbrad 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A good thing? I'm sorry if I left the impression I think it's a good thing. I certainly don't, I think it's a great pity. (And if it happens to one of my own very judicious !votes I think it's also lazy and shameful. ;P) But that doesn't affect my point. Bishonen | talk 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
 * No, it's obvious you didn't mean it's "a good thing" in the abstract ... but better, at least, than having the co-noms. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Interesting... either co-nominating, or supporting before the candidate has accepted. But there were some problems with many people supporting before the request went live. Co-nominating in the talk page? -- ReyBrujo 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite a possible conflict of interest, I'd like to say that I like the arguments of Bishnonen, ReyBrujo as well as NYBrad. However, I'm opposed to any limitations or rules regarding co-nominations. I think the venue of concern is not how many co-noms there are, but the likelihood that potential opposers may be concerned about the pressure several of those co-nominators can exert through a series of rebuttals. The prospect of having 3-4 if not more defensive responses to each opposing argument is appalling and it affects the chance of sorting the question/issue out in a positive way. If the RfA begins to generate reasonable opposition or reserved criticism, there can be a palpable sense of tension, of whether the debate will get out of hand or not. I think its likely that the nominee would feel more helpless or less responsible over what happens in the due course of his/her RfA.  Rama's arrow  01:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I dislike co-nom's. They feel like an attempt to intimidate potential opposes.  I'm sure people do them with the best of intentions, of course.  But I still dislike them.  However, I'd be hesitant to ban them.  Is there evidence that large co-noms increase the chance of success?  I guess I could promise to vote against the next 10 large co-noms I see, on general principle?  Or what about a rule that says nom/co-nom don't get a vote?  :-) Regards, Ben Aveling 06:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a democracy... those aren't votes, per se. – ClockworkSoul 06:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've suggested much the same thing as Ben's idea in the past. Whether or not "supports" are described as a "vote" or not is beside the point:  both nominating and supporting is essentially repeating oneself.  There's no reason for nominators to add themselves to the numbered supports unless they're seeking to be counted numerically, rather than simply having their comments taken account of:  i.e., they're clearly acting as if their supports are votes.  I think it would be a good idea, as it'd offer a (mild) incentive to self-noms, and a (mild) disincentive to co-noms, without mandating the one, or prohibitting the other, which some people to think would be terribly bad.  Alai 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the only way to stop the proliferation of co-nominations is to have every support be a co-nom. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or just change co-noms into votes. They tend to just be "me too's" anyway, which is no different than the standard show of support. – ClockworkSoul 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye. Or put them under general comments. - Mailer Diablo 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree they are well meaning but still awful, and also that we shouldn't add extra IC (instruction creep) prohibiting them. But these two ideas are good, we can simply allow converting each of them into a comment and a !vote. That will solve the problem without fuss or IC and fits in with the way the nomination template works anyway of one nomination. - Taxman Talk 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Excessive co-noms, admin coaching (and the recently deleted admin school), editor reviews, and edit count grooming are all negative indicators to me of somebody orchestrating their RfA. This is a negative indicator to me because adminship is not a trophy, and anyone grooming themselves to pass the nomination may not be seeking the mop for the correct reasons.  Despite this, I say "no" to making any kind of rule regarding co-noms.  Let everyone make their own decisions regarding how multiple co-noms reflects on the nominee. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think co-noms are generally pretty silly unless the original statement is awfully bad or contains insufficient information. I see "Me too" co-noms as bad points against the co-nominator, not against the nominee, although unnecessary co-noms will sometimes make me not vote on an RfA I might otherwise have supported. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If a nominee doesn't have the guts to tell his friends, thanks but no thanks and please only two of you do a co-nom, that is very telling about their personality. How will they react to peer pressure then as an administrator? Nominees are the final person who puts their page up on RFA and they have control of how many co-noms appear. If they don't realize that excessive co-noms are offputting to many, then they haven't been paying attention and that tells you something else about the candidate. pschemp | talk 14:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I'm taking a chance with this being a conflict of interest, but I feel compelled to weigh in on the conversation, given that it appears to be alluding to my nomination. Taking a look back at Phaedriel's last RfA, in which there were ten nominations (albeit most added after her acceptance), we see that one neutral !voter stated I'm not exactly sure why Phaedriel wants to have all co-nominations approved by her first, and I don't know why she might be picking and choosing among them. Considering there are six or so co-nominations, I can't see this nomination suffering from over-co-nomination simply due to the addition of one more; an explanation wouldn't hurt. Few others mention the large number of co-noms (except when expressing astonishment) and the RfA went on to being the most supported RfA ever. Thus, I don't believe the dislike of co-noms and perception of peer pressure from them is as universal and clear-cut as it has been made out to be. --  tariq abjotu  17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note how co-nominations were handled in her first request. I find that much more tidy. If you are co-nominating, you are endorsing the nominator, no need to add more words to what he or she stated. -- ReyBrujo 17:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those aren't actually co-noms, but rather the names of editors who added support comments (which were later removed) to the nomination before Phaedriel declined. --  tariq abjotu  17:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad. I found that too tidy to be real. Anyways, I stand by my comment, if you want to conominate, just sign below the nominator. -- ReyBrujo 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact of the issue is that the majority of nominees with excessive co-noms are strong enough candidates that those of us that are put off by the excessive co-noms are willing to overlook that on the basis of the candidate's other qualifications. But the co-nom issue might be enough to push me from support to neutral or neutral to oppose if there were other negative issues. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Co nominations in the talk page. People can express their support for the nomination there, without overwhelming users. -- ReyBrujo 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd ban co-noms altogether. I can't see any good reason for posting a co-nom rather than just a "Strong Support". --Tango 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I never understood the point of any co-nomination. The candidate is already nominated, extra names won't change it into some super-nomination. Are people so used to only having !votes or vacuous comments in the support column that when the supporters feel like they have something to say, they'll have to put in a 'co-nomination' instead to get heard? Is it some social networking thing where people don't want to be just another support vote for their close personal e-friends? - Bobet 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can't wait to see this evolve into the following RfA format: "Nomination, Co-nominations, Oppose, Neutral". Then I'd just be able to look back and say "Haha, how silly". I detest co-nominations, but having any sort of rules on the matter is pointless, and just instruction creep. Plus we'd spend time debating the rules... time that could be better spent elsewhere. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I have seen a good co-nom (can't remember where, though, and I might have been imagining it). It was an RfA of a mop-worthy editor who had accepted a rather poorly written nomination by a relatively new editor. The co-nom was able to point out many good points about the editor and some details that the "he's a good guy and should be an admin" nom didn't have, and so the co-nom was genuinely useful for the RfA, as it contained the facts that should have been in the original nom statement. Kusma (討論) 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But that could have gone under Comments or Support, it didn't need to be written as a co-nom. --Tango 22:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it didn't need to go there, but what was the harm that it did? Newyorkbrad 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, not much, but it's much easier to say "No co-nom's" than it is to say "No co-nom's except when...". --Tango 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ban 'em altogether. I've suggested nuanced modifications before, but no-one paid a blind bit of notice, and it's since gone from silly, to sillier. In the past, there's been all sorts of agonising about unaccepted nominations being multiply "voted" on before their official start time -- the concern being that this could be used to get a "flying start" vote-stacking operation going, before any opposes or concerns can get a word in. (Or to have that effect, even if no malfeasance is involved.) If that's an issue, why do nominations, which are much the same as supports (if not to say intended to be "moreso", in some vague sense) not cause the same anxiety? (In one recent case, a nominator pasted the (multiple) nomination signature and timestamps into the "support" column after the fact, making the two even more similar in that regard.) As Bobet says, they're procedurally redundant, if not to say nonsensically so. (However vehement someone at AFD is about deletion, I've yet to see anyone "co-nom" or "co-list", and this makes no more sense.) People adding further nominations during the vote is completely absurd, and is really stripping the word "nomination" of its last vestige of meaning, reducing it precisely to a "top-posted support". Alai 01:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair to the people who got a really bad first nomination, there should be one co-nom allowed. Any more does seem a lot like a top-listed support section. -Amarkov blahedits 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've some sympathy for a "one do-over" clause, but it'd be difficult to restrict it to being used on that basis, or even to implement as such. "That nomination was really bad, so I'm asking for/adding another."  Hopefully in in the case of really bad nom, (!)voters will read on to the strongly-motivating supports, not to say the candidate's own wise words (one hopes).
 * One possible alternative would be a nomination word-limit. Alai 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ban co-noms, rules-creep notwithstanding. This has gone beyond absurdity. If someone writes a very bad nomination, then if the nominee hasn't sense enough to email the nominator privately and ask for a re-write, on their head be it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One persuasive puppy, actually. Co-noms rarely have any actual effect except backslapping, can irritate potential voters when they get excessive, and the point about the nominee having enough sense to avoid accepting a poor nomination turned me from neutral to supporting the idea of no co-noms. It's just gotten silly. -- nae'blis 15:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) The major difference between a nominator/co-nominator and a normal support vote is that a support can simply mean you see no glaring flaws in the candidate. A nomination is comparable to a public political endorsement, to say "Not only do I believe User:Example will make a good admin, I'm putting my reputation as an editor behind them." In other words, it's supposed to be stronger than a normal support because it puts more of the user's credibility at stake. If you support an RfA, you can always back out of it but a nominator or co-nominator is expected to have done their homework.

Another reason to allow co-nominations is that your original nominator might accidently poison the well against you through innocent bungling. You may be an excellent candidate, but your nominator is a newbie who doesn't know the normal style and decides to nominate you for being "Nice and helpful to me." A co-nominator may be the only thing saving you from an early death in that case. (Or what if your nominator is an ESL writer and has poor grammar as a result?)

As a suggestion, how about we add to the guidelines on the page somewhere that you should not give a conomination unless you are presenting substantially different reasoning from that of the original nominator, otherwise they will simply be transferred to the support section? --tjstrf talk 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no issue regarding a lame nominator. The nominee is responsible for the nomination they accept.  The nominee has the last word, and if they accept a flawed nomination, then it rightfully does reflect on them.  No instruction creep necessary. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't both my proposal and the banning/limiting of co-noms as a whole be equally instruction creep? --tjstrf talk 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I already said above that despite the fact that I have a negative view of co-noms, I wouldn't bother making any new rules related to them.  —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To Tjstrf: it's a tiny amount of "instruction", tantamount to reminding people of what the word "nomination" actually means.  Compared to continuing to allow procedurally nonsensical possibilities (like a dozen nominators pseudo-voting before the "vote" has started;  or "nominations" during the "vote"), added to the cognitive load all 'round by continuing to bat this around every so often, the cost/benefit seems to me to be pretty clear.  Certainly it's simpler overall than ending up with numerous variations on "1NOM" in people's admin standards, which I suspect is the most likely "privatised" alternative.  Alai 11:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We could resolve the point about a nom putting your reputation behind a candidate, rather than just not seeing anything wrong with them by introducing (unofficially - no need for instruction creep about it) a Support and Vouch (!)vote (put under support just like any other support (!)vote) that means you support them an also offer your personal assurance that they'll do a good job. --Tango 12:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. People are free to write as long and strong a testimony as they like, without having to characterise it as a redundant or retro-nomination.  (Exceptionally strong and speedy support, would have nominated him myself if I hadn't thought he was one already, if that's covering enough of the usual bases.)  Alai 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Speedy support'? --ais523 12:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. (People often seem to use "speedy" as a generic intensifier on *fD pages, when it's parently obviously not "speediable", either way.)  Alai 13:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "Support and Vouch" has more of a ring to it. ;) --Tango 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I think there's nothing at all wrong with conoms if they are bringing new information to the process. In particular, they're a statement of reputation staking much stronger than even the strongest support statement could be. At least to me they are, I personally think I was putting my reputation on the line for every conon I did. (they all succeeded except for Rob Church's nom... I stand behind that one too as the Right Thing even if the community didn't agree) This whole sentiment against conoms strikes me as misplaced, as does using their existance or number as a reason to oppose. None of my conoms could ever be confused for a support !vote, trust me. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the list of problems to be solved, this is a pretty minor one, no? One or two co-noms are no big deal unless they're all multipage essays. There's no need for more instructions; a little old-fashioned peer pressure targeting the would-be 3rd, 4th, etc. co-nominator should be sufficient. Opabinia regalis 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's clear that one nomination is sufficient, in any meaningful sense of the word. If we accept "one or two co-noms", despite their being logically redundant, it's hard to argue that those were fine, but the 3rd and 4th are grounds for "peer pressure" to desist.  Doubtless those people feel their co-nom is as "crucial" as did their predecessors (while I feel it's just as redundant, and increasingly egregious).  The nominee was nominated after the first nomination -- hence the name -- and subsequent "pile-on co-noms" are nothing more than exercises in "my support is much too important to go in a list with everyone else's".  ("Co-ordinated" co-noms might be less describable as such, but are still prioritising the feelings of the nominating clique over propriety.)  I imagine a few oppose until co-noms are removed might do the trick, but I'm reluctant to do so, since firstly, I have the weirdly optimistic idea that some sort of consensus might actually emerge, despite the on-going "defences" of the practice as "not a problem/not a major problem/can't be solved due to the inherent badness of half a line of extra instruction", and secondly, to do so is to target a relatively innocent party (unless the nominee has actively solicited multiple nominations, they're guilty of no worse than being an accessory, either before or after the fact, in circumstances where they might be understandably nervous about the whole business), but if people's reasonable concerns continue to be dismissed, it might come down to that.  I note in particular no-one has addressed why it's fine to have n nominations before the start of a (!)vote, but unacceptable to have 1 nomination, and n-1 advance support votes, as appears to be the de facto position at present.  Alai 07:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose votes like that are what WP:POINT is all about, the nominee wouldn't make a bad admin, but an oppose vote anyway. Are co-nominations actually neccessary? I just think support votes are better for everyone. James086Talk 08:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe such votes would constitute either "making a point" or "disrupting wikipedia" -- you don't feel that 15 "co-nominations" of a single candidate is rather better described in that manner? Though as I say, as a method it's less than ideal since it's applying pressure via the nominee, rather than directly on the "perps".  That's why I'd consider it preferable for the procedure to be clarified to preclude them in the first place, or for the bureaucrats to refactor them as supports ('this person's nominated already, give it a rest').  However, it needn't be to the candidate's detriment, since if they've accepted multiple nominations, they are free to review that decision, and if "unaccepted" co-nominations are "piling on" un-asked for...  then what are they are doing there in the first place?  Just remove them.  Alai 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm utterly shocked you're defending co-noms. :) We know your heart is in the right place with them Lar, but the point people are making, thankfully in nearly unanamimous consensus, is they are not stronger and they're not necessary. You can accomplish the same amount of vouching in your support comments. - Taxman Talk 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll point you to Phaedriel II... the three co-noms that were set up prior to it going live (not the pileons later) were intended to offer quite different perspectives and information about the nominee, and I'll just stick to my thesis here... they did so, and did so effectively. I think it's actually kind of petty to oppose over conoms but... people oppose for whatever reasons they like. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But why can't such perspectives be expressed in the support section? I don't know about other people, but if I saw a long comment on a support vote, I'd stop and read it (it's quite unusual to get long comments from supporters). --Tango 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They quite self-evidently can. One might characterise the need to elevate one's own expression of support, however strongly felt or vehemently expressed, over everone else's as "lame", to coin a phrase.  Alai 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The counter there is this: Why have any noms at all? What exactly is the FIRST nom statement (if it's not a self nom, or heck, even if it is... waive the "don't !vote for yourself" requirement) saying that can't be said in questions and answers, or in the first support !vote??? Unless you can answer that, you can't disregard Phaedriel II's first three conoms, all were different facets, different information. If two of the three weren't there, key information (that should be present from the get go, remember we also have this tradition of no !voting before acceptance) would have been lacking. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What is so hard to accept about the fact that it wouldn't have been lacking if it was placed in a support comment instead? Is this really worth continuing? Consensus is that it's not critical to the improvment of the project, so I'd suggest not. - Taxman Talk 22:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? I've provided a reductio ad absurdum as a counter argument, which you've not refuted. So basically, it seems personal preference. I'm not sure I'd characterise this as nearly unanimous either. Frankly, I'm baffled at the opposition to this, there doesn't seem to be any real basis for it. But, meh... ++Lar: t/c 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lar: precisely why is that a counter, rather than a non sequitur?  (Addendum, in re later addition:  RAA involves logical inference, not woolly comparisons:  it does not logically follow from "there should be exactly one nomination" that "there should be no nominations";  quite the reverse.)  We have a clearly established practice that RFAs are nominated (self-, or otherwise), and that people don't vote for themselves.  We have an emergent trend that wishes to construe "nomination" as "multiple nominations", which many people see as basically taking the micky.  If it's insufficiently clear that "nomination" means a nomination, let's clarify to make that explicit.  What do these two things have to do with each other?  This is patently not about "information":  there is no piece of information that can be included in co-nomination, that can't be placed elsewhere.  As to whether co-nomination carries the mystique and gravitas of the co-nomers' personal credibility in a way that supporting can't, or is just a piece of gun-jumping and/or top-posting tomfoolery, we evidently differ.  The tradition of not having any voting before acceptance is simply another reason not to have co-nominations-which-are-then-later-pasted-in-as-supports, which is doubly unfair to anyone wishing to oppose, but precluded by said tradition from doing so during such time.  Alai 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The original nom (assuming it's not a self nom, let's not start on voting for yourself) could go as a support, but it would be a vote before the candidate has accepted the nom (obviously). For a non-self-nom (try saying that quickly ;)), you can either have a separate nom statement, or a vote before the RfA starts. Either would work, but judging by this thread, it would seem people prefer the first. It is a matter of personal preference, though, yes. The issue doesn't arise for a co-nom, though, as they can simply wait until the candidate accepts and make a support vote. To summarise: the first statement of support has to be before the acceptance, so we have to make an exception for it in some way. What way that is is a matter of preference. --Tango 23:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't even see that as exception, it's explicitly part of the process. Wikipedian 1 nominates Wikipedia 2, presumably after an informal discussion:  Wikipedian 1 is now nominated;  Wikipedian 1 indicates their acceptance, and the nomination is now "live", and anyone else is free to support, oppose, or otherwise comment (including W1, who will presumably make their "per nom" support explicit (in thread order or otherwise...)).  (I was going to use Greek or Hebrew letters, but I then wondered if User:Aleph or User:Beta might take it personally.  (Or indeed User:Beth, though I'm guessing that wasn't the sense that user had in mind.)  And I realize we all know this, I'm just trying to make the sequence as explicit as possible.)  Co-nomming consists of one of the following:  Wikipedian 3 becoming involved at the "informal discussion" stage, and agreeing with 1&2 to co-nom;  Wikipedian 4 'joins in' after the nomination is made, but before it's accepted;  Wikipedian 5 adds a "co-nominating statement" after the nomination is "live".  I'd like to hope that we can at least agree that W5's co-nom is procedurally (and otherwise) pretty silly, being in effect a hyperbolic support, or a "damn, I wished I'd nominated when it might actually have meant something".  (I think this class is the most annoying, but probably is actually the least harmful.)  3 and 4 are rather more meaningful, and in particular 3 is I think the case people are arguing in defence of, being the cases where a single nomination is thought to be "insufficient" in some sense (either to sell the idea of an RFA to the candidate, or come to that, to sell the candidate to the baying wolves on the process page).  However, I think they're also the cases in which people might have a more substantial beef, because of the appearance of "stacking the deck":  to see why this is a potential concern, look at the tenor of the opposes (-- and neutrals, and comments...) at Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me too.  (One might argue this is our real "co-nom record", and that I'm one of the infractors, and in a sense that's true.)  This falls under the category of cockup rather than conspiracy, and the "tradition" of refraining from support prior to acceptance of the nom would present this happening in the same form, but there's essentially the same danger with co-nomming.  Alai 09:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If we had a rule against co-noms, the first nom would be an exception to that rule (made explicit by the use of "co-"). We do have a rule against voting before the acceptance, so if we moved the nom to the support section, we would be making an exception again. Either of those exceptions works, we've just gone with the first one. (The 2nd might actually work better, as it would get rid of the redundant "nominator support" vote.) As for your 3,4 and 5 co-nominators, I would say 4 and 5 should just support. 3 should work with the original nominator to put together a combined nom statement and both sign it, or should at least work together so their noms are clearly intended to go together (they don't repeat eachother, and probably they refer to eachother, "This editor has done many great things, like X and Y. I'll tell you and X, Mr. Co-nom will tell you about Y."). Then you end up with a joint nomination, which is what "co-nom" actually means, rather than a nomination and then an extra nomination that really makes no sense. --Tango 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The most recent nomination, Requests for adminship/Gnangarra, has four co-nominators. I perfectly agree that one should not put any rule forbidding co-nominations. But in the same time, come on people, having four co-nominations is just silly. Why not just register your vote under Support and be done with it? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree that there should be no rule forbidding co-nominations, as someone who despises co-nominations, I believe that there should be no problems with being bold and simply moving co-nominations down to the support section. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA is t3h evil!
Given the high number of succesful nominees the last few weeks, several of which passed with near-unanimous support, I'd say that the rumors of harshness, negativity and impossibility of RFA should now be a thing of the past. Yay for us! ( Radiant ) 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Either that, or all the candidates that would have been opposed have been scared off... From what I've seen, the editcountitis seems to have improved (as evidenced by the complete lack of editcount related opposes on my RfA, despite me having less than 2000 edits, which was where the stats said people stopped opposing because of it), which is a very good thing (esp. for me!) --Tango 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's good that people don't need to be paranoid about their edit count to become an admin. Sure quite a lot of edits are needed but 5000 is no longer neccessary which is nice to see. James086Talk 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the video. I've seen a fair number of people recently withdrawing early, perhaps in the face of being in the small subset of people without 97%+ support. Once we see the total statistics I'll be happy we've overcome some of the pendulum-swinging. -- nae'blis 15:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The withdrawals tend to be from non-serious (joke) nominations, candidates who aren't remotely qualified (50 edits, 2 weeks of editing) and those who are marginally qualified but have significant opposition. Withdrawals seem to be happening very quickly, usually within the first 12-24 hours of an RfA. Those candidates that are well-qualified are passing their RfAs with astounding support percentages. I'm also looking forward to seeing some comprehensive statistics, but when 8 of 9 current candidates have 97%+ support, it's fairly safe to say that things are going well. SuperMachine 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And magically the number of "RfA is broken we need to nuke it ASAP" threads drops dramatically. Looking at the candidates now at a glance, I see one with past civility issues that he's learned from and another with a "too low" editcount, both passing. While this hardly means RfA is perfect, at least two of the glaring problems with RfA (elephant memories meaning only the roboticly polite could be promoted, and editcountitis encouraging all the wrong things) don't seem to be present this week. How about we keep it that way? --W.marsh 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We musn't count chickens before the eggs hatch. Fresh complaints could arise if there are a spate of noms where otherwise-good editors are rejected. Owing to the sense of "victory" or "rejection" involved, I don't think that trend is likely to change. Rama's arrow  16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As a recent RfA survivor, I have to say that the experience was a lot more pleasant than I was expecting. I kept checking it obsessively in part because I was sure someone was going to come right along and rip me a new asshole, which never happened. Not that I'm disappointed, mind you... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we could keep up the current good atmosphere here by finding a capable candidate or two and nominating them. Keep 'em coming :) ( Radiant ) 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Talking about preserving a healthy atmosphere and success rate, I'd just like a few comments (not trying to open a discussion) on why nomination floors are a bad idea. I can understand admins being appointed with only 1,000 or so edits back in 2003, but is it such a bad idea to ask people with less than 1,500 edits to wait a bit longer? Given the growth of the project and its administration, its not like we lose that much by asking a few editors to wait for a bit. Again, not trying to flog a dead horse, but its just a doubt in my mind I'd like to vent. Surely the atmosphere and success rate would be better if we had fewer of those 0-10 rejections. Rama's arrow  18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I bet you're really thinking but is it such a bad idea to ask people with less than 15,000 edits to wait a bit longer? :-P —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really... some half-wit was willing to oppose me because I didn't have 20,000 edits... :)) Rama's arrow  20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know you're not trying to rouse that horse after it's been beaten so bad it'd make a roman coliseum look like a picnic. But, whatever it is you *are* trying to do, isn't going to work :) --Durin 21:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not *trying to do* anything. I'd just like to check base on exactly why this idea was never accepted. Rama's arrow  22:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll offer my RfA as an example. I currently have 100% support, yet I have only around 1600 edits. Clearly, the community doesn't automatically reject people with low edit counts. The only reason I can see for not letting someone be nominated is if they don't stand a chance of succeeding, which isn't the case. Most noms that don't stand a chance get withdrawn pretty quickly anyway, so there's no need for more instruction creep. If we had grossly unqualified noms refusing to withdraw, there might be a reason to stop them, but even then, I think the solution would be early closing by crats (I think that already happens, in theory, but never seems to be required these days), not arbitrary cutoffs. --Tango 23:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: After checking the recent history, I see one early closure, but that was after less than 24 hours, so the nom didn't really have a chance to withdraw, there's a good chance he would have done if Essjay hadn't been so quick off the mark. --Tango 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you say is true - you're a good nominee and there would be a degree of "instruction creep." I guess most people think about this becoz of the number of doomed noms RfAs get. Rama's arrow  00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tango, the idea behind this was the opposite. The point of setting a "floor" of e.g. 1000 edits is not to bar people below that from running (but the floor should be low enough that they wouldn't have a chance anyway); the point is to discourage other people from employing arbitrary floors of their own. It seems to have alleviated now, but several people used to oppose everybody with less than X edits or Y months, for unreasonably large values of X and Y. ( Radiant ) 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you imposed a rule which said you weren't allowed to oppose based on edit count, that just wouldn't work. And if you ban edit count votes, you have to come up with very complicated rules about whether you can oppose based on main space edits, or wikipedia edits, or portal talk edits, etc. All such a floor would do is cause Wikipedia to lose the few potential admins with low edit counts in return for a little less work opposing obvious failures. Nothing more. --Tango 13:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think forbidding it altogether would work. The point is to educate people towards what reasonable standards are, rather than letting them guess. Wikipedia can be a bewildering place for new users. If we state plainly "an admin needs 1000 edits" that will encourage people to look for other reasons to support or oppose, without requiring us to forbid people from saying "well I think he needs 2000". ( Radiant ) 14:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think edit counts are just a cop-out for people who are too lazy to actually go through the contributions. I generally try to keep it at a reasonable number (1500-2000), but that's mainly so I can see plenty of instances of helpful contribs. Which is why I support Tango. On a related note (sort of), I'm glad to see there's a return to pleasantries and jokey oppose !votes, like some of the older RfAs I've read. Things were getting pretty tense around here a few months ago, so it's great to see that people are lightening up a little. riana_dzasta 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit count is easy to boost. I made about 500 edits today reverting a lot of vandalism. Edit counts don't indicate quality. My contributions today don't require very much experience, but I now have more than 2000 edits. That's the flaw with edit count. However, I wouldn't want a user with less that 1500 edits. I do think that an admin needs a lot of edits, to show they are commited and would use the tools, not just have them incase they need them. James086Talk 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just have to say this...
We've had so many good candidates lately! And all the candidates up right now are exemplary. We've got it so good right now. :) riana_dzasta 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's hope it stays this way. A constant supply of good candidates being promoted is not only good (by getting more admins) but it gives others confidence who would pass but are "afraid" of the stringent oppose votes (leading to exponentially more and more admins:)). James086Talk 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Updating the vote tally
I recently voted in an RFA, and I updated the vote tally accordingly by incrementing the appropriate number by one. Unfortunately, when I went back to check, I found that the tally I had altered had been incorrect to start with. I thought I'd check a few other RfAs first, before correcting it, and found that quite a few of them were wrong, mainly some lone neutral votes that hadn't been put into the tally. If I see this again, is it worth updating the tallies? Carcharoth 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a big deal if the tallies aren't updated with every single vote. There's nothing stopping you from updating them whenever you feel like, though. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tallies are just a quick way for lazy people to see how the candidate is doing, so you would do them a favour by updating and correcting them ;-) Be careful with bad formatted opinions, as they may be breaking the enumeration. -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The tally thing itself is kind of outdated anyway, I think most or at least many people use one of the various bot-updated RfA summaries nowadays to get a quick ballpark estimate of how candidates are doing. Tallies are still somewhat useful but I wouldn't worry too much about them. --W.marsh 03:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One could hire a bot to fix the tally after lazy voters (and for the benefit of lazy observers), but it is really not worth it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would work. For example, in one rfa (it might've been Husond's,) someone withdrew their !vote and put it in the neutral section (declaring abstention), I added it in the neutral slot, and then the candidate reverted me and explained. A bot, however, might end up revert warring in this case! Furthermore, misformatted !votes, as ReyBrujo noted, will throw the bot off. Picaroon9288 03:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I always make tally updates when I notice that one of them is off, for the specific purpose of others not having to worry about doing it. Since tallies are such a minor part of rfa, !voters need not be bothered to update them, and it isn't a bother whatsoever for me to update them. However, I've never seen a tally off by more than three or four !votes, so updating them is really never very urgent. Picaroon9288 03:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen those bot-updated summaries, which are very impressive. But how on earth does a bot count those votes? Is it just the number of leading '#' marks under each heading and nothing more? Carcharoth 11:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we might as well remove the tallies entirely; WP:BN has a better summary for the interested parties, and the current "tally" isn't meant to influence people's reactions. ( Radiant ) 11:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't overestimate the role of "tallies." Its true that removing them will help, but given the proliferation of RfA monitor boxes, its bound to be limited. People might just keep checking at WP:BN, where they'll get the percentages too. Rama's arrow  14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the vote summary was at WP:BN, not having looked there. Is there a reason why the vote summary couldn't also be somewhere on the WP:RFA page? That would remove the need for vote tallies on the individual RfAs for those looking down the whole page. Those who access the RfAs individually (eg. through their watchlist) probably know enough to transclude Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. Carcharoth 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The tally summary on BN is updated periodically but is often several hours out of date, so that list is good to keep track of what RfA's are pending but shouldn't be relied on without checking the actual RfA. I think the bureaucrats use that list primarily to watch out for inadvertent duplicate !votes (the bot checks for them). Newyorkbrad 19:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but nevertheless it appears to be more accurate than the manual tally :) ( Radiant ) 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't run more than an hour behind, unless something's changed dramatically; Tangobot is supposed to update it each hour. The main point of the tally on BN is to remind us when there are RFA's that need closed; the bot includes a large "1 OVERDUE" in it's edit summary to help us know our services are needed. The duplicate vote section is very helpful, but I find the former is the reason I use it most. Essjay   ( Talk )  03:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems we just sort of went through this not too long ago. Some editors, myself included, appreciate having the quick reference of the tally. So they might be out by one or two votes for a short time, but they're just for informational purposes. I have seen no evidence that their existence causes any of the harm that they're said to cause (or that their removal will fix anything). As the discussions above seem to show, the RfA system seems to be "working" as of late, and I doubt having or not having the tallies will not affect this (or change matters when it's "not" working). Agent 86 11:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed in Archive 67, has it? I've only got to Archive 46 so far... :-) Seriously, thanks for pointing out the previous discussion. Carcharoth 17:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical question
I don't recall the last time I saw only four nominations on the page. Is that unusual, or have I just not been paying attention? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is unusually low, but note that the recent high number of nominations was also unusual. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be that upon seeing your nomination everyone realizes that now all adminship tasks will be efficiently taken care of and no more admins will be needed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends. A month ago, we went from having about 18 to 4 in a matter of a day or two. Michael 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at 's contributions you can get a good idea. The last time I could see it being this low was October 25 when it was at 4 for several hours in a row.  If you go back to September around the 26th, 27th, 28th we had between 1 and 4 at any given time.  Metros232 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mayhaps American college students are reluctant to start a nomination now since they'll be going home this week (for Thanksgiving) and won't be online so much. And other Wikipedians are expecting guests or travel this week. Or it could just be one of those random fluctuations. --W.marsh 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whaaat? Not being online while at home for Thanksgiving?  W.marsh, how ELSE am I going to avoid awkward time with relatives?  :)  Metros232 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody remembers that, a couple of months ago, we had only two? -- ReyBrujo 21:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if no new RfAs are nominated in the next 19 hours, we could be back down to two again. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Quick! Find someone to nominate! :-) Seriously, there probably are seasonal and specific fluctuations in RfA levels. For example, I predict that the forthcoming ArbCom elections during December will stress people out, so possibly that will impact RfA nominations and voting, but hopefully not to the extent of affecting actual results. Though I could be totally wrong on this. Was RfA noticeably affected during the last ArbCom elections, or the recent WMF Board election? Carcharoth 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually December 2005 is the all-time high in terms of admins promoted in a month, with 68 (it must have been high, it's the month they let me in). So maybe people'd blown off all their argumentativeness at the Arbcom elections. See [] --W.marsh 01:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeesh, if we get down to just two, I'll register a sockpuppet and put it up for consideration just for shits and giggles. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Would compulsory self-nominations find more admins?
Well, that's the question. If I look at the list of RfA candidates for instance, I can recognise about 70% of the names. However If I look up one of those "Wikipedians with high edit counts" I will not recognise as many people. So I get the impression, that people who are more "famous" will be more likely to run for RfA. I think that there are hundreds of suitable candidates out there that would meet my nomination criteria, but I do not know of, and I know that many people refuse to self-nominate because they reason, "If I am suitable, then someone else will notice me". However, I'm sure there are many above-par candidates who judging by the time they wait until becoming admin, eg Requests for adminship/Melchoir, I'm wondering whether making self-noms the only option, would get the non-"famous" editors to run? Of course, people may then not run until someone encourages them, instead of the nomination. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that part of the system is broken. I think it would be better for you to contact people you think would make good admins and ask them if they'd like to be nominated.  You might find that many of these people prefer to remain an editor—I was asked three times before I decided to accept and a compulsory self-nom might have kept me from nominating myself ever. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not broken - I'm talking about the obscure guys that nobody has heard of before - I have nominated some people like User:Deville and User:JPD who mostly had only one page's worth of talk archives and they passed 71-1 and 94-1. I know that I am one of the RfA junkies by User:Blnguyen/RfA, of course, but I'm sure there are similar guys who do not edit in the same obscure vein, with only occasional public appearances, and I think that they are not putting their hands up because nobody would nominate them. Like I said, I recognise the majority of names, so I feel that the non-famous users are a bit shy to self-nominate, and people aren't looking hard enough either. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt it would directly aid in the success rate. One benefit might be that self-nominations are often more informative than poorly thought exterior nominations. On the flip side, candidates often give self-nominations that are skewed (usually towards self-belittlement rather than self-aggrandizement in my experience).
 * I would say that the best nominations are excellent external nominations, followed by good self-nominations, followed by normal and poor external nominations, and ending with poor self-nominations (like 2 week old editors who have no clue what they are doing). Getting rid of either external or self nominations would be detrimental. --tjstrf talk 08:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if someone would nominate me, and in the end gave up and did it myself, and it went fine. I think the solution is not to ban external noms, but to convince people that self-noms do work. Can someone draw up statistics of the success rates for self noms and external noms (ignoring people with under 1000 edits, say)? We could put a simple interpretation of the stats on the main RfA page. --Tango 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's probably more a cultural thing. I didn't say that the current system was worse, I was only getting people thinking. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think limiting it to self-noms would greatly reduce the number of good nominations. Consider this - at present, there are two ways of a person being nominated. Would removing one of those ways increase the number of nominations? Consider this also - the way that is being considered as a possibility for being removed is the way involving an external - and therefore more objective - person from acknowledging worth. You may not recognise the names of users with loads of edits, but others will - especially if those names belong to users with solid history of interaction with other editors. As to which types of nom are best, I think that Tjstrf has hit it just about bang on. If anything, I'd say if the methods or nomination were to be reduced at all, it is self-noms, not the external noms, that should go. No-one is less well able to judge a potential admin's worth than that person him- or herself. But I don't see that as being necessary either. The important thing is that those worth nominating get nominated, whether by themselves or by others. And reducing the means by which they may be nominated is not going to increase the number of nominations. (Oh, and FWIW, if there were only self-noms allowed, I for one would still not be an admin, so I'm fairly glad there are external noms). Grutness...wha?  12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, I think a simpler explanation for the fact that RfA nominees are often the more well-known Wikipedians is simply the fact that one often becomes well-known here typically by commenting on policy proposals, RfA's, noticeboards, etc. in addition to one's mainspace editing, and people with an interest in those sorts of things are perhaps more likely to seek adminship. I agree that the best way to get good, but quiet, candidates to run is to ask them to consider it. If they say yes, it doesn't matter so much to me who writes up the nomination. Newyorkbrad 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is true of course - I am looking for people always - User:Blnguyen/RfA, but I don't see too many people outside of my area, or are "non-famous" who are at RfA. We need to get totally non-famous people to change their willingness to toss their hat in. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that the amount of criticism of the process is inversely proportional to the amount of candidates running. ( Radiant ) 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, I'm not criticising it. I'm wondering if compulsory self-noms would promote more "boldness" from "obscure" candidates. I am just trying to see how to get some more unsung editors to get an RfA. Some of the people I nominated didn't go earlier because they won't self-nom out of priniciple, and because they are not "famous" they sat there for a long time, and when I nominated them, they passed 80+ almost unopposed. I'm just saying we need to get onto the more obscure people somehow, and wondering how we could do this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some people who don't do self-nominations, not because they feel that will make them seem too eager, but because they honestly do not think they are ready for adminship until someone else thinks they are. -Amarkov blahedits 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a problem. Some of the "obscure" people I nominated said that they weren't self-nomming out of principle, and after I nommed them, they passed 80+ almost unopposed. So I feel we need to encourage people to be bolder as I feel we are missing out on some potentially great admins. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I was fully planning on submitting my own RfA when I felt I was ready.. then someone came along and they felt that I was ready. Some people just need a slight push before going through with it; restricting RfA to just self-noms (which I think is what the first post is about; I'm still not 100% sure) is a bad, bad idea. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's more than that, too. For instance, I won't feel honestly ready to be an admin until someone else takes the time to write up a nomination statement for me. If someone's not willing to take that time, I won't ever think I'm ready. -Amarkov blahedits 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And of course, 'famous' and 'obscure' people are only different in the amount of noise, er, discussion they generate. We all only ever see a small part of the encyclopedia. Those active in policy or community pages will be seen by more people, but they are still only taking part in a very small part of the encyclopedia. Obscure people require slightly more investigation, but that is all. Carcharoth 11:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell????
Could someone please explain to me how on earth someone got to be an admin with these votes (112/71/11)? 84.64.75.86 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nepotism.... Juppiter 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll bite, who are you referring to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your inner voices are right this time; those are the Carnildo 3 numbers. -- nae'blis 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured either that or Sean Black, I couldn't remember which. Moving on... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They are NOT votes - ok, big bold text is over, but seriously, they're not -- Tawker 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking this as a good-faith question, let's just say that the matter received a certain amount of attention at the time, and this scenario is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. Newyorkbrad 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, was this just before my time or was I not paying attention? Either way, I smell gossip... can we have a link? --Robdurbar 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a link would be lovely. Even if the case is closed, it'd still be nice. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bureacrats are allowed to judge consensus and arguments in RfAs the same way admins can judge consensus in AfDs. In this case, they judged the oppose arguments as trivial. It's that simple. For more detailed coverage, see the RfA talk page. --tjstrf talk 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I might add that the closing bureacrat discussed the resolution of the situation with several others, and that he himself became a bureacrat with a near-unanimous consensus, 94/3/1. There is no reason to question his credentials. --tjstrf talk 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also taking these as good-faith questions, I see no need to be mealy-mouthed about it, or to deny the questioners their share of the gossip. This is where the matter went: Requests for arbitration/Giano. Enjoy. Bishonen | talk 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC).


 * I hate rehashing old issues like this, but if someone makes sysop with those 'numbers', why didn't Ambuj Saxena? Just asking, mind, not complaining. riana_dzasta 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it happened once and cause a large dispute, what makes you think it should happen a second time? ( Radiant ) 10:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that in response to me, Radiant? If so, I'm not trying to cause a dispute, at all - got better things to do with my time here :) riana_dzasta 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because Ambuj does not have powerful friends? Just a thought. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 10:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see Bishonen has linked to the 'Giano' ArbCom case. That deals more with the aftermath and later events following the 'Carnildo' promotion. I believe there is an actual ArbCom case about Carnildo somewhere, where the Arbs have discussed some other specifics about the case. I eventually tracked it down (couldn't remember the name of the case) by using the index of involved parties (see here). Look down that list for Carnildo, and you'll find the case that led to his de-sysopping. I thought ArbCom were actually intending to recast the re-promotion of Carnildo as 'something they could have done as an adjunct to this case' (ie. overturn their de-sysopping of Carnildo), thus not requiring Bureaucrats to make the judgment of a hotly contested RfA. At least that is the impression I get over how such cases might be handled in the future.

Oh, and thanks to whoever restored the thread. If it does generate too much heat, can someone please announce their intention to archive it, and then properly archive the discussion, rather than just remove it from the page. Removing and/or archiving discussion was one of the things that escalated things last time. Carcharoth 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, note this finding, and the related evidence. ( Radiant ) 11:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone want my view? Giano 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a rhetorical question. Carcharoth 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is closed. Briging it up here will not make a difference. Please keep this talk page free from older discussions that have no value right now. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Numbers participating at RfA over time
I know WP:100 and WP:200 are a bit silly, but they got me wondering whether anyone has done an anaylsis of how the raw numbers participating at RfA has varied over time. If lots of people are participating, then large numbers of votes are possible, and less so if smaller number are participating. Also, overall, the numbers participating probably increases as the number of editors grows. But I was hoping someone might have actual stats, or be able to generate them. This could lead to an RfA passing 80/0/0 being notable for passing during a period when most RfAs were only getting around 50 people participating. And some 100/0/0 RfAs happening at a time when lots of people participated. Of course, some popular or extremely exemplary candidates might have the effect of getting people to participate and support who wouldn't normally do so (by this I mean a natural effect, and obviously not vote-stacking). Also, what is the average number of people participating in RfAs over time? Carcharoth 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of participants obviously grows. WP:100 used to be special for RFAs but it isn't really any more. What a year ago would have been considered a record number of support !votes is now commonplace. ( Radiant ) 11:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records would probably be a good place to start, or Durin. -- nae'blis 22:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That voting records page is really good. It also led me (via the category) to Category:Wikipedia_statistics. Lots of stuff to read through there! Carcharoth 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Scratching my head at this...
Was at Template:Signpost-subscription when I clicked on what links here I found this mistake.

Requests_for_adminship/Peregrinefisher

Found it funny when I saw this RfA sub-page, anyway I didn't want to tagged a wikipedia subpage for speedy del without knowing if I should or not as its not an article/picture etc but an somewhat copy of a user page, with the request for RfA boxed in with the user boxes. ▪◦▪ ≡Ѕirex98≡   11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a malformed RfA - they are templating their userpage from somewhere, and that template had been stuck in the opening part of the RfA - have fixed it for now, but I will now find out if the template is in the right spot or not. It is a very old RfA that appears to have never been added to the front page - I'm not sure what the user wants to do about this, but I will contact them to find out. Viridae Talk 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Found the problem - it was subsituting his userpage because he used a colon: instead of a straight up line:  . Viridae Talk  12:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ah, I was wondering why the Signpost was going to the RfA with a userpage, Hope I didn't embarrass the applicant, just one small typo, Thank you Viridae :) ▪◦▪ ≡Ѕirex98≡   12:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The RfA was written nearly 2 months ago and never got posted to WP:RFA. I have contacted them to ask wether they would like to proceed. Viridae Talk 12:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If they do not, please move it to their userpage or add a CSD tag. ( Radiant ) 12:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. That would have been the next question I asked at WP:AN. Viridae Talk 12:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Did they spend two months checking back to a malformed page and wondering why no-one was participating in the RfA? Or did they decide not to proceed and never spotted the malformation of the RfA page? Well, I guess we might find out. If the RfA goes ahead, I predict someone will ask what happened. :-) Carcharoth 13:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The date and time will be altered to the correct week long running time, so they may not. Viridae Talk 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the user in question here is contributing, but hasn't responded yet. How long before Radiant's suggestions (move to userpage or add a CSD tag) can be considered? Carcharoth 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Doesn't it just baffle you that people don't provide edit summaries when they post their RfAs? I mean, come on, one of the big things we look for in RfAs are edit summary use, and they don't even put one there... It really makes things easier... Cbrown1023 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it baffles me. Though overall edit summary usage is really low. Most anons don't use edit summaries (though that's understandable) but a lot of users don't use edit summaries either. I always use an edit summary (I have the thing that tells me if I forget ticked) because it makes vandalism reverts so much easier, especially on pages which get vandalised a lot so a rollback still has vandalism from the prior editor. James086Talk 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the world is full of irony... --210 physicq  ( c ) 01:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] With a name like yours I presume you mean molten irony! Oh dear, bad joke. James086Talk 01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad, as in insulting, or bad, as in it took me 15 seconds to get the joke? ;P --210 physicq  ( c ) 01:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad as in a low quality joke that isn't really funny if you think about it. :) James086Talk 01:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This reminds me, I have to get around to modifying the edit summary javascript code so I can't possibly not use an edit summary. That should bring it to 100% if I don't get annoyed and deactivate it. -Amarkov blahedits 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can set an option to require summary in your preferences. As for the original question, yes, sometimes I kind of want to say "Look, you just transcluded your nomination without even saying so, are you doing that quietly so that nobody notices?" Summaries are really understimated, and some think autosummaries like popups, AWB or similar are good. They are just slightly better than no summary at all. Use summaries to educate, not only to say what happened. -- ReyBrujo 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work like I want, I can just press the button again. I want to not be able to send the edit without a summary. -Amarkov blahedits 01:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the reasoning behind it is that if you turn that feature on, it will remind you to make one if you forget, not to force you to make one. In reply to ReyBrujo, I'm pretty guilty of using autosummaries, I just let the anti-vandal script do it for me quite often. James086Talk 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... I know... That's why I need to modify the javascript tool to force me to make one... -Amarkov blahedits 01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do people make edit summaries such a big deal? Just type out a few words of what you did and it's all fine and dandy. I don't see why some people have such low edit summary usage.  Nish kid 64  18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because people never care to explain in a user talk page or the article talk page why some edit made by a new editor was reverted when it is not vandalism. I guess it takes too much time, so at least use an edit summary. Unless, of course, you are lazy and prefer using "rv" everywhere, even if it is a good faithed mistake. -- ReyBrujo 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not somebody would make a trustworthy admin, and oppose votes based on that are one of my wiki pet peeves.--Mike 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Edit summaries are part of the "paperwork" of making an edit. If editors don't use the tools they already have properly then we can't expect them to act differently with additional tools. Failure to use edit summaries certainly isn't a reason to block someone, but it is a reason to doubt their commitment to following a process and to informing the community of their actions. -Will Beback · † · 19:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree as well. Funny that you feel that way; I'm the complete opposite.  I can't stand when an experienced user doesn't use edit summaries.  It just makes it harder to figure out what the user did, or why he/she did it.  I could never support a candidate who didn't have extremely good edit summary usage. — Mets501 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Trust is pretty subjective, but I'll simply assume here that experienced editors are generally trusted. Generally, experienced editors use edit summaries.  When looking at a candidate, (not that I vote at RfA much anymore,) I look for edit summaries because that tells me, along with many other little things, that they are an experienced editor and that they deserve my trust.-- digital_m e (Talk•Contribs)  19:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I always use an edit summary if I'm working in the article namespace (unless I forget, which is very rare). I rarely use an edit summary on a talk page unless I'm doing something that merits one to explain my edit (such as archiving, to avoid my edit being mistook for vandalism). They're important in the article namespace but not so important outside it, since if you're editing on a talk page it's pretty obvious you're adding a comment/replying to one. This is just my opinion, of course. --Deskana talk 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that I agree with you, to the extent that edit summaries are less useful in the various _talk namespaces. They're pretty useful in the non talk namespaces.--  digital  _  me   19:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I didn't make my stance clear enough, I agree with you totally, Digitalme. --Deskana talk 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that using edit summaries is a bad thing. Last I checked my ESU is 100% for major edits and 81% for minor. I'm just saying that just because a contributor has 82% edit summary usage does not merit an oppose if they have sufficient experience to be an admin.--Mike 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Every user should be using edit summaries (it's more important in mainspace than elsewhere but it still should be done everywhere). If a candidate wrote that he or she thinks edit summaries are a waste of time, that would trouble me because it suggests unfamiliarity with how useful they are to RC patrollers, watchlisters, etc. If the answer is that they mean to use edit summaries but just forget sometimes, I point them in the direction of the Preferences setting that automatically prompts for a summary when the user inadvertently forgets to include one. If they promise to reset their Preferences to turn that feature on, for me that solves the problem. I wish more users in general were aware that that feature is available. It's saved me from inadvertently posting a blank any number of times. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the big argument in favour of potential admins demonstrating consistent use of edit summaries is that this is usually good training for writing out log summaries when blocking, deleting, protecting, etc, etc. If someone is lazy at using edit summaries, they are probably more likely to write poor log summaries (I think the software forces them to write something). Well, actually, lots of people use poor edit and log summaries, but as they gain experience, they should get better. But if they don't use edit summaries enough, that is a warning sign. I spent ages never putting any edit summmary for minor edits. I know better now, but my minor edit percentage is still shockingly low - it will take a long time to recover. Carcharoth 23:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with that. I used to be lazy about them too... Mathbot must hate me, when I first checked my edit summary usage, I had like 14,000 edits and only 14 were marked as minor.  Mathbot had to go like 9 times into my contributions to figure out my percentage.  I am slowly, but steadily getting my minor one up... Cbrown1023 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I love reformed sinners though... Mathbot 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)