Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 83

Need for standard policy for incomplete RfAs not transcluded
It appears to me there should be a policy and regular check on the various non-completed RfAs that did not even make it into the RfA process, with a maximum time permitted before they are deleted, with a note to the submitter/nominator. It seems without a regular cleanup, there will be more than a few incomplete, un-accomplished RfAs as tme passes. I saw recently (and actually commented upon) one of these where the submitter was appealing for attention, yet failed to have the transclusion occur (and did not understand the process, as s/he had less than 100 edits). -- Yellowdesk 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do they really do any harm? I think they should fall in the in between area.  If they have never been accepted and have no votes and the nominee would like to get rid of them, I see no problem with a speedy ... but if nobody cares about them and there's no other reason to delete them (an attack page or something), there's no harm in leaving them out there.  Also, there's one really good reason to leave them there.  Occasionally, when someone declines an RFA, they say, "I will reconsider in six months" or "I appreciate it but I'm really not interested in ever being one".  By leaving it out there, we ensure that the nominee will not be asked against his or her wishes. --BigDT 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An RfA is not an RfA until it is transcluded. Until then, its presence is harmless. --Durin 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They are harmless. Any such policy would be instruction creep. Awyong J. M. Salleh 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not exactly harmless...when these things do cause confusion to the submitter who fails to complete the process that they think is done, and confusion by commenters like me who encounter the non-RfA through accident, such as this for the first time,  and don't notice that it is not connected to the RfA page. The subtle difference between a "#" (section marker) and a "/" for the non-transcluded ones in the title of the item in limbo. I have to wonder, how many are there in there.  Recognizing that some of the items in "Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/" (with a slash) are intended repositories of statistics and edit counts candidate  discussions, there are more than a few limbo items cluttering up the "directory." Doing a search on "Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship*" (with an asterisk).  I had about 11,000 results on my search.  When I clicked randomly on about 15 of the results items, somewhere near one third were failed non-submissions, certainly a non-scientific sampling. It does have the appearance of an iceberg, with lots of hidden failed submissions below the waterline. Does it really make sense to have this kind of cruft lying about? -- Yellowdesk 08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If a submitter fails to properly submit their RfA, I do not see how having a policy to delete such RfAs will prevent them from making the mistake and suffering the consequences; unless we delete the RfAs before they've even had a chance to screw up :) As for the other impact, that of having 11,000 pages in that listing; that listing is inherently non-scalable in usability. If you're interested in seeing failed/successful RfAs, you can see them at Unsuccessful adminship candidacies and Successful adminship candidacies. Trying to scan through thousands of pages (which, even if the 11,000 were cleaned up there'd still be thousands) is not terribly usable. --Durin 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll ask from a different point of view. Suppose several editors decided to compile a list of old--say four-plus months old--non-properly submitted (un-transcluded)  RfAs, and  submitted them for  speedy deletion or for ordinary deletion.  What reasons might there be for not doing this, beside the view that it's harmless stuff not worth attending to? -- Yellowdesk 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That becomes a deletionist/inclusionist debate, of which I am neither. Personally, I'd like to see clear reasons why they should be deleted. --Durin 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Costs time and storage space. (Deletion on mediawiki does not "clean things up") --Kim Bruning 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disk space is cheap, and there's plenty of it; a few terabytes last time I checked (of course, IANAD). Deletion in MediaWiki just sends the offending revisions from the revision table to the archive table. The contents of the archive table are liable to be deleted at any time, as Brion has previously said. So, disk space isn't an issue here. Tito xd (?!?) 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disk space is not only cheap, but also can be heavily compressed when stored. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing RfA Numbering
What do you guys think about adding instructions on the Requests for adminship/nominate page instructing people to use standardized numbering for second, third, fourth, etc. RfA's? For example, if a person is up for RfA after not succeeding the first time, doesn't it make sense that their second RfA simply be WP:RfA/User 2? And the third WP:RfA/User 3? For some reason, I see a lot of RfA's that don't follow this (to me intuitive) numbering scheme, and this can make RfA's pretty difficult to find if you don't already have the link.

Some examples of why it can be so aggrivating to find 2nd and 3rd RfA's without a link:


 * Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me too
 * Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)
 * Requests for adminship/Chanting Fox (2nd)
 * Requests for adminship/Bigtop (2nd nomination)
 * Requests for adminship/Darwinek (2)

Anyway, it'd be a relatively simple matter to implement a standardized numbering scheme. We wouldn't have to go back and change old RfA's or anything... we'd just be adding instructions to the RfA creation page to do it a certain way. Anyway, just an idea. Let me know what you guys think. – Lantoka  (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Waste of time. If people naming RfAs differently is a big problem, we can just make redirects. So if we decide the 'standard' is to add "2nd nomination", then we create redirects like Requests for adminship/Darwinek (2nd nomination) --redirect--> Requests for adminship/Darwinek (2). -- `/aksha 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would standardize it as "/User (2nd)", or something similar. With yours you have the problems of people with names like "Sir 3 1 4", which makes just adding a 2 on the end of the title confusimg. Oh, and the requirement should be only for a redirect there to the actual RfA, in case someone likes a different name. -Amarkov moo! 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unneeded instruction creep, we don't need a Adminship naming conventions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We need something to allow people to easily find a particular RfA without a link to it. -Amarkov moo! 17:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's an active RfA, it will be listed at WP:RFA. If it's never been active, there's not much purpose in seeing it. If it's already closed it will be linked at Unsuccessful adminship candidacies or Successful adminship candidacies. --Durin 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a technique for this: use Special:Allpages/, change the namespace to Wikipedia, and put in "Requests for adminship/Name of Candidate" for the starting point. (This is particularly useful for finding all subpages of pages in User and Wikipedia namespace, I've found.)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 00:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty nifty trick. Too bad it's not better publicized. Thanks for the tip bro. – Lantoka  (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new standard format for edit count
I've become quite enamored of the "wannabe_kate" tool for examining edit counts. While I am aware of the dangers of editcountitis, this tool has the advantage of listing people's top-15 pages of interest in each namespace, which gives a good sense of what they specialize in. While it would be an awful load on the toolserver to include a link to a search for every RfA, going forward we could replace the current edit count summaries on RfA talk pages with the full output of this tool. While it uses fancy formatting, a simple cut-paste of the output inside a &lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt; block gives decent results. What are people's thoughts? &mdash;Dgiest c 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * People add edit counts to the talk pages through their own volition. If you want the RfAs to have that, then by all means feel free to do so. There's nothing saying you should or shouldn't. --Durin 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the instructions (currently) make it sound like adding the edit count to the talk page is required. --W.marsh 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So it does, as of 21 January 2007. --Durin 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am for this. I usually go to this tool anyway when examining a user. Having it on the nom page would be beneficial for myself and I'm sure others. You might also want to consider placing the pasted resulted inside a hidden tag to prevent the page from getting too long; just another suggestion.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * edit: I didn't notice this said the RfA talk page. I guess that would be a better place and then you wouldn't need the hidden template. So strike my suggestion.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I already use Template:RfA talk which gives it nicely.  Majorly  (o rly?) 22:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not the place to discuss the template, but wouldn't it be better with five tildes showing the time and date instead of three, which would repeat the username...? Simply south 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It does already – test it out in a sandbox.  Majorly  (o rly?) 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tried now and the text comes up. Not sure how to get it to work properly. Quickly see Wikipedia talk:Sandbox. Simply south 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Use Simply_south . You need to subst it and add the parameters, like it specifies on the template page.  Majorly  (o rly?) 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OIC. Simply south 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing RFAs prematurely
Please do not remove RFAs prematurely (Communist47) at such an early stage. The RFA in question stood at 0/5/0, which should not be removed citing WP:SNOW. Furthermore, opposing a nomination, and closing it is a clear conflict of interest. Though the nomination was in poor judgement and would have snowballed into further oppose voting, it is up to the candidate to learn that the community has overwhelmingly rejected his nomination, and should persuaded to withdraw. A forced withdrawal at such an early stage should be best left to a bureaucrat's discretion. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. Bjweeks isn't even an admin! Admins have SNOWBALLd RFAs before, as have crats, but ordinary editors... – Chacor 13:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I concur as well. 0/5/0 is not necessarily enough to remove by WP:SNOW. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  13:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The RfA could have been snowballed by just looking at his name never mind the answers and his edit count. BJ Talk 13:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I ask if/when it is acceptable to remove such nominations?  Majorly  (o rly?) 13:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When it is 0/10/0 at least then it is ok. There must be at least 5 oppose votes for every 1 support vote. This, of course, is my interpretation because there are no specific numbers provided on WP:SNOW. Perhaps I have the wrong idea, but noone told me anything else, so I formulated my own opinion. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  13:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the process concerns in principle, but can't disagree with that particular RfA being removed from the list, even at that early stage.  Dei z  talk 13:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when was there a diffecrence between an administrator and a normal user? → Aza Toth 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think as a courtesy the nominee should be encouraged and given the opportunity to withdraw first where its going to become a WP:SNOW. Gnangarra 13:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (my reply from Nichalp's talk) The RfA was a joke, I don't think anybody doubts that. My oppose was also a joke. The whole thing was a joke, that is why I felt it should be closed. If this was just a newish user that really wanted to become admin asking the user to withdrawal would have been the best option but in this case after reading his replies on the RfA I felt that he wasn't going to take it down himself so I snowballed it. Again the only reason I removed it was because it was a joke and waisting our time. BJ Talk 13:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What Bjweeks said. This was obviously some sort of prank. The RfA had zero chance of passing. Why waste any more users' time on it? --Folantin 13:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion more concerning than the early closing of the RfA (an editor with about 100 edits would never have passed) is that his talkpage contains no message explaining the close. We cannot assume bad faith on the part of RfA candidates. He should have had a polite message explaining why his RfA would not succeed, trying to avoid the editor being discouraged and informing them his that he is very welcome to resubmit with more experience. WjBscribe 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have done that. In hindsight that would have been an excellent idea, I'm sorry I didn't but I still feel closing it was the right thing to do. BJ Talk 13:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It may have been a prank, or it may have not been. In any case a note should be placed on the talk page of the candidate regarding the RFA, and a note here (WT:RFA) to mention that is should be prematurely closed. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have left a message at the users talk and no I shouldn't have posted my dumb oppose vote. What I see as the problem is a lack of policy here, I followed other WP policies when I snowballed it but if there was a policy page that explained the exact process for closing RfAs prematurely then this would have never have been a problem. Who is allowed to close RfAs? Admins? 'crats? When should they be closed? First sign of not having a snowballs chance in hell of making it or after a number of editors comment? Should the editor have to consent? Should we warn the editor first? Should we have to warn the editor first? None of this is in policy but it should be. BJ Talk 13:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This does need to be sorted out. To say only bureaucrats can close is pretty elitist, considering bureaucrats only make rare appearances around here these days. I think any user can close if it's an obvious failure.  Majorly  (o rly?) 14:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. As Bjweeks acknowledges, it would have been better to have left a talk page message and not posted the "jokey" oppose vote. But there should be no requirement for a speedy close to be done by an admin, if the nomination is never going to pass. To quote WP:SNOW: "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause." Anyone objecting? Trebor 14:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify I was talking about leaving a message to the user in question. BJ Talk 14:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Majorly et al.. What's the big deal about an ordinary editor exercising a bit of common sense? It saves us all a lot of time and effort. ( I also don't see what the hoo-ha is about Bjweeks's "jokey oppose vote" given the nature of this particular RfA). --Folantin 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no deal, we're just helping the 'crats in removing an RfA that will only get removed anyway.  Majorly  (o rly?) 14:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been multiple debates on this subject before, with little in the way of consensus on the proper way to handle such RfAs. I will say this; WP:SNOW is not policy. There is also no hard and fast rule about when to de-list an RfA because it is often unclear what will happen. Current case point; Requests for adminship/Adam Cuerden. That RfA started out rather poorly, with a poorly written nomination statement, with a self-nomination (which are 20% less likely to succeed). Now, it looks to pass rather well. There's little harm in letting an RfA go from 0-5 to 0-10. RfA will not be critically hampered by that, and if the RfA is indeed a joke, it won't cause any harm to the nominee either. --Durin 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a distinction needs to be drawn here and maybe even codified somewhere. There are (1) joke nominations, (2) good faith self-nominations by users whose first edit is today, (3) good faith nominations of users who have been here under a month or have under a few hundred edits, and (4) good faith nominations of long-time users that have zero chance of passing for reasons unrelated to insufficient experience. In no case should anyone but a bureaucrat remove #4 and that's undisputed.  #3 possibly would be reasonable after the Captain's 0/10/0 magic number, but it would be better to encourage the user to withdraw and leave it to a bureaucrat.  But I don't think there's any problem whatsoever with a non-bureaucrat (which includes non-admin) removing #1 or #2 provided that they also take the time to explain to the candidate the issue. --BigDT 14:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The two cases are not even comparable, 6755 v >100 edits, poor answers v jokes and Communist47 even admitted to pushing a POV. BJ Talk 14:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse removal any time the answer to #1 is that he wants to be an admin so he can make syrup. In all seriousness, I don't see a problem with snowing this one.  If it wasn't a joke nomination, it sure did a pretty good impersonation of one. --BigDT 14:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or how about this: return to "Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may de-list a nomination, but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved", and leave it at that. It worked perfectly well for a year. (I wrote these sentences and am rather fond of them.)


 * Does anyone actually care that a doomed RfA hangs around for 24 until a 'crat arrives? Marskell 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't work that well, as no one followed them.  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought a great many people followed them well; there was some reverting over front matter once in a while, as many people are fond of SNOW and wanted it mentioned on the page, but otherwise, there was no real issue. Say "let the 'crats do it" and forget about it. Marskell 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the 'crats were around more then I would, but they are the more inactive admins, and I think leaving an RfA up for no good reason helps nobody, and I expect makes the candidate feel awful about themself – just for the sake of "rules".  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. I actually think it's the 0 that's rules creep. What if it's 1/23? What's a "reasonable length of time"? If you're worried about people feeling bad, nicely ask them to withdraw on their talk. Marskell 15:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on what the supoort comment says. A moral support obviously doesn't count.  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Deciding "what the support comment says" is why we have bureaucrats. Marskell 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking about bureaucrats, you're four hours overdue ;)  Majorly  (o rly?) 16:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose that in Communist47's case, WP:SNOW could be cited after 5 oppose votes. Still, his was a special case and WP:SNOW should not be an excuse for deleting anything someone feels like deleting. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to stress here is that a nomination was closed without a set protocol. I don't hold anything against BJ, we are all allowed to make mistakes, but for the sake of closing a future RFA without controversy (admin vs non-admin; admin vs bureaucrat; challenged withdrawal etc -- old time users will remember the GordonWatts episode) I have made a generalised statement above. I personally have no issues with anyone closing a nomination other than the fact that the closure should not lead to controversy. Without going into the nature of this RFA, lessons learnt here should be 1) 5 oppose votes is not SNOW. 2) The candidate was not informed - should always be 3) A user who voted oppose closed the nom (conflict of interest) 4) RFA was removed in just an hour's time without a informatory note on this page. It may be a prank in this case, but in the future it may not be. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were to define standards for early removal, I would say at least +10 valid oppose votes, a time period of 3-4 hours, and a compulsory message on the user's page. For further expedited removals, a note here proposing the same which goes uncontested for 30 mins (I know this page is heavily monitored) should be sufficient grounds for removal after informing the candidate. Of course it would be best if the person has not voted against the nom, close it. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I see that as instruction creep. The snowball close isn't just about an overwhelming level of support for one view, it is also for issues which don't "have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process". So we use common sense. If a user writes a nomination that gives a strong indication that it is a joke, or if a user has under 100 edits, or if a user joined one week ago, there is no doubt that the nomination will fail. The present system seems to be working fine; going back to my earlier point, if nobody (reasonably) objects then it was a good move. Here, the objection is merely hypothetical - unless you seriously saying the RfA had a chance of passing? So codifying a solution would be solving a problem that doesn't seem to exist. I'll defer to the 'crats on this, but to me it seems like we should apply common sense. Trebor 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as a reasonable standard, though ten may be a few too many. It's important to stress, I think, that the point of the early closure is to spare the nominee from embarassment.  A message suggesting early withdrawal at around 5 would be appropirate, suggesting withdrawal.  semper fictilis 15:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree this sound fine but after we get consensus on this can we please put it at the top of RfA or make it a policy page? BJ Talk 16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So we have IAR, and it's (non-policy) derivative SNOW, in an effort to make things easier. And now we need a new set of rules to caveat the latter? It doesn't make sense. Marskell 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If an RfA has a snowball's chance in hell of success and it does not harm to wait to make sure of concensus, then why not wait to make sure that it is consenus of the article's deletion? Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point I really don't care what is decided but it needs to be laid out somewhere, the reason I ignored all rules was because no rules existed. Just guidelines on when and how to close a doomed RfAs would be fine. Something, just anything. BJ Talk 16:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand that and I know that no rules exist on this topic. Hopefully, soon we will decide on some. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To beat an apparently non-consensus horse, we did have a rule: let bureaucrats do it. It's simple and will save us talking. Marskell 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as instruction creep. This was a joke nomination, zero chance of passing, etc. If we are going to remove it at all, why wait? I think the "lessons" you've identified are more or less wrong, excepting number 2. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, who is that directed to? Marskell 21:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nichalp, thus I indented below his comment. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Replying to Marskell: If a user has 39 edits, I have no problem with it being removed after several users have opposed. This can prevent excessive opposition that may harm a new user.  Dar-Ape 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse snowball closure, or whatever the bold wording is these days. This user definately hadn't done enough to figure out what they're good at. OTOH they do seem to be somewhat good faith, so we might see more of them later eh? :-) --Kim Bruning 21:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well his RfA was in good faith, but we're not discussing that. We are discussing how and when

to apply WP:SNOW to RfAs. (Sorry if I missed the point in your statement) Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  23:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in my comment beside the 0/10/0, I stated that 5 oppose for 1 support. What I meant was that there should be at least 10 oppose votes to cite WP:SNOW or more that 10 oppose votes with a few supports and a 5 opposes to every 1 support in that ratio. I.E. a voting of 2/19/3 can be closed by my reasoning whereas 5/13/2 cannot. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... why are we discussing a rule for this? Does it make any sort of sense to give strict standards for when someone may do things that the main page says only bureaucrats can do? -Amarkov moo! 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reality of this situation is that regardless of any particular standard we could come up with, there will always be outlier cases that do not neatly fit within the standard. Failing RfAs have been removed without much hub bub until now. I don't see there being much reason to change, except the occasional admonishment that started this thread to not remove prematurely. There's no standard by which to judge that; we should just be careful to use our best judgment. --Durin 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. This really shouldn't have specific rules governing it. It's just that specific rules are easier to use that vague guidelines or statements to look at each case separately. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How to be an admin
Hi, I wish to be an admin. What I am supposed to do? I will appreciate some feedback. --- SciAndTech 14:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep editing for about three more months at minimum, and build your edit count to over 3000. Write articles most of the time, but be sure to participate in process such as articles for deletion and do the odd bit of recent change patrolling. Whatever you do, don't request it now as you've been here just a couple of days and so you have almost no experience of anything. Good luck with your wiki-career!  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Majorly. --- S&amp;T 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not new to wiki but yes new to wikipedia. I have added those pages in my watch list and will try to follow your instructions. Thanks. --- S&amp;T 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't suggest an edit count, as that gives the mistaken impression that that is the important part. The important part is demonstrating a track record of positive contributions and an understanding of the policies. - Taxman Talk 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only a suggestion, and it's something that !voters will look at generally.  Majorly  (o rly?) 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The user asked what they are supposed to do. In light of the question, your answer was misleading. Enough so that I though it was valuable to point out what they should really do. - Taxman Talk 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you don't want to be an admin. (That, and we shouldn't be giving the admin bit to anyone who actually wants the job). Please come back when you're suitably horrified, and we shall drag you onto the requests for adminship page kicking and screaming. --Kim Bruning 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just Kim's way of saying he wants to be dragged kicking and screaming back into the adminship from which he resigned. Of course, since he actually *wants* to be an admin, we're not going to let him, are we :) In jest, of course --Durin 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Transcribing the RfA
Would it be considered bad form for me to transcribe my RfA onto my user page so that people can edit it right from there? I have mentioned it on my page, but would transcribing it be taken as overkill and turn people off? Peace, 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  00:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "transclude"? If so, I would think that would be downright annoying.  Also, if you do any vandalism reverts, you would probably attract trolling. --BigDT 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's bad form because I've never seen it done before. I guess that will need to be decided. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant transclude. I figured that it had never been done before, so I should ask. I'm also a stereotypical vandal fighter, so the vandals trolling the discussion is a very major concern. I just won't do it. Thanks, 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm...why would you want to transclude your rfa on your userpage? You would get a lot of opposes just for that, and yes it would attract vandalism. Also didn't you just recently fail a RFA; and you even attempted to leave Wikipedia not to long after that. ~  Arjun  00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was planning on waiting until late March, but my friend offered to nominate me, and since my edit count had more than doubled, I had gotten over a lot of stuff during the Wikibreak which was based off of far more than just the RfA, and I was only 2-3 weeks away from the recommended 3 months I figured that I would take him up on it. I had been getting a fair number of comments from people asking when I was going for admin again and stuff, so I figured that I had a fair shot. Also, I was asking here to see if I would get a lot of oppose votes for doing it. As for why, that would be so people could edit the RfA right from my user page. Peace, 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Still you tried to quit pretty recently; something that I don't value highly at all. And it is usually not a good idea to link to your rfa...and to transclude it ( :O ) would not be a wise idea. ~ Arjun  00:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied to quitting on my RfA, and why shouldn't I link to it? 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many people consider it to be campaigning to display a link to an ongoing RFA. I don't ... but if you do, be prepared to see opposes for that alone. --BigDT 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange. The page is about me, and a current RfA is a notable event in my time here. If I wanted to campaign I would be flipping through random page histories asking everyone I could find a link to to vote for me. 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Didn't we agree on this talk page a little while ago that having a banner is okay, as long as it doesn't say "Vote support" only. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents, but it would look like campaigning to me. &mdash;Dgiest c 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not campaigning. Campaigning is "support me because I'm ---". Saying "support or oppose me" seems okay. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 01:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Campaigning is in no way my intention. I just want to be allowed to mention it in my space since it is a mile-marker in my career here. 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody said you aren't "allowed" to. Just be aware that some people will consider it campaigning and it's possible that you could pick up some oppose votes as a result.  People can oppose for any reason.  So while you are "allowed" to display a link, just know and understand that some people don't agree with displaying one. --BigDT 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, if the oppose votes from something like this could really turn it into a failure then I probably don't deserve to be an admin anyway. 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  01:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If the RFA is transcluded on your user page, I shall certainly support you for being original in such a way as not to be disruptive. (it's a hard thing to get right!) O:-) --Kim Bruning 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) disclaimer: Provided you are not otherwise crazy or likely to run amok, of course
 * Original, yes, but it would almost certainly bring trolls, as mentioned earlier. 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid 
 * I wonder if they would in fact do so. Interesting experiment either way. Entirely up to the candidate, of course. --Kim Bruning 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No thanks ;). 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  02:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Scardycat! ;-) Hmm, well, no, actually, perhaps you're wise. Even so, a non-vandalfighting candidate might want to try this someday, eh? :-) --Kim Bruning 02:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That would indeed be an interesting experiment. Maybe someone would be willing to try it someday. However, I'm too much of a scardycat >;) 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A note on SNOW
I've been looking into the evolution of RFAs during the course of their run. Looking at 400 recent RFAs, it appears the de facto SNOW threshold has been less than 20-30% support after a day or so. This is actually quite generous. During that period, no RFA with less than 50% support after 1 day posted has passed. Similarly, with the exception of Carnildo 3, no RFA with less than 65% support on or after 2 days has passed.

Maybe SNOW should be used more, maybe not. At the least, we should be able to tell people at 40% support, etc. that their odds of passing are essentially nil. More stats later. Dragons flight 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, the point of WP:SNOW isn't to stop discussion the instant someone can determine what the result will be. If the discussion is beneficial, then regardless of the fact that a certain result will almost certainly be reached, it should be allowed to continue. With those 20% support RfAs, it's obvious that nothing will come, except for massive pileon about how the candidate did something bad. But when you get significantly higher than that, there is probably going to be significant discussion on some points, and maybe some more suggestions from opposers. -Amarkov moo! 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good point. -- Renesis (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's been debated before. The people in opposition say that RfA is not an editor review, and should not be treated as such. Not saying I agree with that, just that this is one of the points in opposition to that. --Durin 13:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, that could be up for debate, but regardless, I think that it is a very good point that WP:SNOW should be reserved for RFAs that stand to do more harm than good (pile ons) or are obvious mistakes, but not for good-faith RFAs just because someone "is sure it will fail". -- Renesis (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsure of Self
I would like to help wikipedia by becoming an Admin, but I am not sure if I am ready for it. I do not know how much experience on wikipedia is needed, nor do I know what I should do to be accepted if I were to apply. I would like to talk to an admin about this. I will be watching this page and my user talk page, so contact me either way. Thanks in advance, --Savant13 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:GRFA. --Durin 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)