Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 19

message: Please be careful with this.  Unless a nomination is clearly a joke or prank, or the nominator or nominee asks for the nomination to be withdrawn -- and even then with a moment's discretion -- please discuss here any urge to remove an RfA vote before it expires. +sj+ 05:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Votes should run their course. If the nominee feels set upon, noone should object to his/her removing it themselves. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship states "Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship."  The vote had been static for days and it was apparent that he would not get a consensus, much less a 50-50 vote.  Not that it means anything, but there was a consensus on IRC to remove.  blankfaze | •• 06:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent consensus appears to have been worked out over the past months--that we leave nominations unless the nominator or candidate wants it removed, or if it has no chance of succeeding AND is a magnet for sniping and argumentation. I think you know the ones I mean. They shouldn't be removed just for housecleaning. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I think IRC is generally bad for Wikipedia - it creats its own momentum. Secretlondon 13:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. It violates principles of transparency and I'm amazed that, as slooooowly as some things seem to happen on Wikipedia, how quickly IRC can raise a necktie party. :( -- Cecropia | Talk 15:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text:  And it's hard to reach consensus on IRC, since most people on the channel ignore most comments or requests.  If 10 people are actively talking, and two respond to  a suggestion and one likes it (and the other gives no opinion), is that consensus?  Nine abstentions?  etc. +sj+ 18:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. This is anti-IRC groupthink. :) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 11:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing votes before their time 

message: * I'd like to propose a change in RfA policy.  I'd like the section that reads:
** Nominations which are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 100 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes shows that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.
* To be changed to:
** Nominees who are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 500 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes show that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.
* Additionally, I'd like "if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship." to be defined as "if it is highly, highly unlikely that the nominee will recieve even a majority" or something of the like.  I think we're too lax on RfA policy, and I've seen several instances where candidates who had really no business even being listed were allowed to stay listed for the entire week.  Unnecessary, I think.  Just an idea.  Opinions, please?  blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy change

message: It is understood in all the below questions that a nomination posted contrary to these rules can be summarily removed by anyone. In all cases time would be counted from the withdrawal or end of the first nomination and the posting of the next. Poll will be evaluated in one week (2004 July 18)
:If this poll is to have any credibility, shouldn't it have been publicized a bit more widely? older≠wiser 16:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, publicize a bit more widely! It still hsa six days to run. ;=) -- Cecropia | Talk 18:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: (what does this mean? - Acegikmo1)  A: Allow a sponsored nomination when the self-nomination has run its 7 days unsuccessfully.
# BCorr|Брайен 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll &mdash; Nomination guidelines and self-nomination

message: If a nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time should intervene before the same nominator can repost the failed nomination? 
No rule
# Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
# David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q1: Reposting by same nominator after unsuccessful nomination

message: If a nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time should intervene before a different nominator can post a new renomination for the same person? 
No rule
# Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
# David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q2: Reposting by a different nominator after unsuccessful nomination

message: If a self-nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time before the candidate can self-nominate again?
No rule
# Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
# David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q3: Reposting self-nomination

message: Should an editor otherwise eligible to nominate be entitled to convert a self-nomination to a regular nomination by endorsing or sponsoring the nomination, and then move the nomination to a regular spot?
Yes, at any time after the candidacy is posted
# Why not? Neutrality 02:44, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
# Cecropia | Talk 02:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (what does this mean? - Acegikmo1)  A: Allow a sponsored nomination when the self-nomination has run its 7 days unsuccessfully.
# BCorr|Брайен 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q4: Converting self-nomination to regular nomination

message: If we allow self-nominations to be sponsored to become regular nominations, what do we do with the votes already cast?
Wipe all the votes to start fresh. Voters who already voted will have to recast them.
#Acegikmo1 13:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q5: Prior votes on a converted nomination

message: If we allow self-nominations to be sponsored to become regular nominations, what do we do with the time already spent?
Start the time all over again as a new nomination
# Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q6: Remaining time on a converted nomination

message: Yes
# Dori | Talk 15:35, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
#Assuming you mean this talk page. Hell, I'm tired of voting in general.  "This should be no big deal."  anthony (see warning)
No
#Cecropia | Talk 16:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q7: Tired of voting on this page every couple of months

message: I would propose that users only be allowed to self-nominate once.  If they are not accepted, they can then await nomination by another user.
It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for us to ask the nominator to wait for a month before making further nominations after one fails.  I believe that the business of nominating someone for adminship should be a more weighty one than it is presently, with a good deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the nominator, both during the vote and during a mentorship period afterwards.  UninvitedCompany 01:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if a self-nomination fails essentially because it was a self-nomination--i.e., "not enough work for a self-nomination" then one or both of two things should be allowed, notwithstanding other policy: (1) a sponsor should be able to put up the nomination again any time after the self-nomination fails, after that a one-month (or whatever) rule would apply and/or (2) during the course of voting on a self-nomination, anyone wishing to stand as a nominator or sponsor of the self-nomination should be able to declare so and move the nomination into the regular section. I haven't though out whether the votes should be wiped and the clock started again, but maybe we should consider that. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to complicate the proposed month's wait between nominations. A month's wait won't lead to disaster - David Gerard 18:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with David. I like to keep things simple. In fact I feel that having all these different possible time periods overly complicated - but that's just me. I like everything very easy to remember. theresa knott 18:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll still has time to run, but it looks like a consensus is shaping up to be a month except three months for another self-nomination. That's not too complicated, I think. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Letting people self-nominate only once will lead to people previously rejected going around dropping annoying hints all over unrelated talk pages that they want to be nominated. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-nominate once; other comments on time lag 

message: Current policy seems to be to grant adminship on the basis of the ratio of supporters to opposers. What if, say, a candidate had 2 supporters and no opposers? Would that be good enough?
My personal opinion is that a candidate should have a minimum of 10 supporters. If a nomination goes through with less support than that, I believe this to be a sign that the nomination has not received enough attention, and it should stay on Requests for Adminship until the minimum is met. If you've never heard of these users before, don't just ignore them and abstain. Go explore their talk page, look up a few of their contributions. You don't need to be someone's friend or diehard fan in order to support their nomination: you just need to satisfy yourself that the person is reliable. "No big deal", remember?
On the other hand, I think there is such a thing as too much support. I'm worried about these votes becoming popularity contests. I've decided that I'm not going to add my name to long lists of supporters. I don't need to voice my support for a candidate who's a clear shoo-in anyway, and doesn't need more support. From now on, I plan to vote only when:
# My vote can make a difference
# I have an opinion to express in an actual debate regarding a candidate
# I have a comment or some new information to contribute
# The nomination has not aroused enough comment, in my opinion.
Woggly 09:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your plans seem very sensible. As of the minimum number of supporters, it is probably best not to prescribe a hard number but rather say that the a bureaucrat should feel free to leave a note saying they are extending the vote for a day or two if the numbers seem a bit thin. Pcb21| Pete 10:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: There's no need to fix something that isn't broken.  Nominations are always voted on by enough people to make it clear.  Nominations of well-known people do get more attention than nominations of less-known people, but I don't see why that's a problem either. Isomorphic 20:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is necessarily a problem. However, I'm aware that in the past people have become admin with as few as four votes. I'm not saying that I feel these people have not been good admins, but it does sort of strain the meaning of "consensus" now that we've put so much emphasis on numbers. When a person attracts very few votes while others at the same time are getting dozens, I wonder why those particular users attract so little attention--when we know that a lot of people are looking at the page but so many don't want to look into that user to consider voting one way or the other. This isn't a high priority for me, but I wouldn't be upset if a minimum of 10 positive votes or so were agreed upon as a minimum. If the ten votes were not achieved in a week, we could extend for a day to see if anyone wanted to "tip the balance" to demonstrate better consensus. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As a four-vote admin myself (admittedly, that was almost a year ago, and RFA was a much quieter place then), I think a threshold would be wise, but a looser one, perhaps, than suggested above.  I would encourage bureaucrats (full disclosure -- I am one) to "seriously consider" extending a vote which has, say 6-9 supports unless the bureaucrat can see that among those support votes are several long-time trusted contributors, and that a vote only is forced to extend with less than 6.  If, say, a user with a lot of contributions on more obscure or less well-traveled topics had the support of Angela, mav, Mkmcconn, Kingturtle, Wesley, Ed Poor, and a couple of others (to select a few names from the list of people I know have been here a bit longer than me), and no opposition, I'd be in favor of promoting, and to heck with a 10 person minimum.  If I recognize one or none of the 7 names I see, it makes me more suspicious of sock puppets or groups of friends conspiring, which is about the only reason I can think of to set a minimum number of supports.  Are we comfortable with a softer rule like this?  Or does it reinforce the idea of a cabal too much?  I don't think so, but then I've always thought the cabal was a pretty stupid conjecture, and I certainly don't feel like a part of one. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. When I ran for Bureaucrat I said I wouldn't let admin nominations run for many extra days because a bureaucrat wouldn't make a decision on a close vote. However, having said that I would prefer we have understandings in place to make it necessary for bureaucrats to have to make these close decisions as little as possible. If sockpuppets are suspected to be involved, I would think someone would bring that up and that in itself would generate interest in the nomination. So without a "hard" minimum, what would you say would be a reasonable "soft" minimum that a bureaucrat could simply promote without having to get out the analysis pad? -- Cecropia | Talk 23:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 seems reasonable to me -- if there are 10 supporters and no one's raised any objections or concerns, I can't think of a good reason to be otherwise suspicious.  I'd honestly argue for a bit fewer, but I don't see any need in fighting for a number that would cause fighting.  10 seems to have a consensus here, and so I think there's no good reason to push lower to a number that might be more controversial to others (after all, I'm a bit biased, being a 4 vote admin myself :-).  Certainly, as UC noted above, few nominations, if any, have that little traffic these days. Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minumum number of supporters?