Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 32

message: Could we modify the RFA process very slightly?  I suggest that voting not be opened until the candidate accepts the nomination.  This would have a couple of benefits:
#If a candidate is nominated in bad faith our through poor judgement, it gives them an opportunity to bow out gracefully before getting hit with a bunch of 'oppose' votes.  
#It saves us from all the pointless "Neutral. Will support when candidate accepts nomination/answers questions." votes.
#It means that candidates on short wiki-breaks won't end up missing their own RFAs.
I would suggest that nominations that aren't formally accepted (or declined) within a week or two(?) be removed from RFA as declined nominations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like all of the above suggestions and would support all of them. Would first support BD2412's proposal, if not then the orginal proposal is at least a step in the right direction. ∞Who?¿? 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. FireFox 15:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be too bold in removing incomplete nominations yet. Certainly, I would oppose removing nominations simply because they haven't answered the questions yet; based on the number of people who are willing to support with the questions unanswered it seems clear that they aren't all that important or urgent. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And just to make this clear, I oppose this change in general. The only change we need to make, I suppose, is to make clear that you shouldn't volunteer others for adminship without their okay. It's a bit sad that this rule actually needs to be written down, but looking over recent nominations it seems that a lot of nominators are not following it. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see your boldness and raise you a nomination template ():
Comment - (The above template was created and posted by BD2412) If the RfA/nominee page is not going to be listed on the RfA page until the nominee accepts and answers the questions, why is it necessary to have a 24 hour time limit? NoSeptember 16:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight modification?

message: The AfD and RfA processes share similar physical layouts, both using transclusion on list pages to collect them into a single location for discussion. However, I think that RfA misses out on a step that might encourage a wider participation in the process.
Visiting the days AfD gives you a list of transcluded pages. Clicking on the header then takes you to the article. From there, you can click on the link in the AfD template to get to the correct sub-page to add to the discussion.
Visiting RfA gives you a list of transcluded pages. Clicking on the header takes you to the users page which is a dead end as far as the process goes.
I would like to propose adding a template for inclusion on a user's page (and optionally their talk page) after they accept the nomination. Something along the lines of:
	This user is currently being considered for adminship. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/.
This would make the page mechanics of the system similar to AfD and might encourage additional participation in the process. --GraemeL (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, good idea. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 16:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Support. -- BD2412 talk 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 16:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I support this idea. FireFox 16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Support. --Blackcap | talk 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Support - I've created it as above (). Please move it to a more appropriate title (I couldn't think of one... --Celestianpower hablamé 17:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a-going to add this to the instructions. --Blackcap | talk 18:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Support, if we all advertise ourselves then there shouldn't be any complaints about unfair advertising anymore. Titoxd 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've changed "administration" to "adminship" on the template page. I thought the same thing. As to the other bit, it's just a notice, and they can always remove it. I don't see that as being much of a problem: a lot of people with noms already create a template of their own, or add their RfA to their sig. --Blackcap | talk 18:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe change the instructions to say that adding the template is encouraged, but not required. --GraemeL (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not require it? If an editor desires to be an administrator, they have to go through the process, and having the template on their page would be part of the process. -- BD2412 talk 18:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of it messing up the look of some user pages that have heavy formatting. --GraemeL (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I strongly oppose requiring this template (or indeed having it at all). Advertisement should be up to the user's discretion. This process is becoming far, far too complicated. — Dan | Talk 19:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an advertisement. It's a notice. That's one of the problems with RfA now: how does one let people know that they're applying for adminship without it seeming as though they're advertising themselves? This solves that by having everyone do it. RfA should be a public, obvious, thing that everyone can see and know about, rather than something that only regular RfA voters see. This does that. Also, adding a template is not complicated. It takes less than a minute, depending on your connection speed. And it won't affect the formatting of a userpage, you just paste it in at the top and leave a gap between it and the rest of the page. --Blackcap | talk 19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly oppose. Lots of users frequent RfA to vote. If a nominee has done enough positive work in Wikipedia, the nomination should pass easily even when the user does not advertise himself/herself or campaign. —Lowellian (reply) 23:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I oppose. I put a similar notice on people's user page who I nominate, but they can take it down if they please. Some people don't want that stuff on their page, ever. And yes, it does work as an advert cause normally your friends visit yuor page more than people who don't happen to know you... Redwolf24 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really true, necessarily. I visit plenty of people's userpages whom I don't know at all when I bump into them on AfDs or wherever. And if you look at the instructions, no-one puts it up on someone else's page, it's always the person putting it on their own page. It's not a forced thing. And why oppose having it at all? It's useful for plenty of people, even if it's not required. It shows that there's a standard RfA notice and that you can let people know you're applying for adminship without it being an ad. And it may help eliminate the string of RfA sigs. --Blackcap | talk 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one can force anyone to accept a nomination for adminship, but if this makes the process smoother, those who desire admin powers should accept this temporary imposition. -- BD2412 talk 19:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another slight modification 

message: Is the date listed on my RfA correct? I added a question there, but was not sure if someone would see it. Not that I see it heading anywhere but "no consensus", I just want to be fair to all. If the mistake is mine, I am humbly sorry. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 21:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, someone probably credited september with one more day than it has. Fixed. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that it really matters, it's just the principle of the thing. Thanks fvw. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about my RfA 

message: I have recently removed Quale's RfA, added the rfaf and rfab tags, and included it on the failed candidacies page. I thought I'd do this even though I'm only an admin, not a bureaucrat. The reason for this is that it was completely clear that Quale's RfA wasn't going to succeed, as he declined it himself. There was therefore no need for determining a consensus. Heck, even if the entire Wikipedia supported Quale, the RfA would still have failed.
Was I being too bold here? I think closing RfAs for any other reason than candidate declination (i.e. success, failure by consensus, or failure to reach consensus) should be left for bureaucrats, but RfAs that are declined can be closed by anyone, you don't have even to be an admin (or a logged-in user at all) to do it. — JIP | Talk 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite welcome to help out. :) I noticed you removed the nom, so I verified on Journalist's talk and signed on Quale's RFA "closed". You didn't forgot to change the text. Make sure that the text "vote here" is changed to "Closed" (if withdrawn) or "Final"; and "ending" changed to "ended". You can remove RFA's have received <70% of the vote after the expiry date. (Just make sure that there aren't too many votes on the last day; if so leave it to the b'crats). Thanks for helping out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply! I'm glad I didn't step outside any boundaries. But could you clarify what you mean by "RFA's have received <70% of the vote"? — JIP | Talk 07:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Support:Oppose=70% ie, the person has got less that 70% "support" votes out of the support+oppose. (Neutral votes are not counted) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Quale's RfA 

message: I wanted to cut down the size of the extensive front matter on the RfA page as it seemed very bloated, and I have just done so by moving detailed nomination instructions (now including a more sophisticated way of creating a nomination subpage than by searching for it and clicking the 'create this article' link!) to a subpage, linked from the front matter.  Thought I would be bold and do it, but if anyone doesn't like it of course feel free to revert. Worldtraveller 15:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the creation of the new sub-page and the buttons! Thanks! Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tweak

message: I would like to propose an alternative procedure for considering new administrator nominations.  Instead of rendering "support" or "oppose" opinions, which gives the illusion that a vote is taking place, why not have the nominee answer many questions from individual wikipedians over the seven-day nomination period?  Then, after the seven-day period is over, a bureaucrat can read through all the answers the nominee gives, and choose whether to promote that nominee based on the big picture that emerges from the nominee's responses.  I do, however, acknowledge an inherent disadvantage of this approach, in that the read-through by the bureaucrat would be very time-consuming, but that could be solved by putting together a "promotion committee" of bureaucrats to read through the responses, and then come to a consensus on whether or not to promote the nominee.  In addition, this approach can reinforce the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" doctrine.  What do you think?  Denelson83  06:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't want to promote "Wikipedia in not a democracy" by promoting "Wikipedia is a bureaucracy".  The bureaucrats are trusted individuals, but do we really want to make every single nomination a pure bureaucrat judgement call?  Also, unless the current process is broken, I don't see a reason to dilute the power of common users. Isomorphic 06:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How would people with valid reasons to oppose a nomination voice that and present evidence? ANd for those of us who live in the rest of the world, what is a "confirmation hearing" exactly? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a metaphor for the idea I was trying to present, Filiocht.  The nominee answers a whole plethora of questions the group considering the nomination asks.  Denelson83  07:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already expect nominees to stand on their contributions and their responses to the standard questions.  What else would we need to know? - jredmond 15:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It would be too subjective. The voting system is much more transparent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Letting one bureaucrat decide the outcome of an RfA that sometimes gets 50+ votes? No way. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Confirmation hearing" approach? 

message: Look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#RoySmith. Is the standard for admins now 2000 edits? How do we reconcile that with the apparent cosensus here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_29#Do_we_need_more_admins.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) <insert date here>
:There's no consensus, nor should there be. Its a highly personal thing, varying person to person. If there was a consensus on how to vote then every RfA would be either 20/0/0 or 0/20/0 ;-) If you're wondering for when you should run, try about 2000. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Personally, I got in after a month and with maybe 200 edits max. Course that's unlikely to happen today, but I'm just bringing it up as an example .— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC you were the fourth person ever mentioned at RfA. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but my request was still made on the mailing list. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh the comment that there is emphatically no consensus on any part of the reasons for supporting/opposing candidates, but particularly not on edit count (non-)requirements. -Splashtalk 01:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I eighth that comment. Just look at NicholasTurnbull's RFA. He doesn't even have 1000 edits, yet he is clearly going to get promoted. Titoxd(?!?) 01:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extreme editcountitits!

message: A user went through and cast an Oppose vote without explanation for almost every candidate. Should these uncommented votes from a user on an apparent rant be counted? --hydnjo talk 17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just Boothy443. As far as I know bureaucrats generally do disregard his vote since he never provides any reasons for his opposition. Of course, since promotion is based on achieving consensus, a single oppose vote isn't much of a problem. If you're really interested, I'm sure you'll find more info in this page's archives. Carbonite | Talk 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. I'll sleep better tonight. ;-)  --hydnjo talk 18:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do BCrats really disregard his vote? (whatever was the result of his RfC?) What about other oppose votes with no explanation? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's less that he doesn't explain and more that he votes "oppose" on almost every single nom AND doesn't have an explanation. I don't know, if I was a B-crat I'd count it. He's entitled to a vote like anyone else, unless it can be shown that he's just doing it to be disruptive (which, as far as I know, hasn't happened). None of us HAS to explain our votes, and if his is being discounted I'd consider it to be a bad thing. --Blackcap | talk 21:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RfA's are usually pretty clear-cut. I have yet to see one where a failure has hinged Boothy's oppose vote.  BD2412 talk 16:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the explanation is the most important part of the "vote". Remember, we're attempting to determine consensus here, not just counting votes. In practice, a support vote without explanation is an implicit comment of "I agree with the nominator or other support votes". Support votes without comment are very rarely challenged by anyone. An oppose vote without explanation is an implicit agreement with other oppose votes. However, since Boothy443 has shown a pattern of consistently opposing without explanation, his votes should be disregarded. Often, he's the only oppose vote. Still, as a few users have mentioned, no RfA has actually hinged on Boothy's vote. Carbonite | Talk 17:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There may have been one that hinged on boothy's opinion - from the person's talk page from the beurocrat "Your decision was a close call, and excluding Boothy's vote the support vote was a shade under 80%."Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - I stand corrected! At least the bureacrat in question chose to give little weight to Boothy's unexplained opposition.  BD2412 talk 19:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: Now that there have been changes in the RfA process, the guidelines given on the instruction page are heading dangerously towards m:instruction creep. Now, I know this has been discussed before, but how about allowing only self-nominations for RfA? It would simplify the process a great deal (and the instructions could be put back on the main page so that people would notice them more readily) and would show decent initiative on the part of the nominee. People who wanted others to be nominated could do that simply by suggesting it to them on their talk pages, and a lot of trouble and clutter would be saved. Anyone agree? - 143.167.21.177 19:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree; the person who would now nominate can be first or second vote. (In fact, we could make this like RfC's: if nobody will support the nomination within 48 hours, it's doomed, and should be decently removed.) Septentrionalis 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I refused to self-nom and I'd actually be in favor of prohibiting them.  I am likely to evaluate an other-nom more favorably than a self-nom; the fact that the candidate found someone else to put his or her reputation on the line to make the nomination carries significant weight to me.  Please don't take away this valuable aspect of our process.  Kelly Martin 20:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kelly Martin - I'd feel uncomfortable lauding myself in an RfA intro.  BD2412 talk 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to say, I felt extremely weird self nominating (just an hour ago) but on the other hand I want to contribute in a different way and didn't want to wait for/ask somebody to nominate me... --Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually I think that a prohibition either way is not the way to go. There is nothing wrong with a self-nomination, but personally I hold it to higher scrutiny than a regular nomination. However, there's cases where a self-nomination is acceptable. I wouldn't self-nominate myself for the reasons BD2412 and Kelly Martin state, but I don't see why it should be disallowed either. Titoxd(?!?) 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yay, but even if this became something like semi-policy, then you'll have the problem of people trying to boost their edit counts; can't have it both ways, me thinks. I for one would opt for a minimum time around (say something like 6 months, or even 9 months), with fairly regular contributions, so one can be sure of people having grasped policy and being sure about their behaviour. Lectonar 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: favoured? I tend to view non self noms a wimps who lack enthusiasm and as a result have an increased risk of adding to the ranks of paper admins. Not that this makes much difference since one of my creteria for voteing tend to be (although not always) that I have to have a clue who you are.Geni 10:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanna say that people that request their own adminiship are more likely to be active in maintanance tasks than people who have adminship bestowed upon them. I nominated myself 2 months ago and received overwhelming support, and the Wiki is better off because of it! ;) Coffee 12:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On average, I suspect that history would not support you on this, and I speak as someone who became an admin via self-nom. Unfortunately, many self noms come from people who have not been around long enough to know what's involved or from people on a mission, like the recent User:GordonWatts request. Generally speaking, self noms constitute about 10–20% of all requests. I just did a quick, unscientific sample of 32 failed noms; 18 (56.25%) were self noms. This would indicate that self noms are more likely to come from candidates that the community finds unacceptable. Personally, I think this is a classic case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, in a sense we just fixed it with the requirement that noms be accepted and questions answered before they get posted, so lets see how that works out.  BD2412 talk 13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplifying the process - only self-nominations?