Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 54

message: Does anyone here think that it would be a good thing to allow anonymous voting? By which I mean that only registered users may vote, but *who* is voting a particular way would be kept from the candidate and others. I worry that when I vote 'oppose', it's going to come back and bite me. - Richardcavell 02:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But whoever votes can still be seen in the edit history.—G.He(Talk!) 02:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say don't be afraid to oppose someone. If your reasoning stands up, there are a lot of people out there to make sure it doesn't "come back to bite you". --LV (Dark Mark) 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As GHe said, everything's in the history anyways.--Alhutch 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There already is a mechanism for anonymous voting - your account name. Um, unless that's your real name... but I am quite hopeful that no one is going to track any voter to their home and beat you up over a Wikipedia RfA vote. bd2412 T 03:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that he means biting him on the wiki. You know, maybe having revenge votes cast against him in the future or something. Just my guess though. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Probably that, or maybe personal attacks in worst case scenarios.—G.He(Talk!) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is, this is teh internets - if the worst thing that happens to you is that people say bad things about you on the internet, count your blessings! bd2412 T 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Touché on the real username. I'd like to start a sockpuppet account so that I can edit abortion and other medicolegal topics without getting User:Richardcavell into trouble. I am worried about revenge votes, or more precisely, cliques forming. Any voting system will always inevitably degenerate into a two-party system with each side attacking the other to gain a steady state of mutual attrition. The fact that votes are on view here makes this doubly inevitable. - Richardcavell 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. That happens only when you have everything being determined by plurality winner take all systems. Since we vote up or down, not choosing candidates, that sort of issue doesn't apply (there are a variety of other reaons it wouldn't, but thats certainly one). JoshuaZ 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. Maybe we should make a page called Wikipedia:Users willing to make difficult oppose votes in RfA's, so that paranoid users could request help in expressing their concerns in RfA. No, I don't think that would work. ;-) Seriously, it would be very difficult to keep RfA votes anonymous while at the same time preventing sockpuppets and vandals from messing everything up. --TantalumTelluride 03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is still voting.. still democratic (as is consensus). Denial of wikipedia as democracy and it's history of democratic control is doublethink . -- max rspct leave a message  13:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. It's policy. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, guys. Did you miss the great Florida recount that ended with Jimbo elected to God-King? ;) NoSeptember talk 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you considered that - shock horror - the BBC may not fully understand how Wikipedia works? After all, most journalists don't even get the URL right, let alone policy/process etc. Martin 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So now BBC sets Wikipedia policy, and not Wikipedia? Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus is a cornerstone of democracy in the same way that having a vagina is a cornerstone of being a prostitute. Not all people with vaginas are prostitutes, and not all organisations run through consensus are democracies. Johnleemk | Talk 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, while that was probably the funniest example I've ever heard — I should barnstar you for that one — this is strating to stray pretty far from the original question of "anonymous voting." Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this praxis does at times cause eventual misunderstandings, it is my impression that most of the [minimally experienced] users who post here understand what the RfA process really is, even though they say "vote". I believe the word has come into use largely due to [ok, also an original misunderstanding because of] the procedural resemblance that the process bears to a vote. It's just a lot more practical to say I have voted to support than I have submitted my rationale in order to help achieve consensus sufficient to promote userX to Administrator. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need to be so absolutely precise about the terminology during discussions that aren't even focusing on whether or not RfA is a vote, or voting, etc. That only causes the discussion to digress. For my part, I've accepted that I'm cheap and don't want to wear out my keyboard ;). So please, let's relax a little about the terminology stuff. Redux 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have a problem with referring to most of our processes as votes, since we actually run discussion-based strawpolls (where the term vote would probably be accurate). I do take issue with people referring to any process as a "vote" however; we really ought to replace such references with "discussion" or "strawpoll". Sigh. Johnleemk | Talk 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I don't want to join this (pointless IMO) discussion, but you might want to read that post again... It doesn't make sense. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...you're right. My bad. Just strike out the first half of the first sentence. :p Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia procedurally resembling a democracy doesn't make it one any more than a sluttily dressed woman being a prostitute (to continue the analogy). And why doesn't it stand up? Do kindly explain. I don't care whether it's juvenile or not -- it's clearly getting the point across. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind the civility, Max. The point was exactly to learn to let go of the little things. Redux 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A more tame analogy would be, just because one has a colorful signature, does not mean one has a colorful personality. -- 127.*.*.1 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous voting 

message: Can we develop a guideline about RfA thank you notes? As it is now, they take up extra time, don't say anything substantial and often use unessary pictures which put further drain on the servers. I'd prefer them to end but would settle for now for consensus that they shouldn't have any pictures in them. JoshuaZ 17:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would the point of this m:instruction creep be? I don't particularly care for them, but I don't exactly hate them. If you feel so strongly, just stick a "No RfA thank yous please" sign on your talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main concern is the pictures. Use of pictures when we don't need to is a major uncessary drain on servers. JoshuaZ 17:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have anything from a dev to back you up on this? The last time I recall any dev making a statement on image use, brion said we needn't be tightening our belts WRT images. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did Brion say that? I'd be highly interested in seeing where he said that. JoshuaZ 17:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he said it at the pump, although I'm not really confident about it. Anyway, wouldn't the easiest and best solution be to ask him whether they are a problem now? Johnleemk | Talk 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Regardless of what brion said it won't make much of a difference considering how many other templates with images are used on talk pages and user pages and the like. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A drain on servers? If you read it once and then throw it into your archives, never to look at it again, is that a drain on servers? Also, does a tree that falls when nobody is around.... NoSeptember talk 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, brion said that community-use images are not a drain on our servers. Let me see if I can dig up the diff for that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This one? --JoanneB 19:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, thanks for the pointer. Consider my earlier comment withdrawn. JoshuaZ 20:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA Thank yous 

message: If RfA were American Idol, who would be Simon? =P —Keenan Pepper 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way. The canonical example would have to be Boothy. --maru (talk) contribs 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly silly question 

message: In light of this comment:
"As a side note, I just want to make a note that a large portion of the 235 edits to Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina was from him creating the article itself. See here to see what I'm talking about. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the following: NO. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I wasn't sure I earlierd agree with Xoloz, but I do now. This is more participation in the RfA than is reasonable for the closing 'crat. JoshuaZ 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You must stop supposing you can give out order in that tone of voice, Linuxbeak. When you flatly refuse to recuse, do you imply that you have already decided that you will be the bureaucrat who closes this RfA, and will exclude all the others to that end? Or simply that you consider yourself eligible among the crats? For a crat to decide on arbitrary rules, make challenges to opposers and not supporters, to refuse to recuse and to deny all other crats the right to close the RfA is probably an arbitration case. -Splashtalk 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider LB's tone flatly uncivil. I am no dog, and my requests deserve to be met with human politeness, even if they are rejected. I believe I am offended. Xoloz 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the tone with which this particular sub-section began, I think it hardly behoves you to be complaining about civility. The job of a bureaucrat is to run RFA discussions in such a way that the most appropriate result is generated—not the result which upsets the most/least number of people, not the result which garners the most kudos, not the result which panders to factional struggle within the ranks of Wikipedians. What would be your desired outcome: a situation wherein any bureaucrat can be intimidated into relinquishing the reins of a controversial discussion, and the available pool trawled to find a bureaucrat who will give the "correct" result? Would you be willing to become a bureaucrat if that were the situation? Would anybody want you to become one if it were known that you would simply melt away at the first sign of controversy? Go and have a cold shower and a hot curry in whatever order suits you best and come back and try again when you have calmed down. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, what, 18 or so b'crats? I'd like b'crats circumspect enough to understand that a "rule-setter" in controversial case shouldn't close it; I'd like b'crats detached from their egos, and eager to recuse at the slightest legitimate concern for propriety. I am no troll, either, and I have raised legitimate points seconded by many. I appreciate JoshuaZ's remark, as I can't think of anything uncivil I said here. I phrased the request as politely as I would before any judge, and was given an... odd rebuff. Xoloz 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Linux using a large "no" seems to be far more uncivil than anything Xoloz said. And what do find uncivil in Xoloz's comments? JoshuaZ 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that I said that I would not recuse here, questioned why I should recuse, and once more said no, I got a bit agitated. Should I have used all caps? No. But my stance remains. I'm not going to recuse. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Look. I have no interest in this case going one way or the other. I have never actually interacted heavily with this editor, so I'm not going to recuse myself. Period. I don't know how many ways I need to say this. As far as Splash's comments, I am considering myself eligible among the bureaucrats. As far as an arbitration case, if you want to start one, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not that you have never interacted with the editor. That's not really the key facet of deciding an RfA. The point is your extensive involvement, particularly in challenging opposers, quite aggressively, in this RfA. Arbitration can wait until the RfA is finished. -Splashtalk 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether you are actually involved with him is in some ways immaterial, given that obviously you are percieved as partial on this issue. So if you close this debate it will be seen as unfair by a small-but-not-insignificant number of people. It seems obviously fairer to HRE for the nomination to be closed by someone whose neutrality in the matter has not been called into question, regardless of whether such questions are legitimate. Of course, you don't actually need to recuse in order to refrain from closing it. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also concerned by Linux's use of a large font and all caps which indicate a level of emotional involvement that is not effective for an admin overseeing or closing an RfA. JoshuaZ 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suffrage rules I can live with. The comments to voters I cannot. I just read it all and was struck by the exact line Xoloz cites. And then later, this challenge presented to an opposer: "Define propaganda. Propaganda is in itself a POV term..." It's commentary of the sort nominators present (who are naturally and acceptably partisan) and I feel it absolutely unacceptable for someone who is adamant they will close. Marskell 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Linuxbeak, I'm sorry but I have to join the chorus and at least urge you not to close this RfA, given your involvement in it. Especially considering that you've been talking about it on IRC, which you took a pledge not to do, including saying that this RfA will "almost certainly not pass". I'm just saying this as some random guy who'd be a lot more comfortable with another b'crat closing the RfA. It's true that nothing actually requires you to recuse yourself. --W.marsh 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So another crat who hasn't had to deal with the bizarre goings on from the RfA should be made to wade in and attempt to decipher what on earth happened instead of allowing the crat who's been dealing with this mess all alone to see it through? LB certainly hasn't done anything partisan and his attempts to restore sanity should be appreciated, not used to penalize him somehow. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as they were elected to "decipher what on earth happened" then yes, under the circumstances I think they could close the RfA. --W.marsh 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the controversy here, what if this RfA's outcome were to be determined by a [small] college of Bureaucrats? The venue for the discussion would be the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. The RfA would be closed in a timely fashion, but the final decison could come from two or three Bcrats, maybe a few hours later. It's definitely not praxis, but this is an extraordinary situation. Perhaps this could put to rest the concerns about a) Linuxbeak not closing this RfA on his own; and b) That it would not be ideal to exclude the bcrat who has been following the developments closely. I'm just brainstorming here. Redux 16:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The existance of controversy should not make us change the procedure in the middle of the process. If we do that, we again are inviting the gaming of the system. Trolls can easily create a controversy anytime they want, we should not send out invitations for them to do so in the future. We have a system. Under that system, any bureaucrat can close this RfA, not specifically including or excluding any one of them. Let the system work. NoSeptember talk 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We elect bureaucrats to deal with precisely this kind of difficult situation, and Linuxbeak has come up with an imaginative and intelligent approach to it. I say we should let him get on with it and trust his judgment. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But he's there basically arguing with those that oppose. You don't think there is a, perhaps slight, conflict of interest? By setting these new (undiscussed or formed by community consensus) rules, and challenging those that oppose, I think he has shown himself to be slightly biased in this case. But I am more miffed at his non-explanation here, or at the WP:BN. Just seems a bit odd. How hard would it be to have a different 'crat step in here? That's all we ask. Is it that out-of-line? --LV (Dark Mark) 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody is doubting Linuxbeak's integrity, good intentions, and competence in serving as bureaucrat. Linuxbeak, if you take things that way, that is not what is meant here. A recusal would be appopriate for appearance's sake, nothing else. Things are very charged at this RfA, involving maybe meatpuppets/sockpuppets, resentiments because of ethnic conflicts, etc. Linuxbeak, while with good intentions, has been involved in that too much. For appearance's sake, Linuxbeak should be the first to say that while he stands by his actions, he prefers to recuse himself from the final decision. That he stubbornly refuses to do so is simply unwise. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, there is no such procedure. I mean, an RFC or ArbCom could be started, but it would be totally unprecedented and I think everybody agrees it would be wrong to reverse a closure of promotion: this has not been done even in a case where mistake was admitted, Luigi30. Xoloz 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is: from Meta:Requests for Permissions#Removal of access: 1) Hold discussion on local wiki on whether or not level of access should be removed; 2) Gain consensus that it should; 3) Post the request at Meta with a link to the community consensus. 4) A Steward (whose main wiki is not this one) will review the process and de-sysop the user. And this goes for all the flags. Redux 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding oppose votes, you MUST provide a diff and/or specific example of why you are opposing
This places a condition on opposition which simply doesn't exist for other candidates. I might also point out that the RfA not only has to be closed fairly, but it has to give the appearance of fairness. This is a basic principle that judges and bureaucrats must abide by. Linuxbeak no longer gives the appearance of impartiality. This alone means that it will be unfair for HRE's RfA if Linuxbeak closes it. I know that Wikipedia dislikes lawyering, but procedural fairness is exactly what it says it is; Linuxbeak is the judge of what powers he has (not us), and he owes it to HRE and everybody else to excuse himself from the RfA of his own volition. - Richardcavell 08:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recusal (again) 

message: Linuxbeak,
I suggest rephrasing your rules for clarity:
2. In order to vote: 
:a) If you have never edited any articles relating to Serbia, Croatia, etc: You must have 50 edits.
:b) If you have: You must have 100 edits and you must have edited more than one article.
Feel free to delete my inserted comment for the sake of clarity - Richardcavell 04:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify rules for HRE RfA please

message: Since the discussion above does not support keeping these rules, and since Linuxbeak appears to have decided not to remain involved in this RFA, I have removed the special rules from the RFA. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of special rules for HRE adminship 

message: In light of the difficulties over the HRE nomination, and the extraordinary lengths that Linuxbeak has been forced to take to make sure that only real wikipedians actually vote (which has certain unsatisfactory side-effects imo), I wonder whether a similar result might not be more simply achieved by using semi-protection on RfAs. This would prevent IPs and accounts younger than five days from voting, which would prevent the worst sock-puppetry. And b-crats are supposed to discount their vote anyways. Yes, it would prevent legitimate IPs and new accounts from participating in the discussion, which the present policy allows, but I can't honestly remember an occasion when one wanted to. (Perhaps they could be encouraged to post to the b-crat's talk page and have him/her repost comments when necessary.) Bucketsofg 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical glitch on the plan (for RfA semi-protection): semi-protection prevents accounts that are newer than five days from editing. RfAs run for seven days. 2-day window there (if one sets up the account on the day the RfA opens). Therefore, only 100% effective concerning IPs. Don't know if that even matters, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Redux 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it's hard to weed out dedicated nusiance makers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Semi-protecting AfD's would stop new users from being able to defend their articles, and the authors of articles that are up for deletion are very frequently new. --Tango 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Our AfD process already has a major biting-the-newbies issues. It would be even worse if they weren't even allowed to comment. Admins who close AfDs are on the lookout for sockpuppets and meatpuppets and the vast majority of them are obvious. JoshuaZ 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Yes, I see that. Newby-biting is a big problem there, which a standing semi-protect might make worse. Oh well, it was just an idea. Bucketsofg 14:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protecting RfAs 

message: *I'd support this. The rules already do this on a defacto basis by giving bureaucratships discression to ignore new users who are likely sock puppets. But doing this formally wouldn't hurt things. The only thing I wonder about is if there is a real need to do this? Is HRE the only instance of this happening?--Alabamaboy 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical glitch on the plan (for RfA semi-protection): semi-protection prevents accounts that are newer than five days from editing. RfAs run for seven days. 2-day window there (if one sets up the account on the day the RfA opens). Therefore, only 100% effective concerning IPs. Don't know if that even matters, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Redux 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it's hard to weed out dedicated nusiance makers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *This is such an occasional occurence, that there's no need imo. Most RfAs, even close-run ones come nowhere near the debacle that is HRE's. I'd oppose the use of protection as a tool for restricting participation, unless that participation was actually, currently, vandalous. Otherwise, it'd be protection where it isn't actually needed. It's enough to judge it on a case-by-case basis. -Splashtalk 13:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protecting AfD's would stop new users from being able to defend their articles, and the authors of articles that are up for deletion are very frequently new. --Tango 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Our AfD process already has a major biting-the-newbies issues. It would be even worse if they weren't even allowed to comment. Admins who close AfDs are on the lookout for sockpuppets and meatpuppets and the vast majority of them are obvious. JoshuaZ 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Yes, I see that. Newby-biting is a big problem there, which a standing semi-protect might make worse. Oh well, it was just an idea. Bucketsofg 14:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: There is some arguement over whether it should be easier to support than it is to oppose. I think it should, since RfA is there to decide if there is a reason not to make someone an admin, it's not there to decide if there is a reason to. Being an admin in "no big deal" or whatever the quote is. I would prefer to do away with support votes completely and just have people give reasons for opposing and people "vote" (for want of a better word) on whether the reasons are valid. If any reason is decided to be valid (I'm not sure what the required %age should be for that), the RfA fails, otherwise it suceeds. That would also make it possible to gather statistics on why RfAs fail, which would help the various discussions I've seen about whether standards are dropping or requirements are increasing or whatever. Does anyone think it's worth changing the format of RfA? --Tango 14:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I don't agree with the claim that "since RfA is there to decide if there is a reason not to make someone an admin, it's not there to decide if there is a reason to." This is only the case if we have a strong reason to believe that the person will at least occasionally use their admin capabilities in a way that benefits Wikipedia. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with your proposed format. Sometimes reasons need to be weighed as more or less valid. For example, one might oppose for two reasons, neither of which is fatal to support alone. If we are going to switch formats, the discussion formats that have been already proposed are much more reasonable. JoshuaZ 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Assume good faith" is all the reason you need to support someone. You need a reason to go against that assumption. By all means suggest improvements to the system - prehaps 2 reasons with a % in a particular range would be enough, or give people an option to vote "valid but insufficent" and work out some way of resolving the RfA using them. Do you have a link to the proposals you mention? --Tango 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A few comments: First, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. We should assume good faith, we don't need to assume sainthood without evidence, nor do we need to assume that the user will act in good faith under extreme stress without evidence. Nor does it force us to make any assumptions about a users competency. There are many users who go through RfAs where the issue is not lack of good faith but lack of competency and/or lack of experience. (which is why for example, some people vote oppose based on malformed RfAs, or lack of policy knowledge.) JoshuaZ 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Tango, you should try to support somebody by simply saying "I assume he acts in good faith", and I'll bet you that most people (who havent read this talk page) will be critical about that vote! Certainly, its easier to support than to oppose. That's even codified. But to my mind, that inherent to the matter at hand. When you support, you support because the candidate portrays a good overall character and seems suitable. When you oppose, you usually do so for very specific reasons. The Minister of War (Peace) 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're still thinking of RfA as a vote (maybe only subconciously, but you are). A statement of opinion without a reason doesn't help consensus, it just helps reach a certain %age, which isn't what RfA is about. --Tango 14:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? An opinion without support of argument does help determine consensus, though it carries less weight. Someone who "votes" support is saying, "Yep, I like these arguments: As a WPian, I throw my lot in with these guys." It would be nicer if he gave a long reason, but his opinion matters nevertheless. Plus, in certain contexts, like BD2412's unanimous record, or even Sam Spade's 2nd with 50 voices on each side, all reasons might be exhausted, and less talking by later participants is understandable. Xoloz 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "You're still thinking of RfA as a vote (maybe only subconciously, but you are)". With respect, I don't think I am, though I'll admit that my unconscious processes are not fully understood by me (or you, when it comes down to it). What I'm doing is being willing to assume that someone has given full and appropriate consideration to a nomination even when they say simply "support" (or merely adds some very general praise); you seem unwilling to allow the same assumption of good faith for someone to say "oppose". Bucketsofg 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't count any vote that didn't have a reason ("per nom" is a perfectly good reason - no point repeating the same reasons that have already been given), support or oppose. A consensus ought to be about pursuading others to your view, or reaching a compromise - that's what separates it from a vote. If you don't give a reason, you're not helping reach consensus. The current RfA system is not a consensus - it's a qualified majority. They are not synomynous. We should at least try and work towards a consensus even if we can't reach one and have to fall back on a majority decision. --Tango 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way, I like that suggestion, BUT... here is the problem I see. Basically, "per somebody" becomes pro forma. At least with supports, I've always assumed that any "vote" without elaboration had an implied "per nom." at the end. Making folks type those six letters in order to have their opinion "count" seems like empty formalism to me. What we would all like is for every participant to think hard about every nomination they "vote" in -- and written words don't always correlate with that, for many different reasons. Xoloz 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but supplying reasons is much more valuable towards reaching the valued consensus than not supplying them, particularly for oppose votes, since supports can simply be taken as agreeing with what has already been said in the nomination. Polite requests for expanded reasoning on a vote should be filled, but that's just common courtesy. Refusing to expand on reasons could be indication the vote doesn't have reasonable backing, and is up to the bureaucrat to interpret based on the limited information given. Only with reasoning supplied can you expect a bureaucrat to fully fully apply the "vote" towards determining what the consensus is. While I agree we shouldn't require explanation, again, it is certainly more helpful to give it. - Taxman Talk 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that fact fully and completely: reasons are much more preferred and optimal than simple "votes" without explanation or comment, especially for opposition. However, eliminating support votes makes the RfA job hard and burdensome; it's difficult to judge community support when... well, no support is expressed. (Does that make sense?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I'm with you there, I thought that was implied :). And I was mostly agreeing with what you were saying anyway, just expanding. - Taxman Talk 00:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easier to support than oppose 

message: Going over the RFA for HolyRomanEmperor, I was so incredibly surprised to see so many people voting oppose because he is "too controversial". Not because he has done controversial edits, not because he is heavily slanted in his own work, but because others deem him slanted. Frankly, in the minefield of Balkan-topics, there's always somebody who thinks your opinionated. If you dont mention Kosovo as the heartland of Serbia, you're anti-Serb. If you do, you anti-Albanian. You can never win.
Now I know people are allowed to vote on whatever reasons they see fit, but still. I'm sure that a good vandalwacker will be derided by the vandals. In this case, the arguments are being put forth by rather strong POV-pushers (though I'm not denying some of them have a point), and then echoed by normal users saying "apparently he is too controversial". Should we really judge somebody on that basis? Shouldnt RFA be about judging a candidate on his own merits?
Curious to hear what everybody thinks about this. The Minister of War (Peace) 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People can vote "T.C" if they want...but I don't understand that unless the canditate is criticised, with diffs, by serious editors, many of them, and if he was otherwise not that strong a canditate anyway. If someone is trusteworthy, and has done a lot of hard work, like, oh...say Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, I would not even think of voting oppose per "T.C". That kind of voting just amplifies current opposition, not with new opinions or agreement, but just pure, blind, amplification. Trolls can utitlize this as a tool if there numbers are not large enough on there own, they can count on nervious users to vote "T.C" and they get more oppose votes.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that "too controversial" is shorthand for a longer argument that has merit. Let's be frank about what is going on here. There was a nasty civil war, ethnically based, in the Balkans not very long ago. It is not surprising, then, that some of this spills into wikipedia, not least because the ethnic strife is historical, both in the passive sense that it is a product of the historical experience of several peoples and (more importantly for wikipedia) in the active sense that history is one of the fields of conflict. Was that village historically of ethnicity-x? It's an important question--people were being killed over it a decade ago!--and one in which nationalist historians of both sides create arguments, some sound, some less sound. Now, we have an editor who is seen by one side as a champion of truth and common sense and by the other as a POV-warrior. In another RfA we might have someone from the other side who is (naturally enough) seen as a POV-warrior by those who are now the strongest supporters. When someone says "too controversial", all they're doing is saying that in their judgement (which they have both the right and obligation to exercise), the candidate seems too locked into one side of a partisan polarity to be trusted with tools that can be used (or threatened) in the struggle that he seems a part of. Bucketsofg 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt he had contributed to the position of his being "controversial". I would not vote oppose, simply because there was a controversy because other people disagreed with him. Tyrenius 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate "too controversial" 

message: In Lord Voldemort's last RfA, references were made to various spoilers in the Harry Potter books. This prompted me to put a spoiler warning at the top of his support votes. LV then inquired if this was the first RfA to have a spoiler warning placed in it. Is anyone aware of any other examples? JoshuaZ 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not... Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No but I recall an argument over whether they should appear on userpages.Geni 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not aware of any. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably not. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't recall any either -- but the way to verify this would be to scroll through the last list of RfA's for character names that might merit the disclaimer. Xoloz 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been following RfA for quite some time, and I don't recall ever seen it too. That was a first, as far as I can remember. Redux 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't recall seeing one, but I appreciate you adding the spoiler warning. I'm a little behind on reading the books to my kids and avoided reading all the comment least they spoil something for me. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Google doesn't think so, sadly. Flowerparty☀ 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But a spoiler warning on a RfA is very funny. How about some on AfD? Tyrenius 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even sillier question 

message: Can anyone tell me what the vote figures for both of Gator1's RfAs? No need to undelete the pages. I would've put this on Wikipedia talk:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, but seems like no one reads that page. Thanks! Kimchi.sg | talk 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gator1: Final (33/18/2) ended 14:34 December 20, 2005 (UTC) I did not see a second RfA. -lethe talk [ +] 01:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gator1 (2nd): March 17, 2006 (108/0/1) NoSeptember talk 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Just wondering, why were these RfAs deleted? JoshuaZ 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gator1 was being harrassed by an anonymous POV-warrior 3RR violator whom he had banned. The vandal somehow figured out where he lived and worked, and mailed some vaguely threatening letter to his boss at his place of work, and Gator1 left wikipedia, and got his user and talk pages deleted, as well as other pages which contained information about him. This happened earlier this month, I guess. Long discussion at AN/I about it and on the mailing list. -lethe talk [ +] 04:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh. That's unfortunate. Thanks for the info. JoshuaZ 04:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's shitty. Make sure you're careful about what kind of personal information you let slip on wikipedia (or elsewhere on the internet) if you're going to take on the whackos. -lethe talk [ +] 04:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, well its a bit late for that for me. I've already gotten at least one death threat on Wikipedia from a neo-nazi, and at least one vandal stumbled upon a set of links which if they had followed up on would have given personal information in great detail. And I'm not even an admin yet. Ah well...JoshuaZ 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recieving a death threat? Oh my! You have my full sympathies. This should NOT be happening! --Siva1979Talk to me 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: An excellent hint. Does anyone feel energetic enough to go and edit Wikipedia:User_name#Choosing_a_username now? I think new users are given the Wikipedia:User name link to click on when they are in the middle of registering, and before they have actually commeitted themselves to any particular name. It should contain some kind of caution. AnnH ♫ 20:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gator1 RfA stats 

message: Hello. What do people think of the conduct of Profundity on some of the RfAs? He has opposed candidates on the basis that they are "vandal-bashers" and also on one RfA to "rub salt into the wound". He also appears to have created a dubious page Timothean religion. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's just a troll which can be harmlessly ignored. Probably he's just angry that his "religion" got less-than-decent treatment. Kimchi.sg | talk 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch him. If he becomes an annoyance, report to an administrator. michael talk 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my religion. I'm glad that I'm being watched. Makes me feel right at home. RegardsProfundity06 09:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposes by [[User:Profundity06]] 

message: This is my first time editing wikipedia. I've enjoyed the creation of this community as a user but I really am turned off by the welcoming committee we have around here.
I'm apparently labelled a troll, etc by the welcoming committee. When I vote against a candidate, some random person who supports that person invariably comes along and tags my vote with a comment about how I am new or created some article that was deleted.
When I make a joke about this on a vote page, saying you can go right ahead and tag this with a comment, I'm edited out as a "troll vote". I suspect this will go forward as reason enough to edit out my future votes since, afterall, I'm a troll. Once labelled a troll, always a troll-- that's what I'm thinking.
Perhaps, encylopedias like law and sausage are something you should enjoy without getting your hands dirty by creating.Profundity06 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the general idea is that someone as new as you doesn't really know what qualities and characteristics an administrator of Wikipedia should have. If you seem abusive in your opposes then you will be deemed a troll since it seems like you're just going around opposing to cause arguments. I would suggest that you steer clear of voting on RfA for a while and observe the process, to see what is appropriate. Nobody should blame you for acting a little inappropriately when you are new, since you're still adjusting to what is expected of users in terms of conduct on Wikipedia. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 10:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Profundity06--you are wrong about the "Once labelled a troll, always a troll" thing. There are several well-thought-of users here who started out as vandals (well, ok, not several. But some. Well, maybe I can think of one.) Likewise, some of our most prolific and respected editors (respected by some subsets of editors, anyway) are called trolls quite frequently. Anyway, the point is that even straight-out vandals can reform, so certainly people calling you a troll won't cause problems for you after you have a few solid edits under your belt. If you want people to stop disregarding your votes, for instance, all you have to do is spend a while building up a few decent edits in the encyclopedia itself. If you're serious about arguing against overaggressive vandal-fighter admins, I would also suggest you make your argument by linking to specific edits by the candidate in question that you think show them going over the line; no matter how new you are, I believe people will take your comments seriously if you back them up well enough and detail your concerns. --Aquillion 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if marked as such it's our ('crats) responsibility to judge whether the user is too new to wikipedia. In such a case we may or may not fully consider his vote or not if the nom falls between 75-80%. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcoming Committee for Newbs 

message: As Interiot's Tool no longer updates en.wikipedia.org user edits, should it still be linked to in all the RFAs? The only reliable tool I currently know of is Interiot's Second Tool (I think) here. drumguy8800 - speak 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I removed the link to Interiot's tool from my bot's message for now. By the way, anybody knows when the toolserver will come back into shape? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC
I would just have the bot's message point to the edit count using Interiot's second tool. It works perfectly after waiting for only about 3 seconds. --Mets501talk 03:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just looking through the toolserver mailing list, and it is replicating, but the database for enwiki is corrupt beginning with records April 12. Therefore, it is usable for data before then, but it is worthless for data after the db server split. If editcounters are absolutely required, I recommend Interiot's javascript, or downloading Flcelloguy's Tool on your local machine. Remember: Editcountitis can be fatal. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want edit summary usage, just click here . I hope interiot's tool get fixed though.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about Kate's tool? Maybe it's working again? I'm not certain, there seems to be a lag in the edit count there. Any confirmation? Redux 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both tools need to contact the server to work, and they can't, so probably not. _-M o P-_ 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Kate's tool and Interiot's tool both run on the tool server, so the database corruption issue extends to both (as well as any other report from there). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, dear. Where will I get my fix for editcountitis now?? I hear the symptoms for withdrawal include short-term memory loss and repetitiveness. Have I asked about Kate's tool already ;)??? Redux 00:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that this is just a temporary problem. For the record, has this happened before or is this the first time that the editcountitis are not updated? --Siva1979Talk to me 03:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we sure the data after April 12 is totally worthless? For me, it's counted about 150 of 350 since then but there seems to be nothing particularly wrong with the data that has "leaked" through to it. Marskell 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you click on the diffs for the data? For example, the tool says that you have 80 contributions to Extraterrestrial life. If you click on contributions for that, you'll see the top one, dated 24 April, has an edit summary of "rv". We'll assume you did revert on 24 April, so the edits that have "leaked through" can be assumed to be correct. However, if you click on the diff for that, you'll find that it takes you, not to an edit Marskell made to Extraterrestrial life, but to an edit that Unyoyega made to Alfonsina Storni, Extraterrestrial life. Interestingly, there seems to be no such article; the link is red. But if you go to that diff, and then click on article link at the top left, you'll be taken to Extraterrestrial life. I found the same thing for my own contributions, which is why I checked yours. For example, I looked at my contributions for Christianity from Interiot's tool, and saw that the last one it gave was one on 21 April where I said in the edit summary "Reverting Kecik's twenty-sixth revert out of twenty-eight article edits" Okay, I really did make that edit. (There's a problem of sock-and-meat-puppetry at that article.) But if I click on the diff, although it says "Christianity" at the top, I get taken to a message that Katefan0 sent to User_talk:144.26.146.133. It's the same with lots of other recent diffs from my contributions on Interiot's tool. AnnH ♫ 13:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do your homework better. I just looked at summaries which seemed fine. So I guess worthless it is then. Maybe I'll get around to making Alfonsina Storni, Extraterrestrial life... Marskell 13:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, what happens is that you were comparing a diff from the Alfonsina Storni page with an edit from Extraterrestrial life. The comma at the top indicates that you were using the diff feature with two different articles. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interiot's Tool 

message: Is there a reason why there is a vote tally in the rfa template? I mean, I doubt it helps the closing bereaucrats much, and it just emphasizes that the RfA is an evil poll. Borisblue 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the 'crats can tell us how much they make use of the count (if at all)? If they don't find it useful, there shouldn't be problems abolishing it. Kimchi.sg 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy Keep. I use it to see if I should invest time in researching a candidate (which I usually only do if it might be close and my vote might affect the result) (see more). It has its uses. Just because vote tallies and edit counts are reported doesn't mean that we have to consider them, if we choose not to. NoSeptember talk 03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I use it to see if I should invest time in researching a candidate ... " And this is troubling. Comments are buried at the end of the RfA, so if a particular RfA gets enough votes in any one direction early on, comments may never be read by others, buried at the end as they are. Tallying the votes up front may influence the overall vote tally, and not encourage others to read comments. Or, perhaps the comments should be added to the top of the request, rather than bottom ? I find it very troubling that someone nominates an admin based on a series of very POV articles, and that the comments to that effect are at the end of the RfA and may never be seen by those who merely scan vote tallies, to decide how or whether to vote. Sandy 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments get seen, I have seen plenty of nominations that were looking very solid take a nose dive once a serious issue with the candidate is revealed. Also, most people do not wait for days before wading into an RfA as I do (most vote early - half of the votes seem to come on day 1). After a few days, I go to the Oppose votes first to see what dirt has been dug up on the candidate, and whether it is legitimate dirt or sour grapes. By the time I get around to an RfA, however, most are either (50/2/1) or (23/22/4) and it is obvious how they will end up (and it is obvious whether there is any serious dirt there before I even look). I read the comments before I vote, and I believe most others do that too. NoSeptember talk 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Then my summaries must be even more evil, but as NoSemptember says, having a tally draws attention to close candidates so they can get greater scrutiny. Dragons flight 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The structure of RfA already emphasizes the fact that it is a poll in much more serious ways (for instance dividing up supporters and opposers into separate numbered lists). That being true the tally does not seem like a big deal. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dragons flight has a process for creating summaries, which already generates tallies, but I'd not be too keen on autoupdating tallies, as it's a bit prone to slight errors (for example my tally is off by one at the moment, there's a placeholder support in there that hasn't been properly timestamped after the start, and thus should not be counted). It's usually close enough to right for those that use the tally as a filter to decide whether to dig further, as NoSeptember does, to make a call that's good enough. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be a vote tally in the RfA template?

message: This RfA demonstrates that we need to have a speedier way of dealing with hopeless nominations. Whereas Joan53 might otherwise end up engaged in a tame edit war (she makes about one edit a week on average), now she's going to get a massive pileon and criticism. If Request for Rollback can't get up, then I'm not going to bother creating a policy proposal, but we need something - Richardcavell 12:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only do we pile on oppose votes upon a newbie, but there appears to be a contingent of RfA regulars that are strongly opposed to anyone having a friendly chat with these users about their RfA. That situation is just bizarre to me. On the other hand, people are resiliant, most will get over the deluge of opposition, once they realize it was nothing personal. NoSeptember talk 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refering to the low-edit template discussion? People aren't against friendly chats, they are against the emphasis on edit counts. --Tango 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think people are opposed to the idea of talking to a user about it? Gosh I hope not, because when I went to user talk:Joan53 to leave a message of support and advice, I was happy to see that I wasn't the first person to turn up and do that. I didn't use a template but I don't think a template is a bad way to go, as I said above, if used correctly. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against editcountitis too, but if someone wants to mention edit counts in the course of discussing something with a newbie, so be it. There were suggestions above that such a discussion would be "biting the newbies" and "blatant lying". We can be against overreliance on edit counts without attacking the mere mention of edit counts in conversation. NoSeptember talk 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning edit counts is ok, the suggested template I saw was almost all about edit counts though. --Tango 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  then? Take all the editcountitis stuff out and see if you can make it better? I think most of us actually do agree here on most of the key points, we're just not sure about all the details, right? ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why these things can't ever become policy, because people will disagree on everything, even what to talk about. Please realize that when you mention edit counts to a newbie it is just a shorthand way to say, "you are too new". By the time they actually have over 1000 edits, we can expect that they will realize there is more to this whole RfA thing than just edit counts. There is nothing really wrong with using shorthand with a complete newbie, they will grow out of a edit focus soon enough. NoSeptember talk 13:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How about restricting who can nominate. Not a high level, maybe "50 edits in the last month" would be enough, but slightly more would probably be ok. If you have less than that any nomination by you (of yourself or someone else) is void. That means brand new users can still go through RfA if they get someone else to nominate them (that's only a good thing on principle, I doubt it will ever actually be useful, but it's good to keep RfA as open as possible), but nominations that will always fail aren't so likely to be made. --Tango 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more rules and regulations we add to voting, nominations and so on, the more unneccesarily complicated the process becomes... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's unneccesary, then great. Richardcavell seems to think nominations like this are a problem, so I suggested a solution. If concensus is that it isn't a problem, then we certainly don't need a solution. --Tango 13:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really for a template, because that makes the process overly impersonal, and every newcomer has their own strengths and weakenesses that can't be generalized in a template. As has been shown with Lcarsdata and Joan53's RfAs, people are still willing to talk to the users concerned giving friendly advice, and I think that's an attitude that should be preserved on Wikipedia. -- Tangotango 13:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree very much with Tangotango here. You can't just slap a template, however well-intended, on a naive contributor's talk page. One size does not fit all. If you run into an RfA which is unlikely to pass, take five minutes of your life and write a short message to that user saying why, given this contributor's number of months, inexperience, etc., this RfA is unlikely to pass. The message will not be the same in all circumstances. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But people did that, and she persisted. I think it was motivated by a desire to shut WillC out of the Maryland page (describing Maryland as a Southern state). That didn't have to be brought up and discussed here, but if she's going to push the point, then it does need to be. - Richardcavell 01:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bad example, really. The template idea is meant for good faith noms by people that just don't understand what it requires. This wasn't really made in good faith, since there was an alterior motive. --Tango 10:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan53's RfA