Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 76

message: Seed for a discussion: This contains reference to a current RfA - therefore, if you feel it is inappropriate to discuss this matter until that RfA has run its course, please let me know.
:There is a current RfA in which a candidate for Wikipedia adminship has experience as a Wikinews admin.  The question I have is what the general thought is on the transferability of skills between Wikimedia projects with respect to adminship.  The only other Wikimedia project I've worked on to any degree is Wiktionary, so my experience is too limited to have an inkling of what being an admin in other Wikimedia projects might entail.
:--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember a RFA where the user had relatively little experience here (3k or 5k edits, can't remember now), and many were refusing his request, until someone pointed he was an admin in another Wikipedia language with over 20k, and then most negative opinions turned positive. Personally, I think administrator status in other Wikipedia languages can be used to demonstrate experience in dealing with users and responsibility, but unless the user also demonstrates knowledge about our "local" policies and guidelines, it should not be "transferable". -- ReyBrujo 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know why many people call 5k edits "not a lot". To me, that's definatly enough edits to support, as long as the user is knowledgeable and in good standing. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another data point, from my analysis of November 2006 RfAs: the only candidate with less than 2000 edits who was  successful had been an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia. John Broughton  |  Talk 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  ReyBrujo, I think you mean Kpjas. Titoxd(?!?) 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it would be good to add an optional section to the RfA format entitled something like 'Prior Admin Experience' in which a candidate (or nominator or anyone so knowledgable) could summarize experience in adminship on another Wikimedia project if such experience exists.  That would help to encapsulate input from that axis upfront rather than having it come out during the discussion period. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users should most certainly mention that they're admins on other wikis. However, I don't think we need to add another RfA section to denote this; there's already a "General Comments" faux-heading that it could go under quite easily (and is used as such in the linked example). As for whether those skills are directly interchangeable, I think ReyBrujo summed up my opinion very well; a knowledge of the MediaWiki system is shown by being an admin (well, ideally...), as is the trust of the community, but there still needs to be evidence that the editor is familiar with Wikipedia's... quirks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO this comes up infrequently enough that an additional section is unnecessary; most candidates who have relevant previous experience do point it out. A 'previous experience' section is only going to get people talking about that one time they were on Student Council for a semester, no matter how clearly it's worded. Opabinia regalis 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Being an admin on another project goes to trust, ability to remain calm, and presence of common sense not to policy knowledge. While being an admin on another project can be a positive the candidates must have understand .en policy.  JoshuaZ 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are certainly benefits from being an admin on another project: You already know what you're doing, know many of the "tricks of the trade" (that is, how to handle some of the stranger aspects of the software), gnerally have experience dealing with other users in an admin role, and you aren't as likely to succumb to the "Ooh! Shiny buttons!" problem. (Kidding!) There are, however, vast differences between most projects and en.wp, so demonstration of local-policy/proceedure knowledge is essential. I'm an admin on four wikis (En.wp, En.wq, Meta, & Commons) and each is it's own uniqute community and has it's own way of doing things; I find every once-in-a-while that I step on a toe or two over on Wikiquote because of my "en.wp" way of doing things. So, certainly, adminship elsewhere speaks to a certain familiarity with the role, but a demonstration of *local* understanding is very, very important. Essjay (Talk) 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Essjay said, it removes their need to "test" the new tools because they have experience but it is important that they know the wikiPEDIA policies on blocking/deletion/protection etc. I think I would be more likely to support a user if he/she were an admin on another project, it shows they are trustworthy for a start. James086Talk | Contribs 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Titoxd, it is Kpjas's RfA. I remember Firsfron made a push in the middle of the RfA and contacted all the people who opposed Kpjas (such as myself) and we all ended up changing our votes to support. Anyway, back to the topic...I believe that if a candidate is an admin on another WikiProject, that shows that he/she clearly has the qualities as an admin. However, all WikiProjects are different, and like Zoe said, if they don't have a sufficient amount of experience here, then I don't think they can truly handle the responsibility on the English language wikipedia. Also, take in account that the English language Wikipedia is the most popular and most-visited WikiProject, and the experiences a user may experience at another wiki may be totally different than the ones he/she may experience at en.wiki. Nishkid64 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Admin vs. Wiki-X Admin - transferable skills? 

message: Given the fact that there is a lot of material related to RfAs (mainly essays but other things as well like Esperanza) I propose a WikiProject to better maintain the process.  We could maintain WP:GRFA and maybe (if it's practical) suggest a formal standard for requests for adminship (similar WP:WIAFA, for example) Perhaps we could go as far as writing a page on how to do an RfA thanks.
Thoughts? -- Selmo (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a good idea, but keep in mind that every discussion on the subject has determined that formal standards don't work. -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's this: Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship.--Kchase T 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty much what I had in mind. Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Wikiproject on Adminship had a goal of revising the RfA process, not maintaining it status quo. --Durin 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Consolidating things like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics, which is simple, factual information, and Esperanza's admin pages into one page would, in my opinion, be rather a bad idea.  That material does not have the support of the full community, and should not be presented as if it does.  If you have thoughts about RFA or links you want to compile, the best thing is to put them in user space, as NoSeptember has done.  Chick Bowen 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIkiProject Requests for adminship? 

message: Why not rephrase the question? Something like:
*Do you think an admin's age is relevant to the tasks they may need to carry out on Wikipedia? Are there cases where an older or younger admin might be more suited to a particular task, or to interacting with particular users? Do you think admins or editors should give an idea of how old they are?
This would be less intrusive than the current form of the question. In all cases of intrusive questions, my thought is that the way the user responds is actually more revealing than the actual content of the answer. If a user gets upset over a question like this, then you start to think to yourself: how would this candidate handle themselves under real pressure? Though any question can be designed to do this, not just an age question. In the recent ArbCom elections, I saw one of the candidates (and only one of the candidates) respond rather bruquesly to an 'age question' that someone else had asked. I followed up on this and found that the responses to my follow-up told me more about the candidate than reading pages and pages of questions and answers. See here for details. I also liked that candidate's response to the age question, that they were under 65, neatly turning the usual implied "are you really young" into an answer that implies "I'm not someone doddering around on a zimmerframe". Carcharoth 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. On the other hand, the rephrased question does implicate some interesting issues, deeper than "should User:Foo be made an administrator?" I wouldn't mind a bit if someone asked me that question on an RfA, although you'd have to sit through some philosophical ramblings to get to the answer. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Write the essay - you now have me intrigued. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already here scattered in a dozen threads all over the site, but I will have to collect it sometime soon. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Getting away from the admin question briefly, there are plenty of examples of editing where age does matter. I know that the science pages often have to remove 'helpful' stuff added by schoolkids who have learnt something at school, but who will, in a few years time have to unlearn that stuff and learn what current, mainstream science says (rather than the school textbooks). The reverse is always true, in that years of experience and knowledge in no way stops someone from being completely and utterly wrong. And the really good idea that completely changes things can come from anyone of any age. My feeling about the age question is along the lines of: don't make a big deal out of it, but don't totally ignore it either. Carcharoth 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rephrase the question

message: Another thought. It would be reassuring to know that we had admins of all ages. Just as it is good to have editors of all ages (providing they know how to edit), it is good to have admins of all ages (providing they know how to handle the tools). The editor diversity can be seen by randomly visiting userpages, and you soon see the diversity of editors. Randomly visit admin pages, and enough give some idea of their age that you can see the same spread. So again, I support Malber's right to ask the question, but I agree it is generally not relevant. I would, though, ask everyone to consider the next time they make an off-colour joke with another user whose age you don't know, that they really could be anyone, of any age. Carcharoth 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversity among admins

message: ... and that is what I see. Malber is setting a classic example of how to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I would support a block, in case he continues or does not rephrase his question in a better way. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I would too. The persistent personal information stuff is just not cool. Extra not cool when the userpage states the age clearly. - crz crztalk 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing discussion questions is disruptive. —Malber (talk *  contribs) 14:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too - Glad it wasn't just me who thought Malber was disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 10:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In what way is Malber disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? --Centrx→talk • 10:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the comments above, and specifically the diffs I have provided. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am strongly opposed to Malber asking the question, and he should stop asking the questions now while this debate is still ongoing but we should get someone external to the discussion to read it and if a block does occur, I would sincerely hope nobody who participated in this discussion does it. Then again, Malber may stop asking the question. James086Talk | Contribs 13:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "I suggest a de-admin for Nick" - a typical response from a typical troll. – Chacor 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeff, look at the diffs I have provided above. Malber possesses a unreasonable bias against all teenagers. I fail to see how he would not make it a point to oppose every candidate when they say they are minor. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so what if he does?  Why is this an issue?  Is he not allowed to have his own criteria for adminship?  The diffs above have nothing to do with the subject here - if he's incivil toward younger editors, then deal with that, but don't punish the guy for having standards you disagree with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: /me deadmins himself, wait – that didn't work. Ask the question one more freakin' time and there are a few things that are still working. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose you blocking someone for asking a question like that.  His feelings on younger editors are completely irrelevant to whether it's a viable optional question here, especially given the specific lack of general criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: /me deadmins Jeff. *w00t!* — Nearly Headless Nick 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw hell.  That'll leave a mark. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and a partridge in a pear tree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well yes. We are all unbecoming and stupid sometimes. But some people never learn. There will be no punitive blocks handed out. The block is subject to the condition when you will further disrupt and ask another candidate *the question*. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of interest, is this the longest discussion topic ever on this talk page? I mean starting with crz's original post yesterday down to here? And mine's a Lapsang suchong, btw. Bubba hotep 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... Has it occured to anyone to just drop this? Desysopping isn't going to happen here, and as much as anyone can pretend it will, neither will blocks due to asking a candidate's age. Nothing will come out of this. Wider discussion than four or five people would be necessary to do anything. Move along. -Amarkov blahedits 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruption, disruption, disruption

message: Considering the "long thread(s)" above, What does everyone suggest that I do with Malber's questions? Considering the controversy surrounding them (apparently to the point of disruption and a block), and (possibly more importantly), since it's been stated over and over that answering questions is optional, would anyone have any issues with me just removing the questions, and just avoiding any further incidents? - jc37 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could simply answer the best way you see fit. There is no right or wrong way to answer the questions. —Malber (talk *  contribs) 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not happy about what's happening at the moment but I absolutely do not want the question impacting candidates in any way, so it's really up to yourself on how you answer because I don't want you being penalised for any thoughts I give you on the matter. --Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Malber wants to keep posting the first three non-offensive questions, by all means carry on. On those, I still think their near-blanket application to most RfAs is an end-run around the consensus achieved on the existing "standard" questions and that if any "optional" questions are asked, it might be better to do so in the "discussion" part of the RfA. As for the age question, I'd prefer to see it gone. Asking the question is an invasion of privacy and ageist. I suppose I could always bring the question template to MfD, but I had hoped a discussion would resolve things without that "formal" process, which wouldn't really address whether the question ought to be put or not. Agent 86 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Could I voice my opinion here please? This is how I interpret the question.
The main argument for asking the question at present, I believe, is "because we can; it doesn't harm anything". Okay, so it does harm something. Every time someone asks the question, there is a large discussion on that candidate's RfA discussion page, with some people saying "I don't think this question should be asked" and others saying "we can, we can".
Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech. The question is unrequired, unneeded, and considered offensive by some. !Voters who oppose based on age are indicating bias against that age group. Do we elect admins just because they are married, live in UK/US, and because they are between 30-40 years old? No. We elect admins because of their skill, their judgement, and their patience. We should continue to uphold this principle.
Thank you. Yuser31415 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an outsider to this conversation, I think it's just the mental age, i.e. maturity, that matters, and it usually shows in the editor's contributions and comments on talk pages. It's not a question of age in years. Admins should not be forced to reveal more (irrelevant) personal information than other Wikipedians. –mysid☎ 11:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YUser31415's opinion

message: So far today, there have been four RfAs closed early, three of them within an hour of opening, and two within twenty minutes. What is wrong? -Amarkov blahedits 05:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People vote faster?--SUIT 05:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I count five RfAs if your tally is correct. --210physicq (c) 05:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're sure you're not counting both the time you removed No1lakersfan and the time Essjay closed it? -Amarkov blahedits 05:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm merely seeing a discrepancy in your post. Or is it just me? --210physicq (c) 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm counting the ones within twenty minutes for the hour one. The last was closed in three hours. -Amarkov blahedits 05:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I myself hold an extremely low opinion of canvassing for votes, especially for an RfA. Apparently the rash of failed RfAs seems like a bittersweet Christmas holiday present to some. Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to be politically correct? --210physicq (c) 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least we haven't gotten anyone deciding to do something insanely stupid, like responding to every single oppose with flaming. Oops, I jinxed it. -Amarkov blahedits 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen one about 2½ months ago. Ironically, the username was an apt representation of his temper. --210physicq (c) 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw man, I discovered RfA about 3 days after that, if I didn't feel comfortable commenting until November. -Amarkov blahedits 05:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find some more soon. I typically oppose candidates who just have to scream at every oppose they get. For reasons why, see my RfA criteria (or rather, they sound like restrictions). --210physicq (c) 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes. I think it's pretty obvious that replying to every oppose is bad. On another note, you have too good of a RfA standards page. Mine just says "be good". I mean, I have more content for RfBs (which never happen) than I do for RfAs. -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to put this on my RfA Criteria page: This in a nutshell: Don't act stupidly on your RfA. And I do have the right to bend the standards as I see fit. ;-) --210physicq (c) 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Would just like to point out, for the sake of clarity, that none (at least, none of the ones I closed) were closed due to either lack of edits or canvassing; they were closed because they had greater than 75% opposition with a sufficient amount of votes to make it unlikely they would achieve consensus. It is for the most part academic, but it remains important to distinguish between the reason they were closed and the reason that users chose to oppose. (And I didn't mean for that to rhyme.) Essjay (Talk) 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh. Same difference. --210physicq (c) 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not the same difference. For the RFA to be closed due to canvasing would require a bureaucrat decision to close due to canvassing; we don't do that. We close early because RFAs cannot achieve consensus; users oppose due to various causes. "Essjay closed it due to canvassing" != "Essjay closed it because it had 75% opposition." Essjay (Talk) 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so it was an indirect cause. For the purposes of deciding why it failed, it makes much more sense to use that than "it failed because it was failing". -Amarkov blahedits 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it only takes one person to do so and I start receiving nasty posts on my talk page about biased closures. I'd prefer not to have to sort through 100KB of abuse because someone wanted a shortcut. Essjay (Talk) 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The 'crats can close RfA's that have no chance in hell of succeeding; this was the case with the (0/11/0) and (2/9/0) cases. This is mainly done with newcomers (ie. <1000 edits), who possibly don't understand the general standards for adminship. It is a BITE protection, and a good one at that. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've struck the shortcuts and replaced with wordiness. But really, why don't you want abuse? It's funny reading people hurling abuse for no good reason. :P -Amarkov blahedits 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They could be added to your chronological unseccessful RfAs page as well, or have you done that already? Do you work direct from the RfA page, or do you rely on others to update the subsidiary pages? Carcharoth 12:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The priority is to add them to the WP:RFAF lists. I periodically go through the histories of the WP:RFAF subpages to catch them all for my chronological list. I update my list about once every two weeks or so, and always at the end of the month so that I have the statistics I need. Of course anyone else is welcome to update the chronological list if they want to. The fact that no one is checking the history of WP:RFA is the problem, I think we have been missing some. NoSeptember 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have time over the forthcoming break... Carcharoth 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another place I spot some of these failed RfAs is when I look at the history of the bot pages, which I do when looking for the record RfAs. That misses the very short (30 minute) RfAs, but the versions are a lot easier to load than the whole WP:RFA page versions. And I'll also look into this in January, I'm going on wikibreak shortly :). NoSeptember 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would venture to guess (at the risk of restarting a discussion that went on too long above) that the majority of the 10% are due to non-bureaucrat closures and candidate withdrawals. Someone who hasn't closed an RFA before (which, one would expect, is most of the non-bureaucrat population) wouldn't necessarily know to add it there; likewise, a candidate withdrawing thier own RFA would probably not be thinking about it either. The quick solution for non-bureaucrats when closing an RFA is to make sure you're following the instructions when closing an RfA, and to make a note of the closure here, so others can review it; the more consistent one would be to wait a couple hours for a close-happy bureaucrat like myself to come along and close it. Essjay (Talk) 03:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such a desire of many to prevent a pile-on of oppose votes that getting people to wait for a bureaucrat is not likely to work, unless a bureaucrat was constantly monitoring the page (which is unrealistic). Maybe we could remind closers by talk page message, of the proper steps to take whenever they fail to do it properly. NoSeptember 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually do that, if I see one, but the liklihood that it will be the same user the next time is fairly low. Perhaps they could just put a note here or on BN when they close them, as it's definatley the kind of thing that should be noted somewhere. Essjay (Talk) 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What... the... heck? 

message: Both of the nominees that weren't just utter and obvious lack of edits got their RfAs killed off because of canvassing concerns. Is it not clear enough that we really dislike canvassing, or what? -Amarkov blahedits 05:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself hold an extremely low opinion of canvassing for votes, especially for an RfA. Apparently the rash of failed RfAs seems like a bittersweet Christmas holiday present to some. Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to be politically correct? --210physicq (c) 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least we haven't gotten anyone deciding to do something insanely stupid, like responding to every single oppose with flaming. Oops, I jinxed it. -Amarkov blahedits 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen one about 2½ months ago. Ironically, the username was an apt representation of his temper. --210physicq (c) 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw man, I discovered RfA about 3 days after that, if I didn't feel comfortable commenting until November. -Amarkov blahedits 05:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find some more soon. I typically oppose candidates who just have to scream at every oppose they get. For reasons why, see my RfA criteria (or rather, they sound like restrictions). --210physicq (c) 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes. I think it's pretty obvious that replying to every oppose is bad. On another note, you have too good of a RfA standards page. Mine just says "be good". I mean, I have more content for RfBs (which never happen) than I do for RfAs. -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to put this on my RfA Criteria page: This in a nutshell: Don't act stupidly on your RfA. And I do have the right to bend the standards as I see fit. ;-) --210physicq (c) 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Would just like to point out, for the sake of clarity, that none (at least, none of the ones I closed) were closed due to either lack of edits or canvassing; they were closed because they had greater than 75% opposition with a sufficient amount of votes to make it unlikely they would achieve consensus. It is for the most part academic, but it remains important to distinguish between the reason they were closed and the reason that users chose to oppose. (And I didn't mean for that to rhyme.) Essjay (Talk) 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh. Same difference. --210physicq (c) 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not the same difference. For the RFA to be closed due to canvasing would require a bureaucrat decision to close due to canvassing; we don't do that. We close early because RFAs cannot achieve consensus; users oppose due to various causes. "Essjay closed it due to canvassing" != "Essjay closed it because it had 75% opposition." Essjay (Talk) 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so it was an indirect cause. For the purposes of deciding why it failed, it makes much more sense to use that than "it failed because it was failing". -Amarkov blahedits 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it only takes one person to do so and I start receiving nasty posts on my talk page about biased closures. I'd prefer not to have to sort through 100KB of abuse because someone wanted a shortcut. Essjay (Talk) 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The 'crats can close RfA's that have no chance in hell of succeeding; this was the case with the (0/11/0) and (2/9/0) cases. This is mainly done with newcomers (ie. <1000 edits), who possibly don't understand the general standards for adminship. It is a BITE protection, and a good one at that. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've struck the shortcuts and replaced with wordiness. But really, why don't you want abuse? It's funny reading people hurling abuse for no good reason. :P -Amarkov blahedits 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And what is it with canvassing?

message: On a related issue about all of these withdrawn RfAs... a fair number of them are not getting added to WP:RFAF. I suspect we are missing maybe 10% of withdrawn RfAs going back many months. If someone wants a project to work on, I would suggest going back through the history of the WP:RFA page to check all the RfAs that were transcluded there and then withdrawn, to see if they made it to WP:RFAF. At an average of about 8 edits a day to WP:RFA, while big, it should not be an impossible task :). NoSeptember 12:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be added to your chronological unseccessful RfAs page as well, or have you done that already? Do you work direct from the RfA page, or do you rely on others to update the subsidiary pages? Carcharoth 12:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The priority is to add them to the WP:RFAF lists. I periodically go through the histories of the WP:RFAF subpages to catch them all for my chronological list. I update my list about once every two weeks or so, and always at the end of the month so that I have the statistics I need. Of course anyone else is welcome to update the chronological list if they want to. The fact that no one is checking the history of WP:RFA is the problem, I think we have been missing some. NoSeptember 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have time over the forthcoming break... Carcharoth 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another place I spot some of these failed RfAs is when I look at the history of the bot pages, which I do when looking for the record RfAs. That misses the very short (30 minute) RfAs, but the versions are a lot easier to load than the whole WP:RFA page versions. And I'll also look into this in January, I'm going on wikibreak shortly :). NoSeptember 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would venture to guess (at the risk of restarting a discussion that went on too long above) that the majority of the 10% are due to non-bureaucrat closures and candidate withdrawals. Someone who hasn't closed an RFA before (which, one would expect, is most of the non-bureaucrat population) wouldn't necessarily know to add it there; likewise, a candidate withdrawing thier own RFA would probably not be thinking about it either. The quick solution for non-bureaucrats when closing an RFA is to make sure you're following the instructions when closing an RfA, and to make a note of the closure here, so others can review it; the more consistent one would be to wait a couple hours for a close-happy bureaucrat like myself to come along and close it. Essjay (Talk) 03:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such a desire of many to prevent a pile-on of oppose votes that getting people to wait for a bureaucrat is not likely to work, unless a bureaucrat was constantly monitoring the page (which is unrealistic). Maybe we could remind closers by talk page message, of the proper steps to take whenever they fail to do it properly. NoSeptember 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually do that, if I see one, but the liklihood that it will be the same user the next time is fairly low. Perhaps they could just put a note here or on BN when they close them, as it's definatley the kind of thing that should be noted somewhere. Essjay (Talk) 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies]]

message: Can anybody vote for or against the future administrators? What is the rules, is there a minimum of edits for a user to be able to vote? Thanks. Ajor 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no minimum, except having an account. However, things like the first edit being a vote on a RfA will probably cause the closing bureaucrat to ignore them, so it's not entirely unrestricted. -Amarkov blahedits 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah if you have about 100 or even less you should be fine, but if your edits are only in relation with the user and the particular RFA assume that your vote won't count. — Seadog_MS 06:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All right, thanks. Ajor 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Doesn't it say all this at the top of the page? >Radiant< 10:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, but it doesn't hurt for someone to ask if they are unsure. Essjay (Talk) 11:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A question

message: Somebody has to close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Asterion as it ended on 12:34, December 27, 2006 (UTC). -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been closed.  Thanks.  Redux 15:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Redux. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfA closure

message: I count five RfAs closed early in the last week, with opposes because of huge lack of experience. Either there's a massive, weird, sockpuppet invasion, or it is not clear enough to these candidates that we expect more than 2 weeks of editing. And there is really no reason to believe sockpuppetry. -Amarkov blahedits 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. The main RFA page should state that eventhough there is no standards, the community usually doesn't accept users who were only active for a few months, or have less then (roughly) 2,800 edits. // I c e d K o l a 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I have said, we need limits: minimum edit count, time spent here etc. This would be needed for the voters as well, and nominators to avoid sock/meatpuppetry. It might sound like instruction creep, but it's so needed. --Majorly (Talk) 19:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just have the RfA Clerks deal with any WP:SNOW RfA's, that way we don't disqualify any candidates. --Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the problem is minor, 5 a week is no staggering amount. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, short of popups and flashing 72 point font, we're not going to stop these from happening. And even then, I bet we'd still see a few every month. A certain type of person on the internet is just going to ignore instructions or assume they don't apply to them. The solution here is to improve our reaction... dealing with the hopeless RfAs in a way that doesn't waste the time of good editors or discourage new users. I guess we are basically doing that right now... though I encourage anyone who de-lists a good faith (but premature) RfA to make a reasonable effort to make sure the candidate understands what happened. --W.marsh 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be 0 a week. All requests should run the full time. --Majorly (Talk) 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That does not seem productive, a user who is brand new has no chance, it would simply clutter up the rfa page and cause week long pile-on opposing. This is actually alot kinder than allowing opposes to gather for the full time. What is needed, if one does not already exist, is a template to give users who have had their rfas removed. A nice encouraging one with kind words. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In a perfect world new users would not do alot of things, but new users will apply to be admins. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why we need set standards for requests, and any requests made below these standards can be removed without warning. --Majorly (Talk) 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's fair when sometimes a b'crat or admin will close RFA's before it's scheduled to close, though it has already run for a few days, and the user is legitimate. I know mine isn't the only one. I think we should have a rule saying that unless that candidate withdraws their acceptance, or they have under 500 edits, they can't be removed until their request officially ends. I think keeping an RFA open for its full course, even though it looks like no consensus, will help the candidate fix their problems more than one that's closed in 2 hours or a day. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but leaving inherently doomed RfAs to the wolves (like me) won't do any good either. Every editor walking by will only rehash overrepeated advice and overindicated shortcomings. --210physicq (c) 21:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you have some ideas as to why the "wolves" such as yourself act in this fashion, and what we could do to get them to stop? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mentioning of "wolves" was an attempt at sarcasm. I apologize if I wasn't clear. --210physicq (c) 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, it's not helpful behavior and it would be good to put a stop to it. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that we are hounding on helpless candidates, if that's the impression you are getting. I am exaggerating the typical "please withdraw" pile-on that woefully occurs all the time. --210physicq (c) 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's hard to deny that RfA participants are hounding hopeless candidacies. This seems to happen with a fair degree of regularity. I'm just wondering what motivates people to note their opposition to a candidate who has already been overwhelmingly defeated. This seems like fairly unwelcoming and unfriendly behavior. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, in some cases, they actually have other problems, so another oppose is justified there. The rest of the cases, I think, stem from the fact that RfA is a voting process, no matter how much it is denied, so people are conditioned to vote, whether or not there is any point. -Amarkov blahedits 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Totally agree. Users with a fair amount of edits who request are usually aware of how RfA works so may be annoyed if theirs is closed early. Any less than 500 edits, well, seriously should do some research before requesting. Or we make standards that are clearly written on the main page. --Majorly (Talk) 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear for readers of this entire section, since you were in an edit conflict, you were agreeing with me, right? TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can tell by the indentation. --Majorly (Talk) 21:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is, your RfA was not looking like no consensus, there was a clear consensus opposing your request. I would hope crats don't close RfAs with no consensus early, but closing when there is a consensus against seems fine to me. --Tango 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Majorly, In the interest of fairness, you'll need to find the shortest serving editor to be promoted to admin and the admin with the lowest number of edits to be promoted and that's your minimum limits. Anything else is unacceptable, for example, you, like many other admins were promoted after less than 6 months, so imposing an arbitrary 6 month minimum period is totally unfair. --Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends where I start from. Check Angela's contributions (Angela is now a bureaucrat, and is/was a steward). A total of 83 edits, she was promoted without a problem. Obviously, times have changed. I could go back through every successful request, maybe, for this year perhaps and see what the minimums were. --Majorly (Talk) 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Would eliminating the ability to self-nominate help? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There are lots of really hard working editors out there who could use the tools but haven't stuck their head above the parapet for whatever reason and haven't been noticed, but for whatever reason have decided they could use the tools. Hell, pay a visit to the right users talkpage, follow a regular nominator around on Wikipedia or go and use IRC and people will fall over themselves to nominate you. There's a certain stigma about self-noms which is unfair, a self-nom for an experienced editor is likely to be a well thought out and articulate effort, and it requires balls of steel ! --Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this got incredibly sidetracked. I don't think we should do anything other than make something like WP:GRFA more prominent. -Amarkov blahedits 22:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  There shouldn't be any minimum standards, but people should realize that new users are going to continually push for adminship no matter how prominently the WP:GRFA guidelines are shown.  It's clear to me from reading some of those RfAs that the self-nominators didn't bother to read anything related to the process (how to format the RfA, how to answer the nomination questions, etc.) so while making the GRFA a bit more prominent might help with some of the ill-fated self-noms, it won't end them entirely.--Caliga10 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, we need to make it clearer what is expected. 

message: Um...this RfA should have been closed around seven hours ago, as of this writing. --210physicq (c) 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we mailbomb Essjay. :P -Amarkov blahedits 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha... Not funny! Grandmasterka 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. MEANIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Amarkov blahedits 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you should be expecting that much of efficiencies during the holiday season. --WinHunter (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing a couple extra hours (read: half a day) won't affect it much. -Amarkov blahedits 04:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BlackJack]] 

message: There has been a continuing discussion on the merits of various generic optional questions and whether they actually add any value or provide useful information to a candidates nomination. Maybe the questions need to become more of a scenario.
:eg 
:editor AB makes legal threats against  editor BC. editor BC posts to WP:AN/I how should this be addressed.
:or
:Bio-article A has been edited with false claims about sexual misconduct by a single IP address and a request for protection is posted at WP:RFPP what should happen.
These type of questions can be altered to suit the satement from the candidate in that if the candidate says they want to use the tools for vandal fighting then a scenario about speedy deletion of an image being use to vandalise articles could be asked. The only thing is it takes some thought from person asking the question to frame one that suits the candidates statement Gnangarra 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to do that if you think it's a good idea. The issue I have is that anyone with experience in the process for which the situation is can easily go find a precedent which will give the correct answer. -Amarkov blahedits 03:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  optional question - alternative approach 

message: I know canvassing is frowned upon, it's a pet hate of mine, but there were some very good points raised about informing users who might like to vote but don't know much about the RfA process. I'm wondering if a simplified version of the Tangobot templates couldn't be created detailing username and RfA closing date (no mention of percentages and such) purely for inclusion on Wikiprojects and userpages, that sort of thing, and bring in a stricter no canvassing policy at the same time. Any thoughts. --Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's accepted to include a note on your own user page, so editors who interact with you are more likely to see it. I'm not sure if we want wider advertisement of RFA. ~ trialsanderrors 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a userpage notice is accepted, I believe so that people who interact with the user get to vote, rather than just whoever happens to watch RfAs. The problem with canvassing is that it is selective, so only the people the editor wishes to inform are informed. And I see no reason why the Wikiproject needs to know; that only leads to the absurd mentalities of "Members of a Wikiproject should stick together!" and "This Wikiproject needs to get more admins!" -Amarkov blahedits 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we should ever specifically state that canvassing is allowed in one way or another.  I agree with what Amarkov said above about it being selective.  I see that as a problem.  If a user chooses to advertise, that's their prerogative; stating that it is "allowed" doesn't do anything but attempt to limit those who are deciding whether to support or oppose.  And, in my mind, advertising on a WikiProject is a big no-no. -- Renesis (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See also the thread at support #25 and .--Kchase T 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also WP:SPAM#Canvassing. If those rules are followed (and not abused - either intentionally, or even unintentionally), then "canvassing" already is allowed. However, "votestacking" (the concern behind the concern) is not. That said, traditionally, RfA is about trust. And as I have said elsewhere, a person's determination of trust is not something that can or should be quantified. It's like asking a gambler what makes one lucky. So while canvassing may be "legal", the community has such a concern about abuse of it towards votestacking or campaigning, that they tend to frown on any notice beyond a simple notice on the nominee's user page (as noted above). (As it could be said that a part of the failing of my first attempt at RfA was due to voter's perceptions of canvassing, I think I may have a bit of experience/insight on this : ) - jc37 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of, I was considering splitting off WP:CANVAS from WP:SPAM, although they might be related they're never really used in the same context. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion now underway at WT:CANVAS ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canvassing and Good Points Raised 

message: I wonder why the number of nominations fluctuates so much these days. I think about a month ago at one time there were almost 20 noms. :) GizzaChat © 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep meaning to register a sock to toss up on RfA for whenever we have so few people, just so it doesn't seem quite so lonely. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be cool if nobody is nominated for the next three days. Then we may have no noms running at a particular moment. GizzaChat © 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen two nominations several times prior to today, but never one or zero - does anyone recall the last time that happened? Picaroon 18:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way, back in the time when self-noms were separated from the other nominations.  The self-nom slot would sometimes be empty or have just one or two noms.  But that's a different Era in "wiki time". ;-)  Redux 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's when the self-noms were separated, aka. "sitting in the back of the bus". Times have changed. feydey 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, even back when I started in the summer of 2004, there was never a single moment I can remember when we had less than two noms. Back then, if you were especially popular, you might get more than 30 support votes. How times have changed, indeed. – ClockworkSoul 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You may want to join in then...  --Srikeit 15:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and see my RfA turn into a RfC by NHN? No thanks. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 5 nominations now, so the low number probably won't happen again for a while. --Wizardman 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ooh, two nominations at the moment 

message: Hi,
I would like to know where or to whom I would request adminship. I have been editing since late December of 2006. I now it is not long and if you all feel that my request should hold off for a while until I have put in some longer time in editing on Wikipedia I will be more than cooperative to do so. Anyways, I would like to learn more about adminship, mediating in disputes, and starting Wiki projects. Your advice will be much appreciated. Regards
Wiki Raja 12:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Requests for adminship is the right place, but unfortunately you are still definitely too new to obtain adminship.  There are no universal standards, but there is a collection of what various people have considered to be important qualifications.  Good candidates often have several months of participation (across various parts of Wikipedia) and a few thousand edits.  You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship.  Dragons flight 12:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are interested in mediating disputes, you might want to take a look at WP:MEDCOM. --Tango 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Request for Adminship