Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 82

message: Please read and contribute to this page, the purpose of which is to tell people not to make the various kinds of !votes that are often complained about on this talk page. >Radiant< 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If readers of this are not already aware of the WP:QAV discussion, I advise reading it. QAV was a proposal to limit which votes would be allowed in an RfA; one problem was that it would just encourage people using false reasons, or no reason at all, to prevent their votes being discounted. Although this essay is not nearly as bad (because it doesn't affect whether the vote is counted or not), it may still lead to people not giving their resons, or to giving dishonest reasons, to avoid using a an 'argument to avoid' they happen to believe in. Maybe it should be something like 'Things to consider before voting in an RfA' and discuss why various expectations are unrealistic or inappropriate. --ais523 13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's perfectly fine as an opinion essay, until people start trying to use it to discount votes that they disagree with. Then we have a problem. -Amarkov moo! 14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, but the current 'crats haven't shown any indication of doing that, for better or worse. Grandmasterska's RfB was trending no consensus on just that point.--Kchase T 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't really thinking of bureaucrats, I was thinking of editors saying "Excuse me, but you are not entitled to that opinion". We get enough people saying that certain criteria may not be used already. -Amarkov moo! 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone other than its author. >Radiant< 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how it will likely be interpreted. WP:SNOW as case in point. -Amarkov moo! 15:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you truly believe that, I suggest you nominate about three-quarters of the contents of CAT:E for deletion. >Radiant< 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to Radiant for not saying "SNOW isn't an essay." (^^) Dekimasuが... 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  WP:SNOW is listened to not because it's a policy, which it's not, or because people think it's a policy, but because it's sensible and people agree with it. Kyle Barbour 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: People are entitled to an opinion, but there is no reason why they should be entitled to have their opinions, especially when contrary to the facts or founded on poor judgment, stand unchallenged. The idea that people have a right to apply whatever insipid criteria they like, to the detriment of the project, is damaging to this process. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Um... why? It's not the fault of the essay, it's the fault of the people who think essays are equivalent to guidelines. -Amarkov moo! 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *So you are saying that if I would write Wikipedia:Delete all articles that contain the letter Z and tag it as essay, people would consider it a guideline? >Radiant< 15:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Stop taking my opinions out of context and using them to reach absurd conclusions. I'm saying that this essay might. -Amarkov moo! 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm simply looking for evidence for the statement that essays are used as guidelines, especially since the essay tag clearly states that the page is not a guideline. >Radiant< 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a debate over whether a day-old essay may be interpreted wrongly really worth having? Trebor 15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SNOW, WP:DENY.  Pretty much every use in a debate/discussion, ever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A wild allegation is not evidence. >Radiant< 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wild about it. I don't see the fear in this essay being cited improperly, but it's a very valid complaint. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You may be interested in WP:BASH which discusses your concerns on how people cite essays. TacoDeposit 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, of course any controversial entries would need to be discussed. But it might be good to make clear to people that their pet reasons are their pet reasons, and are rejected by most of the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the day where every editor is supposed to give diffs of why the candidate deserves adminship in his support, I think this is ridiculous. This only encourages lawyering and belittling of opinions in which one man's meat is another man's poison, as per what W.marsh has shown in the diffs he provided. This essay is going to be much more lopsided than the AfD one for the simple reason that it will always deal with the oppose arguments. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the reasons people list for oppose are not too bad as reason not to support, but insufficient as reasons to cancel out four support votes. If people don't want to support somebody because they don't use edit summaries for their Category talk edits, I don't see a problem. The problem is that oppose votes weigh a lot more than support votes, which is perhaps an explanation why people ask for explanations for those and not for expolanations of support votes. Kusma (討論) 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:SNOW is a straightforward offshoot of WP:IAR. Proto::► 12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edit summary usage (out of last 150 edits) is by no means the whole story, of course. However, mathbot's tool calculates the edit summary only based on the last 150 edits to give people a chance to learn from their mistakes and move on. That tool is not designed to give a foolproof answer. Its primary purpose in my view is to attract attention to the fact that edit summaries matter. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions]] 

message: Hello there, I haven't been with Wikipedia very long, and I don't always follow RfAs, but I've noticed that there are quite a few well-intentioned but very inexperienced users who put themselves up for adminship, only to be rejected. The RfA process is harsh, and I think unavoidably so, because candidates have to undergo such scrutiny and face criticism by people they've never met. Perhaps with some changes to the RfA explanatory text, lesser-experienced Wikipedians will be better able to understand the process and judge whether or not to proceed, and hopefully spare themselves from undue stress.
I came up with the following text, in hopes of adding/integrating it with the existing text on the main RfA page:
:"Because the position of administrator is not a right but rather a privilege granted by the community to users it trusts, candidates for administrator should be advised that their record of contributions will undergo intense scrutiny. Such candidates should be prepared to receive criticism. Likewise, all participants in the requests for adminship process should adhere to WP:CIVIL regardless of their choice to support, oppose, or remain neutral."
I still think the text could use some modification, especially in making clear the need for experience, but at the same time, I don't want to turn this into "gaming the system". Above all, I hope that this text, or something along its lines, will help users to better "self select" whether or not to consider adminship. I invite you to share your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --Kyoko 08:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the "privilege" bit. Really the only reason everyone isn't an admin is because of the chaos they could cause. Jimbo said "I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." . The rest of it seems ok. James086Talk 13:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you mean about the word "privilege". I know that adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but I was trying to get across that it is also something that people aren't automatically entitled to either. Alternative wording suggestions are welcome. --Kyoko 15:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *That reminds me of an idea I've had for a while, see User:NoSeptember/Intent to file RfA which would address the WP:SNOW RfA situations. NoSeptember 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, it doesn't. What needs fixing is the ever increasing standards being applied to candidates. Every time that some prerequisite has been suggested as a bar for people to exceed before applying, it's been shot down. Count on it to be shot down again if it is proposed. --Durin 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're using an interpretation based on being here for a decent amount of time. A newcomer will read that to say "Okay then, since I haven't done anything bad, I'm going to nominate myself after half a month of editing." -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I read a lot, more than many people, but I still put myself up for RfA in December, when I had few talk page or Wikipedia space edits. I do think something's amiss in the process. We need a bigger warning, for starters. Xiner (talk, email) 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If we want to change the prerequisites text then I suggest saying something along the lines of "Individuals have their own standards and you may wish to check the objections to some current candidates on this page before nominating." Though again, the problem is people not reading it. James086Talk 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I really think that's too mild a warning for newer users, who have no idea how many processes oil the wheels on Wikipedia. Xiner (talk, email) 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wheels of wikipedia are oiled by the blood of admins, of course. . --Kim Bruning 12:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we used soylent green for that. NoSeptember 14:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed text for RfA page 

message: If you are a administrator in a wikipedia. Then are you a Administrator in other wikipeadias also or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.246 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Every Wikipedia has its own system for appointing administrators. There are a few Stewards who have certain powers on all Wikipedias (mainly promoting and demoting people), but regular admins have to be made admins separately on each site they use. --Tango 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does count as somewhat of a plus on RFAs though. bibliomaniac15 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To some it does, others don't care. -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also makes a big difference where you are an admin, and where you're applying. Being an admin on en will probably (but not always) be a big help in becoming an admin on a very small language version, but not vice versa. --Tango 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administratorship in other wkipedias 

message: I created a userfied banner for RfA candidates at User:ShadowHalo/User rfa and would appreciate any input.  It's not being used now because I know there have been some users who were reprimanded for "advertising" their RfAs, but it might be helpful to have a banner, or maybe just a userbox, so that other users will know when there's an RfA happening.  ShadowHalo 08:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, if others care as well. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know.  I can see somebody putting that banner on their talk page and then going around and handing out a bunch of barnstars and smileys to generate talk page traffic and get a bunch of me-too voters on their RfA.  I just think it starts down a slippery slope to campaigning, so I'd have to say no. —Doug Bell talk 11:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be pointed out that people you are having a disagreement with are just as likely to visit your user pages as are your friends.  I wouldn't classify non-obnoxious banners as campaigning, and there is a tradition of such notices that goes back years. The simple informative banner of ShadowHalo looks fine to me. NoSeptember 11:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can hand out random smileys by the dozens and just like sending out spam email, you don't need to get that high of a response rate.  And sheesh, anyone who can't stay out of a disagreement for a week, well...I guess this won't work for them.  I just think it's a bad idea, or perhaps OK on the user page but not on the talk page. —Doug Bell talk 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone starts doing atypical things such as handing out awards that looks like campaigning, then we should call them on it at that time. Should we ask that the like to nominate box be removed too?, I see those more than I see banners, tipping me off to the fact that someone is running for RfA. NoSeptember 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that box is OK.  I don't like the idea of people putting up campaign banners.  YMMV. —Doug Bell talk 11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like an informational banner to me, I didn't see any "Please Vote for ME" appeals ;). NoSeptember 12:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if people are going around handing out barnstars, that'll attract attention from the RfA !voters whether there's a banner or not.  And am I supposed to remove the template from my talk page, or do you mean that other people should remove it if they end up using the new banner?  If I'm supposed to remove it, someone should probably add that step to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate.  ShadowHalo 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, leave the template alone as part of normal talk page discussion. That was a rhetorical question, intended to point out that even without a banner, there will be obvious clues that a user is going through RfA on their user pages. NoSeptember 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, okay.  I wasn't sure what you meant by that.  ShadowHalo 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've moved the template to Template:User rfa since there seems to be agreement that the template may be useful to some users.  I added it to :Category:Requests for adminship so anyone who wants to use it can, but I don't think it's necessary to publicize the template.  If someone thinks it would be good to note its existence at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, feel free.  ShadowHalo 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I think this is perfectly fine; publicizing in your own userspace isn't quite the same as actively canvassing for !votes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This whole discussion strikes me as superfluous, since  has existed since October 2005 (based on commentary here) with no obvious complaints or criticisms. I would prefer to see one title redirected to the other, so we don't have to keep two templates up-to-date... -- nae'blis 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, awesome!  I was looking for a template like this earlier but couldn't seem to find it.  It's edit-protected, so would someone mind adding Category:Requests for adminship?  That should make it a bit easier to find.  ShadowHalo 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userpage banner 

message: What's the record for the most at a given time. I think 18's pretty close to it.--Wizardman 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it is. NoSeptember will probably know :D --Majorly (o rly?) 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How about 21? I'm not sure that's the maximum, though. Kusma (討論) 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's 27 RFAs. It may have gone one or two higher at some point, but this is near the limit. Dragons flight 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do think the discussions on here and elsewhere have definitely led to a few more RFAs running, and I also think a few people are reducing their restrictive standards, which is a good thing.  I tried to get someone to go for RFA like we were challenged to, and someone else already has dibs on nominating them.  Bah.  So I'm still hunting for someone to nominate.  Proto::► 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the increase is due to the recent discussion about a shortage of admins. Especially with a ratio of 1 self nom to 17 noms by others. James086Talk 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt, but how sustainable is this extra recruiting effort going to be? Probably not very. NoSeptember 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 RfA's? 

message: I put in a self-nomination request. How long do I have to wait before it appears on WP:RFA? HyperSonicBoom 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no automatic process. There should be instructions on how to list it; did you see them? -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict] Since you're supposed to add yourself to the RfA page, it all depends on you. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: [Edit conflict as well] You have to add it yourself. And I hate to say this, but if you didn't know that, you would probably be better off waiting a few more months before trying, because you'd get shot down quite bad. – Chacor 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...too late. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Long? 

message: I see eight people on the RFA listing that have 100% support. Nice! (now nobody make any WP:BEANS votes...) >Radiant< 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 8 in a row earlier, then I think 10 out of 11. See, we can pick good candidates :P--Wizardman 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *From June 2005 through now, the record for consecutive 100% successful nominations is 5. Right now, we've got 8 listed, but just 4 in a row. --Durin 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This may be a record... 

message: Sorry this was delayed. It takes a lot of work, and I didn't get around to it until a couple of weeks ago to bring the data up to date. 
2006 RfA Year in Review                                                  	2006                                                                     	                                                                         	
New RfAs posted:                                                         	885                                                                      	                                                                         	
Successful RfAs:                                                         	344 (38.8%)                                                              	                                                                         	
Early withdrawn RfAs:                                                    	387 (43.7%)                                                              	                                                                         	
Self nominations:                                                        	435 (49.0%)                                                              	                                                                         	
Noms with <1000 edits:                                                   	191 (21.6%)                                                              	                                                                         	
Average number of opinions expressed per successful RfA:                 	78.8                                                                     	                                                                         	
Average number of opinions expressed per unsuccessful RfA:1              	68.0                                                                     	                                                                         	
Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...       	Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...
All RfAs                                                                 	38.8%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>1000 edits                                                              	49.6%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>2000 edits                                                              	55.9%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>2000 edits, self-nom only                                               	35.5%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>3000 edits                                                              	60.8%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>3000 edits, self-nom only                                               	44.4%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>4000 edits                                                              	62.2%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>4000 edits, self-nom only                                               	44.3%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>5000 edits                                                              	63.5%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>5000 edits, self-nom only                                               	43.4%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>10000 edits                                                             	63.0%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>10000 edits, self-nom only                                              	45.0%                                                                    	                                                                         	
Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...	Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...
>2 months                                                                	42.2%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>4 months                                                                	45.3%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>6 months                                                                	48.0%                                                                    	                                                                         	
>1 year                                                                  	48.5%                                                                    	                                                                         	
Average edit count of successful noms:                                   	7153                                                                     	                                                                         	
Average edit count of unsuccessful noms:                                 	3445                                                                     	                                                                         	
:1 - Unsuccessful nominations only includes those nominations that were not withdrawn early and were not successful. This is the smallest subset of RfAs, typically comprising less than 20% of all RfAs.
Some observations from my chair:
*I was astonished at the very rapid increase in the average number of edits for successful nominations. Compare to :Image:AverageEditCountatRfA.png which covers the period of August '05 to March of '06. The more current chart above shows a much steeper rise in standards, and shows a non-flat line now of increasing average number of edit counts for failing RfAs. There's a number of different ways to look at this data, and this is but one way. Nevertheless, the trend was startling to me. 
*I was fairly amazed at the reduction in average number of votes per RfA showing a pretty steady decline for the last three quarters of 2006. I was expecting an increase. 
*3000 edits still seems to be the cutoff beyond which editcountitis seems to have less of an effect. 
*Self-nominations are still showing a roughly 20% less chance of success. 
*I often hear the complaint that nominees with high edit counts routinely fail. The data above does not support this conclusion. Success rates plateau after 3000 edits and show not much motion thereafter. If anything, they increase slightly.
Enjoy. --Durin 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How hard would it be to get the numbers of sucess with more than one nominator? I.E. co-noms, or having multiple co-noms? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Impossible (for me to do anyways). I do keep track of who nominates, but I only take the first nominator, not all co-nominators, or even if there was a co-nominator. --Durin 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, ok.  I was just wondering, what it looks like with a co-nom.  I hear people say they dont want too many co-noms but cause it is bad.  I have seen one with many co-noms that made WP:200 and many others that make WP:100. Another intersting, but probably impossible statistic to calculcate, what are your chances if you are nominated by another administartor vs a non adminstrator editor.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't keep track of that either. --Durin 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Here's the chart for all complete RfAs (those that ran the full 7 day course). Note that there is still a reduction pattern, but the graph is less chaotic. 
Since nobody else has commented on it, I was surprised that more than 1 in 5 RfA nominees has less than 1,000 edits—this seemed like a lot.  It would have been nice to include in the chart so I didn't have to calculate that no nominee with less than 1,000 edits was successful. —Doug Bell talk 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 RfA In Review 

message: I found this via an invitation for participation by the requestor on an administrator's talk page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Norkus007
It seems not to have made it to the primary RfA page, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship because of some sort of failed action.
It's not of much consequence as the  requestor is clearly not even close to obtaining any support--but this ought to be cleaned up.
-- Yellowdesk 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit sad seeing users with 65 edits attempting to pass RfA. I suggest you let the WP:AN folks know. Yuser31415 06:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *There isn't anything to do really. It's not been transcluded to WP:RFA. Until it has been, it's not an official RfA. The user can choose to not post it until six months from now if they so choose. No action is needed here. If it's posted to RfA, then action would be appropriate. --Durin 13:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A probably malformed RfA 

message: *Without directly answering your question, I think one of the core dimensions to consider is whether the goal is affirmative or negative.  Specifically, is the goal to "promote the best candidates" or to "exclude the worse candidates".  Without trying to qualify "best" and "worse", I think it is fairly obvious that if one emphasizes promotion then some bad apples will get through, and similarly, if your process emphasizes exclusion then some potentially very effective admins will also get blocked.  Finding a good balance is tricky.  Dragons flight 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which rather raises the key question - is Wikipedia better off with a lot more admins, with the inevitable downside of the very small proportion of bad eggs becoming perhaps a lightly larger very small proportion? Or is Wikipedia better off minimising the proportion of bad eggs, with the inevitable downside of having less admins? --Docg 14:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The former, since we cannot a priori know which candidates become the bad eggs. So in being overly cautious in avoiding bad eggs, we are (1) hurting ourselves by creating less admins, and (2) not actually preventing bad eggage. >Radiant< 14:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I tend to agree. Unfortunately, we are often moving in the direction of over cautiousness - partly I suspect due to the perceived drama involved in desysopping failing admins.--Docg 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: **Yep, but unfortunately nobody has yet been able to come up with a deopping process that actually works, other than the arbcom of course but that does tend to be rather lengthy and dramatical. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussion

message: I nominated myself for adminship, but my nomination won't come up. Why? Here is a link: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patricknoddy. - Patricknoddy 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't transclude it onto the RfA page. I've done it for you.--Docg 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did , it just got reverted two minutes later . -- Gogo Dodo 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was reverted because Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patricknoddy did not exist yet at that time. Garion96 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right.  I read the time stamps backwards.  I think I need to go back to sleep... -- Gogo Dodo 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sub-page did exist at the time, but the questions were not answered. It was later speedy deleted. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Self-RfA 

message: I've started a survey on adminship and its procedures, to find out if a substantial majority of editors believe that certain changes should be made to our procedure or precedent. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated! :) - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Adminship survey]] 

message: hi, i voted on one of the elections, being its my first vote, am i allowed to vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KendrixTV (talk • contribs) 
*Any registered user may 'vote' on an RfA. However brand new users, especially ones whose first edit is to an RfA, are often viewed as meatpuppets and their comments may not be considered. Regardless, in the RfA you edited, it is failing so it is of no effect in this case. --Durin 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA voting question 

message: I have changed "A trivial thing" to "Not a big deal". Trivial implies not necessary, or not hard. That's not the case with adminship, it can be very difficult (we deal with all sorts of hard to get along with people in as reasonable fashion as we can). It is, however, not a big deal. It may seem the same, but it's subtly different. Enough for me to change the title anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titlechange 

message: I don't ever recall seeing the ratio of support to oppose this high across all of the currently listed RfAs.  Must be close to a record. —Doug Bell talk 14:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good thing; people are finally realizing that we need more administrators, and we shouldn't be putting people through gauntlets. I'm seeing a point where RfA criteria pages will become "look back and laugh" moments. — Deckiller 14:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sure do hope so. Perhaps it's time for me to RfA again. ST47Talk 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always a good thing. - Anas Talk? 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who failed their RfA back in 2006, please get your coupons, free samples and pamphlets ready. It is sales promotional period. Good luck to everybody. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I remove that spam :P? Yuser31415 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Keep - offering free stuff, I like it :):):) ST47Talk 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Three months is a trend. One month (or week or day or hour) is an aberration until borne out by a trend. Marskell 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the difference...still talking about the high water mark. —Doug Bell talk 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *And we have absolutely no idea if 96.8% is the high water mark. None. What you are looking at is the instantaneous percentages. There's no record of that anywhere that is easy to discern, without looking at every single edit done to every single RfA that has ever been done. :) It's good to see RfAs doing well now though. --Durin 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  417 support, 14 oppose 

message: I've discovered this rogue rfa - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quinlanfan2 (which is guaranteed to fail by the way). No idea who the editor is but he/she left a message asking me how to process the rfa. Don't know why they picked on me. Could someone act accordingly?-- Zleitzen(talk) 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not been linked yet. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a similar note, what should be done with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrianRFSU? One Night In Hackney 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing.  In both cases, if the nominees want to start the process, they need to update the ending date and transclude their nominations into the main page.  If not, they just sit there forever. If the nominees want to ask for them to be deleted, I know that those requests have been accomodated - as long as the nomination was never transcluded there's no reason not to.  --BigDT 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Zleitzen, point the nominee in the direction of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate.  It gives explicit instructions for what they should do to complete the process. --BigDT 15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rogue rfa

message: I am just wondering. Have there been any nominations with close to 100 oppose votes or over? Simply south 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But we're not going to list them for you. WP:100 has a list of people who got 100 or more support votes which is a much nicer and more pleasant topic, don't you think? Newyorkbrad 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about WP:-100 :P? Yuser31415 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there has. Highest is 71 iirc, on Carnildo's 3rd rfa, which passed with the lowest ever percentage. Not sure about failed requests though. Majorly (o rly?) 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about as close as you're gonna get I think.--Wizardman 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IF they would just be oppose votes than it would be closed per WP:SNOW so I doubt there would ever be a 100 oppose votes on an RFA. Unless there are alot of users supporting to even it out. ~ Arjun 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Wizardman got it right, 89 is the highest, you can find the others on these lists. Tracking only support vote levels (as on WP:100) reveals only part of the story. NoSeptember 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there were some with over 100 opposes, but I was probably thinking of the ArbCom elections, which unlike here aren't subject to WP:SNOW. Newyorkbrad 11:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's another interesting case study: Anglius's RFA.--Kchase T 12:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's an interesting record NoSeptember. - Anas Talk? 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting quote from that: This editor has only 1184 edits. Normally, this would not be a problem -- Werdna (I've skipped the oppose reason given). How times have changed in just over a year! --ais523 17:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglius is still around, but I suspect with this on his user page, a further RfA would be similarly futile: I am a helluo librorum who detests atheism, "political correctness," and immorality.  (The latin means "bookworm".) -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruel curiosity