Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 103

message: *Cough* There are some people who have the experience, but made (a) bad call(s), and should be but aren't being given another chance to serve Wikipedia. Before we can have more admins we need RFAs to pass, and for that to happen for a select few out of those on that list (those who didn't do what they did maliciously) - I'm thinking people like MONGO or Essjay, we need more people to be willing to ignore old events and give them - give us - a fresh start. – Chacor 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, what you are saying is highly dependent on the case and person in question. We are not soon going to return admin rights to someone who used their tools in an obviously malicious and hateful way. And such acts will never be forgiven by the community as a whole; no RFA can pass when something like that darkens a users history. But I do agree. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not saying that admin tools should be returned to "someone who used their tools in an obviously malicious and hateful way". There are plenty of people on that list who obviously had no primary malicious intent to Wikipedia, and unfortunately it takes far too long for any of them to be forgiven. The last desysopped user repromoted without controversy, I believe, was Guanaco - in February 2006. – Chacor 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, putting me in the same sentence as Essjay is a bit harsh, but no doubt, I could run again without first asking permission from arbcom to do so . I can't imagine aiding a notorious banned editor would ever been seen as a forgivable offense, and not something I ever did or would ever even consider. I also wonder when editors change their usernames as some effort to possibly cover up past maliciousnesses.--MONGO 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring former admins 

message: * Request for feedback: Numerous times, I've seen RfA reviewers reject a candidate on the basis of "not needing the tools", even when (apparently) there is no compelling reason to believe that the candidate would be a detriment instead of a benefit. My request is this, can anyone suggest whether "I simply want to have the additional tools, and plan to use them only rarely, until I get a feel for where I'm needed most." would ever take hold as a legitimate motivation for a prospective admin?
* This question is posed as a follow-up to Carcharoth's post about "only hindsight" (immediately above). Carcharoth seems to make a good point here, but it doesn't seem to get addressed very often. dr.ef.tymac 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Per Ikiroid. The "doesn't need the tools" thing has been done to death before and I thought consensus (much as it can change) was as follows; If someone uses the tools but once a month, that's one less thing in that month on the ever increasing list of administrator tasks needing attention. A need for the tools is a meaningless oppose at RFA. Pedro |  Chat   17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wish you would have said that a month ago ;) --Aarktica 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is no consensus that such opposes are meaningless, only a consensus that most people won't oppose solely on that basis.  I personally don't ever oppose solely because of "doesn't need the tools", but I am more likely to oppose when both "doesn't need the tools" and minor evidence of risk of misuse are present.  GRBerry 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: However, I'm almost certain that if a child asked for a mop (which I believe is currently the accepted metaphor), his father would trust that he would be trying to clean up, and I don't think any parent would object to a child cleaning up :) J-stan TalkContribs 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about guns? The huje majority of people who have them expect to never have to use them. They may be useful, however, as admin tools may be useful if you see vandals vandalizing Wikipedia. A.Z. 08:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not needing the tools 

message: The claim that half of the admins aren't active is, I think, too strong. Look at this list of the last edit time for all admins, compiled on Aug 21. Over 1000 admins have edited in August, over 900 in the last week.  This doesn't answer whether we need more admins, or whether these edits were admin related, but it does show that our admins are, by and large, still editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice User:Katefan0, User:Gator1, and User:H may be on the list somewhere.  What they went through, forcing them to quit is completely unacceptable.  Admins willing to handle the tough cases of POV pushing and other problems face the potential of harassment.  For that reason, as an admin myself, I stay away from handling those situations and stick to more mundane, uncontroversial tasks like blocking blatant vandals, clearing speedy deletions, etc, and mostly spend time writing articles. --Aude (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is a real shame, for the admins who do stick their necks out, all end up dealing with the most notorious trolls on the site...and, from what I have seen, they either leave the project in disgust or get forced out if they make a few mistakes.--MONGO 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to CBM, the issue isn't that admins are not active editors, it's that to many do not spend enough time on the hard admin cases and leave it to just a few people who get a) burnt out/frustrated and then b) react inappropriately with some manner of admin action which leads to c) mostly helpful people leaving the project.  If all admins spent just a bit more time on disputes and such people like MONGO or JzG don't get booted or leave.  So, to you admins who read this get into the conflict areas, and help.  --Rocksanddirt 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you please provide examples of "the hard admin cases" you allude to? --Aarktica 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what I mean by hard cases are the defacto dispute resolution stuff that is on the various admin noticeboards , , , and .  My observation is that only a few (maybe 20) admins seem to be dealing with the cases there, and that many of the posts to espcially the AN, ANI, AIV, and 3RR are from a consistent set of topics.  My personal observation regarding folks like Mongo or JzG is that they bring a lot of the aggravation they feel on themselves because they like controvertial topics and like to be combative.  That said, more help getting everyone on those hard topics to either work together or admit they can't (and appropriate restrictions placed by others) would be helpful.  It's stated all over that being an admin is "no big deal" in the scope of wikipedia.  I disagree.  I think that most users (especially newer ones) feel that the admins are defacto supervisors or parents of the interaction here.  Hence the challenge to get people "promoted" to admin.  --Rocksanddirt 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. Does anyone else share the sentiment that said editors are needlessly combative? Also, are there any controversies around here that did not involve disruptive editors? --Aarktica 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say "needlessly" combative, just that the seem to enjoy it more than others (me).  And yes due to the nature of the topics they enjoy also, they seem to get involved with some of the more disruptive users.  My point is that if more admins were spending more time helping folks be civil, and work on their point of view issues there would be less disruption in general, and what there was would be more contained and it would not fall to just a few to resolve the disruptions.  --Rocksanddirt 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Perhaps everyone with a BELLY button (instead of just those with ADMIN buttons) should listen more often to those who need help. Afterall, regular editors have EARs as well... --Aarktica 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, everyone participating is a volunteer.  (Even the vandals, they are volunteering to vandalize... though we wish they wouldn't.)  Volunteers generally prefer to do tasks that are 1) pleasant to do, 2) effective, and/or 3) in line with their personal interests.  Working on the tough cases is generally not pleasant, not effective, and interesting to few people.  Unless someone comes up with suggestions to make working on the tough cases pleasant, effective, or interesting, we aren't going to see large quantities of volunteers.  I certainly said in my RFA that I was unlikely to spend any significant fraction of my effort on tough cases, and I've mostly lived up to that.  I've taken multiple hours to close a single tough DRV, because I'd volunteered for the role of DRV closer at the time, but I'm glad Xoloz is back and I don't have to close anymore.  There is no way I'm getting heavily involved in the WP:AN/I snakepit.  GRBerry 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are policies in place to deal with troublemakers; I suspect even POV-pushers can end up on the chopping BLOCK if they are "doing too much." Sure, there are those that will try to GAME the system; but how long do they last once they deplete what goodwill the community might have to spare? --Aarktica 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The difficulty here is that the while are negative consequences to making a mistake, there are also negative consequences to doing nothing. At some point, the cost of doing nothing will exceed the cost of making a few mistakes. At that point, we are better off bringing in people we know for sure will make a few mistakes. As long as the cost of their mistakes doesn't exceed the cost of continuing to do nothing, we've made the right choice. --Shirahadasha 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active admins - list of last edit times 

message: One thing that might help editors to become more familiar with the admin tasks so that a higher proportion might become both (a) confident enough to run for adminship; and (b) competent enough to get passed would be the admin coaching programme, which unfortunately appears to be at a standstill at the moment. There are 74 people there who've expressed a tentative interest in becoming admins just waiting for assistance. Espresso Addict 08:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I note this point has already been made further down the page. Espresso Addict 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, can't find it (CURSE YOU, OVERZEALOUS ARCHIVERS! :)). Well, speaking as someone on that magical list, I am willing to wait. I believe I can be trusted with the tools, but at the moment, I am content with the tools available to me. I actually do not think I can even handle coaching right now, as I have a few adoptees coming in this month. I'll be pretty busy. I would take myself off, but I don't want to lose my space in line. By the time I get close to the top of the list, it will be November. J-stan TalkContribs 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentoring programme

message: I just looked at this page, and found it excessively negative and several overstating the effective requirements for becoming an administrator. The net effect of this page appears to be to turn people away, which would be the exact opposite of its intent. Perhaps we should fix this? >Radiant< 08:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with radiant! here. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page (especially the "What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see" section) is negative, but most of it (unfortunately) seems valid. Even if it's not how RfA should be, the page explains how RfA is relatively accurately. Which may or may not be something we want in a guide :) GracenotesT § 09:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. It introduces a breath of fresh air in some ways, I think, in regards to certain aspects of the way it retells the process... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I dissent that reenforcing the negativity sometimes present on RFA is "valid". If anything it lends more credence to the kind of argument we prefer to avoid. A page whose net effect is to scare users away from running for adminship is not worth having. >Radiant< 10:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it just needs revising? A new outlook to better conform with the general view of RFA? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *That sounds like a good idea. >Radiant< 11:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather negative, but it's also realistic. However, a also agree it could use some touch up. I see this as a balancing act; we want to encourage people to apply but also not lull them into an unrealistic expectation of what the process can be like.Rlevse 11:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Valid as in accurate. I agree with Rlevse; there's no easy way to go about this. If you have a good idea, a more positive guide is certainly something we can use. Perhaps the solution might merely consist of adding more positive prose, not removing negative text. GracenotesT § 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There are many ways to improve pages, and subtractive editing is only one of them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Me, but I'm not really a representative sample. Seeing as I try to read through the entire :Category:Wikipedia essays once a month. -Amarkov moo! 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it all a long time ago before I started reading RfA/participating in discussions.  I assume Amarkov and I are just representatives of a large group of well-informed users, not rare freaks, but I could be wrong. :) Pinball22 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it before my first RfA, and then again more recently for no particular reason. I dunno, I think that a lot of people read it, they just don't digest it. Neranei (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably read it and some similar pages before my RFA. I don't think it made any difference in my decision to nominate myself though. Reading the current RFAs gave me a lot better sense of what my chances were. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] 

message: Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Reform#snowball_RfA to prevent further disruption here. —AldeBaer 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  snowball RfA 

message: After having a few looks at Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship/Reform, I was wondering about this. Is there any way of implementing a new RfA process which prevents the process from being a vote, and doesn't make it a 'crat nightmare (as previous reformation attempts did)? --DarkFalls talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disappoint you, but the short answer is "no". :) Majorly (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was bracing myself for the worst :) --DarkFalls talk 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The longer answer is "Noditty no-no no-sir no". I find it very unlikely that a consensus of the magnitude needed for these types of changes will form, nor do I think it is needed. In short, the current system is not broken. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but it hasn't yet been thought of. The process we have at the moment, where it isn't purely a vote, is pretty good I think, but then there are a lot of people who don't agree with me for varying reasons. I don't count the people who vote/comment/<whatever the latest name for voicing your opinion on RfA's is> as part of the process, but some people do. That means that I don't think this one is broken, I just think that some people's standards are too high. Actually I think the perfect system would be a bot who can assess everything the editor has ever done on Wikipedia and decide whether they meet the predetermined community standards (which would take a while to suss-out). This however is not possible with our current technology (we would need AI or something close). James086Talk | Email 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please can we archive this section now? Splash - tk 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current system isn't perfect, but I would strongly oppose any moves away from voting. See :m:wikidemocratism for an explanation of my views on this issue. 'Crat "discretion" is a very bad idea; it gives more power to the bureaucrats and takes it away from the community. Each established user in good standing has a right to make their own judgment about each RfA candidate, and support or oppose according to their own opinion; the bureaucrats should carry out the will of the community. WaltonOne 18:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This power you speak of is determining a consensus. Consensus does not always equal numbers. The discretion, which is ever so rarely used, is to determine which opinions show that the candidate will not make a good admin. Example "Oppose - I like cheese." I could write that on an RfA. I am an established user in good standing, but in your view that "oppose" would count? Majorly (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but that's a reductio ad absurdum. Because you are an established user in good standing, you would know better than to write "Oppose - I like cheese." If you did so, it would be reasonable to assume that you were either joking, or acting in bad faith; in which case the community would probably decide to strike your vote. But within the normal range of views, people disagree with each other on what constitutes a valid rationale. For instance, I don't think that article-writing has anything to do with adminship; other people argue that it's the most important criterion. But that doesn't mean that their vote should be discounted, or given less weight than mine. Generally, I would argue that any established user whose vote was clearly given in good faith, and with a rationale that is relevant to Wikipedia, should not have their vote discounted. For example, Kmweber's opposes should be given the same weight as everyone else's; his views are controversial, but backed up by a solid rationale which is relevant to Wikipedia. WaltonOne 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record reductio is not in itself a fallacy - it's another name for proof by contradiction.  Whether it's properly formulated is another matter... David Mestel(Talk) 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support a move towards a purer —open and above board— vote, as well as a move towards more bureaucrat discretion. Maybe that's an indicator that the current process really is the best compromise. Or it means quite the opposite, namely that in the current compromise both aspects become muddled and corrupted. Not sure. —AldeBaer 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Like the United States Electoral College system? —AldeBaer 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you mean the House of Lords —  iridescent (talk to me!) 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This system that we have worked fine right when it was done forming. It does not necessarily work now, after three years of exponential growth. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reform

message: I would like to create a self nominated RFA page.  The automated setup instructions are instructing me to overwrite my first nomination.  I would like to use User:TonyTheTiger/RFA3Essay to self nominate without erasing my old RFA.  Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replace USERNAME on the input bar with "TonyTheTiger 3" instead of "TonyTheTiger."  This will create a page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger 3.  You can then fill in the answers.  --דניאל - Dantheman531 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I need some help with my  which is pointing to RFA1 instead of RFA3 at User:TonyTheTiger/Header template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you fixed it.  --דניאל - Dantheman531 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to KTC for the fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd nom 

message: As a Chicago project member, can I post a link to my RFA discussion page on the project page here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can.  Just don't be surprised if your RFA spectacularly goes down in flames for canvassing.... Griggsa 07:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we lose the sarcasm, please? --Tango 20:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no absolute rule against it, but it is frowned upon and might get you some oppose votes. --Tango 20:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some?? RFAs that would pass normally fail because the candidate told a few of his or her fellow editors, Majorly (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Majorly is right. Even the slightest hint of canvassing can be just as bad as spilling oil over your RFA and chucking a match. Take my advice - don't do anything that could even be misinterpreted as canvassing. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd highly recommend against it. Even though you're only "telling" a select few, it's still out there in the open and visible to all the world (though this is more an issue with user talk pages, where you're effectively announcing your open RfA to anyone that has the user's talk page watchlisted, which is well outside the "select few" concept). You can put  on your userpage, however; that's a widely accepted way of announcing your open RfA, and it informs only those people who have your userpage watchlisted (who, in theory, would be interested anyway). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the comments above, mentioning your upcoming RfA anywhere than on your own talkpage (and some people would say even there) is an invitation to serious trouble. (Whether this should be the case is a different question. One experienced editor's suggestion some months ago that candidates should solicit the endorsement of a wikiproject to garner her support, did not achieve a consensus.) Newyorkbrad 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That idea failed to achieve a consensus because of the rather aggressive way she tried to promote it, not because it was a bad idea. Not that I advocate obligatory endorsement by a WikiProject, but I do think we need to dramatically relax WP:CANVAS in relation to RfAs. Those most qualified to comment on a candidate are those who have worked extensively with that candidate; it's simply not possible to fully appreciate the work of people you've never encountered before just by looking at their editcount and a couple of diffs. Certainly I don't endorse the mass spamming of "vote for me!" messages, but a few discreet notifications to other users should not be prohibited, IMO. Otherwise, someone with whom a candidate has worked before (on a WikiProject, say, or on collaborative article-writing) might simply miss the RfA. WaltonOne 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What should happen is different from what does happen. In this current climate, canvassing, or even the appearance of it, is held as one of the main things to avoid in RfA. —Kurykh 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion board posting 

message: I have marked this discussion page as historical/inactive, once more. The complete and utter lack of discussion on AldeBear's proposal above once it was moved to that page pretty much shows that Durin's first instinct was correct. Subpages have been shown time and time again to be a poor way to establish focused discussions, when compared to subheadings. -- nae'blis 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Reform subpage had become so lengthy and unwieldy that no one was bothering to comment there any more. This page is archived often enough that we can have all relevant discussions here. WaltonOne 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform]] marked historical again 

message: Heelo, I was woundering how do i become a admin? I would like to be one, I beleve I would be responsible enough to be one. Thank You
--Muitint78 01:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first thing you should do is talk to some people about whether you're ready, or go up for an editor review. If you feel you're ready, you can place a self-nomination following the directions at WP:RFA. I should warn you, though, people are quite strict about their requirements. If you would like some help, please come talk to me, I'd be happy to help. Cheers, Neranei (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a regular at Wikipedia:Editor review, and I can review you there if you'd like.  You probably need at least 3 months on wiki before you can pass an RFA.  Since you started 10 August 2007, that's two months from now. Shalom Hello 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make sure Shalom is not misunderstood here: no editor with less than 3 months of editing stands any realistic chance on RfA. However, 3 months of work here certainly don't guarantee that you'll be viewed as having sufficient experience. The best way to gauge this is by looking at recent successful and unsuccessful requests for adminship. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly suggest 4 months to be save, I went with March, April, May and part of June with around 1000 edits (and February was about 200), when I passed. Maxim(talk) 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the flip side, you'd be just fine if you didn't just jump right into it. I'd been editing for about 9 months and had a bit over 9k edits when my RfA passed (though I know there are people who'd been around for much longer than that when they became admins). There's no rush. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK... Muitint78, just by saying that you want to be an Admin and posting it to this board, you have blown your chance of ever being an Admin since you will be opposed on  "thinking about becoming an Admin"..sorry :( ..--Cometstyles 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Less sarchasm, please? -- nae'blis 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also recommend not only a lot of constructive edits, but also participating in the discussions at WP:AFD, patrolling recent changes for vandalism, and checking new pages to make sure they don't meet criteria for speedy deletion. These are the non-admin tasks that help prepare you for adminship. If  you are a really sharp editor, there are many articles that need cleanup. Hope that helps.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for adminship 

message: Whether we need a !vote counter at all at the top of every RfA application is a moot point; but if we do, could it not be programmed to update automatically, on the basis of the displayed numbers of support/oppose/neutral? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, where's the fun in that? :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Consider using Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report.  GRBerry 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Programming them to update is only giving them attention they don't need. I encourage everyone to ignore the counter, as we aren't counting anything, and only causes unneeded confusion. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I did sort of hint that we don't need them! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should either be accurate or not present at all.  Right now we have the worst of both worlds.  -Chunky Rice 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support removal of the counter.  Shall this be the basis of consensus should anyone that needs information about the counter removal from ? —O (说 • 喝) 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I like it...it doesn't need to be super accurate but it is a handy way to thumbnail RFA's. It's good to be able to distinguish RFAs that might need more input...RxS 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's not a vote, it does make it easier to determine which RFAs need more comments.  The tallies are usually not up-to-date, though, so they don't help as much as they could in that aspect.  I think an auto-updater would be a good idea so actual editors don't have to waste time updating them all the time.  Useight 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In my experience the accuracy level is quite satisfactory for any practical purpose one could have for the tallies. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tallies don't have to be 100%-accurate all the time; the only purpose (and the original reason why they were added) is to give people a basic idea of what the discussion looks like, without having to tread through it. A while ago I suggested that a bot would update the counter on a regular basis, but this proposal was rejected due to many concerns along the lines of "RfA isn't a vote" and "not needed", etc. The tallies are starting to become updated manually more regularly anyway. If it is inaccurate, then it should be ignored, and when checking these sort of things, you should kind of double check the discussion to see if the counter is accurate or not. Sebi [talk] 05:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am convinced that this is the last time I will ever participate in a discussion regarding these counters. They are so often inaccurate that it is better to ignore them, and look down at the discussion yourself. My view of these very inconsequential pieces of text is that they should either be updated by a bot, as Spebi has suggested, or removed altogether. The sheer number of times that this infinitesimal detail of the RFA page has been discussed is unbelievable, considering that it is of little more consequence that the "voice your opinion" link. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adam levine ian bagg. What do we do with these, normally? Daniel 04:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it is allowed. I have seen other RFAs made to be transcluded months later, so the fact that it has never been transcluded shouldn't be an issue. Obviously, its malformed, but, again, its not live... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular request was last edited almost a month ago, and the user hasn't made any edits to it (or any other edits to other pages, for that matter) since. As long as it isn't transcluded on the main page, I guess it's fine just staying where it is. Sebi [talk] 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a copy? or why else would Lucid revert to a malformed version?  T Rex | talk 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucid reverted because the candidate obviously cut and pasted a large amount of discussion from another RfA. Compare the supports listed in this version with the RfA's edit history. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete it, not worth keeping. Majorly (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly-formatted RfA - never transcluded, etc.