Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 75

message: I was looking for a list of recently-failed RfAs, like there is for recently successful RfAs, and I couldn't find it. Did this exist, or am I just imagining it? I was looking for this because I wanted to see which RfAs had been closed recently, without digging through the page history. I only managed to find an alphabetical list. I found exvicious at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies/E, but only because I remembered the name. I eventually found a chronological list at User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological), but this seems to be updated less frequently. Would it be possible to make this all clearer, rather than spread between 'official' pages and 'user' pages? Carcharoth 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) is updated frequently; it appears just about up-to-date to me. If you're looking for a list of failed RfAs, sans the chronological order, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, which is linked from the top of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info about the update frequency. I'll try and be a bit more patient. I was already aware of Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, as that was where I found Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/E... but thanks for that link as well. :-) What do you think about the material being split across Wikipedia and User space. Is that a problem or not? Carcharoth 17:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think NoSeptember's page should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. It doesn't pose as a problem right now on NoSeptember's userpage, but I just think moving to the Wikipedia namespace would be more logical. Nishkid64 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problems with any of the pages in the The NoSeptember Admin Project being moved to WP space if people want them there, but I also don't want to create a bunch of WP space pages that others don't want. I think the amount of updating that other people do now may be an indication of how interested people are in a particular page. User:NoSeptember/Desysop and User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records get updated a bit more often by people other than me, so I usually consider these the most popular pages. Although I include User:NoSeptember/Admin stats and User:NoSeptember/List of Administrators as my favorites. Anyone who wants to update any page is welcome to do so. Curiously, now when someone gets desysopped, there are 4 (sometimes 5) pages to be updated (1 2 3 4 5) :). NoSeptember 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Actually, the one that I was interested in (and which hasn't been updated) is User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological). Basically, what I am after is an expanded version of the weekly list that the Signpost does of all those promoted to admin during the previous week. Expanded to include all submitted RfAs and what happened to them. ie. RfAs submitted this week, RfAs that succeeded, and RfAs that didn't succeed. At the moment, updates seem to be made to long alphabetical lists. I would update User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) myself, but I'm not sure what the best way is to do this? Go through the history of WP:RFA and watch for the nominations that go up and note the result when they are removed? The two in particular that dropped off the list when I wasn't around, and I didn't have watchlisted, I needed to dig around to find them: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/exvicious (I had forgotten how to spell this, and the lack of a capital 'E' meant I had trouble finding this one using Special:Prefix - I was loking under "Ex"...); and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist. Admittedly, both of these are listed at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies, but you have to remember the name of the candidate. Currently open RfAs can be seen on the page, but is it not worth having a section to place the "results" in. This is currently done for successful RfAs, so I can look at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins to see the recent successful RfAs, but there is nothing equivalent for the whole RfA traffic (ie. a list of the RfAs submitted in the last week). The unsuccessful ones are organised at the alphabetical page noted above, but that is useless for anyone wanting a list of the RfAs that failed in the last week. Carcharoth 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quick updating is an issue as you say if you want to find recently unsuccessful ones. Before WP:RFAF was split into subpages, the way to find them would be to look at a diff comparing a week old version to the current version, which would highlight the added entries of the past week. Now you have to do it with 27 subpages (unless you know the letter). I set up this page to make it easier. NoSeptember 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently failed RfAs? 

message: I would like to be a Admin for Wikipedia. I stay up late at late and see alot of bad things happen on Wikipedia. I would like to power to block someone if they mis-use wikipedia. Thanks, Senator Heimermann 02:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded on user's talk. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I should be intermittently reloading that talk page to see what you are about to say... ;-) Maybe I'll be patient and wait for you to stop writing! :-) Carcharoth 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A diff will probably have to suffice now: ; Asher deleted most of the text on his talk page about six hours later:   John Broughton  |  Talk 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Is there a reason this is not being closed for the better part of a day already? - crz crztalk 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also wondering that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of adding a !vote, but am not sure if that is OK after the 'deadline' has passed. Regarding the closure point, I would have thought that borderline cases would be allowed to run further to allow a consensus to develop one way or the other, but the proper way to do this would be to have a bureaucrat officially extend the closure date so that people can see how many more days are left. If this was done, I would then add my comments and !vote. Carcharoth 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NB. 4 support votes added after the 'deadline' and 3 oppose votes added after the 'deadline' (as of the 61/17/4 tally. Carcharoth 03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RFA lottery... - crz crztalk 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am running for RFB. Right now... :) - crz crztalk 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, seems like an unfortunate coincidence, with all Bureaucrats absent for most of the day.  Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline).  The only "problem" is that, at this time tomorrow, I'm not going to be here to close it, but I'm sure Essjay or Taxman can do it, and I don't think that it would be fair to close now, in light of the present situation.  Hopefully, this will be enough to patch this up.  Redux 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... If it was above the traditional approval range at closing and is now within traditional range - how does leaving it open longer for more RfA Russian Rulette make sense? I don't understand. Please gauge the consensus - as of now or as of yesterday - and close it already. - crz crztalk 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds very reasonable to me. I'll go and add my !vote now. Thanks. Carcharoth 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I support it. In fact, I wish RfAs that were in the "margin of discretion" were extended more often than they are, in the interest of gaining a better idea of community consensus. If there's no traffic for days, sure it makes sense to close it, but it's a discussion not a horse race. :) -- nae'blis 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As it's clearly a mistake and the crat's intention is known, surely someone else can just correct the date? --Tango 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about doing that, but at the time it still wasn't clear which way the RfA would swing (it looks clearer now). If I'd spotted the mistake a few minutes after it happened, I would have corrected it, but this was a few hours after the event. Also any actions that could impact on a close RfA (even if the action is technically correct) tend to get examined with a microscope. I left a notice at WP:AN and WP:BN, and seeing as no admin or bureaucrat responded if seems no-one else was WP:BOLD enough either. If I could have done this differently, I'd appreciate any advice. At the moment, as I've been accused of incivility and lack of good faith on the RfA page, I'm going to keep out of it (other than to correct a minor misunderstanding). I would appreciate some indication from others as to whether I went too far with my comments on the RfA, where I drew attention to what I thought was inappropriate behaviour by crz. Carcharoth 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Thanks for bringing it up.  Sorry about the mixup; in my time zone, it was still the 27th when I edited the RfA...  Redux 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Carcharoth requested, I'll clarify that it would have been perfectly fine for anyone to fix the date slip.  As Tango mentioned, it was a clear, honest mistake (caused by the time zone thing), and the actual intention was clear to see (to grant a 24-hour extension from the time of my post).  Redux 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your doing a great job Redux, crats can use discretion and make mistakes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it wasn't clear from my initial post (which was only pointing out the mistake and saying that it was unfortunate in context, not judging the action), I agree.  Next time I spot something like this, I'll correct it. The other reason (in addition to the ones mentioned above) that I didn't correct the mistake was because I had read about this during the recent Doug Bell RFA. :-) Carcharoth 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Calling what Doug did there vandalism is a blatent misuse of the term vandalism. It did not look like a bad faith edit that set off the whole thing hehe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the concern is that it is very near the point where historically failure is close. Of course it is not a vote, but it is a close race. I agree that the numbers need not be overemphisized. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rough thresholds should exist - but the problem is that the perceived difference in the voting within the 12 hours after scheduled end - 81% to 78% - is too silly for words. It's within margin of error, within margin of sanity. The two or three extra votes did not change anything in the picture, did not deliver any powerful new arguments, no new diffs, no new nothing. I don't care if crats close it adversely to my nominee - that's fine - but I continue to protest against the senseless extension. Please do not penalize Kafziel for my opinion! Thanks. - crz crztalk 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The extension makes perfect sense to me. People were voting, and other people were not voting becuase it was past due. This creates a disparity, the solution is to officially extend the deadline and remove the abiguity. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HighInBC is right. The extension should be purely because it was not closed on time and people continued voting and discussing. It might help if there was a clear statement from the bureaucrats on what happens when a close RfA is not closed on time. Carcharoth 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, this is a "clean the slate" RfA. By this, I mean that a fair number of users have identified an issue that concerns them (civility in this case). If this RfA fails and the candidate addresses these concerns over the next few months, the next RfA will pass overwhelmingly. Although Wikipedia:Consensus != Consensus, it does seem that the way to achieve general agreement here is to close the current RfA as "no consensus", address the issues brought up by opposers over the next 2-3 months, and then start another RfA. SuperMachine 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So go oppose it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with crat decisionmaking. - crz crztalk 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I did oppose it (weakly). I was pointing out that the opposition in the RfA is based on recent behavior that some considered to be uncivil or combative. If these concerns were addressed over the next few months, I believe there would be overwhelming support in the future. If the idea is to achieve some sort of general agreement that Kafziel should be an admin, this would be the way. I do realize that RfA operates more on the basis of achieving a certain threshold of support (which Kafziel may or may not have reached). SuperMachine 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Supermachine, what does your comment have to do with the Bureaucratic closing process of an RfA?  Also, how does closing an 80% supported RfA "achieve general agreement"?  It seems to give the 20% opposers an inordinate amount of weight beyond that already imbued by the process. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was merely a suggestion on how a general agreement might be reached. It wasn't directed specifically at bureaucrats, I was basically just "throwing it out there". Seems there's a lot of tension surrounding this RfA, so maybe it's best for me to just stay out of this. SuperMachine 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The opposes would only have undue weight if it was closed as failed, but if it does not succeed with such high numbers it will likely be no consensus, which would be accurate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, everyone.  Since the extension I granted has somewhat divided the opinions, I thought it would be best if someone else closed this RfA — I thought I wasn't even going to be here, but as it turned out, I am, but won't close it.  I've managed to get a hold of Warofdreams, and I've asked him to take care of this.  He should be closing the RfA as soon as it expires (again).  I hope this is satisfactory to all.  Redux 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say that I disagree that RfAs are always on a down spiral. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita are two such cases. Sam was 9-11 and then went 59-8 to end at 68-19 and scrape past. Generally they do, but in the case of non-famous users, people are likely to go around digging for some faults and find some non-standard pattern and use it to oppose. It's mostly only later when it is pointed out that they in fact are doind better than some landslide RfAs, that things turn around. As for the comments about "fickle", it appears that the electorate is currently in an optimistic mood and has been promoting rather liberally, whereas a few months before, when there were many candidates who usually would pass 98%+ only passed at maybe 85% because there were a few large-scale conflicts which made people's trust threshold go up. So I didn't think that this was a time when candidates got battered excessively. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: They don't. They have the right to do that; we've trusted them with the right when we've voted for them in their RFBs. "Fickle voters"? Please don't make me lose respect for you. Take a break for a while... I think you're becoming too emotionally attached to the situation. – Chacor 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The WP:B page says Wait at least seven days. It was stated no crats were available at the time, and the reasoning of the extention seems valid. Kafziel lost due to lack of consensus. Did the delay adversly affect him? Yes. Is the the crats fault? I don't think so. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree with HighIn here. Delays do occur. While I think it is true that leaving contentious RfAs open longer will probably make them more likely to go to no consensus than anything else, it is hard to see how having what amounts to a larger sample size of users could be intrisically a bad thing. Furthermore, I don't think anyone owes Kafziel an apology. If Kafziel would have strongly benefitted the project having admin tools a few months earlier than Kaf will get, that hurts the project not Kaf. In any event, I am confident that if Kaf runs again in two months Kaf will become an admin and most likely get to be within the WP:100. JoshuaZ 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel quite certain that had this not come at the conclusion of a month where we had quite a few candidates with easy 90%+ finishes, this probably would not have ended this way. The close call I'm sure would not have been as close during a normal period. Regardless, the twenty-four hour extension, in my opinion, was unnecessary, and the absence of the bureaucrats during the thirteen-hour period only reinforces that (isn't that an extension already?). Redux's explanation – Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline). – appeared to be a series of reasons (close call, fairness, etc.) that did not fit the conclusion (the extension). Nevertheless, I do not think an apology is necessary here, not only because apologies made at request don't really mean much, but also because Kafziel stated in the RfA that he was okay with the 24/37-hour extension. Also, I must say Crzrussian's desire to get this RfA through is quite astounding; the repetitive notification of the bureaucrats (although not really wrong), this comment, and the rushed RfB are proof of that. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some pride issues I need to work on. - crz crztalk 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Redux was concerned that a few oppose votes had gone in since the deadline, and another user has said he did not vote support because he was not sure if it was kosher after the deadline. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your exhaustive post. I understand all of it, except for "the shift in consensus" which you observed. It was three percentage points, 81% to 78%, if I am not mistaken. That completely falls through the margin of error cracks here as to carry no meaning. - crz crztalk 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But notice that: 1) The RfA was always closer to the minimal support necessary when it was approaching its original deadline; 2) It went from just above the minimal support necessary to the margin of discretion exactly during the (many) hours when the RfA had already expired in terms of the deadline set, but remained active nonetheless.  This situation introduced an element of uncertainty and unfairness (to both the candidate and the community) that I hoped to correct by "giving back" (figuratively) the time during which no one really knew when exactly the RfA would be closed, and thus anyone could, and many would, hesitate to participate.  I couldn't very well say "closed, too bad if you were still thinking about whether or not you should weigh in".  In this context, whether I promoted the candidate or failed the RfA, it wouldn't have been completely fair.  I'm sure it's very easy to see how anyone could say: "what do you mean failed? If I knew that I could support 11 hours past the deadline, I would have, and the candidate might have succeeded", and a similar argument could be used by those who would have meant to oppose had the candidate been promoted then.  It's the fire and the frying pan, if you think about it.  It was a very long delay, during which much was uncertain and consensus shifted visibly.  I concluded then that an extension would compensate for this, at least to a certain extent, and help lessen the problem.Noticing, of course, that the RfA was, in the end, a tough call, and it was failed at 77%, meaning: any Bureaucrat could have (although not necessarily would have) failed the RfA at 78%, which was where it was 24 hours ago.  Redux 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. - crz crztalk 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't like it. As mentioned above, nowadays crats no longer discount votes in after the deadline. I suppose for obvious ones (unanimous or near-unanimous support), but definitely not for those hovering near 73 or 78%. – Chacor 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be easier and lead to less policy-creep if we simply changed the closing time wording on the RfA header to something like "Ending after 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea. Kafziel Talk 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, there's really no good reason for non-crats (or especially non-admins) to close requests—at least, none that would outweigh the potential problems.  If an RfA's tally stands at a point where the outcome (success or failure) is clear enough for a non-crat to make the call, then if it gets left open for an extra few hours – or even an extra day – it shouldn't materially affect the outcome.  If the RfA is close, then we don't want a non-crat going near the decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Closing at a specified time encourages vote counting and percentages over consensus. What if the templates are placed on an RfA by an admin before consensus can be adequately determined by the bureaucrat? A decision that seems clear to one person might not seem so simple to another. It's better to have an RfA run long than to resort to counting votes. Kafziel Talk 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here!  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a solution looking for a problem. This whole thing is blown out of proportion. We limit this action to crats for a reason, and a little but of impatience is no reason to change that. Lets not forget that a crat may want it to be left open in a close call, wheras someone else might want it closed at the moment of expiring if it is just above 80% and looks like it may fall(not refering to anyone speficic). This is the crats discretion, and they have not violated that discretion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There is no problem here. It doesn't matter if discussions carry on for more than a week. If the %ages are likely to significantly change after the week is up, then obviously consensus hasn't been determined yet and the RfA should stay open. If the %ages aren't likely to change, then it makes no difference. Either way, the RfA shouldn't be closed as soon as the week is up. I like the suggestion of changing the header to "Ending after", in fact, we could take it even further and leave the timing entirely up the the crats - once they think consensus has been determined, they close the RfA, regardless of how long it's been open. This would require us to trust the crats, which seems to be unpopular with some people, of course. The only significant issue is making sure the RfA has been open long enough for people to see it, but I don't think we need to determine a set length of time for that, that crats can decide. --Tango 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a wording change might be beneficial, though I'm not sure "Ending after" is the clearest option, and I certainly think an open-ended RFA could be fraught with peril. But the only situation non-crats should be closing RFAs is when the candidate has withdrawn/botched it so bad it's unreadable, in my opinion. -- nae'blis 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey lookit that! Back in October a few people discussed changing "Ending" to "Due to end" on the template talk page, then forgot to implement it. :P -- nae'blis 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed in October, but it was changed back because it apparently messes up the bot. I've changed it back to "ending" because of this. --Majorly 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A good idea, but I can think of two problems straight off. First, it would lead to a host of admins too timid to do anything that might upset anyone, even if it were the correct course of action.  Admins need a level of protection, as they do have to make unpopular decisions on occasion.  Also, the good faith has already been put in the user by granting them sysop status, and keeping the RFA open is like saying 'We don't trust you' - if they show themselves to be truly undeserving of that faith, then it will show soon enough, and the status gets removed.  Keeping the RFA open is asking for trouble, and would show a lack of trust and good faith.  Proto::type 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think one way to deal with that is to have a minimum level required to reopen the RfA. But that makes it similar to other proposals. Carcharoth 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my idea as far as I remember. The proposed solution to the problem Proto brought up was to have a lower support (i.e. higher oppose) percentage required to desysop an admin than to sysop them in the first place, and to insist that the consensus stayed there continuously for a certain length of time (a week in the original proposal), so that people had time to change their minds again; perhaps it should be longer. However, there was a lot of disagreement with it when originally proposed (because of the WP:RFDA element and because it was based on vote-count). --ais523 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2]] 

message: Um, the proposed 24-hour extension "as of now" (ie. 03:40 28 November 2006) seems to have been incorrectly implemented by Redux. The extension should have been to around 03:40 on 29 November, not the 28 November. See this edit here (which granted a 1 minute extension, not a 24 hour extension). This is particularly unfortunate because the original reason for the extension was partially to avoid the "the deadline's passed, I won't vote" effect. I only noticed this when looking at the summary at WP:BN. Possibly another 24-hour extension from when this is corrected might be needed, though that could be incredibly messy. I also note that Redux said he won't be around tommorow, so I'm going to leave a note at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard as well. Carcharoth 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's clearly a mistake and the crat's intention is known, surely someone else can just correct the date? --Tango 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about doing that, but at the time it still wasn't clear which way the RfA would swing (it looks clearer now). If I'd spotted the mistake a few minutes after it happened, I would have corrected it, but this was a few hours after the event. Also any actions that could impact on a close RfA (even if the action is technically correct) tend to get examined with a microscope. I left a notice at WP:AN and WP:BN, and seeing as no admin or bureaucrat responded if seems no-one else was WP:BOLD enough either. If I could have done this differently, I'd appreciate any advice. At the moment, as I've been accused of incivility and lack of good faith on the RfA page, I'm going to keep out of it (other than to correct a minor misunderstanding). I would appreciate some indication from others as to whether I went too far with my comments on the RfA, where I drew attention to what I thought was inappropriate behaviour by crz. Carcharoth 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Thanks for bringing it up.  Sorry about the mixup; in my time zone, it was still the 27th when I edited the RfA...  Redux 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Carcharoth requested, I'll clarify that it would have been perfectly fine for anyone to fix the date slip.  As Tango mentioned, it was a clear, honest mistake (caused by the time zone thing), and the actual intention was clear to see (to grant a 24-hour extension from the time of my post).  Redux 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your doing a great job Redux, crats can use discretion and make mistakes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it wasn't clear from my initial post (which was only pointing out the mistake and saying that it was unfortunate in context, not judging the action), I agree.  Next time I spot something like this, I'll correct it. The other reason (in addition to the ones mentioned above) that I didn't correct the mistake was because I had read about this during the recent Doug Bell RFA. :-) Carcharoth 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Calling what Doug did there vandalism is a blatent misuse of the term vandalism. It did not look like a bad faith edit that set off the whole thing hehe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 24 hour extension incorrectly implemented

message: Hold on a second here, what's with the obsession over a couple of percentage points?  This is an exercise to determine consensus, not snout counting.  There is not (and should not be) a firm number to apply to determine passing requests, otherwise we might as well remove any fantasy that this is not a vote.  It should not matter if supports are at 78% or 80%, there should be enough data for a 'crat to close it just fine as is.  The only reason I bring this up is that the above discussion seems to place an irresponsible emphasis (well intentioned as it may be) on refined numbers with clearly implied thresholds that should not exist. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concern is that it is very near the point where historically failure is close. Of course it is not a vote, but it is a close race. I agree that the numbers need not be overemphisized. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rough thresholds should exist - but the problem is that the perceived difference in the voting within the 12 hours after scheduled end - 81% to 78% - is too silly for words. It's within margin of error, within margin of sanity. The two or three extra votes did not change anything in the picture, did not deliver any powerful new arguments, no new diffs, no new nothing. I don't care if crats close it adversely to my nominee - that's fine - but I continue to protest against the senseless extension. Please do not penalize Kafziel for my opinion! Thanks. - crz crztalk 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The extension makes perfect sense to me. People were voting, and other people were not voting becuase it was past due. This creates a disparity, the solution is to officially extend the deadline and remove the abiguity. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HighInBC is right. The extension should be purely because it was not closed on time and people continued voting and discussing. It might help if there was a clear statement from the bureaucrats on what happens when a close RfA is not closed on time. Carcharoth 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, this is a "clean the slate" RfA. By this, I mean that a fair number of users have identified an issue that concerns them (civility in this case). If this RfA fails and the candidate addresses these concerns over the next few months, the next RfA will pass overwhelmingly. Although Wikipedia:Consensus != Consensus, it does seem that the way to achieve general agreement here is to close the current RfA as "no consensus", address the issues brought up by opposers over the next 2-3 months, and then start another RfA. SuperMachine 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So go oppose it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with crat decisionmaking. - crz crztalk 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I did oppose it (weakly). I was pointing out that the opposition in the RfA is based on recent behavior that some considered to be uncivil or combative. If these concerns were addressed over the next few months, I believe there would be overwhelming support in the future. If the idea is to achieve some sort of general agreement that Kafziel should be an admin, this would be the way. I do realize that RfA operates more on the basis of achieving a certain threshold of support (which Kafziel may or may not have reached). SuperMachine 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Supermachine, what does your comment have to do with the Bureaucratic closing process of an RfA?  Also, how does closing an 80% supported RfA "achieve general agreement"?  It seems to give the 20% opposers an inordinate amount of weight beyond that already imbued by the process. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was merely a suggestion on how a general agreement might be reached. It wasn't directed specifically at bureaucrats, I was basically just "throwing it out there". Seems there's a lot of tension surrounding this RfA, so maybe it's best for me to just stay out of this. SuperMachine 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The opposes would only have undue weight if it was closed as failed, but if it does not succeed with such high numbers it will likely be no consensus, which would be accurate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, everyone.  Since the extension I granted has somewhat divided the opinions, I thought it would be best if someone else closed this RfA — I thought I wasn't even going to be here, but as it turned out, I am, but won't close it.  I've managed to get a hold of Warofdreams, and I've asked him to take care of this.  He should be closing the RfA as soon as it expires (again).  I hope this is satisfactory to all.  Redux 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the obsession with %%? 

message: I am in mourning over the ludicrous treatment bestowed upon Kafziel. RfAs deteriorate. Every one that has non-trivial opposition does. My second one did. So does every other one. It's an empirical fact: given enough time, all RfAs with non-trivial opposition will slowly descend in %age support. Voters are naturally attracted to borderline RfAs, and tend to give a lot more weight to the oppose section, with snowballing effect - as the oppose section grows longer, the more formidable it looks, the more the temptation to take the position of righteousness and simultaneously sink someone. Everyone knows this. So do the crats. If they don't they should resign.
RfAs have pre-announced time limits for a reason. An extension is called for when radically new evidence comes out in the last few hours of an RfA and an opportunity to change one's view needs to be afforded. In this case, the bureaucrats simply screwed up by not showing up for thirteen hours. When Redux finally logged in, he found a "situation" - me asking why the RfA wasn't being closed promptly. Instead of minimizing the damage by closing the RfA right then and there, he punished the candidate by giving fickle voters another 24 hours to consider the RfA. The level of support predictably deteriorated - as it always does - and the candidate lost out. No new evidence was presented, no new opinion was expressed.
Like I said: RfAs have pre-announced time limits for a reason. Time limits give everyone some certainty of expectation, and minimize opportunistic opposing. The bureaucrats blew it: not by closing the RfA the wrong way, but by unfairly dragging it along with predictable consequences. They owe Kafziel an apology. - crz crztalk 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say that I disagree that RfAs are always on a down spiral. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita are two such cases. Sam was 9-11 and then went 59-8 to end at 68-19 and scrape past. Generally they do, but in the case of non-famous users, people are likely to go around digging for some faults and find some non-standard pattern and use it to oppose. It's mostly only later when it is pointed out that they in fact are doind better than some landslide RfAs, that things turn around. As for the comments about "fickle", it appears that the electorate is currently in an optimistic mood and has been promoting rather liberally, whereas a few months before, when there were many candidates who usually would pass 98%+ only passed at maybe 85% because there were a few large-scale conflicts which made people's trust threshold go up. So I didn't think that this was a time when candidates got battered excessively. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: They don't. They have the right to do that; we've trusted them with the right when we've voted for them in their RFBs. "Fickle voters"? Please don't make me lose respect for you. Take a break for a while... I think you're becoming too emotionally attached to the situation. – Chacor 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The WP:B page says Wait at least seven days. It was stated no crats were available at the time, and the reasoning of the extention seems valid. Kafziel lost due to lack of consensus. Did the delay adversly affect him? Yes. Is the the crats fault? I don't think so. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree with HighIn here. Delays do occur. While I think it is true that leaving contentious RfAs open longer will probably make them more likely to go to no consensus than anything else, it is hard to see how having what amounts to a larger sample size of users could be intrisically a bad thing. Furthermore, I don't think anyone owes Kafziel an apology. If Kafziel would have strongly benefitted the project having admin tools a few months earlier than Kaf will get, that hurts the project not Kaf. In any event, I am confident that if Kaf runs again in two months Kaf will become an admin and most likely get to be within the WP:100. JoshuaZ 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel quite certain that had this not come at the conclusion of a month where we had quite a few candidates with easy 90%+ finishes, this probably would not have ended this way. The close call I'm sure would not have been as close during a normal period. Regardless, the twenty-four hour extension, in my opinion, was unnecessary, and the absence of the bureaucrats during the thirteen-hour period only reinforces that (isn't that an extension already?). Redux's explanation – Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline). – appeared to be a series of reasons (close call, fairness, etc.) that did not fit the conclusion (the extension). Nevertheless, I do not think an apology is necessary here, not only because apologies made at request don't really mean much, but also because Kafziel stated in the RfA that he was okay with the 24/37-hour extension. Also, I must say Crzrussian's desire to get this RfA through is quite astounding; the repetitive notification of the bureaucrats (although not really wrong), this comment, and the rushed RfB are proof of that. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some pride issues I need to work on. - crz crztalk 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Redux was concerned that a few oppose votes had gone in since the deadline, and another user has said he did not vote support because he was not sure if it was kosher after the deadline. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your exhaustive post. I understand all of it, except for "the shift in consensus" which you observed. It was three percentage points, 81% to 78%, if I am not mistaken. That completely falls through the margin of error cracks here as to carry no meaning. - crz crztalk 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But notice that: 1) The RfA was always closer to the minimal support necessary when it was approaching its original deadline; 2) It went from just above the minimal support necessary to the margin of discretion exactly during the (many) hours when the RfA had already expired in terms of the deadline set, but remained active nonetheless.  This situation introduced an element of uncertainty and unfairness (to both the candidate and the community) that I hoped to correct by "giving back" (figuratively) the time during which no one really knew when exactly the RfA would be closed, and thus anyone could, and many would, hesitate to participate.  I couldn't very well say "closed, too bad if you were still thinking about whether or not you should weigh in".  In this context, whether I promoted the candidate or failed the RfA, it wouldn't have been completely fair.  I'm sure it's very easy to see how anyone could say: "what do you mean failed? If I knew that I could support 11 hours past the deadline, I would have, and the candidate might have succeeded", and a similar argument could be used by those who would have meant to oppose had the candidate been promoted then.  It's the fire and the frying pan, if you think about it.  It was a very long delay, during which much was uncertain and consensus shifted visibly.  I concluded then that an extension would compensate for this, at least to a certain extent, and help lessen the problem.Noticing, of course, that the RfA was, in the end, a tough call, and it was failed at 77%, meaning: any Bureaucrat could have (although not necessarily would have) failed the RfA at 78%, which was where it was 24 hours ago.  Redux 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. - crz crztalk 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The crats blew it

message: Given the above, wouldn't it be sensible to allow non-'Crats (maybe limit it to just admins but I can't see a reason why) to 'close' (i.e. add the relevant templates) an RfA? We could create some new templates and backgrounds to indicate a 'closed and pending decision' RfA. It would thus still need a Bureaucrat to decide whether it suceeds or fails, but this would avoid situations such as the above occuring? If the Bureaucrat wanted to re-open the nomination to allow for a greater consensus to develop, he/she could do that, announcing an extended discussion period of x hours/days.
I don't see any obvious problem with such a proposal - anyone trying to abuse it would be spotted pretty quickly, its pretty obvious when a week is up (and I guess we could exclude nominator(s)/nominee from closing their own debate). --Robdurbar 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't like it. As mentioned above, nowadays crats no longer discount votes in after the deadline. I suppose for obvious ones (unanimous or near-unanimous support), but definitely not for those hovering near 73 or 78%. – Chacor 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be easier and lead to less policy-creep if we simply changed the closing time wording on the RfA header to something like "Ending after 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea. Kafziel Talk 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, there's really no good reason for non-crats (or especially non-admins) to close requests—at least, none that would outweigh the potential problems.  If an RfA's tally stands at a point where the outcome (success or failure) is clear enough for a non-crat to make the call, then if it gets left open for an extra few hours – or even an extra day – it shouldn't materially affect the outcome.  If the RfA is close, then we don't want a non-crat going near the decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Closing at a specified time encourages vote counting and percentages over consensus. What if the templates are placed on an RfA by an admin before consensus can be adequately determined by the bureaucrat? A decision that seems clear to one person might not seem so simple to another. It's better to have an RfA run long than to resort to counting votes. Kafziel Talk 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here!  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a solution looking for a problem. This whole thing is blown out of proportion. We limit this action to crats for a reason, and a little but of impatience is no reason to change that. Lets not forget that a crat may want it to be left open in a close call, wheras someone else might want it closed at the moment of expiring if it is just above 80% and looks like it may fall(not refering to anyone speficic). This is the crats discretion, and they have not violated that discretion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There is no problem here. It doesn't matter if discussions carry on for more than a week. If the %ages are likely to significantly change after the week is up, then obviously consensus hasn't been determined yet and the RfA should stay open. If the %ages aren't likely to change, then it makes no difference. Either way, the RfA shouldn't be closed as soon as the week is up. I like the suggestion of changing the header to "Ending after", in fact, we could take it even further and leave the timing entirely up the the crats - once they think consensus has been determined, they close the RfA, regardless of how long it's been open. This would require us to trust the crats, which seems to be unpopular with some people, of course. The only significant issue is making sure the RfA has been open long enough for people to see it, but I don't think we need to determine a set length of time for that, that crats can decide. --Tango 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a wording change might be beneficial, though I'm not sure "Ending after" is the clearest option, and I certainly think an open-ended RFA could be fraught with peril. But the only situation non-crats should be closing RFAs is when the candidate has withdrawn/botched it so bad it's unreadable, in my opinion. -- nae'blis 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey lookit that! Back in October a few people discussed changing "Ending" to "Due to end" on the template talk page, then forgot to implement it. :P -- nae'blis 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed in October, but it was changed back because it apparently messes up the bot. I've changed it back to "ending" because of this. --Majorly 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A good idea, but I can think of two problems straight off. First, it would lead to a host of admins too timid to do anything that might upset anyone, even if it were the correct course of action.  Admins need a level of protection, as they do have to make unpopular decisions on occasion.  Also, the good faith has already been put in the user by granting them sysop status, and keeping the RFA open is like saying 'We don't trust you' - if they show themselves to be truly undeserving of that faith, then it will show soon enough, and the status gets removed.  Keeping the RFA open is asking for trouble, and would show a lack of trust and good faith.  Proto::type 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think one way to deal with that is to have a minimum level required to reopen the RfA. But that makes it similar to other proposals. Carcharoth 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my idea as far as I remember. The proposed solution to the problem Proto brought up was to have a lower support (i.e. higher oppose) percentage required to desysop an admin than to sysop them in the first place, and to insist that the consensus stayed there continuously for a certain length of time (a week in the original proposal), so that people had time to change their minds again; perhaps it should be longer. However, there was a lot of disagreement with it when originally proposed (because of the WP:RFDA element and because it was based on vote-count). --ais523 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Crats Closing Requests?

message: From what I understand, canvassing has been forbidden on Wikipedia since about May 2006. Shouldn't there be some link to any guideline or other page clarifying this? 87.78.182.246 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No canvassing 

message: Would it help to have a template that all candidates put on their user (and user talk) page saying "This user is currently requesting adminship, please comment here."? It might increase the chances of people that actually know the user finding out about the RfA without the user having to go around telling people, which is frowned upon. --Tango 14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one, , but it seems to be used sporadically. Perhaps posting it should be formalized as part of the nomination process? Accurizer 15:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people don't like to advertise such things, I don't think it needs to be formalized. Putting a notice on your userpage will most likely get every anon who's article you voted against on an AfD finding the place. I personally prefered the opinions of those who knew what RfA was. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, some people who frequent RFA have a tendency to oppose candidates who self-promote their nomination. Thus, this template may backfire. (Radiant) 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There used to be a userbox (I thought), but damned if I could find it when I was running. So I opted for the rfa-notice template above, which was a little more garish but got the job done in a neutral fashion. I figure the nomination discussion on the user's talk page (for non-self-noms) doesn't hurt either. -- nae'blis 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it. - jc37 14:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Bad-faith votes could be discounted, couldn't they? In any event, if community consensus frowns upon promoting a nom, I think the template (and userbox if there is one) should be deleted, so that they are not used innocently by a candidate who is unfamiliar with the consensus. If there's no consensus yet perhaps we should try to reach one. Accurizer 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Clarify: By bad faith votes I was referring to what HighInBC was talking about. Accurizer 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)I for one read over 50 RfA's and came to the conclusion myself that I should not post anywhere that I am running. Not because it is forbidden, but that people who did so have a historically less likely chance of success. Just like people who respond to each of their opposes(something I did though). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, yes those bad faith votes... Yes they can be ignored but it is very disruptive and sometimes hard to notice. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Compulsory, so you can't be opposed because of it? I like that idea! --ais523 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there is a lot to be said for a regular crowd at RfA running the rule over candidates. That is more objective than voting by those who know the user well, as they may be unable to keep the proper perpective (either way). Ideally, you would have a mix of both (those who don't know the candidate and those who do). Carcharoth 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Radiant: By bad faith I didn't mean those who vote in the negative for perceived ballot box stuffing, I was referring to a user voting against a candidate because the candidate *voted* against them in XfD (as raised by HighInBC), legitimately warned them for vandalism, etc. Accurizer 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A policy should prevent a problem. Which problem would compulsary notices solve? Why should the freedom to have or not have this notice be removed? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still like the custom template I had on my user page. And this really is a solution in search of a problem. As far as I know no-one has ever opposed because of a userpage notice. Grandmasterka 08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I can think of one time (maybe.) Grandmasterka 09:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you move this into your user space and link to it or something please?  JDtalk 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I'll do it for you.  It's now at User:Cbrown1023/RfA.  JDtalk 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for candidates user pages 

message: Any good reason not to use voting icons as seen in Commons:Category:Polling templates? It would seem logical to use them here, as well as on WP:AfD. Any opinions? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't add anything but images to RFA, which is already sorted, so it's easy to count !votes. Perhaps at AfD, but then what's the advantage of clogging the servers with image downloads? If anything, making it easier to count !votes there facilitates people regarding it as a numbers game instead of a discussion.--Kchase T 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This came up about a year ago, if I remember correctly.  Per Kchase02's comments, there's no advantage to the extra server load of the images, and the !votes are already sorted so counting isn't an issue.  On the client side, rendering a long page like RfA can be trouble enough for people with older browsers and slower computers without throwing hundreds of extra little images at them.  Images are also used on Commons because some participants may not share a common language; this isn't a problem for decisions that are confined to the English Wikipedia.  Further, we want to encourage and emphasize discussion and reasoning; there is a concern that templates and pictures would tend to instead encourage knee-jerk and rubber-stamp responses.  I don't mean to come down hard on you, but I will note that on the few occasions in the last couple of years where voting icons have appeared, the community response has been somewhere along the lines of kill-it-with-fire.  Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I love killing these templates with fire. Kusma (討論) 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We routinely do kill them with fire (well, with the deletion button, at any rate) under the "recreation of previously deleted material" criterion. Basically, they falsely imply that our processes are adjudicated through vote counting. (Radiant) 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's actually kind of a silly objection. Even older browsers and slower computers only have to download the image once. The rendering time it takes to draw all those images is negligible. By far, the biggest portion of any voting discussion is the text. Especially in places like WP:RFA. The only problem I'd see with it (other than aesthetically) is users "improvising" and us seeing giant schlongs as "support" icons. Other than that, there'd only be three images for a browser to download -- support, oppose, and neutral. And perhaps comment. ... aa:talk 08:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Last time this came up on TfD, I wrote a script so that a user could see the symbols without them having to be in the wikimarkup: User:ais523/votesymbols.js. It puts images on XfDs, RfAs, FACs, impromptu straw polls, etc.. (It still has a few false positives.) See :Image:Votesymbols.js-enhanced SfD.png for a demonstration of what it looks like, and for copyright info on the images (which aren't clickable-linked like images normally are). --ais523 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really excessively proficient with kompyuterz, so tell me if I'm wrong about this. But TenOfAllTrade's comment: On the client side, rendering a long page like RfA can be trouble enough for people with older browsers and slower computers without throwing hundreds of extra little images at them. So if there's a symbol each for support, neutral and oppose, doesn't the browser just download 3 images, and replicate the rest? It doesn't actually download each image X number of times, does it? riana_dzasta 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it only downloads each image once. But the server still has to deal with large numbers of templates, and it has to link each image, and the page takes longer to download due to the extra HTML; the edit screen also becomes more unreadable. This is why a client-side solution like mine is better for older computers (as long as they understand JavaScript) and for the servers. --ais523 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, makes sense. I also wonder how a sensitive RfA candidate would react to this. Not a good idea, overall, Imdanumber1, sorry :) riana_dzasta 09:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Requiring Javascript seems like a bad idea to me.  I work in the software industry, and I can tell you that many companies, especially in the insurance industry at least, have conservative policies regarding Web security that sometimes prohibit Javascript (and always prohibit ActiveX and Java is somewhere in between).  I think taking the leap to requiring Javascript, even on project space pages, is something to not be done lightly. —Doug Bell talk 09:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't requiring JavaScript for RfA; the script merely exists so that people who want symbols can add them themselves. The alternative would be to have the symbols there, wasting server time, and use custom CSS to turn them off; this method would mean that they would be on by default, giving the impression of a vote (which TfD has generally agreed to be a bad thing, even if RfA is a vote). --ais523 09:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need the icons, either, but I don't see how a strong of fifty pluses and a minus would be any more misleading that fifty "support"s and one "oppose." Although on your facts, I guess it would be a "strong oppose." Newyorkbrad 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course they're misleading, which is a very good reason why they should be opt-in rather than opt-out; people viewing the symbols should be aware that they aren't any more definitive than bolded support or oppose, or the heading under which the comment is entered. --ais523 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the benefit of having misleading symbols on an RfA? SuperMachine 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely cosmetic, just like the bolding of support and oppose (just as cosmetic, and just as misleading). Some people like the way it looks... --ais523 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out the list of indicator symbols near the top of WP:RfCU for a collection of symbols that could theoretically be used. (N.B.: Not advocating it!). Newyorkbrad 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the fish, but I would go for  if it was a bit less unclear; and  is not much better. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Even the supporters of these things admit that they're "misleading" and "purely cosmetic". So the benefit is zero and the cost (server load, annoyance, etc..) is obviously non-zero? A vote isn't going to change that. SuperMachine 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. No vote needed. Kafziel Talk 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting Templates 

message: Just stopped by to say I noticed most of the archiving here being done by a small group of individuals, and to offer the services of User:EssjayBot II to do regular archiving of the page. Thoughts, comments, objections? Essjay (Talk) 01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is? The bot hits 100% on archiving to exactly the right page, exactly on schedule, and never misses a post that should be archived... Essjay (Talk) 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just, will the bot also maintain the topic list? Kusma (討論) 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We could sign Essjaybot up to do most of the archiving, with a longish time period before archiving (7 days?), which wouldn't preclude manual archiving of threads that finish up sooner than that. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: In light of the controversy on the extension, would anyone mind if the RFA template was changed to say "ending no sooner than XX:XX"?  Ral315 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think that's too good, considering pileons nowadays... – Chacor 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea to (essentially) say "ending on XX:XX unless a bureaucrat extends the deadline", which is what no sooner would really be about.  Virtually any scheduled date in wikipedia is changable by someone; it's not really necessary to state anything about unusual exceptions.  Plus no sooner than implies it's not unusual to extend the deadline, when it fact it is unusual.  John Broughton  |  Talk 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That wording also ignores early closings of an RfA, which is what I think Chacor means by pileons. Though early closings only apply to negative pileons, I think. Carcharoth 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following several discussions of this nature over the last few months, and checking with the BotOps, I've changed the template to say "Scheduled to end". This seems to be a consensus way around the inaccuracy of the previous wording. -- nae'blis 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumb question 

message: Why is this article in the middle of the RfA page? I checked the history, but somehow, I can't figure out who put it there, and why nobody has reverted it. I would myself, but I feel like there must be some reason it hasn't happened yet that would keep me from doing so. Still... what? -- Kicking222 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked like some prankster edited this... :P --Majorly 23:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a genuine mistake to me. I've reverted it.-gadfium 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. --Majorly 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Major edit glitch. Looks like WP namespace had some problems today. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least there's some good reasoning. I'm not even sure why I couldn't find that diff in the history- maybe I just passed over it accidentally. But anyway, that was really weird, as are the other edits shown at the Village Pump. -- Kicking222 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Main Page, interesting diff there, and Bugzilla:7071. Though I doubt this is related to what happened above, it's just interesting that it has the same result. ;) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Um... this Christianity article

message: I just stumbled accross this, and I'm not sure what the procedure is for RfAs that are half over without being transcluded. Could somebody with more experience in this area take a look at it? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination is not "half over" - the nomination begins when they are listed on WP:RFA. I've reset the timer to take that into account. Titoxd(?!?) 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah thanks, I'd assumed it was half over seeng as the page was started 3 days ago and the standard length for an RfA is 7. Cheers! Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/asams10]] 

message: I've nominated User:Tonywalton, but I can't sort out the format - apologies, jimfbleak 13:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tonywalkton

message: What precedents exist for wikiproject canvassing?  Can I post on a wikiproject discussion page that I am running? TonyTheTiger 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIkiproject Canvassing 

message: This seems to be a more visited page: can people please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recently created admins#Rename? and Wikipedia talk:Recently created bureaucrats#Rename? Thanks. --Majorly 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: I've run across a few users who have userboxes saying they hope to one day become admins, but in my dealings with them have noticed problems with civility, abuse of process, etc.  Is there any good way to get a notification if and when these people ever put up a request for adminship?  I know I can watchlist the main page, but then I will hear about tons of requests I know and care nothing about. --Dgies 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My gut feeling is to not prejudice against 'squeaky wheels' and treat their RfA's as one would any other.  I'm coming down on the side of 'assume good faith' without having investigated the instances you have in hand, but my gut says don't be preemptive and hold out hope that they've learned/grown/mellowed by the time they make it here ... if they ever do.  The larger question, though, is how to weight past activity, as an extended present or as a time-resolved series. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, you would watch the possible RFA page, even if not created still. That is how many are acknowledge about RFAs. However, I would trust the community to know when a candidate with civility problems applies. -- ReyBrujo 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait, it's possible to watchlist a nonexistent page?  Does that really work? --Dgies 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go to its edit page, click watch and it will show up in Special:Watchlist/edit as a red link and when the page is eventually created, it will show up in the watchlist as a new page. Tra (Talk) 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and I've used this approach before.  It works great for a first RfA, but less reliable for a second or third as the naming conventions vary somewhat. —Doug Bell talk 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preemptive notification? 

message: As an aside, how similar are the policies on other-language Wikipedia's to EN Wikipedia?  I suppose the pillars are the same, but I have no idea about individual policies (and I suppose guidelines are likely not to be similar at all). -- Renesis (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of one user who was an admin and maybe a crat on another wikipedia, but has been banned by the arbcom this year for high levels of abrasiveness and also for strong POV pushing. In some less widespread languages, the users are all overwhelmingly of the same ethnic group and religion, so what may be considered mainstream there in terms of political views etc, may be regarded as extremism here. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policies and such vary wildly between other-language Wikipedias. In particular anything smaller than, roughly, 50000 articles (and that means most of them) tends to have a simple and informal structure and is small enough to not yet need most policies. Some of the bigger ones work very differently from ours; for an example, see Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. (Radiant) 14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I used to be an admin on the Norwegian Wikipedia too. As Radiant says, other languages tend to be more informal and true consensus can emerge in more cases since there are fewer people. Disputes usually solved on "Tinget", the counterpart of the Village Pump, or on the users' talkpages. There is no arbitration comitee or mediation comitee (and in truth, I don't miss them either.) The criteria for speedy deletion are "spam" and "obviously unfit for the encyclopedia", which tends to mean that as long as nobody could possibly object to deletion, it can be speedied, in uncertian cases we tkae them to the deletion page. Vandals are blocked much faster on the Norwegian Wikipedia, a piece of ugly vandalism typically earns an immediate 2-hour block even for a first time offense while less serious vandalism or user tests might be given a single warning (either a kind test-type message or mean vandalism-type message). Not much emphasis on process in the sense of that "things must run for seven days before being deleted", but if they are closed early and someone objects reversions of admin actions are not considered a really big deal, even so wheel wars are very uncommon (most admins don't try reimposing an action which has already been reversed). The Norwegian admins have a feature to mark edits as "approved" (not vandalism), so that other admins on RC patrol don't need to check them. I have noticed a certain rise in complaints of various admin actions over the last months, but nowhere near as serious as it can get on the English Wikipedia. There are certainly similarities between being an admin on en: and on no:, but I think the English adminship can be a lot more demanding. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Spanish Wikipedia has a very unilateral speedy deletion process that I dislike. I got bitten quite badly as a newbie over there. That's why I'm learning Portuguese! :-) (Not entirely, but I do like their policies better.) Grandmasterka 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even the german Wikipedia, which is relatively large and occasionally has given wp-en ideas, is pretty drastically different in some ways. Their AfD for example, was still pretty similar to wp-en's VfD days (that's a bad thing) last I checked. It's acceptable to block users simply for not being productive, or for annoying established contributers... stuff that would get you screamed at for being the most abusive admin evar on wp-en. While being an admin on another Wikipedia is a start, it's important to remember that wp-en has some pretty um, unique, standards for behavior and candidates should always reasonably establish that they have a handle on how things operate here. --W.marsh 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin experience on a non-English Wikipedia - transferable skills?

message: Kizzle seems to have withdrawn from his RfA, but three more !votes have come in since. I'm not sure what to do here, but perhaps a 'crat decide whether to count them or not.--Kchase T 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be marked as coming in after he withdrew. His withdrawal message was not prominent and easily missed. I left the votes there because they were good faith votes and the exact count is not that important here, since we are just measuring community consensus. I suppose it would be OK to remove them too. NoSeptember 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if someone has withdrawn from an RfA, the !votes don't matter at all, so there's not much for a 'crat to decide upon... EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kizzle withdrawn? 

message: I'm not sure what to make of this one - the candidate signed the acceptance statement in May 2006, and has transcluded it today. Is this OK? riana_dzasta 10:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the questions were not answered and the formatting was bad, I removed it and suggested that he clean it up and try later (he has only 800 edits and hence not much chance of success at the moment). He replied in my talk page that he'll try in March. Tintin (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, an eleven-month nomination process!  Bet that's a record! —Doug Bell talk 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sganeshkumar 1989]]