Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 73

message: I'd just like to present the ideas discussed above as a unified proposal to discuss together:
===Proposed changes===
#An RfA starts with a 3-day "interview and discussion phase." Any editor is free to ask questions to the nominee, who is advised to answer as many as he/she feels comfortable doing.
#After 3 days, a 4-day "opinion phase" will allow editors to give a final opinion on whether the nominee should be granted tools. 
====Benefits====
#Increased emphasis on discussion of important topics related to adminship between nominee and community.
#More information is provided on a nominee's attitude and knowledgeability, helping more editors make sober, informed decisions.
#The importance/impact of voting trends is significantly reduced to a level where there could emerge a consensus-building process, which is a suitable balance between discussion and voting.
#Allows a nominee to address any misunderstandings, generalizations or complicated issues without the pressure of an on-going vote. 
#Does not create complicated by-processes, criteria or restrictions.
#Does not elongate the overall duration beyond the usual 7 days.
#If the process starts with discussions and delays the voting, it may discourage editors who are not interested in the nomination from just plunking down a vote without thinking. 
#Reduces the hype and tension of the first hour, in which an RfA will build a mountain of supports or crippling objects. 
#In a condensed 4-day voting period, the bureaucrats can keep a more efficient watch over potential abuses and violations by editors. 
#Gives bureaucrats more information and 2 independent stages to keep an RfA smoothly running, make a consensus call and keep out malicious elements.
====Possible problems ====
#Interview phase might be trying for the nominee.
#Editors may ask trick questions, questions not associated to adminship or on controversial topics to jeopardize the nomination.
#Nominee may feel pressure to answer every question, including those not pertinent to adminship.
#May impede the closure of nominations that would usually fail and be closed under WP:SNOW. 
====Suitable adjustments====
#Bureaucrats will be required to pay closer attention to individual RfAs to make sure that the discussion phase is civil and productive, and to expose/stop anyone from placing questions that are unsuitable as judged by WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and WP:NPOV — the latter may help protect the independent opinions of the nominee and other editors on sensitive topics.
#Bureaucrats will be free to extend the discussion phase by 1 day if requested by nominee, an editor with a question and/or the nominator. 
#This 2-stage process can be optional - if nominee/nominator choose to, they can fill in a RfA nomination page that is customized for 2-stages. 
Rama's arrow 04:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to say that we should discuss WP:NPOV as a way to protect the integrity of Wikipedia processes and those who serve it. I'm just throwing this concept up for discussion - dunno how good it is. Rama's arrow 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, its fine with me if someone wants to take a straw poll on this. I don't know if we're there yet, but its quite a straightforward plan. Rama's arrow 04:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is also an option. However, bear in mind that many RfAs today are kinda "set" within 2-3 days. Rama's arrow 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Splash, for putting it so well. As I said at greater length above, this is a terrible set of ideas. Discussion already takes place at great enough length that RfA participants feel they have enough information to make a decision. If greater clarification is needed, additional questions have always been optional. I've added them, Joshuaz has added them, others have as well. (I still remember my surprise the time a candidate's answer to my question influenced a number of participants to !vote oppose.) Due diligence already requires a !voter to do homework checking a nom's contribs and then checking the RfA page to see if something new has come up. RfA does the necessary job with minimum effort.  We do not need more WP:CREEP in RfA for no real benefit. Leave be.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I strongly disagree with Splash and Dlohcierekim, I think Durin has a very valid point (very consistent) - we aren't pin-pointing the exact problem, so maybe a general re-ordering of the process will not be effective. This is hardly an overhaul (and I certainly don't see any WP:CREEP effect), but its true that its effectivity is debatable. Rama's arrow 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then will someone please start that discussion on what the perceived/consensus problems are with RFA?? We've been asked for months, if not years, to identify them, and I tried above but got no traction. I don't know where to go from here, but the question of how to "fix" RfA isn't going to go away without empirical evidence that it's been fixed/wasn't broken to begin with. -- nae'blis 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion a couple of weeks ago, which was split to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems. It may be worth continuing it. --ais523 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, splitting it off seems to have killed that discussion. I'm loathe to have it here, because it swamps the talk page, but I can't think of another centrally-located spot to do it, short of starting a new page and linking to it extensively from VP, etc. If the Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship had more traction, I'd consider starting a /Problems page there... -- nae'blis 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst a continuing consideration of possible 'things' about RfA is useful, and a more rigorous approach then yet-another-diving-right-in-with-a-proposal section, I wonder perhaps if the reason for a lack of traction is eloquently expressed in the not-so-evil poll up top? -Splash - tk 19:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, all I can glean from the poll at the top is that people who visit WT:RFA don't think RFA is perfect. Surely that's not the perspective you were trying to point out; note that I've never been one of the scrap-it-all-and-start-over howling mob. The largest sections by far are "could stand improvement" and "does not always get the answer right (but neither might anything else)". Where does that lead you to believe people don't want to talk about change? Unless you're citing the silent majority.... -- nae'blis 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that the two most popular sections are those that don't advocate a great deal of dissatisfaction with RfA. If there's not much dissatisfaction beyond "not perfect, not going to be" and "works ok, could stand improvement" (particularly note that reading the comments is insightful), then there's unlikely to be much effort put into convergence on perfection. There's not enough actual dissatisfaction to propel us toward any serious change, despite the regularly appearing sections here. Those sections just tend to appear when someone/someone's nominee's RfA is going in a way they'd prefer it not. So the other kind of silent majority, I guess: those who participate but do not generally complain about the process much. -Splash - tk 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmm. I can see what you mean, but disagree with the interpretation (which is okay, of course) of the posted results... also, see the Admin Accountability Poll for further discussion on the topic. It's almost like one of those perennial proposals you see on the Village Pump, and I'd like to find a way to cut the knot, but I'm probably just dreaming. I think WP has in some ways gotten too big for its systems, and the Wikipedia definition of "consensus" makes my teeth itch from time to time... don't mind me. :) -- nae'blis 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reform Plan?

message: #An RfA starts with a 3-day "interview and discussion phase." Any editor is free to ask questions to the nominee, who is advised to answer as many as he/she feels comfortable doing.
#After 3 days, a 4-day "opinion phase" will allow editors to give a final opinion on whether the nominee should be granted tools. 
====Benefits====
#Increased emphasis on discussion of important topics related to adminship between nominee and community.
#More information is provided on a nominee's attitude and knowledgeability, helping more editors make sober, informed decisions.
#The importance/impact of voting trends is significantly reduced to a level where there could emerge a consensus-building process, which is a suitable balance between discussion and voting.
#Allows a nominee to address any misunderstandings, generalizations or complicated issues without the pressure of an on-going vote. 
#Does not create complicated by-processes, criteria or restrictions.
#Does not elongate the overall duration beyond the usual 7 days.
#If the process starts with discussions and delays the voting, it may discourage editors who are not interested in the nomination from just plunking down a vote without thinking. 
#Reduces the hype and tension of the first hour, in which an RfA will build a mountain of supports or crippling objects. 
#In a condensed 4-day voting period, the bureaucrats can keep a more efficient watch over potential abuses and violations by editors. 
#Gives bureaucrats more information and 2 independent stages to keep an RfA smoothly running, make a consensus call and keep out malicious elements.
====Possible problems ====
#Interview phase might be trying for the nominee.
#Editors may ask trick questions, questions not associated to adminship or on controversial topics to jeopardize the nomination.
#Nominee may feel pressure to answer every question, including those not pertinent to adminship.
#May impede the closure of nominations that would usually fail and be closed under WP:SNOW. 
====Suitable adjustments====
#Bureaucrats will be required to pay closer attention to individual RfAs to make sure that the discussion phase is civil and productive, and to expose/stop anyone from placing questions that are unsuitable as judged by WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and WP:NPOV — the latter may help protect the independent opinions of the nominee and other editors on sensitive topics.
#Bureaucrats will be free to extend the discussion phase by 1 day if requested by nominee, an editor with a question and/or the nominator. 
#This 2-stage process can be optional - if nominee/nominator choose to, they can fill in a RfA nomination page that is customized for 2-stages. 
Rama's arrow 04:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: #Bureaucrats will be required to pay closer attention to individual RfAs to make sure that the discussion phase is civil and productive, and to expose/stop anyone from placing questions that are unsuitable as judged by WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and WP:NPOV — the latter may help protect the independent opinions of the nominee and other editors on sensitive topics.
#Bureaucrats will be free to extend the discussion phase by 1 day if requested by nominee, an editor with a question and/or the nominator. 
#This 2-stage process can be optional - if nominee/nominator choose to, they can fill in a RfA nomination page that is customized for 2-stages. 
Rama's arrow 04:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suitable adjustments

message: ::I'd like to say that we should discuss WP:NPOV as a way to protect the integrity of Wikipedia processes and those who serve it. I'm just throwing this concept up for discussion - dunno how good it is. Rama's arrow 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, its fine with me if someone wants to take a straw poll on this. I don't know if we're there yet, but its quite a straightforward plan. Rama's arrow 04:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is also an option. However, bear in mind that many RfAs today are kinda "set" within 2-3 days. Rama's arrow 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Splash, for putting it so well. As I said at greater length above, this is a terrible set of ideas. Discussion already takes place at great enough length that RfA participants feel they have enough information to make a decision. If greater clarification is needed, additional questions have always been optional. I've added them, Joshuaz has added them, others have as well. (I still remember my surprise the time a candidate's answer to my question influenced a number of participants to !vote oppose.) Due diligence already requires a !voter to do homework checking a nom's contribs and then checking the RfA page to see if something new has come up. RfA does the necessary job with minimum effort.  We do not need more WP:CREEP in RfA for no real benefit. Leave be.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I strongly disagree with Splash and Dlohcierekim, I think Durin has a very valid point (very consistent) - we aren't pin-pointing the exact problem, so maybe a general re-ordering of the process will not be effective. This is hardly an overhaul (and I certainly don't see any WP:CREEP effect), but its true that its effectivity is debatable. Rama's arrow 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then will someone please start that discussion on what the perceived/consensus problems are with RFA?? We've been asked for months, if not years, to identify them, and I tried above but got no traction. I don't know where to go from here, but the question of how to "fix" RfA isn't going to go away without empirical evidence that it's been fixed/wasn't broken to begin with. -- nae'blis 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion a couple of weeks ago, which was split to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems. It may be worth continuing it. --ais523 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, splitting it off seems to have killed that discussion. I'm loathe to have it here, because it swamps the talk page, but I can't think of another centrally-located spot to do it, short of starting a new page and linking to it extensively from VP, etc. If the Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship had more traction, I'd consider starting a /Problems page there... -- nae'blis 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst a continuing consideration of possible 'things' about RfA is useful, and a more rigorous approach then yet-another-diving-right-in-with-a-proposal section, I wonder perhaps if the reason for a lack of traction is eloquently expressed in the not-so-evil poll up top? -Splash - tk 19:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, all I can glean from the poll at the top is that people who visit WT:RFA don't think RFA is perfect. Surely that's not the perspective you were trying to point out; note that I've never been one of the scrap-it-all-and-start-over howling mob. The largest sections by far are "could stand improvement" and "does not always get the answer right (but neither might anything else)". Where does that lead you to believe people don't want to talk about change? Unless you're citing the silent majority.... -- nae'blis 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that the two most popular sections are those that don't advocate a great deal of dissatisfaction with RfA. If there's not much dissatisfaction beyond "not perfect, not going to be" and "works ok, could stand improvement" (particularly note that reading the comments is insightful), then there's unlikely to be much effort put into convergence on perfection. There's not enough actual dissatisfaction to propel us toward any serious change, despite the regularly appearing sections here. Those sections just tend to appear when someone/someone's nominee's RfA is going in a way they'd prefer it not. So the other kind of silent majority, I guess: those who participate but do not generally complain about the process much. -Splash - tk 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmm. I can see what you mean, but disagree with the interpretation (which is okay, of course) of the posted results... also, see the Admin Accountability Poll for further discussion on the topic. It's almost like one of those perennial proposals you see on the Village Pump, and I'd like to find a way to cut the knot, but I'm probably just dreaming. I think WP has in some ways gotten too big for its systems, and the Wikipedia definition of "consensus" makes my teeth itch from time to time... don't mind me. :) -- nae'blis 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've tried to come up with an RFA reform idea that does not:
*Drown us in process
*Make genuine opposition impossible
*Make RFA intolerably long
The result was the rather badly named 'qualified adminship voting'. Basically, RFA would be a vote with a 70% threshold, but all the less meritous stuff (e.g. editcountitis, editsummaryitis, namespaceitis, timeitis) and accusations of misconduct without a supporting diff would be automatically discounted. That solves (what I think is) the main objection to having RFA as a vote - that a Support vote on the basis that the candidate had written 3 featured articles would be given 1/4 of the weight that a 'Only 99.5% edit summary usage' oppose votes gets. I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this is a good idea, so I haven't put it in WPspace yet - it's available at my sandbox and I'll move it to WPspace if people think it's worth discussing. Cynical 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would reiterate my perenial rant: some votes may indeed be "stupid", but but restricting how people vote is a bad idea and will create many more problems than it will solve. Besides, the threshold for promotion which is now 75%, allows an ample margin of error for "stupid" votes (both oppose and support). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Opposing per a low edit count, like 300, is not like calling the sky pink. You don't discount votes that at least make an effort to make sense or don't seem obviously contradricted (ie "oppose, 9000 edits too low") by the current situation. This proposal is incredibly subjective, and not feasible by any means. Aside from that, people can always just go "oppose per X" when they really mean "9000 edits too low". Votes are not really that bad either, its idiots and irrational people that pollute them. No governments let people vote on every issue, thats why we have parliaments/houses and committees usually. Letting any random user, new or not, experienced or not, vote on RfA is half the problem. The other half is that people don't agree on what an admin is, and sometimes people get opposed for things they would not expect or that do not relate to adminship. Both of these are tough cookies to fix. Mote Bureuacrat discretion could help the former, and a referendum discussion on what and "admin" is and is required of one should be had.Voice-of-All 15:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we're all forgetting about is chimpanzees and dartboards. Put the two together and we have an easy solution to all of our RfA worries. Marskell 11:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Has there been any discussion about a statute of limitations?  For example, I made some definite newbie mistakes in my early tenure as a Wikipedia editor, and it seems like many of them are coming back as a reason for an "oppose" vote, even the mistakes that I made when I was at < 50 edits, many months ago, and even though I've shown that I am no longer making those mistakes. Though I agree that there are some things which don't have an expiration date, would it make sense to limit other "opposes" to things that actually happened within the last 90 days? --Elonka 16:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *What tends to be the case is that if an RfA fails, your next RfA will generally not cover anything from before your last RfA. Tjis is based on the presumption that the lessons from the failed RfA are taken to heart and applied. --Durin 16:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with a set 'limit' is that it could produce even more ludicrous results than we currently get without a limit. Basically, no matter how bad something was, if it was outwith the limitation date it could not be taken into account. Your suggestion of 90 days, for example, would discount just about every oppose in Carnildo's most recent RFA (just taking that as an example in which most opposes were based on particularly controversial conduct more than 90 days before the RFA). Cynical 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualified Adminship Voting

message: Why are questions about the candidate's interpretation of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW being asked at so many current and recent RfA's?--Grand Slam 7 13:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's something that is invoked quite often by alot of admins, and it's nice to see how current candidates intrepret them. Yanksox 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also you wouldn't want someone misusing them, going against policy is good in the right situation, but if an admin doesn't know when it's the right situation you can see the problems that might follow. My real belief is that it's just the question that all the cool kids are asking at the moment ;) James086 Talk | Contribs 13:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Because abuse had been rather rampant, and many current and former admins had proven they had no clue how to properly use it, if there is a proper use at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAR and SNOW 

message: I missed this coming out, I think. Seems a bit stringent.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no restrictions on who can and cannot vote in an RfA, nor should there be any restrictions on how often it can be done. I am actually for allowing anons to vote in RfAs as well. Just look at User talk:68.39.174.238 for an example of a comitted anon. And there are many others out there, they just don't have fixed IPs. - Mike | Talk 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be no "opinion" floor on RfA; but as with IP editors, there is a simple solution--register. Then it matters not if the IP is fixed or dynamic. -- Avi 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes - I've seen "1000 edits" cited in two RfAs now as if it is actual policy now ... Did that actually happen without discussion here? I didn't/don't think that can happen. Confused per Splash. Newyorkbrad 11:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought myself somehow to have missed the surrounding discussion, and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is perplexed; I rather assume that no such standard has been implemented.  In any event, though, if RfA is not principally a vote, ought we really to be concerned about carpet bagging or sock puppeteering at RfA?  Whilst a closing bureaucrat might find reviewing the edit count/history of every participant in a given RfA with whom he should be unfamiliar, there are surely many RfA participants who would serve (and already, where appropriate, do) identify those !votes about which uncertainty might exist (a less-than-substantive !vote is likely to be accorded little weight irrespective of the edit history of the !voter).  I suppose we might suggest that, whilst anyone may partake of an RfA discussion (in, for example, the comments section), only those editors with at least xx edits may edit any of the support, oppose, or neutral sections, but such a suggestion seems unnecessarily complex.  Joe 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Somebody, at least, thinks there is/was a new rule . See partic. the edit summary. I was just wondering where the editor had seen that. Someone else (maybe the same editor) also used it in another debate that is no longer on the project page. There are no rules like this that I'm aware of. -Splash - tk 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean can !vote? Anyway, I only had 330 edits or so when I first participated in RfA. This is foolish. Grandmasterka 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean "Not that you can't !vote".  An individual with under 100 edits can vote in AfD, they just run a higher risk of being SPA flagged or otherwise discounted. See WP:SOCK#When questions arise. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I missed the "not that you" part. I'm aware of sockpuppet policy, thanks. Grandmasterka 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: L.O.L. I saw a comment about how a candidate lacked sufficient edits to vote, let alone run. I thought I'd missed something! I'm pleased to know this is not an official policy. It sounds like just too much to me!Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim
I think Esperanza membership regulations are good: 2 weeks of being a Wikipedian, and 150 edits. bibliomaniac15 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 edits to vote in RfA? 

message: A new category of users can be invented with partial Admin capabilities, they will have the possibility to revert much easier, but not to block editors. Blocking the editors will be done as today. What do you say? Wissahickon Creek talk 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever seen WP:RFR? --Lord Deskana (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This can currently be done by normal users, using a code in their monobooks, as I have. --Alex (Talk) 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit Conflict) I, personally, don't see the point in that. Non-admins can just use Vandal Proof or Vandal Sniper.--KojiDude (Contributions) 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holding any sort of discussion on this is pointless as a vastly similar proposal was rejected by the community, as seen by WP:RFR. --Lord Deskana (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Vandal Proof is hopelessly slow for me, so I stopped using it. Also, my rollback tool is much quicker and more accurate. --Alex (Talk) 21:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know how others feel, but you're starting to bug me. How many new sections have you started in the last couple of days, either on long-dead proposals or aimless questions? -Splash - tk 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I share your concern Splash, but he's just inexperienced - I've advised him to study policy and process more and gain some experience. Rama's arrow 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the thing: he's not inexperienced in the least. -Splash - tk 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The account was created yesterday, and he has little over 100 edits. I'd say that qualifies as inexperienced.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would ordinarily, yes. But the thing is, the owner of the account is not a new editor, is my quite distinct feeling. When owners of such accounts do this kind of thing, it annoys me greatly. -Splash - tk 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Those of us with Vandalproof have all the rollback power one could ask for. Rather than creating a new level of admin, I think it would be better to lighten up a little when a nom expresses a desire to use the tools in an area they feel competent in. The very-model-of-a-modern-wikiepdian ideal may be a bit too unattainable for some who could help out within a limited scope.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very model of a modern Wikipedian? Would that be someone who understands the history of Wikipedia perfectly, is an expert in esoteric template markup, and can vote "delete, non-notable" but not write articles? Or someone who is actually good? In other words, are you using the phrase in its original, satirical connotation, or in the literal sense? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was probably refering to Wikipedia:Song/The_RfA_Candidate's_Song. --Tango 10:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New kind of semi-Admins: '''the Revert Users''' (RU-Users)

message: How about instead of mandatory standards, we have suggested qualifications to consider for a nominee. Somewhat like a job listing basic qualificataions. This could be based on historically the qualities a successful candidate nominee has had and be suggested for consideration before someone is nominated. Example text could be:
Before nominating an editor or self-nominating, please consider the following factors that have historically been considered for a successful nomination for adminship:
* Editor has had experience with the project for a reasonable amount of time. (Not sure on wording, may not want to be too specific, but it should be obvious that a newbie shouldn't be nominated.)
* Editor displays a good understanding of policy and process.
* Editor displays an understanding of the abilities, duties, and responsibilities of being an administrator.
* Editor has a good balance of vandal fighting, article creation, article editing, and participation in article and policy discussion.
* Editor displays skill in dealing with tendentious editors and resolving disputes.
These should be suggestions, not standards. I think if a nominator (or self-nominee) keeps these things in mind before proceeding, it could prevent some potentially snowball opposes and contentious debates.
—Malber (talk contribs) 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for general qualifications 

message: The third instruction to nominees who want to accept a nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate is "Change the time on your RfA page to indicate the current time." I can't figure out what this is referring to, though. I see an "End time", but no current time that I might change. Looking over other nominations' edit histories hasn't helped, and I can't find any other reference to this in the Guide or other pages. Am I missing something obvious? — Saxifrage ✎ 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The time of ending of the RFA should be the time of listing the page on WP:RFA. List the nom on the main page, check the UTC time in the history, and change the ending time accordingly. – Chacor 05:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me if I think of "time" as being only the clock time portion apart from the date. (I tend to think of "time" at Wikipedia meaning "timestamp", which includes the date.) If I'm understanding right, then if a nomination is accepted, say, three days after the nominator created it, the end-date should be increased by three days as well? — Saxifrage ✎ 05:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it should be from the time of listing on the main WP:RFA page, actually, AFAIK. – Chacor 05:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're saying the same thing, but I'm not sure. From what I understand, the Ending time and date should reflect when the nomination was listed rather than when it was created. Since the date on the nomination right now reflects when it was created, I would expect that it needs updating. Since changing the date isn't mentioned anywhere though, I'm doubting that line of reasoning. (Sorry, this is ending up being less quick than I hoped.) — Saxifrage ✎ 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, all RFAs run for a minimum of seven days on the main page. Therefore, it's time of listing + one week. – Chacor 05:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is NOT seven days from when the RfA is created. It is seven days after it is listed on the main page. That's what "change the time on your RfA page to indicate the current time" means. Grandmasterka 06:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right then, those answer my questions! Thank you both for your help. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question about accepting a nomination 

message: Are candidates allowed to add optional questions given to other users into their own nomination? --Daniel Olsen 01:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not; if a candidate chooses to ask himself questions and feels that it will be beneficial to the discussion, there's nothing preventing him/her from doing so. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional Questions 

message: Once again we've had a change in RfA procedure without any opportunity for comment here on WT:RFA. This one is somewhat minor, but it still should have been brought up here before the change was made. Chacor, who said this was the way things are supposed to be from now on? Why do we have to have this more exclusionary instruction creep? Strikes me as just another reason for people to yank RfAs off the main RfA page because someone didn't follow procedure exactly perfectly. We should have looser, easier to not screw up processes not ones that induce more "gotcha!" factors. --Durin 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cross-posted: I think you misunderstood my change. Currently, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that only fully-completed nominations can be listed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a nominator would list a nomination for the nominee. My change was only meant to reflect that nominees should be the ones listing their own RFAs when they've completed answering the standard questions and accepted it, as is current practice, and not the nominators. – Chacor 14:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *RfA nominations can and are posted by nominators, rather than nominees. This is not really surprising; some nominees are not denizens of RfA and would rather not mess up putting the RfA up and instead rely on the people nominating them to do so. --Durin 14:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is probably a rarer occurrence compared to nominees listing their own RFAs. I quote, Finally, once the nomination has been accepted and the questions answered, the nominee should transclude it on the RfA page when they are ready for the RfA to begin. Alternatively, the candidate may ask the nominator to do so. This is done by following the "edit this page" link in the appropriate section below and adding the template provided at the bottom of this page (with the nominee's name substituted for USERNAME) to the RfA page. Ideally, the nominee should do this when they are satisfied with their answers to the questions. (emphasis mine, taken from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate). It does say "alternatively, the candidate may ask the nominator to do so", but recently, how many -- what percentage -- have realistically asked the nominators to list it? – Chacor 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me.. but does it make a great deal how an RfA is listed? If a nominator wishes to list it.. then thats upto them. User:MatthewFenton 14:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Indeed, and I don't see any reason why we should prevent nominators from listing a correctly completed RfA. --Durin 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in RfA procedure without comment