Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 62

message: Do I literaly put it just below the==Current nominations for administratorship== header separation or just above the 
 ?--Jondel 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination seems to be broken. Have you used the generator? -- ReyBrujo 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New admin nomination

message: Following my first RfA, I decided I would try out the requirements stated by different editors. It was a good training course. I went into areas I might not have done otherwise, and learnt a lot from it. If I'd been sysopped initially, I wouldn't have abused the tools, but the intervening experience has made me in a much stronger position to use them - and even so, I realise there's still a lot to learn. quoth :Tyrenius
Interesting issue. There definitely are people who are not familiar with various aspects of Wikipedia and would benefit from a walkthrough tour, of sorts. I don't think that making this a requirement for administrator tools makes sense though. This just strikes me as making more hoops for people to jump through and encourages a gaming of the system while people try to style their accounts to look like something that a "good admin candidate" would look like. That's really bordering on viewing adminship as a trophy, which is something adminship decidedly is not.
--ScienceApologist 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jumping through hoops to get access to parts of the Wikicode

message: Let's look at my own RfA for example. A full-fledged majority of the voters opposed to me relied on some very bizarre explanations regarding that they didn't "like" the responses to the questions that I submitted to RfA. Okay, that's a fine opinion, but what does that have to do with whether I'm capable of handling rollback on vandalism patrol? I much prefer those people who state that they have concerns about my neutrality or they think that I might abuse one of the tools. There, at least, I can understand the reasoning and people can decide for themselves whether it is flawed or not. But simply making an oppose vote based on a "poor nomination" is definitely against the spirit of Wikipedia of accomodating those people who may not be up on the Wikiculture standards that have organically evolved but have not been stated anywhere. What does a "poor nomination" entail? Can anyone point me to a bit of prose that explains what distinguishes between these types of nominations? Let's make things as transparent as possible. This process is bordering on ridiculous especially considering that this is a process for deciding who should be given a certain set of edit tools. --ScienceApologist 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an opinion. Right now it is possible to rollback with two clicks from a diff. I think popups allows you to revert with a single click. You don't need administrator tools to revert, I myself revert between 10 to 30 changes per day without patrolling, just by keeping my watchlist reviewed. Your statement "will probably help" is not as strong as stating "I will help", thus converting your answer to "I will use the administrators tools to revert changes." which is not really a motive to have these tools (see VandalProof or popups for others you may use). -- ReyBrujo 18:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rey, for this explanation, but I don't quite buy it. Of course, I could write external code to Wikipedia to do the equivalent of rollback, but this puts pressure on me when there is a tested, efficient, and time-saving Wikipedia code that does the job better without wasting more time for me to go through the task of dif-clicking, filling out edit summaries, etc which are handled in a single smooth move by rollback. As I stated in my nomination statement: I want to be efficient. This is fast going by the wayside for me. Unfortunately it looks like many of the people who inhabit RfA space aren't into efficiency but are interested instead in reading meaning into statements and lack of statements, if you get my drift. The syntactic differences between "I will help" and "Will probably help" is an honest distinction on my part. I could lie and state that I will join every Wikipedia project, welcome every new user, make every speedy deletion decision, and watch the noticeboard like a hawk, but that's simply not what I'm going to do. Instead, I anticipate doing exactly what I stated I will do. --ScienceApologist 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to write any external code - VandalProof and popups already exist, just use them. --Tango 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, I know all about VandalProof and popups with both their joys and drawbacks. They are excellent external codes and fairly easy to implement, but they aren't ideal for users who jump from location to location when editting like myself. Implementing Vandalproof was cumbersome and I never got it to work right in every browser I used. I eventually abandoned the idea. Popups were a bit more stable for me, but I have had to turn them off a few times because they were destroying my memory. Rollback doesn't have either of these drawbacks. I thought since I'd been around long enough an RFA wouldn't hurt. Boy was I wrong. --ScienceApologist 20:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More issues with explaining votes

message: I didn't see anything in the rules, but is there a precedent for extending the length of an RfA?  I'm not requesting anything at the moment, just wondering. --mboverload@ 05:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of any official policy or guideline, but there has been a case where the length has been extended slightly. It was hard for the bureaucrats to determine consensus, and so they wanted to extend the RfA to see if consensus could be more easily determined. See the case here. DarthVader 07:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If an RfA is rapidly changing, for example many users are changing to Oppose due to a civility related issue brought up then I think it is extended to see how many do go to oppose. Because if someone brought up a major problem regarding the user on the last hour of the RfA, users wouldn't get a chance to change to oppose.--Andeh 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If at the would-be closing time there is clear indication that the consensus-building process is very much underway (if some relevant piece of information has just been brought up, for instance), a Bureaucrat may extend the RfA so as to avoid cutting short the relevant process.   The particular direction in which the RfA may be going (succeed or fail) is not decisive in this, but rather whether or not there is a relevant development that will determine wheather or not the community wants the candidate to be promoted that would be abruptly interrupted if the RfA were to be closed at the time originally designated.  We only do that in special situations though, and notably when the outcome of a RfA might depend remarkably on the outcome of the developing situation.  Anyone is welcome to call our attention to a situation where an extension could be necessary, but as a rule we do not extend RfAs on request.  Redux 12:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At one time, we experimented with extending close calls by a day to see if a clear consensus was reached, but this almost never produced a clear consensus. Warofdreams talk 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for explaining it Redux. --mboverload@ 18:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending an RfA duration? 

message: Why can't I edit? 
-----
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scarbor
-----
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bling-chav (2nd time)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.51.100 (talk • contribs) .
:Why would an IP user want to edit the base RfA page?Why do you - as an IP user - wish to edit this page? --mboverload@ 11:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps to correct a typo, or grammatical error. Please assume good faith. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that there was additional trolling attached to this IP's edit, which mboverload removed before he added the unsigned template. Trolling from some IPs hurts the legitimate efforts of other IPs. NoSeptember 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, the response could have been neutral and factual, instead of accusatory. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can assume that the reply was made with an accusatory tone.  It can be read as a neutral question probing for the IP's motive, and we should AGF that it was. NoSeptember 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I asked was why an IP user would wish to edit a page like Request for adminship.  I should have said: Why do you - as an IP user - wish to edit this page? Your point is valid Nae'blis, even though I may disagree with your interpretation.  --mboverload@ 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, hope I didn't come off as overly bitchy. If it was me, I might have explained briefly the "technical" reasons they can't edit, and then asked what they wanted to change. But looking closer at the other edits NoSeptember mentions, I can see why you might have been suspicious of that particular IP (I came back here to say that they'd made good edits elsewhere, then realized that even the one I thought wasn't vandalism from 7/10, got reverted by another user as factually incorrect). Meh. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Same reason anyone edits RFA. I do vaguely recall "anyone can edit" as a rule someplace? Kim Bruning 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go back to the diff link by anon, s/he is actually referring to two closed RFAs. --WinHunter (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them because I wasn't quite sure why he inluded them when it says right there on them to not modify it and why, and he's asking why he cant. --mboverload@ 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Most people edit RFA either to add their nom (IPs can't be admins, so it can't be that) or to remove noms (IPs can't be buros, so it can't be that). "Anyone can edit" is about the encyclopedia, not the behind the scenes stuff. There is no need for an IP to be able to edit the base RFA page, which is why it's semi-protected. Asking why he wanted to edit it was a perfectly legitimate question. --Tango 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? "Anyone can edit" is about being a Wiki, which prefix turns up on every page I ever visited round here. Suggesting that we have ever had a philosophy of "most people can't edit because they don't have an account" in Wikipedia space is news to me. -Splash - tk 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place to argue about protection policy. What I meant was that all main space pages should be unprotected unless there is a specific reason to protect them (eg. vandalism), because it's important that everyone can edit the encyclopedia.  Wikipedia space pages can be protected as long as there isn't a reason for people to need to edit them, and in this case, there is no reason for IP users to edit this page. --Tango 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't find a location where anyone has advocated such an interpretation of the guidelines. Perhaps I missed it. Could you explain where this has been stated? Kim Bruning 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen it in writing anywhere, but the simple fact that RFA is semi-protected would seem to suggest such an interpretation. I don't recall large amounts of vandalism here, so what reason is there to protect?  The only reason I can see is that there isn't a reason not the protect. --Tango 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In general, page protection is considered harmful. Unless someone supplies a good reason, we can probably unprotect it. Kim Bruning 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is our returning Bling-chav/RfA troll who's latest incarnation I blocked this morning (WP:ANI). Let's not reward him by obsessing over his latest trolling. NoSeptember 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. --WinHunter (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected. 

message: Would it not be considered a conflict of interest for an editor to edit the Front matter while there is an RfA on said user in progress? Themindset 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer it didn't happen, yes. Changing the rules while trying to follow them is one of the things I see users scream about most for rouge admins. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly am not trying to change any rules and this page is supposed to be simply a description of the process which I have found to be extremely inaccurate from personal experience. --ScienceApologist 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be more appropriate to make such changes after your RfA is closed? Themindset 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I noticed some things wrong with the description of the RfA process and I tried to fix them. I'm not saying my edits were perfect, but I hope we have an improved description now after having a discussion and an interesting exchange over the vagueries of some of the finer points. If the consensus is that my edits are problematic, then the whole point of the wiki is that others will notice the problems and help to fix them. The spirit of Wikipedia is to be bold, after all, so I'm a bit uncomfortable with the accusation of a "conflict of interest". After all, the description of the RfA process has no bearing on whether my RfA passes or fails. The beauty of wiki is its transparency. If I was gaming the system, you should be able to articulate it. --ScienceApologist 20:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no mention of gaming the system. My point stands. Themindset 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure why a conflict of interest would matter if not for concerns of gaming the system. Please explain. --ScienceApologist 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, if you refuse to identify it as being somewhat inappropriate based on common sense, then you good for you. But perhaps you should recognize, at the very least, that it might appear distasteful to others. And if you can't recognize that, please don't ask me to explain it. Themindset 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to base my conclusions about the intent of editors at Wikipedia on the actual content of their edits and an assumption of good faith. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it more inappropriate for ScienceApologist, a nom, to edit than for other users that are participating by leaving comments to achieve consensus? RFA is a community activity, right? FloNight talk 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest - Front matter 

message: I don't really see a reason for that right now. The default and preference is not to protect, right? Has that changed?
I haven't found any wording about that anyplace. I take it we can unprotect then? 
Kim Bruning 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a problem because all nominations are on subpages that are not protected. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for adminship semiprotected? 

message: If I wanted to read a user's RfA from the past, how would I find it? Are succesful RfA's stored and is there a list that I can't find cos I'm being really dumb? --Robdurbar 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your best chance is going to be to look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Their user name - if you end up with a failed first attempt, then try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Requests+for+adminship%2F_______&namespace=4 but replacing the _____ with the first few characters of their username. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're looking for Wikipedia:Recently created admins. It contains links to all the successful RfAs. For those that failed, see Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. Ziggurat 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also look in the The NoSeptember Admin Project. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are looking for a specific person, Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies works fine for failed RfAs, but Wikipedia:Recently created admins is not alphabetical, but rather chronological, making it harder to look up. You can use List of Admins (with promotion date) to get the promotion date though. NoSeptember 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ctrl + F" + username also works well on Recently created admins. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Succesful RfA's

message: A very minor point, but should there be a horizontal rule (----) immediately after "", preceding the first nom on the page? I ask this because my bot will currently ignore the first nom if it is left out, and I was under the impression that it was a standard part of the formatting. It has been removed a number of times recently by people adding their noms, and I feel there should be some discussion about this. Personally, I think it looks more aesthetically pleasing with the horizontal rule, but any input would be appreciated. Cheers, Tangotango 10:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why noms didn't appear immediately on your bot report page- I though there was some sort of lag (deliberate or otherwise)... Yes, there probably should be a hr, but maybe if it's an easy fix you should make your bot pick up the RFA even if there isn't one? Petros471 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal rule 

message: Is it just me, or does the success of many RfA's depend primarily on name recognition?  I ask this because my RfA did not reach consensus, as too many people felt I was too new (I'd been around since the end of January), but Kylu's current RfA is snowballing to success, and she's been around since April.  I know she gets around more than I do, but still, I feel that many RfA's depend on popularity rather than how well they'd use the tools.  Anyone else think so? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wouldn't say primarily on name recognition. I'm sure it is a contributing factor though, and yes people who appear a lot in high visibility admin areas do tend to have a successful RFA earlier than otherwise. People are more likely to support if they recognise the name and see lots of good work associated with it. If you've less experience in the 'admin areas' then you are likely to be less recognised, but you will also have less edits in those areas for people to look at and judge you on- experience shouldn't be counted just on time around, or edit count- it's what you've done, how many different situations you've experienced. Also looking back at your rfa I see there were other reasons that it failed (like that page move incident). That make sense? Petros471 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree that the number of supports (and therefore how likely an RFA is going to reach WP:100) is very strongly related to name recognition. That's obviously very nice for those people being supported, but shouldn't be used as an indicator that they will make better admins. On the other hand I generally think that the right result (promote or not) is made in most cases, especially if you don't consider making someone wait a few more months if their first RFA is a bit on the early side to be a major problem. As with anything, there are exceptions... Petros471 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, very true - there is a massive block vote to be had at Esperanza as well as marketing yourself on IRC. I did create an Open Office spreadsheet to she which of the new admins did the work, and compared them to their "support" and there are massive disparities in the popularity stakes and actually doing work. Image:admin.sxc. This has basically lead to a glut of cosmetic admins, but also seems to have left guys like Sam Vimes and Christopher Sundita under a very harrowing process, whereas some others don't ever get questioned at all due to their popularity.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also Edgar181 with his 140 chemistry articles - I was the first (of only two) person to give him a barnstar - and I randomly hunted around for unsung heroes. He's done a lot more procedural and article work than 95% of the people who are more popular than him. Some people seem to do 3000 small edits with only 3 or 4 articles and seem to get coronated very with much fanfare.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just me... 

message: :The following was found hidden beneath the redirect line on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship, which redirects to here: Russ Blau (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the second would have another 2... Michael 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the situation is hypothetical enough to not worry about it. Should Gregory 2 decide to run for adminship, the nomination could clearly state that this was Gregory's first nomination, the username would clarify that to the voters. I don't think voters ever base their vote on the title of the nomination itself, so it shouldn't be an issue. If we would 'fix' this now, that would definitely make searching for old second nominations more complicated (was this guy's second nomination listed under 'John Doe 2' or 'John Doe (second nomination)'?), which seems like a lot of hassle for a very hypothetical problem. --JoanneB 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: Hi folks. I just removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TPIRFanSteve from the listings.
#There appears to be no communication between the nominator and the nominated.
#The nominator is a brand new user.
#The nominated hasn't a snowball's chance.
Would a b'crat like to consider properly closing and deleting the page?
Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, it's not been accepted, so it's doing no harm, and hasn't really been "opened" in order for it to be "closed." If the user accepts and lists it, then we can reconsider the matter. Essjay (Talk) 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible. Cheers, Essjay. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TPIRFanSteve]]