Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 41

message: Might I request that when you remove the transclusion of, but include a simple link to, an obviously failing RfA that the nominee wishes to keep open, that you include a link to the actual RfA page... For example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Staxringold instead of just the "Vote Here" link. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind... I added the link in the template. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, even if the problem's already solved. It's irritating clicking on the user page and the edit page before you actually get to see the page you're after while working out whether you want to vote... The Land 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely!  My mistake for not including it in my original template. Thanks for fixing it, LV! Owen× ☎ 02:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Saves some measure of embarassment for the nominee, particularly if the oppose votes are accompanied by harsh criticism. BD2412 T 04:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to go on record as saying that doing this is a really stupid idea, as if you protect those who make dumb self-nominations from the criticism the nomination deserves, then you'll just encourage further dumb self-nominations. Proto t c 13:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points on that - 1) we're not deleting the RfA page altogether - anyone can just click the link and see the criticism that resulted in the change; and 2) the RfA does not get changed from a transclusion to a link until it has already gotten pretty bad, so said self nominee will certainly have had a taste of strong opposition by then. BD2412 T 13:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Proto, we're not trying to punish people for nominating themselves prematurely. Most of these nominations are done in good faith, and the effort involved in rejecting them is relatively small. However, this is a very high traffic page, and when an obviously failing nomination clutters up the page with screenfulls of "Oppose" votes and discussion, it distracts readers from other, more relevant nominations, not to mention slowing down loading of this page for those without a fast connection. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links instead of transclusions 

message: Given the nature of some recent controversies, maybe we need a fourth question for prospective admins: are there any subject matter areas in which you would consider recusing yourself from using administrative capabilities? I think this might make matters much simpler in the cases where people are objecting to prospective admins who hold strong opinions in some areas. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. It's kind of a leading question—people will know what the answer should be even if they don't believe it—but it's a good reminder. -- SCZenz 07:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, yes.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with SCZenz, it is leading, which actually might tell more about the candidate than a non-leading question. If they fail to answer this one adequately, it truly shows a lack of understanding. KillerChihuahua 13:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although thinking about how I would answer the question, I'm not certain that I could list any specific articles/subject areas. I am not a big article editor, and most of my edits in the article are minor corrections, adding pictures, linking/disambiguating, categorisation, etc. Generally however, I'd take a back seat in admin actions if there was a dispute - I think I've done this regarding at least one protection request. Because of the way I work, the subjects I edit are very disperate (I often go off on tangents). I doubt I'm unique in this, so don't judge people harshly if they cannot say specifically. Thryduulf 14:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think this question is going to be very fruitful, first because it will only apply to a very small portion of the nominees, and second because it's likely to be covered in the third question -- the only reason for an admin to recuse himself, as far as I can tell, if he is involved in the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you always just ask a specific nominee your own questions? Does this really need to be added to the standard nomination? --LV (Dark Mark) 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, situations where this matters can be explored in the third question, and people are free to ask additional questions in specific cases. The fact of having standard questions is already sufficiently obnoxious, let's resist compounding it with question creep. --Michael Snow 18:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fourth question 

message: Kate's tool appears to be down and I say good riddance, I am appreciative toward Kate for making it and it has had it's good uses however since the beginning it has been misused and fostered a community wide outbreak of editcountitis (now replaced by it's evil cousin timecountitis) which resulted in RFA's that failed solely due to the time a user was here.  Unfortunately there is no way to know whether Kate's tool will ever be up again since Kate has apparently left the project indefinitely but I'm glad  that people will now have to put some work into it (manual edit counting) if they want to continue their editcountitis sprees. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is just one of Wikimedia Deutschland's discs (where KT etc is hosted) that is broken, rather than anything more drastic such as it being taken down purposefully.  The tool itself is useful; what is not good is what people do with it.  The editors who use it well should not be punished for others' using it badly. Sam Korn 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Sam Korn's views. Just because it may be misused by a certian portion of the population does not mean we should limit the tool. For the record, I'm considering writing a Java program for those with Java and an IDE to count the number of edits, count the edit summary percentage, percent minor edits, and other stats, serving mainly as a backup to Kate's Tool. Of course, such a method would be extremely crude (copying and pasting all the contributions into a txt file and parsing each one) and would also require the downloading of the Java compiler and other freeware, making it very limited. Would people be interested in me programming this and making the code available? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes! In fact, I had been working on a complete edit analyzer in Visual Basic, but if the code is available in a CVS, I'll be able to help tweak it too. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll start some work on it when I have some free time. (Which may be a while, though...) Some complexities: making it user friendly, and the many different ways Wikipedia uses to log a user's contributions (i.e. minor edit, the "default" edit summary when you edit a section, many parenthesis, etc.) All of that will make for a much longer algorithm to do stats. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replied on your talk page (for those who want to follow and help :) ) Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that even though Kate's tool indeed has it's good uses it's good uses have long since been overwhelmed by it's use as a tool to foster editcountitis and more recently (when the first edit feature was added) as a tool to foster agecountitis.  I doubt this is a technological issue, it's more of a severe attitude issue that needs to be dealt with. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who gets anally retentive about edit count or age of the account needs their head banged against a brick wall.  I actually don't think it's really that common, and I expect bureaucrats don't value votes based solely on either of these two factors very highly.  If people get told when they make such comments that they are not appreciated, things might work a little better.  On the other hand, edit counts and account ages are useful for assessing the suitability of a user for adminship, and KT is a good way of acheiving this.  Sam Korn 12:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm concerned it will be quite a happy day when we no longer have to have these debates as to whether Kate's tool is a good thing is a bad thing but until either a workaround is created to prevent it's usage in the pursuit of editcountitis and/or the attitude of people in general changes to the point where they don't judge people solely on their edit count then these discussions should must continue. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kate's Tool 

message: *Editcountitis:(n.) an uncurable mental disorder which results in uncontrollable bouts of judging individual editors based solely on the the number of individual edits that they have made to Wikipedia.  editcountitis may vary in severity and severity may flucuate.  editcountitis may also be overpowered or replaced with agecountitis
*Agecountitis:(n.) an uncurable mental disorder which results in uncontrollable bouts of judging individual editors based solely on the amount of time (usually using a measure of months) that they have been an editor on Wikipedia.  agecountitis may vary in severity and severity may flucuate.  agecountitis may also be overpowered or replaced with editcountitis.
::Just what I think the definition of Edictountitis and Agecountitis is, I'd be interested in seeing what other editors think the definitions of them are and what they think of these definitions and/or the two subjects or terms. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... when have begun to slam using edit counts and account age as a factor? Sure, they shouldn't be the sole factor, but they help to offer a complete picture of a candidate. In addition, there are some things that experience can bring; as such, account age and edit counts are completely valid criteria. While I certainly agree that just looking at those factors or deciding based on those factors is wrong, we shouldn't slam the people (as your "definitions" do) who do. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always defined editcountitis as an uncurable mental disorder centered on an obsession with one's own edit count - at least that's what I suffer from. ;-) BD2412 T 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that too. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; -itis indicates an inflammation, a personal condition. Perhaps Editcountism when applied to others? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The issue I take with them is that they are all too often used as the sole factor and even when they aren't the sole reason they are the main part of the reason, whenever edit counts are mentioned there are never second to the other reason. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Editcountitis and Agecountitis 

message: While cleaning up policy, you find all kinds of strange things. Mindspillage found this  whopper from august:
: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rl
Most of the oppose opinions provide an invalid reason. Rls interpretation of policy was actually correct. The closing bureaucract fatally misread consensus here, with Rl leaving the project as a result.
I would request a recount, excluding clearly incorrect opinions, and that Rl be given honorable adminship and the record be so amended. 
I am somewhat disturbed that this was not caught by a bureaucrat, because the situation expressed is precicely within the required knowlege of a bureaucrat. 
Kim Bruning 05:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So this came up in conversation on IRC in regard to asking additional questions on admin noms. I don't know about automatic promotion: the community did speak. I just happen to think it was utterly mistaken, and this is my example if someone asks me to cite how RfA (while usually decent) sometimes gives the wrong outcome. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The irony is that I think a lot of the reason RFA is crap in these situations is because it is a vote and not about consensus. I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor is probably another good example of the same phenomenon. Dmcdevit·t 05:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see how giving RI adminship will benefit anyone, since he has left the project. If he returns to the project in the future, he may always reapply for adminship. Honory adminship may prompt some to leave wikipedia after a bad RFA to achieve the 'martyr' status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  While his leaving is a terrible end to the situation, my main concern is that the bureaucrat did not correctly close. Kim Bruning 06:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Closing an RFA is a subjective decision - rarely is there one correct answer. Ed has exercised his judgment. If Rl wishes to reapply, the prior objections will no doubt become irrelevant, because you have drawn attention to their invalidity. His departure is unfortunate, but has already occurred, and unless you would like to encourage him to return, I don't see that there's anything to be done here. — Dan | talk 06:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to encourage him to return. Kim Bruning 06:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It also reinforces the misconception that adminship is an honorary title. — David Remahl 06:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that's a good point. Ok, just promote to admin then, minus "honorary". Kim Bruning 06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: the same thing is common on AFD. We don't delete articles because someone says "I've never heard of this", or "this article sucks". --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 06:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Everyking, I am shocked and dissapointed to hear that coming from you. I thought you were very strongly committed to consensus. Kim Bruning 06:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, consensus is never just raw numbers but is much like Justice Byron White's definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it."  I would hope that any bureaucrat would consider the nature of the votes in determining whether a consensus exists.  That is not to say that a bureaucrat should consider mere differences of opinion as sufficient to discount votes, pro or con, but votes which show that they are based on a clearly erroneous basis should be given less weight in the outcome.  Thus, if a particular bureaucrat typically looks for 80% support before approving an admin, he or she might decide that that 40 strong support votes and 11 votes saying nothing truly negative but making points like "We don't need more admins" may be a consensus for approval, while another candidate who has 40 support votes saying "he seems like a nice guy" and 9 votes which strongly oppose his promotion due to repeated documented instances of incivility does not have a consensus for appointment.  Of course, the lack of a fixed percentage for "consensus" leaves considerable leeway anyway, but it seems to me that consensus does require the bureaucrat to look beyond the numbers.  If that is not the case, we should eliminate the pretense of "consensus" and just stick in fiexed percentages (though I hope that never happens). -- DS1953 08:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see how wanting people's opinions to count is against consensus. I see it as being in favor of consensus. Maybe I just don't understand the issue. I just don't think you can discount votes like that. There are reasons for discounting votes, but being wrong, or having an invalid reason, is not one of them. Anybody can see what that would mean if you applied it generally—votes would be discounted left and right for all kinds of reasons, depending on the viewpoint of the one counting them, and every vote would turn into a battle. I think that in the interest of fairly evaluating a debate, you need to just look at whether someone is a legitimate contributor, expressing a view seriously. You hope that if someone has an obvious misunderstanding of policy someone will inform them, and then they might change their mind. Everyking 08:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted against Rl in that RfA, and KimBruning has a point- I misunderstood what Rl meant when he said consensus was only 100%- I thought he meant that, for instance he would count a 99% delete VfD as no cosensus(keep). Rl clarified his position the day after my vote, and I didn't see it. Thus my vote (and those who voted on the sameobjection) should have probably been ignored. Borisblue 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't participate in that RfA, but I fully understand those who opposed RI. His answer to Hamster's question was a smart-aleck way to avoid it. The question itself is a legitimate one: Faced with an AfD with X percent Delete votes and 100-X percent Keep votes—all valid, well-reasoned votes—what would be the minimum value of X for which you would close this AfD as Delete?  For most admins the answer lies somewhere between 66% and 80%. But RI doesn't answer the question; instead, he tells us that at 100% he'd call it a consensus and at 50% he wouldn't. This kind of non-answer is a slap in the face of Hamster Sandwich and anyone else who was expecting a real answer, as the Oppose votes clearly show. RI had plenty of opportunity to enhance his response and give the voters a real answer, but for some reason he chose not to do that. While RI's understanding of policy may be perfect, I think he showed very poor tact in this case, and that, regrettably, cost him an almost-certain adminship, and cost us an excellent editor. I sincerely wish RI would come back, and hope he runs for RfA again, but I do not think this RfA should be overturned. Owen× ☎ 02:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rl simply stated that it isn't a simple black and white matter. You don't seem to disagree with that perspective so why do you complain about his answer?  It's clear that Hamster Sandwich thinks it is some black and white percentage, frankly I think Hamster's question was the slap because there really was no right answer to his wrongheaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no, please. --Gmaxwell 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old, incorrectly closed Request for Adminship 

message: Finally, could folks please let only bureaucrats close out RFAs? Else it's extremely hard to tell if policy has been followed. Kim Bruning 06:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a note to the front matter about closings, however since while it's functional it isn't exactly pretty someone might want to try to rework it if they get a chance. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jtkiefer, I've removed your additions, as they're redundant with the rest of the page, which already stated "Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureacrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved." I don't have an objection to someone coming along and tidying old nominations (though it's not as though the bureaucrat workload is that high). Any non-bureaucrats tidying up closed RfAs, could you please make a note if you do this of the closing bureaucrat as well as the closing time so there is no confusion? Would this be an acceptable solution? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe something should be done though to make it more prominent that non bureaucrats can't just randomly go removing noms. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close out of RFAs 

message: I've noticed that RfA's with lots of oppose votes are being shown as links instead of transcluded pages. Why is this? — JIP | Talk 09:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure myself, but from a cursory glance it appears that all the RfAs that are "failing" are being shown as a link. I don't like this change; it gives people the impression that the RfA is already doomed and that it's not worth voting on. In addition, it also creates more work to look over all the RfAs and discourages users from voting. Thoughts? Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already discussed here and here. Previously, we used to completely remove nominations that clearly didn't have any chance of passing. there was some strong opposition to ending an RfA before the seven days are up, but most people felt that cluttering the main page with screenfulls of pile-on Oppose votes was disruptive. This is why I came up with this compromise, which seemed to get a consensus, at least on a trial-period basis. So far, it seems to be working well; none of the candidates have complained about it, and voting does continue, albeit at a slower rate, on those clearly doomed nominations. Owen× ☎ 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should do this.  Nominees with obviously failing candidacies should be approached on their talk page and reminded that they have the option to withdraw their nomination at any time.  Otherwise, it shouldn't be fiddled with (or hidden) by anyone other than a closing bureaucrat, IMO. —Cleared as filed. 16:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I must have missed the later parts of those two discussion. However, I don't see a general consensus for the idea — indeed, I see considerably opposition both then and now (my opposition included). In addition, it appears that non-bureaucrats have been chaning the transclusions to links. In either case, I don't think we should continue doing this. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the biggest "offender" in this regard; I'll take full responsibility for being bold and starting things off, hoping to gauge the general reaction here. I was under the impression this was a successful test so far. True, in my original proposal I had bureaucrats changing the transclusion to a link in such cases. I'd be happy to back off and let Nichalp take over doing that. Or continue doing it myself under strict guidelines defined by the community. Either way, it seems most voters believe that pile-on oppose noms are harmful, and that we need a mechanism for avoiding them. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they're harmful, but I don't think the solution is hiding the RfA.  People should refrain from piling on unless they have something specific to add, and the user should be politely nudged towards withdrawing.  I've personally tried nudging a few in that direction (User:EddieSegoura after his first two self-nominations, for example).  But if they want to watch the oppose votes pile in, I don't see why we should hide their nomination before its official end. —Cleared as filed. 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't even aware this was going on, but my first thought was this: Why not make all the votes look like those transcluded ones? That way, the entire RFA page can be loaded onto a single page without scrolling. It's slowly growing in length after all. People interested in participating would then click on the names that they recognize - sort of like people choosing the topic of their interest on the reference desk. A good idea? The only problem is that it has to be maintained, and I am not sure how that would be like. --HappyCamper 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about that before, but the problem is that it makes it harder for people to vote or follow discussions. With a single page, I can review the ones that look interesting without having to click a link and follow it from there. However, if necessary, I don't see that big of a problem with having them be all links. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like being able to review the ones that look interesting without clicking a link.  I think we should go back to the way it was before; all of the nominations are transcluded, and we discourage pile-on-opposition votes by other means than hiding them. —Cleared as filed. 16:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Concur. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind either way, but could we keep the idea of transclusion in the back of our minds? It might become useful later on. :-) --HappyCamper 16:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sort of interested in this because it sounds so much like the splitting of the reference desk that was done a while ago. There's WP:RD/A which lists all the active questions on the reference desk, in addition to all the subpages of the RD...maybe some of the ideas can be adopted here as well when it is needed. --HappyCamper 16:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what's the bottom line?  There are four of us who seem to support changing transclusion to link for a patently failing nomination, and I see here at least three who oppose this, and one or two who seem to be on the fence. We now have another candidate for this treatment, with 13 Oppose votes (and growing) and zero Supporters. I'd be happy to get some sort of consensus here before I do anything with it. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change from transclusion to link, but I'd like to see some specifications on when it should be done. I think there ought to be some minimum time on RfA (maybe 48 hours?) before this can be done, no matter the state of the nom. BD2412 T 01:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm staying out of this debate but good luck finding a consensus on this. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not just the candidate's choice. The RfA page is already very long, and it will keep growing as the rate of nominations increases. For someone without a broadband connection this might be a nightmare; keeping these hopeless noms in it just makes things that much worse. By leaving these doomed nominations inline, the candidate is not only punishing himself, but also annoying all of us. However, if a candidate specifically asked me to change his nom back from a link to a regular transclusion, I wouldn't refuse. So far none of those I've moved to a link complained, which leads me to believe this is not a real issue. Owen× ☎ 03:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As there really was no consensus in support of this change, I think being bold was inappropraite here. Please lets go back to the agreed way of doing things. Filiocht | The kettle's on
===Section break: early RfA linking===
Just wondering, why were MegamanZero and WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo untranscluded so quickly? Yes, I agree that these are both going to fail, but they were both untranscluded with less than ten oppose votes. I thought untransclusion was supposed to prevent pileon votes, not prevent an RfA from going through its normal course so early on in the process. I think untranscluding this early on should definitely be done by a bureaucrat. --Deathphoenix 14:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This time it wasn't me doing the un-transclusion, but I can fully defend Ral315's action. The subject of waiting for a minimum of 10 Oppose votes was discussed here recently, and there was no clear consensus. This was more of an issue when bureaucrats used to completely close these failing nominations. In changing to a link, we are hoping to avoid closing any RfA early, which means we can be more practical in applying this. As you admit yourself, both nominations have no chance of succeeding. Neither of the candidates appealed Ral315's decision to un-transclude, and anyone who wishes to vote or voice their opinion on these noms can still do so, without cluttering the main page. Based on the discussion above, it is clear that we still don't have a consensus for changing transclusions into links, which is why I stopped doing it for now, but I still believe Ral315 did the right thing. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I agree with the idea of untranscluding to prevent pileons. However, I feel these two were untranscluded much too early. Maybe there should be a minimum period of time that an RfA goes through before being untranscluded, maybe 24 hours. --Deathphoenix 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested 48 above, and I'm stickin' to it like hot gum on a shoe. BD2412 T 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 48's even better. --Deathphoenix 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 48 hours is good for me too. We still have a couple of voices here who oppose the whole concept. I'd be happy to get a stronger consensus before I act again. Owen× ☎ 20:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 48 hours is plenty of time. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me say that I didn't see the discussion here; I thought that both the nominations that I transcluded were similar to others in vote reactions, etc.  I never thought about time.  I'm not sure what's the best way to go, but I'll trust consensus for now.  Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ugh. -Splashtalk 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ugh. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Ugh. But it is a much easier way to see consensus rather than having one or two people simply claiming that there is no consensus... and you don't have to participate if you don't want to. There is no law requiring you to even look at it. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showing RfA's as links instead of transclusions 

message: Just wondering, why were MegamanZero and WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo untranscluded so quickly? Yes, I agree that these are both going to fail, but they were both untranscluded with less than ten oppose votes. I thought untransclusion was supposed to prevent pileon votes, not prevent an RfA from going through its normal course so early on in the process. I think untranscluding this early on should definitely be done by a bureaucrat. --Deathphoenix 14:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This time it wasn't me doing the un-transclusion, but I can fully defend Ral315's action. The subject of waiting for a minimum of 10 Oppose votes was discussed here recently, and there was no clear consensus. This was more of an issue when bureaucrats used to completely close these failing nominations. In changing to a link, we are hoping to avoid closing any RfA early, which means we can be more practical in applying this. As you admit yourself, both nominations have no chance of succeeding. Neither of the candidates appealed Ral315's decision to un-transclude, and anyone who wishes to vote or voice their opinion on these noms can still do so, without cluttering the main page. Based on the discussion above, it is clear that we still don't have a consensus for changing transclusions into links, which is why I stopped doing it for now, but I still believe Ral315 did the right thing. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I agree with the idea of untranscluding to prevent pileons. However, I feel these two were untranscluded much too early. Maybe there should be a minimum period of time that an RfA goes through before being untranscluded, maybe 24 hours. --Deathphoenix 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested 48 above, and I'm stickin' to it like hot gum on a shoe. BD2412 T 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 48's even better. --Deathphoenix 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 48 hours is good for me too. We still have a couple of voices here who oppose the whole concept. I'd be happy to get a stronger consensus before I act again. Owen× ☎ 20:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 48 hours is plenty of time. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me say that I didn't see the discussion here; I thought that both the nominations that I transcluded were similar to others in vote reactions, etc.  I never thought about time.  I'm not sure what's the best way to go, but I'll trust consensus for now.  Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ugh. -Splashtalk 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ugh. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Ugh. But it is a much easier way to see consensus rather than having one or two people simply claiming that there is no consensus... and you don't have to participate if you don't want to. There is no law requiring you to even look at it. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break: early RfA linking

message: I've created a crude and rudimentary backup to Kate's Tool. Please see User:Flcelloguy/Tool. Comments appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Backup to [[WP:KT|Kate's Tool]]

message: The self-nom for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canaen was somehow initially improperly placed in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brendanconway; I cut and pasted the text to a separate RfA for Canaen, but the edit history of the initial votes can be found in Brendanconway's RfA page (mixed in with actual votes for Brendanconway). BD2412 T 21:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on a recent RfA mess-up 

message: This vandal ip  is casting oppose votes on several rfa,s. Isn't that against policy? One the votes has been struck out already.--Dakota t e 08:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since anons aren't supposed to vote anyways, I'd just strike all his contribs to this page, and add a note to his recent ban. The biggest pain however is that the anon voted on most, if not all the recent RfAs. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IP 202.58.85.8