Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 77

message: Should we salt these, or just delete them straight-out?? --SunStar Nettalk 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't delete them, keep the history as a record of what the "joker" did. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant for joke RFA's that get deleted, and constantly re-created. However, what you said above is true. --SunStar Nettalk 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know that they inherently have any more historical value than random vandalism new articles in the main namespace. Some though, like the Boothy one, I guess are interesting to keep around. --W.marsh 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe put them in WP:BJAODN?? --SunStar Nettalk 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably some form of WP:DENY (although replace "vandals" with these joke candidates) comes into play, we shouldn't be glorifying it. – Chacor 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke RFA's 

message: I found a stray RfA for User:BrianRFSU and wasn't quite sure what to do about it. I'm hesitant to transclude it on the main page, because of the responses and user's low contribution history, it seems like a foregone conclusion... I feel that a pile-on wouldn't do much in the way of making the editor realize the error of RfA self-nominating so early and might discourage him from contributing to the project. Perhaps someone could ask him to withdraw and/or early close it, and leave a note on his talk page which explains why. --Kinu t/c 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship – there are many requests that never made it on to the main page. In BrianRFSU's case, a note to his talk page would be sufficient. --Majorly (Talk) 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy closure of RfA for [[User:BrianRFSU]] 

message: That RfA will never have a snowball's chance in hell of making it; can someone close it per WP:SNOW? --teh tennisman 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can close RfAs of this kind. Be bold! --Majorly (Talk) 21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you had to be an admin to close RfA discussions. Well, I'll get right on that then. --teh tennisman 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for closing RfAs when the candidates are woefully unqualified, but aren't the opinions of four editors (0/3/1) a rather small sample? SuperMachine 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. The candidate, however has been around less than 2 weeks. --Majorly (Talk) 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not agree with Majorly; not just anyone is qualified to close RFAs of any kind, and Bureaucrats should be closing the vast majority. When it's already been withdrawn by the candidate, that's different, but a simple snowball case requires a bit more consensus than four editors and twenty minutes in my view. There's no evidence of ill intent on the part of the candidate here, and I don't see where anyone took the time to wait for Chamilitaryboi to respond to the advice to withdraw (something that could have indicated a strength of character for a future bid). -- nae'blis 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, if I was wrong, feel free to reverse it. --Majorly (Talk) 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, no sense making the process more chaotic still, I just wish we played a little less Whack-a-mole here... -- nae'blis 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamillitaryboi94 

message: One question that i could not find at both pages, how to I make a request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSpaceboy (talk • contribs) 16:57, January 4, 2007
:A request to have someone nominate you? I'm not sure there is such a page... usually nominators already know the candidate and approach them. You can nominate yourself if you like, but I strongly encourage you to let your Editor Review run to completion first to see what things you should work on before requesting adminship (having more than 100 attributed edits would help, though if most of your anonymous edits were under a single IP that you feel comfortable sharing, that may help). -- nae'blis 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with above editor; if you're looking for the nomination instructions, you can find them here.  —bbatsell ¿? 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:WikiSpaceboy|Spaceboy]]

message: I've just made my first nomination on RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller). I was unclear from the instructions whether I can support the nomination myself and fear of "malforming" the RfA stopped me. Perhaps this could be clarified in the instructions, or (better) could the automation make the nominator the first support !vote? --Dweller 09:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you support you nominee in his/her RFA. Isn't it a bit obvious. :P I don't think we can make the nominator being the first support vote, since the user may decline the RFA. Terence Ong 10:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure if the "support" is support of the nomination or support of the nominee. Grammatically/logically, it makes more sense for it to be the former, which makes it a nonsense for the nominator to support himself. Yeah, I'm a pedant. I think it probably makes me a useful editor... if a bit of a pain from time to time. --Dweller 10:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nominator is allowed to, and should, post a support !vote for the nominee. (Unless, of course, it's a self-nom.)  Newyorkbrad 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hooray for pedants! (or is that huzzah?) Anyway, if you can think of a better way to word that, I'd be in favor, because this isn't the first time I've seen that question... and the fact that it's different for self-noms and nominated RfAs doesn't help (logically, the initial nomination should count as your support !vote, but that screws up the ordered list count). -- nae'blis 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nom !voting in RfA 

message: How important is it for an admin to know and understand policy? What policies do you feel are important for an admin to understand? I'd like to develop some new questions. Please comment here. Thanks. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. While you don't need to memorize them all, you should at least be familiar. -- ReyBrujo 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, should have thought of that. But I do wonder what's most important to most people. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not more, new. As many have pointed out, the answers to my first and second questions are starting to sound canned. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, if by "new" you don't mean "new in addition to", it may well be time to review the existing standard questions. After all, consensus can change. Even if it hasn't, and the existing standard questions remain, it doesn't hurt to review these things from time to time. Agent 86 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the opening questions are general and about all we could expect to get consensus on for standardized questions. I think it's a good idea to leave it open to editors to pose their own personalized questions on issues that are important to them. But I do agree that too many questions can be difficult to sort through when evaluating a nominee. I think a restriction on three (I'm considering restricting myself to this) per editor would be a good idea. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing is wrong with them and I've said above that it's the best we can expect to get consensus on for standardized questions. In the suggestions to the nominee we recommend the reading list, but there is no evaluation on whether or not they, you know, actually did this. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Above you say "Not more, new". The implication is an intention to replace the current questions. Yet here you indicate more questions. Which is it? Replace the current questions or add questions? --Durin 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring to my personal questions. IMO the generic ones should stay. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you want to give the mop to someone with less than half a brain? —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can tell whether someone has more or less than half a brain without having to quiz them on reading comprehension. Looking at their contribs should be plenty. --Tango 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally with Tango, users commenting can do their research and see if the candidate understands policy by looking at their contributions. And, answers can always be copied. --Majorly (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A bit off-topic, but I think we should have 9 or 10 optional question, out of which candidates may choose three to answer. The kind of questions he chooses to reply may give a good lead about what he intends to do with his administrator status (in example, "What would you do if someone vandalizes a single page multiple times, block the user or protect the article?", "If two users are war editing, and both have been warned, would you protect the article or block both users?", etc). -- ReyBrujo 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy questions 

message: Should we change it to the pinkish-color as used on ?? A suggestion to consider, I think that the pinkish colour is a bit too garish for what is a formal process, while the brick colour is neutral! --SunStar Nettalk 01:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed RFA template question 

message: Can we get Werdnabot or Essjaybot to archive this page? I've just cleared all the stuff from 2006, which has significantly reduced the size of this page. – Chacor 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason not to have one of them do the archiving. What should the time-before-archiving be? I suggest 7 days as this isn't as busy a page as, say, the noticeboards. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven days sounds fine, but note that this topic was brought up recently. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the handful of commenters said the bot would be fine, but a couple thought the archiving should be done manually; then a month passed and no one did any. I don't feel strongly either way but certainly bot archiving is better than no archiving. Newyorkbrad 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Threads can always be resurrected if the bot screws up; I say use it on a long-ish timespan (5-7 days without a comment in that thread), and we can archive more severely if needed. -- nae'blis 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sometimes helps to manually archive (if a topic is completely inactive, but someone might add something 5 days later that doesn't really contribute anything) or refactor (if several threads are talking about the same thing - move them to subheadings of a super-thread). Carcharoth 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make clear, I support the idea of having either one of those bots archiving this page. Does anyone have any objections to contacting Essjay again and asking him to set one of his Essjaybots to archive this page with a 7-day threshold? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Given this talk page is pretty slow in comparison with some others, 7 days (or even longer) is appropriate. Proto::► 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 7 or even 10 days feels right to me, and auto archiving is fine by me. Now if someone could write a bot that indexed the archives so we could find things again... :) ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-[[WP:RFA]] related (but [[WT:RFA]] related) - can we get a bot set up? 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ali 786 appears to be stuck somewhere not fully there. How are you supposed to repair them? 68.39.174.238 08:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected that apparently accidental page transclusion. The voting link still needs fixing though... - jc37 08:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And getting rid of the sockpuppets. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 12:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just closed it. It's been "open" for over a year. If the user still wishes to be an administrator, they can open a new request. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't quite know what to do here... 

message: In response to a request for advice on an application as an RFA, I suggested that being nominated by someone with less than 150 edits may create a "red flag" where the voters would most likely give the nomination additional scrutiny because the person nominating and vouching for the trustworthiness of the candidate, although assumed to be a good editor, is not yet what i called a trusted member of the community. The nominator wanted an example where someone didn't pass because the nominator was so new. Because I thought it useless to point out nominations that are quickly removed because of such defects (since the nominee usually also has very few edits - and in this case the nominee had over 4000), I pointed out my experience is that the nominators are usually trusted members, and that of the current RFA's no nominator has less than 4500 edits. This did not satisfy him/her. Therefore I am asking - do you think I am out of bounds suggesting that a nominee consider finding a different person to nominate them, or is my prediction that to go forward might subject the nomination to additional scrutiny (which is not necessarily a bad thing) completely unjustified. --Trödel 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean gorter interesting. If the nomination is worded well enough (and perhaps the nominator mentions they are quite new in the nomination) there may not be a problem. Emphasis on the "may". I can't take responsibility if there is a problem. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the link - I had remembered that happening a couple times. I agree there may be no problem especially if the nominee is excellent - but it seems like you shouldn't introduce a possible objection in the nomination language. --Trödel 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that's a good example. There is a big difference between being nominated by a fairly new user and being nominated by a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. I would suggest the candidate in question just makes a self-nom, going around trying to get someone to nominate you seems to be gaming the system to me. --Tango 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the point of someone else nominating you is that they think really well of you and want you to be an admin. Going around and actively seeking out someone to nominate you defeats the point, and gives a slight implication that you're too lazy to write a nomination statement yourself. -Amarkov blahedits 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thx all --Trödel 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for advice