Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 95

message: I have suspended Gracenote's RfA after closing time to give me a chance to contact other Bureaucrats to see what way would be best to proceed. Just about all interested have had their say, now I ask that you please be patient for a bit. Thanks! -- Cecropia 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made the right move, Cecropia. I'm interested to see what the outcome of the RfA will be after discussion amongst the bureaucrats. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nishkid that you've certainly made the right move in suspending it, but I have to urge you not to take it into a re-run - there is a consensus to be had with the current discussion, and a discussion between you 'crats to determine that consensus will certainly put out the flames straight away. It's certainly not a super vote, but merely a way of coming to a conclusion to what the consensus is saying. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea of a re-run either.  If the decision is not to promote, Gracenote is allowed to re-seek adminship anytime he/she wants to, so a forced re-run is superfluous.  The question is, after discounting sockpuppets, trolling, etc, was there a consensus to promote, yes or no. --BigDT 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no re-run. Just discuss it amongst your bureaucratic selves, and so long as your decision makes sense there shouldn't be any problems.--Wizardman 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur. No re-run. It's in your collective laps now. A re-run would look like a vote is needed and we don't want that. JodyB talk 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A re-run would seem highly unfair to Gracenotes.  It might be just myself, but if I was in his shoes I'd rather see a Consensus/No Consensus decision rendered...through Bureacrat Chat if need be, than simply have my RFA relisted without comment.  I know a decision might be difficult to render...but a re-run just seems like giving up before one begins.  Forgive me if that seems accusatory, I'm certain any Bureaucrat would be acting in the projects best interests.  The appearance of the thing just worries me.  --InkSplotch 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree with no re-run.  I made my thoughts on this a few days ago on WP:BN here.  However, I wouldn't mind if Rerun were brought in to decide consensus, but unfortunately he's dead. daveh4h 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree with no rerun. That's why we have bureaucrats, to decide on controversial nominations. It would be best if a bureaucrat chat would be employed, for the sake of transparency,  consistency, and all that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A re-run would just seem unfair for Gracenotes...bureaucrat action will make the decision final. Sr13 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think a re-run is a good idea. It prolongs the process unnecessarily for Gracenotes and there is no reason to believe exactly the same outcome would not be produced. The crats should be able to determine whether or not there is a consensus to promote. If they decide there is not, Gracenotes can decide the timing of his next RfA. A forced rerun would be bureaucratic and stressful with only hypothetical advantages. WjBscribe 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a re-run seems unfair to Gracenotes; I find working on a contentious RfA sometimes tiring and even upsetting, and I'm not even the candidate! ;-) But I would put a question to each "side" of opinion in GNs RfA. If the bureaucrats find that consensus isn't reached, will that wrong a Wikipedian who tried very hard in good faith to explain his stance? If the bureaucrats find that consensus is reached, will that ignore the legitimate concerns of the many opposers who may feel that real and legitimate concerns have been ignored? I have developed a personal feeling about this nomination, but I am one (albeit a bureaucrat, and I appreciate the trust so many put in us) and the participants are more than 270. -- Cecropia 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Add my voice to those that feel an immediate reboot/re-run is not in Gracenotes' best interests. If the 'crat decision is not to give GN the sysop bit, then he can run at any future time of his choosing. We're not likely to get a significantly different result immediately, IMO. -- nae'blis 15:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gracenotes 

message: I know some of us hate straw polls, but I really want to get some gauge of community sentiment on this issue, understanding, of course, that this is just a straw poll, not any kind of "vote." -- Cecropia 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like polls, but I like this. --Deskana (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How would you feel about the results of Gracesnotes' RfA?

message: #Although I neither supported, opposed, or stayed neutral, I would have supported him if the RfA were still open. I would accept the bureaucrat decision, whatever the outcome, with no reservation. The bureaucrats have the final decision on all RfA's, and it should be no different in this case. Sr13 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I would accept the decision, without reservation

message: #I will grant that the oppose side had arguments, although I don't agree with them, and am astonished that one opinion over a one issue, where there is no evidence that there would be any abuse of admin tools, translated into some 60 oppose votes. Nonetheless, nobody has a right to pass RFA, and I can see that this opinion did upset people who opposed in good faith, putting this firmly in borderline territory. A borderline case can go either way and it's up to the crats now. I supported, continue to support, hope the RFA passes, and considering the promotion of people who have had more significant opposition against them, think this RFA ought to pass. But even if it does not, I am confident that the bureaucrats have taken the time to analyze this thoroughly, something I feel was not done in the Danny RFA. I will therefore accept a "no consensus" result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I would accept the decision, with some reluctance

message: #I voted support and didn't change it, because I actually believe GN would make a good admin. Yes, I'd feel it was wrongly decided if he weren't promoted, because I believe I made the right decision. But first and foremost I'm ready to accept that it's not up to me to make the final decision, so I'd still accept any decision without hesitation. Life will go on either way. —AldeBaer 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I would accept the decision, but feel it was wrongly decided

message: #I would feel like Consensus stabbed me in the back. That heartless bitch... but I still love her. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I would accept the decision, but feel betrayed

message: #The only view I hold strongly is that there should not be a revote.  I'm not going to get up in arms one way or the other over whether or not this user is sysopped.  But I strongly feel that a revote is a bad idea.  If the result a revote or any other action that doesn't involve simply making a decision, then that is by definition evidence that RFA is broken. The whole purpose of RFA is to make a decision and if that cannot be achieved, then there is a problem somewhere along the line. --BigDT 17:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I would feel it was evidence that RfA is broken and/or the Bureaucrats are biased 

message: #If this is to gauge consensus, there was an RfA that is supposed to represent that.  There is a lot of information to pour over in the RfA and I don't understand how this changes or adds to the consensus to promote or not.  With that off my chest, if the closing 'crat finds that a disagreement over disputed language in policy is enough to sink an RfA, I think it may have a chilling effect on good faith editors who have differing opinions on controversial policies.  If there is no consensus to promote because the oppose comments address issues besides a good faith policy dispute, then that is an easier pill to swallow.  Perhaps that answers your question. As an aside, with this particular policy discussion, there is more agreed on than we think, but there seems to be communication problems.  That will only be solved when everyone decides they want to listen.  That's all I have to say that I feel is relevant.  daveh4h 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other (what?)

message: I guess people might accuse me of WP:BEANS, but I think the good outweighs the bad here, and honestly it's not that hard to figure out how to do this, but seeing how it was done is, I think, useful in detecting new instances of it. What I'm referring to is accounts created by sockpuppets with the goal of passing RFA. , as was recently shown in this thread, was a sockpuppet in an operation that spanned several years.
Runcorn passed RFA without much objection. Other than giving Crazyrussian and Ageo020 the gold medal for RFA comments that look brilliant in hindsight, what can this RFA do for us? Look at Runcorn's pre-RFA history... I mean, really delve into it. The majority of his edits were adding :Category:Living people to articles. This is so simple that bots are the ones who normally do it. Then there was some stub sorting. Other than that, there were just a lot of late "going with the flow" comments in AFDs and RFAs that were sure to be uncontroversial. Apparently a few "substantial" edits were made, but they were all mentioned in Q2. but 99% of their pre-RFA edits were pretty obviously just done to pad an edit count without revealing anything about what the editor was actually interested in.
Here's an account that, it seems to me, was grown from day 1 with the intention of having a superficially impressive edit history and having done absolutely nothing controversial. It's account that was grown to pass an RFA. And it worked. We should look for this stuff. Assume good faith, but sometimes there's just something wrong. Does anyone think we can actually stop this the next time someone tries to do it? I think this is something people should know about. --W.marsh 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that it's possible to stop. It's very easy to do - anyone with experience here knows how to do it, and I doubt Runcorn is the only one who's done this. The problem, unfortunately, is that we already have a general consensus that we don't have enough administrators - can we afford to lose more possibilities based on these suspicions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the things Crazyrussian points out in the RFA was just 16 messages left for Runcorn on his talk page. While that doesn't prove anything, you tend to get what, maybe 1 comment for every 100 edits you make? That's about what I get... I'm sure some people get way more. But if someone is getting substantially under that number... it suggests their edits really aren't very meaningful. Even doing nothing but cleanup pre-RFA I had 50+ comments on my talk page. I know we can't catch everyone who does this... but Crazyrussian made some pretty good points and the community not only didn't listen, but they talked him out of it. Maybe identifying some "warning signs" will be helpful. --W.marsh 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oooo! Oooo! A new metric! A new metric! Oppose: Ratio of external edits to your talk page vs. mainspace edits is lower than 1:50. Obviously can not be trusted! ;) --Durin 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I said... I'm trying to be helpful here, Durin. --W.marsh 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *You'll note the sarcastic smiley I put on the end of my comment... --Durin 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaming RFA - a case study 

message: I've added a proposal to add a section allowing random checks on RfAs. Please see here. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, I do not think that your proposal is permissible under the current check-user policy. WP:RFCU states, in bold no less, that "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases." Random checks of RfAs neither constitutes an attempt to solve a "difficult case" nor is a last resort of any kind. Indeed, Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence", which is essentially what this amounts to, is expressly not allowed. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Black falcon, checkuser isn't some toy to be used at random. Majorly (talk | meet) 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin is I think aware that her proposal is not permissible under present policy. Otherwise she would just have made a request to the checkusers rather than proposing a change in policy on meta. The questions is whether the policy should be changed as she proposes. I think there is definitely some validity in her proposal - this isn't something that regular RfA scrutiny can determine. WjBscribe 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that it is against policy is the reason that the proposal was made. Otherwise, why would we need to propose it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it could work, though.  Who are they going to be checked against?  The problem is, it's fine to say that anyone who applies for adminship is giving permission for a checkuser, but you need to look at the private information behind at least two accounts for a checkuser to yield useful information.  Who are these adminship candidates going to be checkuser'ed against, and how are we going to justify looking at those people's details?  They're not running for adminship.  It might catch, I suppose, someone who is an absolutely infamous sockpuppeteer...  if the person performing the checkuser happened to be the one who examined that sockpuppeteer, and they happen to remember enough details to make the connection.  But I can't see that happening very often. --Aquillion 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could check them against Jimbo; it's important that we ensure he isn't creating a sockdrawer. ;) On a more serious note, I'd be fine with being the second target account; I trust the checkuser clerks, and my alternate account is well within policy, so I couldn't care less if someone went snooping. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Aquillion, you could check to see whether the IPs they're editing from are used by others, and if so, whether there are editing similarities between the accounts. You could also check to see whether they're editing from open proxies. Checkuser isn't a magic tool that tells you everything you need to know, but it can help. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that random checkusers go against the principle of assuming good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Random checks (whether at Wikipedia, airports, or military checkpoints) presuppose that everyone is potentially guilty until proven otherwise. Since security personnel are not required to (perhaps not even encouraged to) AGF, they have an justification for random checks. What would ours be? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a checkuser is a good idea. I didn't realize that there were these de-sysop actions, but lets face it- automated edits aside, chances are 99% of admin candidates are clean. I don't think that everyone getting checkusered is so horrible. To go with the analogy of the airport; if you're singled out at the airport, people notice, you're embarrassed, et al. With the internet, a checkuser is quicker, and anonymous. If there was no problem, no fuss and no struggle. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Plus one: however I do feel that this will not go anywhere, simply because too much of Wikipedia would have to be rewritten to allow for such checks, and that would be harmful to say the least. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that would need to be changed is the checkuser policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't the checkuser data saved only for a month or two ? [Edit : On second thoughts, I think I may be wrong about this.] Unless they are in a great hurry to create Trojan accounts, people won't even need to edit from alternate accounts to fool this check. They will just have to stop editing from an account after becoming an admin, and use a new account for two or three months before applying for RfA from there.  Tintin 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly with the same IP, or with open proxies. As I said above, this won't help us against a determined, clever, careful, technically savvy person. But it might help with less careful people. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Indeed, which makes random checkusers of RfA candidates completely pointless and utterly meaningless. As I noted on Meta, this is a solution looking for a problem. It most emphatically does NOT solve the problem it supposedly sets out to solve. This, plus the cost of having the privacy of candidates to RfA violated? Thank you, I'll pass. --Durin 02:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is a real problem, not a made-up one, and we're going to have to address it at some point, because it's going to keep on getting worse. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * (edit conflict) The reason is that the cu_changes table (which is introduced by the CheckUser extension) has several indexes, and if the table gets too big, any queries to it get slowed down. Or so it was the last time I checked. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like this idea at all. It is a violation of privacy, as well as a violation of the privacy policy. --Deskana (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would it be a violation of the privacy policy, Deskana? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, is there some way in which "random" checks are even possible?  I saw the suggestion that any checkuser could make the decision, but that's not exactly random.  Also, can CU check one person against all other people, whether banned or not?  Slim's post above suggests you can get an IP for an account, and then run that IP for all other accounts.  I don't know if that's standard practice or not, but it certainly creates a wide net.  Third, how would a checkuser then decide what was reportable?  If you had two admins on one IP?  If they had edited together once or twice?  At the checkuser's discretion, but without the ability to say what they found?  I'd favor a clearer checkuser policy, perhaps a broader one, but the latter without the former seems like a significant problem. Mackan79 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal on meta

message: Another shining example of how the wikipedia community loves to bite our newcomers that don't understand our policies and think they would make a good administrator. No one with 87 edits knows how we work. Comments such as "wicked-strong oppose", "your just a middle schooler" and "it's starting to snow" are just plain unhelpful. Please please try and offer a bit more advice before shooting them to the ground. Unfortunately this RfA was closed before I had chance to hit back at the villains and offer my own constructive advice to the candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, in such obvious cases of failed RfAs, a simple note is more than enough. I do try to take the bite off of premie RfAs I close with , though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I've just seen your note to the candidate - that's what we should be saying to them, telling them how they can improve, it's just a pitty there weren't more users participating there like you. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That was a kind note that EVula left on Jonjonbt's talk page. People would leave just their signature, with no rational arguments, in RfAs of more experienced users but they feel it necessary to leave more and more biting and incisive comments to say the same thing over and over again (to the effect of you are too new, get out of here) on the RfA of an obvious newbie. - TwoOars 19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which makes me wonder again, we really need requirements of who can request. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how could we enforce them? New users will still be able to list. Unless any user was free to remove a request that didn't meet the requirements. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, other wikis like Commons and Meta have requirements before you can request. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Leave alone the enforcement; There can never be a consensus on the requirements in the first place, I think. :) We'll never agree on the minimum time or editcount (as we can see in Hmwith's RfA).- TwoOars 19:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed four "no chance" RfAs recently; I think the highest edit count on one of them was 400-something (for one of the editors, their very first edits were to create the RfA). I'm not saying that those should be the baseline for a standard level of participation, I'm just mentioning it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed three RFA's, and I'm not even an Admin. I think there should be some minimum standards (like minimum 1000 edits in total, for example). Evilclown93 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, there lies the trouble. There might be exceptions. For eg, what about cases where the candidate is an established user on some other wikipedia (like a candidate on RfA right now)? Once we set a minimum standard like that, a lot of users would blindly quote that and there would be no room for discussion on the merits of the case.- TwoOars 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that exceptions can be made... to an extent. En's policies are different from any other Wikipedia's; just because Editor X has been an admin on the Russian Wikipedia doesn't mean that they know all of our policies and guidelines. I think that's one of the perpetual arguments against a "speedy promote" of inter-wiki admins (just as how my contributions here don't mean diddly over at Commons, where I'd also like to become an admin). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I'd like to belatedly agree that there should be more users like me. Excellent observation, Ryan. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (Reset) My opinions-
*There shouldn't be any guidelines in order to apply for RfA; it'll be a headache determining them. Plus, it's not difficult to close an RfA if the candidate hasno chance.
*I find the en Wikipedia having the most strictest of policies, so being an admin on another Wikimedia project doesn't necessarily mean you can be an admin here, and doesn't guarantee that you know the policies here.
*Going back to the original topic, I believe that the comments on the RfA were a little harsh. We could try not to bite the newcomers by just leaving a small note. There's no need to taunt the candidate; I'm presuming he has applied in good faith and not in disruption. Sr13 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is a totally different debate altogether but opinion has been fairly divided on Yonidebest's RfA. That means there is no consensus about that. And in my opinion, adminship should be given as a matter of course, based on trustworthiness, ability to learn from mistakes and ability to work non-disruptively in a community. Familiarity with policies shouldn't be that big a concern because it is not rocket science, neither is using admin tools(I assume :). After all when anybody can create an account and edit wikipedia, why shouldn't good faith editors known not to goof up majorly get admin tools? And its not like admin actions can't be reversed when a new admin makes an honest mistake or two in the learning stage. - TwoOars 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonjonbt]] 

message: Is there any system/forum for plain users to give feedback for administrators? If not, there should be one. This system should be used to determine if an administrator needs to be re-evaluated. For example if there are administrators who edit war, violate policies (like RS, etc) and do other undesireable stuff that is not befitting of an administrator, should be subjected to a re-election, based on how much negative feedback they get in a certain period of time. Yes I know administrators are not any different than plain users because the only difference is that they have some extra tools, but still, an administrator should be an editor who is an example of a great editor, approved by all and shows all the different qualities that a good editor would have. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFC and WP:ANI usually does that job. Regarding "re-election", it is a perennial proposal, but see WP:RECALL. – Chacor 03:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I guess WP:RECALL is somewhat what I was thinking about. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:ANI is not productive for complaining about admins. Wjhonson 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so. It used to occasionally though. Heh. – Chacor 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you provide negative feedback on ANI, be prepared to receive some yourself :-) Tintin 07:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ANI does generally err on the side of agreeing with the admin, but that's not surprising, really. The vast majority of complaints about admin abuse are unfounded. Most times when there is disagreement the admins discussing it agree that it was a judgement call and while they may not have done the same thing, the admin that was there at the time is the admin that makes the decision, and unless it was truly unjustifiable, nobody will overrule it. If we undid every admin action where we might have done something differently nobody would respect any admin decision. --Tango 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The appropriate place to provide feedback for a specific administrator is on their talk page. Try to be polite. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any system for users to give feedback about admins? 

message: So, having not actually participated in the project side of things for almost two months now, can anyone fill me in on the current standard for dealing with unlisted RFAs that have been accepted and answered like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mitchazenia? – Chacor 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transclude them and update the time stamp, I believe. GracenotesT § 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of that RfA, listing it would result in a snowstorm.  But in most cases, Gracenotes is correct. G1ggy! Review me! 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about this one. I found it a few days back, but I'm hesistant about because there is absolutely no way it is going to pass. Evilclown93 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that there may not be consensus for this, but I would mention it to the user on their talk page and suggest that it is not needed.  If they agree, you can db-owner it, if they disagree, then snow it instead. --After Midnight 0001 14:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Some are being prepared for transclusion later. Probably best to ask. JodyB talk 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Um if they are malformed by a user whose only edit is to that page, delete it. Otherwise, I'd just leave it. If they cannot work out how to transclude it on, they really aren't ready. And also, there are (probably) hundreds such RfAs if you look at the prefix index pages. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisted RFAs 

message: I'm just kinda thinking as I type here, so just bear with me. I got to pondering earlier, about RFAs that get removed early due to pile-on opposes. A large percentage of the time, that's because the user is a new person who doesn't understand our criteria for adminship. We quickly close down their RFA, rather than letting it run the full week. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many of those users continue to edit Wikipedia at the same rate they had been, whether some people increase/decrease their level of contribution, or if some take their failed RFA as a "screw you" and never come back. Thoughts? ^demon[omg plz] 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. I could go and look at a few. Granted, most have very little edits to begin with, so evaluating an "editing rate" may be difficult.--Wizardman 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I tell a newby trying to be an admin that it is not immediately possible (yes, I know it is in theory but not in practice) I always try to do it very gently, explaining why, and telling them what they need to achieve to make re-application sensible. I think we all do this. But, if we make the assumption that the large majority of RfA applicants want to improve the encyclopedia, even if as a new editor they do not know how to, then keeping track of them, perhaps by template, and offering periodic encouragement as appropriate seems to be a very good idea. Let's do it.--Anthony.bradbury 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've found Oppose with moral Support or Neutral with moral Support eases my consience, even if it may not have helped the editor. I totally agree with the concern here - far too many editors and admins seem to think adminship is a promotion. If we could remove that ridiculous idea then it may help the issue at hand.Pedro |  Chat   17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't looked at the numbers yet, but that actively frightens me. If we're losing good faith contributors just because they wanted to help out and didn't know better, then this is an issue that deserves quite a bit of attention. ^demon[omg plz] 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't put too much weight on that. Its worrying but it could be that some of those people had no intention of sticking with the project anyway. One of the things I guess we look for is a commitment to Wikipedia as a project developing and maintaining a free-content encyclopedia. WjBscribe 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If its a newbie who had unwisely opted for adminship, I'm not sure even going for the support/oppose/neutral sections is helpful. We have a discussion section above where we could make positive comments about their contributions so far and make it clear what is generally expected before people get adminship. The whole oppose/support concept is inherently stressful and I'm not sure there's a good reason to put someone who has asked for adminship very prematurely through it. WjBscribe 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This may come off sounding overly harsh, but folks who easily decide "something didn't go my way, I'm out of here" probably have an overly-fragile temperament, unsuitable for adminship anyway.  That said, yes, I think it's worth looking into whatever circumstances cause us to lose editors.  But I don't think it's good to focus on the adminship request aspect of this.  If someone comes in as an editor, not looking primarily to help the project but rather looking mostly for recognition and opportunity to "rise through the ranks", this is probably not the kind of editor we should be trying to keep.  We should instead look for ways to keep those editors whose goals are aligned with the project's goals.  Friday (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Friday and I don't think we should really care if someone with 6 edits on Wikipedia fails RfA and leaves. Now I'm not saying that we should be encouraging their departure, nor should we completely ignore the problem of hailstorms about well-intentioned newbies that get flamed to death because of RfA. I think it would be good if more people took it upon themselves to close newbie-RfAs very very early (instead of waiting for 5 or 6 merciless opposes). But correlation and cause are very different and we have no evidence whatsoever that these people are leaving the project because someone wrote "100 edits? Bring out the snow plow!" I know templates don't solve anything but we could agree to create some sort of template like  that could be used on candidates' talk pages and would be courteous and detailed. Pascal.Tesson 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Pascal, you are wholly correct. But i do agree with the original comment, namely that some uninformed new editors apply, in their ignorance, for admin reponsibility, and when they are hit by a WP:SNOW response, they leave wikipedia for ever, whereas they might, in a different framework, have become responsible editors and, indeed, ultimately admins. OK, someone with six edits may well not be admin material (obviously), but someone with 1,000 edits may well be, and I would like to see them being encouraged. Thinking about it, even a six-edit contributor may blossom with time. After all, at some point in the past, we have all had only six edits. Yes?--Anthony.bradbury 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pascal,  could work. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was very lucky. My first RFA failed miserably, and I had only 250ish edits at the time. Luckily, I decided to stick around and keep working, and here I am, ages later. However Friday, I'm not looking at it so much from a "I didn't pass, screw you guys I'm gone" look at it, but more of a "Wow...they don't want my help. I guess I'd better find something else to do." It's that group of editors I'm interested in. I honestly think more care should be given to editors who's RFAs are closed early, even if it's a template message. Even a simple, "Thanks for trying, but we couldn't accept you for XYZ reasons, keep working at it and try later" might get a better response than seeing that they failed, failed early at that, and there seems to be no way to appeal it. ^demon[omg plz] 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested adminship after ~3 months experience. I wasn't entirely sure of the potential result of my RfA. I passed (phew!), but had I not passed, I probably would have taken a failed RfA as a negative thing, and probably cut back on my editing for a while. It's understandable that the RfA process is tough, especially nowadays, and people should expect the unexpected. People should know that RfAs fail all the time, and if their RfA fails, then they shouldn't be that worried about it. Hopefully, they can take constructive criticism and learn from the comments. However, that doesn't always happen, and as Friday mentioned, the people who choose to leave Wikipedia after a failed RfA may not have been the suitable in any case. I know that one of my RfA candidates who failed, , apparently disappeared from Wikipedia after his RfA. I e-mailed him and got no reply back, so I'm guessing he's left Wikipedia for good. It's disappointing to see that, but then when you think about it, you might believe that the person was not suitable for adminship, anyway. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, speaking as someone who has closed several premie-RfAs recently (and created  specifically to prevent hurt feelings), I have to say that I don't have much faith about the RfA candidates themselves. I've got grave concerns over any editor that immediately comes here, makes flimsy arguments for their promotion, and would then get so pissed off about a failed nom (even if they had harsh comments). As several other people have said, if someone's skin is that thin, they aren't likely to become good contributors in the first place, even disregarding their RfA experience (which is such a nebulous effect that I have severe doubts about practically any conclusions drawn from them). In my mind, these are just kids who are coming here for the "ooh, shiny" factor, and don't have full comprehension about what they're actually asking for; yes, they may become useful contributors, but not for a couple more years, when they've gotten enough life experiences to mature to the point where they can collaborate well with others (read: we might very well be better off without them for now). So ultimately... I find this rash of newbie RfAs curious, but in no way a problem that needs to be addressed in some fashion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Users trying to be Admins...A study? 

message: thumb|right|Pretty colors galore!
I just find it interesting how just three weeks ago we had 15 RfAs running at nearly unanimous support, but this week, it's a totally different story. Just take a look at the image to the right. 10 green RfAs, 4 yellow RfAs, 2 orange RfAs, 3 red-orange (?) RfAs, and 1 white RfA. Oh Wikipedia...you amaze me every day. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well June is Gay Pride month. --Ozgod 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) LOL! I think much of the red may be because more and more new Wikipedians seem to be applying. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol @ Ozgod. Anyway, here's a editcount breakdown of the 6 RfAs currently below 75% support. Yonidebest 436 edits, YechielMan 6017 edits, Loom91 1885 edits, Arkyan 2479 edits, Ispy1981 1251 edits and 3919 edits for Ozgod. I think only two of those RfAs would actually fail because of people's concerns over editcountitis/inexperience. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Very new user RFAs get closed pretty quickly, so they won't really effect the table. You would have to looked at it at exactly the right time to see them. --Tango 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For some people it is a sport. --Ozgod 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's multicolored week! 

message: I'm referring specifically to Dfrg.msc's RfA, but it's probably come up in several cases.  How long ago would one have to have done something before it's considered "too long ago" to bring up in an RfA?  I think it's pathetic that something done a year ago should come back to haunt you, but that's just my personal opinion.  What do others think? G1ggy! Review me! 04:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that it's not coming back to haunt him at all, it's just that a few editors expressed concerns of truth over him being given the admin tools. I hope the RfA doesn't put him off contributing, nor applying again in the future. --Deskana (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steady on, I haven't failed yet! Dfrg.msc 07:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in general it depends what it is, and how isolated it was. If there's one loss of temper 2 months back, this is different from if there were three or four each month until just before the RfA nomination. If it was ordinary incivility, this is different from trolling. I'd want many months of perfect behavior from a reformed troll. But in terms of ordinary politeness, many editors   improve between their first and second applications.  DGG 04:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't the time, it's how the editor has behaved since. If someone was a dick, got reprimanded about a year back, and has had a chip on their shoulder ever since (but not doing anything deserving of an official rebuke, for lack of a better term), that's a bad thing. If someone was a dick, got reprimanded about a year back, and has since learned from the transgression, that's a totally different situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, 6 months if it involved a justified block, or 2/3 if not. I want to be sure the user has not only learned what not to do in a situation, but also what to do. Of course, they must be regular contributing months. After the threshold, I don't consider them valid antecedents. So, when talking about a block 8 months ago, a "He has been blocked in the past." comment given as information is fine, but anyone justifying something because of such an old block is just nitpicking (of course, the user has behaved correctly since the block). However, some mistakes will always come back (Carnildo's, Essjay's, etc), regardless of time passed. Unfortunately. -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree whole-heartedly with all of the above statements. I really don't see how an immature edit made half a year ago is enough to justify a concern for abuse of admin tools. I have seen this in the past, but it is particularly frustrating when an edit from 17 November 2006 earns you and Oppose vote. Many people seem to agree and yet, here we are. Dfrg.msc 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YechielMan's RfA is a classic example of this. Almost all the opposes right now are solely because of something he did a year ago. At some point I think there should be an RfA statute of limitations on almost every misdeed. Grandmasterka 07:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, six month/a year is a very long time on Wikipedia, and I'd strongly support such a limitation, it's all too easy to dig up the past, and new users simply don't know better. Dfrg.msc 08:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, limiting anyone's ability to vote the way they want is not a good idea. If I found my votes were discounted because someone else thinks my concerns are irrelevant, then I'd be pissed. --Deskana (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone should have the right to vote the way they wish, but the closing bureaucrat has the power to discount votes for a very good reason. For instance, have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin and see if you think that oppose vote should have been counted. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, by "statute of limitations" I didn't mean one imposed by the bureaucrats, I meant one imposed by each person commenting in an RfA. Grandmasterka 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that a user's recent conduct is as good an indicator as any. WHen I was a relative newb, I did get pissed off at AfDs, etc. But I think sometime in mid to late February I was arguing with one editor and then I realized I was getting waaaaayy too pissed off about it. Every editor acts stupid, just some more than others. But the good editors grow out of it. A spotty past is I would say never a reliable indicator. However, obviously, if the past week before the RfA the guy was making personal attacks, we know he hasn't matured to the desirable point yet. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For me, it's never too late. Anchoress 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the first edits can be ignored as long as they've learnt. If you take a look at my first contribs, they sure weren't a bed of roses. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A user's past errors....how long ago is too long ago? 

message: I swear that, at some point in time before I became an admin, I stumbled across a page that was, in essence, a list of links to various editors' personal RfA requirements. Anyone know where that is? I'd like to link to it from  (as well as add my own, whenever I actually write up my own). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that too... I'll try to find it. hmwithtalk 05:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards... which has now been split into smaller versions. – Chacor 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yup, that's what I was thinking of... hrm, as it's rather out of date, though, I might just leave it alone, though. Giving them out-of-date information will only frustrate them, and since really that information should be irrelevant by the time they get ready to make a successful RfA run (and they've hopefully followed the other links in the template), maybe it's just fine the way it is. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading a Why The Hell Not? essay... –Sebi ~ 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be worth reading Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D to find out what happened. --ais523 08:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to Sebi, User:Ral315/WTHN. James086Talk | Email 08:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know I saw it at one point... 

message: Just to let everyone know, I've created the above template to use to post to new users when withdrawing their premature RfA's, it gives them a bit of encouragement and gives them a few pointers as to how they could succeed in the future. If people could take a look over it and improve it as required, cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. For starters, I'm not certain I would call it RFASnow, nor link to SNOW. Secondly, the "you're doing a fantastic job" is probably inaccurate in a number of cases. While I support your desire to encourage, perhaps going out on a limb like that is not the best way. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above - get improving it :-) I wasn't sure about the SNOW name, or snow link to be honest, I'll remove that now, the template could maybe be moved to . The point is, this template should ony be used on the good faith new users. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: /me hugs . :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was inspired by yours EVula, just thought it would be nice if it was in main template space - and this doesn't use any parser functions! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But aren't all real templates required to use as many parser functions as they possibly can cram in, preferably including options for British and American spelling? --tjstrf talk 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, we could do something like meta:Template:Welcome. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bah, parsers are awesome. :P I like the template (and I switched the "name" field to ), though I'll still use my own for premie RfAs that I catch. I like having it somewhat customized to the person I'm talking to. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not and am unlikely ever to be an admin so maybe I'm speaking out of turn by posting here, but shouldn't the template(s) steer them gently but firmly towards editor review? It seems that one of the most positive effects of a failed RfA is that it acts as a turbocharged editor review (having 30+ of the most eminent wikipedians telling you precisely why your contributions suck might smart, but hopefully it also acts as a spur to improvement) —  iridescent (talk to me!) 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't speaking out of turn. I doubt the usefulness of an WP:ER link though, for the exact reasons you mentioned: they just went throught RfA, an editor review won't give them much additional information. --tjstrf talk 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the ER link in, I think it's a good move for a new user. In RfA, they are likely to get the boilerplate remarks basically saying they're too new, an editor review will take a look at individual edits and give them better advice as to how to improve than they're RfA was likely to have done. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict but posting anyway) What I'm trying to say is, if the RfA's are going to be speedy-closed as soon as they open for people with low edit counts (which I think is the gist of what's being proposed here), they won't get the "Here's what you're doing wrong" input a failed RfA currently gives —  iridescent (talk to me!) 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both of you are right. If an obviously doomed RfA is closed almost immediately, as it should be, then the candidate will have gotten little, if any, really productive feedback.  I like the links to both ER and Admin Coaching, which I have been passing along to Snow victims here and there. -- Satori Son 21:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely unsurprised by your comment. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Hey: I may post one of these templates on my talk page just to get used to how it looks!! —Gaff ταλκ 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|RFAsnow}}