Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 49

message: The page currently says "Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably as showing initiative and desire to serve the community". Really? Is there anyone who actually views a self nom more favourably than a nom from another established, trusted user? I think that sentence should be reworded, maybe replacing "view them more favorably" with something like "welcome self-nominations"? --kingboyk 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording is ambiguous, but what is probably meant is "Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably than the people applying higher standards to them as showing initiative and desire to serve the community" --JoanneB 09:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I know one person at least who prefers selfnoms to those nominated by others, and she usually makes a point of mentioning it... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Free cookies and extra bishpoints for the selfnoms! Wikipedia is not a snooty country club where you need to know people in the know to have the effrontery to apply for adminship. I will admit that some frivolous or trolling selfnoms have been known to bring the good-faith selfnoms into disrepute, but I can recall seeing quite a few frivolous or trolling or meatpuppet, or just abysmally ill-judged, other-noms, too.  Wait, whether to link to some cases of each, now... nah. But if you follow RFA, you've seen them too. Bishonen | ノート 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your explanation, if you put it that way it makes quite a bit of sense. I think my senses had been blurred by a couple of self noms from people that were not nearly ready for it... I never let it affect my voting though, in neither direction. Hm. Couldn't you have told me about the cookies involved in self-nominations before I became in admin? ;-) --JoanneB 16:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, I self-nommed myself a while back (and made it in, too!). Where are my cookies? ::stomps foot and demands cookies:: —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I self-nomed on the mailing list and whined my way in. My cookies are 3 years overdue :\ :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have actually gone so far as to propose in one evil poll somewhere that only self-noms should be allowed. Plenty of people seem to view nominating others as some sort of fun hobby, and often their decisions regarding "qualification" are based on nothing more than editcounting, for all I can tell. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it was suggested that the self-nom section be gotten rid of and merged into the ordinary-noms a number of months ago, I suggested that we get rid of the other section. I don't think people thought I was particulatly serious... -Splashtalk 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you get cookies if your self-nom fails? --D-Day  My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 16:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've nothing against self-noms at all, initiative is good. Indeed I was all but ready to self-nom myself but user:Phaedriel offered to nom me. I just wondered if the wording could be improved to reflect what I saw as the current situation. Maybe I was wrong :) --kingboyk 09:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: So, it's kinda like a middle school dance.  Everybody's waiting on the sides of the basketball court while cheezy music plays.  But when one person finally steps out, seems like everyone else hops forward.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should elect bureaucrats like we do Stewards. Have a bunch of candidates run all at once, and promote the top vote getters. NoSeptember talk 13:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the system ain't broke, so no need to change it.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you were the one saying we should have a basketball shoot-out to pick our bureaucrats :-), or did I misread your comment? ;-) NoSeptember talk 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did, he was talking about a dance on a basketball court, not a basketball game. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: To tell you the truth, from the perspective of one of the candidates, I didn't "wait" for anyone to submit a RfB first; I had already given the choice much thought and already began preparing the statement. However, ZScout's nomination beat me to it, and Jtkiefer immediately followed. I decided to wait another day or two before submitting, and it was coincidence that Essjay submitted a RfB prior to mine. If no one else had submitted one, I would have still gone ahead. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfB 

message: Someone want to vote on Essjay's RfB? right now the tally displays......THe number of the beast!!!--Alhutch 16:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6660 is the number of the beast? Talk about inflation. -- Cecropia 16:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaaargh 

message: Could a bureaucrat please remove Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bormalagurski? It is clear that he is abusing RfA to become able to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination) as a "keep", even though the only people voting "keep" there are he and his friends from the Serbian Wikipedia. I would remove it myself but am bound my own policy that only allows non-bureaucrats to remove declined or withdrawn nominations. JIP | Talk 11:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bormalagurski 

message: Not to be difficult, but the nominators of CSCWEM 2 appear to be angling for a 17 day RfA. Why did people wait until 10 days after the first vote to actually announce this to the community? We have been presented with a fait accompli of the worst kind. I'd appeal to the nominators, nominess and perhaps even the crats to haul this back within process and run the usual, 7 day RfA (without resorting to what I imagine must have been IRC). Do not be so presumptuous as to open an RfA with bunches of supports and then to say "oh, and is this alright with the rest of you". I expect better from a would-be admin and his supporters. -Splashtalk 18:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Friend, CSCWEM had nothing to do with the RfA building 60 votes before he accepted - he had previously declared his intent to wait until April to stand for adminship again, and I think he was pressured to accept earlier than that by the massive groundswell of support. Also, with as many supporters finding this RfA (without any advertising of it that I have seen), potential opposers could have found it just as well, and voted to oppose. Hence, this is no fait accompli. bd2412 T 18:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 10 days old before it's presented to the community. How is that right? -Splashtalk 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as I was formulating my own response to CSCWEM II, Splash made his own comments regarding this RfA. I wondered how an RfA would suddenly appear, seemingly fully formed on a page that is always on my watched pages list. Unless a very good explaination is provided, this action is of itself enough imputus for me to exercise an opposition to it. I hope suitable reasoning is forthcoming to help defer my assumptions. Hamster Sandwich 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All votes to the CSCWEM nom before acceptance could effectively be considered co-nominations (in this case, a 60 user co-nom). You see a 17 day RfA, I see a RfA that's been 10 days in the making. — TheKMantalk 18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see an request being rammed down RfA's throat. -Splashtalk 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea that adminship should be no big deal, but I think that through its actions, the community has decreed that it is somewhat of a big deal (in terms of certain standards for promotion) and no amount of repeating a 2003 Jimbo quote is going to change that any time soon :-(. NoSeptember talk 01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  17 day RfA - CSCWEM2 

message: Today has been a real eye opener for me, you could say.  Would their be any objection to amending the the RFA nomination process, prohibiting votes prior the acceptance by the nominee?  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No (to having objections); I would strongly support this, as nominations aren't supposed to be open until the candidate has accepted and the page has been placed on the RfA page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections to this. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (It shouldn't have been.) It's not entirely clear to me that this would work, although it is the obvious solution. People will vote anyway and though regulars will learn, the newer editors won't and it will be, with near every RfA, an unwinnable battle to suppress the votes (evil) until an acceptance. What would work is reversing the creepish change to the rules of a few months ago and simply posting all RfAs straight to the main page and leaving them for the candidate to accept or decline. Clearly, declined nominations with many 'preemptive' opposes are a problem in this scenario, although we did fine for a number of years with it....-Splashtalk 02:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It begs the question "why are people creating RfA pages before both nominator and nominee are in agreement to proceed?" Don't create the page until just before its ready to be rolled out publicly. Mine was created three weeks ahead of time, fortunately, I was unpopular enough that no one voted for me during those three weeks ;-). NoSeptember talk 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because by convention nominees accept their nomination on the RfA page itself. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if that is a good idea, as the scrutiny is part of the process. Back in the days of my RfA, I looked at it as a way to get input on my performance as an editor, not just as a request for added permissions; I'm pretty sure other editors see it the same way too. Also, it is too nebulous (e.g. "Is this comment trolling? Where do we draw the line?") to work. Part of the reason RfA is so numbers-oriented is that it makes it easier on the bureaucrats to make their decision; already those RfAs that fall in that 75%-80% gray area are controversial. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a 73% RfA that is controversial this very night. NoSeptember talk 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd trust the 'crats to know true trolling when they see it (e.g. an oppose by a brand-spankin' new account; or by an editor who has decided to oppose 30 RfA's in a row with the same explanation for each; or based on a single typo six months ago). Although RfA is a good place to get scrutiny, constructive criticism can always be dropped on an editor's talk page. Anyway, it's just a thought on getting non-controversial promotions through the system without the big hullabaloo that raises accusations that RfA is a popularity contest. I realize this may be received as an odd message, but while my own RfA was gratifying, it was also a bit excessive in the end. bd2412 T 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure I trust the 'crats all that much after tonight's showing.  They didn't look at the reasoning for the pros and went straight with the number of votes, no matter whether the opposes were shown to have been based on misconceptions or plain not understanding of the issue at hand.  --Mmounties (Talk)   03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a mind-expanding idea. The simplicity of it is slightly overpowering. Some immediate observations: it would save everyone time in pile-on support RfAs and might help focus scrutiny a little on those that need it. OTOH, it would stand RfA squarely on its head. At present, we require a strong showing of support to promote; Proposed Admins would need only a showing of no opposition. Also, it is very susceptible to, let us say, "certain" users. Particularly the more recent, more creative kind. This is an interesting idea, though, that's for sure. -Splashtalk 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't know that we currently require a "strong" showing of support - I believe a 25-0 RfA would pass right now. I think I understand your concern about "certian" users - but there must be a way to control for possible abuses. bd2412 T 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I would not do away with the mandatory questions. That's a rite of passage! Just the voting - we would still have the questions. bd2412 T 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah; I took the "names could be posted on a list" part to mean that this would be a simple listing. Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Somehow I think that "... article, template, and category spaces..." (emphasis mine) aren't as safe to work with as one might think; a number of recent incidents would likely have been even bloodier if multiple "levels" of adminship had played into it. Kirill Lokshin 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The details are subject to change (i.e., I can see why you would want to take templates out of that equation). What is important is that a change is possible, and might prove beneficial - a setup of junior and senior (or regular and XXL, or whatever) admins would allow potential wielders of full admin powers to first be evaluated in their use of some admin powers. bd2412 T 04:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the template issue is really just a particularly extreme example.  My concern is that a two-tier system will aggravate any disagreements between administrators, since some of the senior ones will inevitably try to pull rank on the junior ones.  (I suppose that it's a somewhat broader issue of admin interaction rather than one tied to this specific proposal, so it may be that this isn't the best place to bring it up.) Kirill Lokshin 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thing is, this is a discussion, not a vote - every person who makes a comment in support of a candidate's promotion, whether counted as a co-nom or a vote, should be taken into account when the 'crat is seeking to determine whether there is consensus in support of promotion. Better to just ban co-noms outright, and ban votes before the RfA is posted. bd2412 T 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's both a discussion and a vote, or at least, as much like a vote as anything on wikipedia is.  (Certainly more like a vote than, for example, the arbcom elections.)  I don't think this is really material to the above suggestion, though, as it doesn't change the value of the RFA as a discussion.  I have no particular objection to prohibitting co-noms and pre-acceptance votes, but I don't see the argument that it's "better".  It's a more restrictive measure to address the same issues, which I'd judge makes it more likely to be opposed as a proposal (by those fond of either, or as "instruction creep"), and requires implementation more likely to annoy people (when their co-noms and early votes are "struck out"), for no additional benefit.  Alai 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFA reform

message: My take here is that maybe if all RFA's are to have a "even start" that maybe the DFA process, which (in one of its incarnations) could be seen as a way to refine a candidacy and address issues, develop additional material, etc, prior to the formal RFA start would go against that? I'm not sure I agree with this "even start" idea, because if it is enforced there may be cases where there will be back channel dealings, and preparation of material off-wiki, etc... I've been a supporter of the idea of DFA being a precursor to RFA (although at this point it looks like a mostly failed idea, there have been several attempts to try it and none of them have really worked out well yet)... Am I right in reading that if this even start proposal goes forward it would kill DFA (as conferring an unfair advantage?) unless everyone did it? ++Lar: t/c 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA Reform and DFA