Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 42

message: Okay, polls are evil... blah, blah, blah... but they are also an effective tool in trying to determine consensus. Currently there is a debate over whether clearly failing RfAs should be shown as links instead of transclusions. The following is a poll to try and determine community consensus on the matter:
===Should clearly failing RfAs be shown as a link instead of a tranclusion?===
Yes
# After 48 hours. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I added two sub polls clarifying the issue to who should be allowed to do it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Once the number of RfAs shoot up (It is not a question of if, it is a question of when), I'd guess that we'd end up with an arrangement like the one on AfD - listing them either by date of acceptance of nomination or by date of closing of nomination. --Gurubrahma 05:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't require any administrator special abilities (as a non-admin, I could technically do it), but I'd prefer that common practice be that it's left to administrators or bureaucrats. --Elliskev 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll for consensus 

message: Yes
# After 48 hours. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I added two sub polls clarifying the issue to who should be allowed to do it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Once the number of RfAs shoot up (It is not a question of if, it is a question of when), I'd guess that we'd end up with an arrangement like the one on AfD - listing them either by date of acceptance of nomination or by date of closing of nomination. --Gurubrahma 05:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should clearly failing RfAs be shown as a link instead of a tranclusion?

message: Yes
# Yes, if a nomination is clearly failing a bureaucrat should be able to use their judgement in the matter of whether a nomination should be changed to linking instead of transclusion. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should bureaucrats be allowed to make failing RFA's show as a link instead of a tranclusion?

message: Yes
#Yes - administrators should be trusted with this ability - bureaucrats will be there to check their work. BD2412 T 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't require any administrator special abilities (as a non-admin, I could technically do it), but I'd prefer that common practice be that it's left to administrators or bureaucrats. --Elliskev 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should non-bureaucrats be allowed to make failing RFA's show as a link instead of a tranclusion?

message: Whatever happened to the point of view that RFAs exist to advance the encyclopedia by identifying candidates that are suitable for adminship?  Blatantly failed RFAs, and there are several on the page right now, should go away.  There is nothing to be gained by piling on or gawking at failed candidates and nothing about such opposition conversations that couldn't be accomplished in the privacy of that user's talk page.  And no, I don't think that we need the expertise of a bureaucrat to decide that 0 support, 10 oppose is a lost cause.  Dragons flight 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, 0 and 10 is not necessarily a failed nomination, I've seen them come back from similar. Second, if it is failing, it is the responsibility of the person being nominated to put an end to it. We do have a nomination acceptance requirement, after all, so it's not like users are being RfA'd without their knowledge. Turnstep 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Further, if an RfA candidate can accept a nomination certainly they can be shown how to withdraw one. It's not hard. --Durin 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Durin, you have some impressive RfA statistics on hand: was there ever a case where a 0/10/x nomination ended successfully?  While theoretically possible, I think this falls under the "snowball's chance in hell" category. I certainly don't remember seeing anything come close to such a turnaround. I've seen a promising 10/0/x nomination fail, but that's significantly more likely, of course; 10/5/0 is a fail, but so is 5/10/0. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *I don't know. It's doubtful that I can gather that information. I'd have to be keeping track of how each RfA progresses through it's 7 (or less) day time period. I don't do that. I capture information at the beginning (edit count, article edit count) and at the end (sup/opp/neu votes). Regardless, from my chair there is more to be gained from a failing RfA than just failure of the RfA. The candidate, if conscientious, will use the failed RfA as a list of what to do better for the next go around. Without a complete RfA, other issues can arise in a future RfA that were not addressed in the original RfA. This is setting people up for repeated failure. This does not serve the candidates or the community very well at all. --Durin 00:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even some of the nominations on the page right now, like Awolf002's came back from a substantial deficit (in this case 1/6/0) to succeed (in this case by a fairly substantial margin, as it stands). 0/10/0  might be a lost cause, except that oppose voters are allowed to change their mind. Also, if we need a technical solution against piling on, that speaks of serious issues within the community. But on the contrary, I think people rather graciously refrain from piling on, which is why few nominations gather more than 10-15 oppose votes -- relatively to other nominations, that's hardly piling on. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Durin, that's a really good point about  conscientious candidates using the failed RfA as a list of what to do better for the next go around. We shouldn't be trying to hide "failures" away, if it's going that way someone (probably the nominator) should contact the candidate and put the situation in that positive light. ...dave souza 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 5. Sorry, no.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 6. Merovingian 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 7. Oppose. CDThieme 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 8. Oppose, needs more experience.Gateman1997 20:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree. It is also possible that someone wants to become an admin but doesn't want to ask anyone to nominate him - a self-nom is the best option then. However, really serious candidates do know that self-noms have a lesser chance of being successful, if they still prefer it - it is their prerogative. --Gurubrahma 08:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did I miss something? 

message: I saw this going by on recent changes and thought people here might find it interesting: , as well as . - BanyanTree 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing none...  Tomertalk 08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  user box madness 

message: The instructions say that "Nominations remain for seven days" but don't say seven days from when.  It appears that some people set the ending time as soon the nomination is created, others start from when the nominee accepts and others seem to be different from either of those.  For both clarity and fairness, I would suggest that the sentence be revised to read "Nominations remain for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page".  That time can easily be checked in the page history. -- DS1953 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, DS1953, I've got your back.  Tomertalk 23:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed it. That was enough discussion...  Really, if anyone wants to change it back or has other thoughts, be my guest. -- DS1953 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, my rationale was that the wider community isn't going to know about them until they're listed here, and they're not supposed to be listed here until the nominee accepts the nomination, so... 7 days from when they're posted here seems the most logical approach.  :-)  Tomertalk 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense to me. FreplySpang (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven days 

message: As well as running the impostor  (note dot on the end), CDThieme has been multiply voting in AFDs and RFAs using: No Account, Tree&Leaf, Longboat, Uncarved Block, Quintusdecimus and Via Egnatia - and none of those were created recently, so CD probably has a pile of other accounts in the wings. I've also blocked CDThieme for 48 hours' reflection - David Gerard 08:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you asked jguk if the account is his? I believe that jguk. belongs to jguk. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the full stop.--nixie 04:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CDThieme sockpuppetry

message: i am requesting for an adminship, for the hardwork i have done.
:Also for me being an admin, i can spot Vandals, because recently i have being reverting articles back to normal
>x<ino 10:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the appropriate place for this kind of discussion.  Your request was also reverted on the main page because you didn't follow the proper formatting procedure. --tomf688{talk} 10:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also had to revert him adding his nomination onto SCEhardt's subpage. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 11:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADMIN! 

message: I would like to be an Admin at Wikipedia, but how do I get nominated? I have spent time lately targeting areas of vandalism. I reported vandalism on the synagogue page but under my IP address because my Username would not work at the time. I am good at spotting Vandalism (Been doing it since joining Wikipedia in 2003) 
Draig goch20 22:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This might also be helpful: Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship Borisblue 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am offering to become an Admin