Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 33

message: Sorry to bring up something serious but the Vote here link isn't working for candidates Denelson83 and Rd232.  Anyone know how to fix? The code looks good. --hydnjo talk 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - Thanks. --hydnjo talk 01:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Here was the problem: I said /, so users who have been nominated more than once would get their first nom. Now I made it , so it'll work on all future RfA's. But as the ones there were subst:'d they won't be affected. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope anyone wanting to vote for them knows enough to work around (or shouldn't be voting anyway).  --hydnjo talk 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Vote here" link

message: On the "how to nominate" page instructions it says: "Please do not add the Rfa to Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship yet." How long is it until one can nominate somebody? Thanks Banes 11:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're nominating yourself, you're free to add it once the questions are answered. In the case of nominating someone else, you need to get them to accept the nomination and answer the candidate questions before adding it to the RfA page. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 14:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm nominating somebody else. He/She is aware of it and will accept once I nominate. So, I just go ahead and follow the instructions on the nominate page then? Banes 15:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Write the nomination page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Your candidate's name as per the instructions and tell your candidate that he/she has been nominated, and should fill in his/her acceptance and answers. Once that has been done, transclude the nomination page into the main listing. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations 

message: Anyone notice taht since the new procedure has been used that more Rfa's are successful? JobE6  15:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a case of correlation does not imply causation! Talrias (t | e | c) 16:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think this is in part a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc - the new procedure prevents unaccepted nominations from building up, which otherwise might lead to lingering strings of neutral or oppose votes based on nonacceptance, and which may raise doubts about a candidate's availability in general.  BD2412 talk 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Success

message: First let me say that I am one of the strongest proponents of having every voter count, but do you think we should encourage RfA nominees to withhold from voting on other people's RfAs until their's is completed? I know I might take some flak over this, but RfA nominees may be voting support just to gain reciprocal support. It doesn't have to be a firm policy, but perhaps merely a suggestion? Anybody? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I promised to avoid doing just that, but I feel that Rob Church's RfA is something I want to contribute to. Yes, I could've waited, but I can see how maybe another user can have trouble doing that (because of time constraints). It opens the door for "misuse" but I think the policy is fine as it is.  --Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I wasn't commenting on a specific person. I am not intending to single out people who may have done so in the past. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LV, I didn't take it personally, but it did struck a chord, especially because of what I wrote when I voted. I know you it wasn't your intention. :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think there is a fair amount of that going on, even if partly unconscious. It's probably a minority of cases though, and even then not likely to get enough votes to actually influence the outcome. People that will be promoted will be anyway and those that won't, won't. That said, I am generally in favor of encouraging candidates not to vote while they are being considered, but I'm probably not in favor of making it a rule. To justify a new rule, it has to meet my instruction creep guideline which is, is the new rule important enough to overcome the cost of complicating the guidelines. In this case I don't think it is; there is a lot more cost to complicating policies and pocedures than many editors reallize. - Taxman Talk 17:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There is, as usual, no need to constrain the RfA process in any way. It works fine as it is. People can see if people vote for others while their RfA is in progress and can reach judgements of their own based on that observation. We also have Bureaucrats who are skilled in understanding how RfA works. There is no need to add instructions to the process that wouldn't enhance it any. -Splashtalk 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with Splash. The RfA procedure is working fine without further restrictions on who can vote.  Joyous  (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If a candidate is worth voting for (or merits opposition), anyone who holds this conviction should vote accordingly. Consider the possibility, rare as it may be, that your silence may make the crucial difference for a worthy candidate who would better promote the ends of Wikipedia through the judicious exercise of admin powers.  BD2412 talk 17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not vote on RfA's while I am active in one, but that's a personal choice. I don't think we need this type of restriction, as it will be obvious if there is a rash of cross voting. Plus Splash points out that we have Bureaucrats for monitoring these things. Not to sound absurd or condesending, but will the next request be for other nominee's not to read another ongoing RfA, so as they don't get any ideas on how to respond on theirs? :-p  m:instruction creep. Actually, I think they should all send in pictures of themselves in a chicken suit, because at one point or another you're gonna feel like a fool.  Btw, my pic is in the mail. ∞Who?¿? 19:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just see a lot of odd behavior lately around RfA, and thought about pointing some of it out. Stirring up the pot a little. (No, not WP:POINT.) We already have plenty of unnecessary rules and guidelines, so why not talk about a few more. BTW, BCrats are really no different than regular editors (same thing with Admins). Yes, I know they have different features, but they're really not better than the non-vandal, non-troll everyday editors. But that's a discussion for another place, another time. And this chicken suit you speak of... do we have to buy our own, or is there a community one that we can borrow? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A minor, very nitpicky point to raise here, BD2412. If one vote really is crucial to turn an RfA around, if it's that close, the user really shouldn't be promoted. There is obviously not consensus for him being adminned. gkhan 22:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you get into a problem of infinite regression - if a nominee gets 15 support and 5 oppose votes (75% support), you could then argue that but for a single one of those support votes, the nominee would not have enough suport and "really shouldn't be promoted" - that moves the bar up, but the same argument can be made again for the nominee who falls on the edge of the next level, until you reach the point where only 100% support qualifies a nominee for adminship. Of course, the argument is also reversible - if a nominee has 15 support and 6 oppose votes, and one of those oppose votes should not have been cast, you could argue that if it's that close (and with that much support), the user really shouldn't be denied promotion. An overarching concern, I think, is that under the prohibition being discussed here, not only would current nominees not cast votes, but they would also likely not provide the underlying rationale for those votes. If any editor can point to particular evidence of why another should or should not be promoted, that information is as important to the discussion as the vote itself.  BD2412 talk 22:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're looking at this waaaaay to much like a vote. RfA is not, nor has it ever been about numbers. If there is general agreement ("rough consensus" i think the wording that's used), there are no major arguments against him/her, then the user should be promoted. It is a matter of bureocratic judgement. Ofcourse, if a user has important information about another user that would lead to him not getting the promotion, that's a whole 'nother cupcake, but this is not the case here (besides, that stuff always gets out one way or another). Lord Voldemort was talking about reciprocal support votes, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"-kinda-of-a-deal. One more "Extreme hula hoop support" should not, nor does it ever, tip the scales for a voter. gkhan 23:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, RfA does not violate the Sorites paradox :D gkhan 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But bureaucrats do, to some extent, hang their hats on raw numbers (as they must, where not every vote to support or opposed is qualified by an explanation). Moreover, my overaching concern remains intact - that prohibiting some editors from voting will discourage their participation altogether, thereby depriving the process of the substantive comments which that editor may have made along with a vote.  BD2412 talk 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It would be a nice way of blocking someone who you think might vote against you, nominate them! ;-) --TimPope 20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Interesting point.  I assume good faith and hand't even thought about it that way--just business as usual, but can understand how appearances can be.  I will also refrain from participating in RfA(s) (uh starting now) during a time period that I am involved.  However, one should be careful with such restrictions--it could be proposed for other such consensus gathering activities such as AfD.  We've all seen an individual nominate an article for deletion only to find one of their own nominated as well in retaliation.  Such is communal life, I suppose.  :-)  >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist• E@ 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue that it is simply a matter of good taste and etiquette to refrain form voting when your RfA is up. On the other hand, if we cannot trust candidates with excercising their right to express their support or opposition to other RfAs, how can they be trusted with admin tools? I would argue that an "effusive" voter who's RfA is up, will be too evident of a trolling for votes excercise as to raise a red flag, visible for all to see.  ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal? 

message: I have recently endeavored to undertake an ambitious project of my own. I have read through all of the successful adminship archives for the month of October and took count of the major support and oppose entries. I have compiled all of the recurring phrases and such into a list and am preparing to count them. If anyone is interested they may go here to see what I have done. Anyone is invited to help. I still have unsuccessful nominations to sort through. You don't have to do what I did and take on a whole month. You may do just one admin's nomination. Please go to the above page and comment about what I'm doing right or wrong. Thanks! Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 21:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambitious project

message: I've proposed some new policy for managing m:Checkuser at Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal, please have a look. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for addition to user privs policy