Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 59

message: Moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#New access class oversight since it isn't really relevant to RFA, and could benefit from a wider audience. the wub "?!" 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Oversight

message: I think that publicity would be a good thing for RfAs but spamming isn't the way to do it. I think there would be significant support for the ability to specify a list of people you have interacted with and be automatically posted a warning if they come to RfA, though. As far as I can see, such a customized service would ultimately be a personal choice, though, and not a policy decision whose rights and wrongs need to be debated (unlike, say, deciding the boundaries for indiscriminate spamming or a publicity campaign). The proposal in full is here (it's not long!); if interested you can sign up here. If there is enough demand for it, the next step would be finding somebody prepared to write and operate an RfA alertbot. Any assistance would be welcome! TheGrappler 03:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no policy, or rules, regarding whether or not a candidate can contact people about his or her RfA.  What has been said is that this practice is discouraged because it is frowned upon, and it may cause some users to oppose the candidate, not because they are mandated by any rule, but rather because of how publicizing one's RfA is perceived in the community.  I don't believe that anyone here has any intention of designing rules to either encourage or forbid the practice, since that'd be instruction creep, so it is up to the candidate to be sensitive, and well informed, enough to make his or her decision about whether or not to publicize his or her RfA.  It is also worth mentioning that countless proposals for a standard template, or "RfA notice" message, have been rejected over the last two years.  Redux 11:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opt-in personalized alerts for RfA 

message: I'm not sure if this was an isolated incident, or something that's hit other RFAs as well, but my opinion on Ynhockey's nom was removed by an AOL IP last night, and wasn't restored for nearly a day, when I revisited the page and noticed it missing.  It wouldn't matter on that particular nom, but on close discussions, this might be more of a problem.  Ral315 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD is not RfA (unless I'm confused) - B'crats are not allowed to close AfD's? -- Tawker 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I just changed the header.  RFAs, not AFDs.  I need sleep.  Ral315 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  - seriously, I think its something not just 'crats need to worry about, we all do. The sprotection on the RfA listing page makes sense, no non autoconfirmed user would add an RfA to the list anyways so hopefully that will solve the problem -- Tawker 18:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As has been said before: Bureaucrats are not, and cannot, be responsible for watching every single edit to every RfA. It is the responsibility of every editor on Wikipedia to watch for inappropriate editing, and to correct it whenever they find it, whether it is in the articlespace, the userspace, on an RfA, on a template, etc. etc. ad nauseam ad infinitum. There are dozens of participants on ever Rfa, and less than a dozen active bureaucrats; participants (and indeed, non-participants as well) need to be watching for this sort of thing, and correcting it, or at the very least, noting it, when it happens. We watch for signs of foul play when closing, but it's impossible to track each and every one of the multiple hundreds of votes cast on dozens of RfAs each day. This has to be a community effort. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an Idea, there should be a list of RfA's with a "watch" link next to them that links to "WP:RFA/Username&action=watch". Then when the RFA is done, it should be moved to another list and there could be a link to "unwatch". There still should be people watching RfAs after closing them, and I'll be happy to keep them on my watchlist. I don't have enough pages on my WL. I have 1500 pages. That is too little. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually noted the missing vote. The related comments suddednly showed up under my comments, and I made another comment asking what happened. I should have gone through the diffs to find what happened. Again fatigue stops someone from taking a needed action. Whta would have been a better way to draw attention to something like that.11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Placing a note here on this talk page would be a good start to getting a number of people to check into what went on. You could also leave a message on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Protection, in general, is against this enigmatic "wikispirit" too, but there still exist pages which are permanently protected.  Who knows how often this really happens?  I know I rarely ever go back and check to see if my votes are in still in place, and I doubt many (if any?) people religiously check every edit that a user adds to a nominee's subpage.  --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the key here is that we do not do preemptive protection.  In the case of the RfA page (the "listing page"), we have no grounds for any protection (full or semi-).  The incident in question doesn't count towards that page, since, as I said in my previous comment, the page that was edited in order to remove Ral's rationale was not the listing page, but rather a specific RfA.  And as far as protecting any RfAs, again refer to our previous discussions where it was decided that that shouldn't be done (anons are not allowed to support/oppose, but they are allowed to comment).  Redux 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism on RfAs are the same as vandalism anywhere else, and there are standard procedures for dealing with them. It seems one slipped through the net for a while, but that can happen anywhere on Wiki. Hopefully most editors contributing to a RfA would spot and revert. Tyrenius 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me just say for the record that I don't support semi-protection either; my original post was simply to warn that this may have been an effort to affect more than one RFA.  It appears that didn't play out.  Ral315 (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning for bureaucrats closing RFAs 

message: Is adminship so trivial that people should be racing to "vote"?  Can you make an informed decision about a candidate in as little as a minute?  If it is someone that you already know (or knew that they would be nominated), couldn't you state something of value about their abilities or demeanor instead? Or am I just being cranky? Kotepho 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never really thought of it like that either... I guess it means they feel they know them well enough to vote without needing any research. "I beat the nom" doesn't add anything to the aim of RfA, which is reaching concensus, so it should be discouraged, but I doubt you'll get anywhere. --Tango 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone hypothesized a few days ago on this page that RfA regulars are better qualified to judge suitability, having had more experience.  But this first post culture is clearly a refutation of that hypothesis.  -lethe talk [ +] 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: With respect, you're just being cranky. It's a vaguely irritating habit but does no harm... I doubt anyone rushes to support someone they wouldn't have supported in any case. The Land 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting before the candidate has accepted the nomination indicates either trust or friendship. I agree with trust, but not with friendship: you should never vote based on it, as it taints your WP:NPOV. Just because I WP:AGF doesn't mean I won't wonder why some don't change their vote when an extremely good oppose one is raised. -- ReyBrujo 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Besides, there's no effective way to prevent this, if it were the case, without resorting to...gah...instruction creep.  This is just one of those things where if someone is overdoing it, we need to reason with the person and hope that s/he will listen and discontinue.  Redux 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Only n00bs try to get first post. Established, serious editors of course camp for the 100 spot. -- grm_wnr Esc 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough*ExperiencedUsersWaitfortheOtherstodotheWork*cough* ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called the "" mentality. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! :D RadioKirk talk to me 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Lethe is right, it's not dissimilar to the "First post!" phenomenon that has plagued forums and message boards across the Internet for years. It's not a big problem – Gurch 14:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I beat the nom support!

message: ILovePlankton has withdrawn and is asking to have his RFA closed. --Bishonen | talk 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been delisted, closed, and added to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies Naconkantari 03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can remove it if the candidate has withdrew, am I right? -- ReyBrujo 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct. Prodego talk 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, non-beaurocrats can close RfA's as long as they have failed. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they have withdrawn, not "failed". Only BCrats can close a "failed" RfA. We specifically chose them to determine consensus, I propose we let them do so. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means removing them from the page, if a crat has already marked them as failed but didn't remove them from the page.  I can't see that happening, but whatever. --Rory096 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-bureaucrats may close and remove RfAs that are clearly snowballing, it's better to protect the candidate than wait for a bureaucrat to decide that (0/19/0) might just be a consensus to not promote an individual. Whilst not everybody agrees with this practice it certainly does, and should, happen. The purpose of bureaucrats, at least as I understand it, is to promote candidates and make the close calls on consensus, not to necessarily carry out every action on RfA. Although I would stress that if in doubt a non-crat should not close a request. Rje 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So if a user with 2 edits who joined 3 minutes ago applies in good faith, you (a non-crat) can remove it to prevent too much pile-on, right? Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking I would not, this would set a terrible precedent; however, if the application was mangled I would (and I have). Although all circumstances are different, I would advise non-crats to not close requests before the pile-on has actually occurred. There are several reasons for this: the most obvious being that there is no such thing as a sure-thing. I imagine many people would consider any candidate with below 750 edits a certain snowball, but I can remember a candidate with under 400 edits getting (16/11/1) a while ago. I think we have to assume good-faith and that all requests are made with sufficient forethought, especially now that an account has to be four days old to edit WP:RFA, therefore they should all run to at least the point where a conensus is clear (and a snowball at (0/12/0), or so, would be sufficient proof that the candidate will not be promoted). Rje 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please close ILovePlankton's RFA

message: I feel that this sentence, If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least a month – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination should be changed to If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least three months – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination under the heading of nomination process. The reason is obvious. Based on past experience, many users feel that running for adminship after one or even two months is considered too soon and as a result, in most cases, the renomination would fail again. This same situation is also applied to RfBs. The reasonable amount of time for RfBs renomination should be six months and not three months. Any thoughts about this is much appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with that. I think people applying just after one month are too rushed, but people must be given freedom of choice, even if that is freedom to screw up (and some people succeed after just one month). Forcing people to wait three months is too much micromanaging of what people can and cannot do I would say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Usually, they fail, but sometimes they don't. There's no reason to change the page so people can point out "oh it's not 3 months" just because it's there.  It's instruction creep as it is, and it's totally arbitrary. --Rory096 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a prudent step, though there is the oddball case who 28 days later manages to pass an RfA - so it might be a highly suggested policy but not a strict "your rfa will be removed if you don't" policy -- 03:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest removing any specific time.  "a reasonable period of time" is good wording, let's not marry ourselves to a specific length of time, which might change depending on circumstances.  Plus putting specifics makes it look like a rule, which it is not.  Remove it. -lethe talk [ +] 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lethe is correct. Instruction creep is a Bad Thing. --Rory096 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not suggesting a policy here. It could just be a guideline to guide users who are too keen on renominating herself/himself. Remember, RfAs can be a harsh process and some users are known to be discouraged or even leave Wikipedia after 1, 2 or even 3 failed nominations. However, there are exceptions as well to this. Additionally, I feel that the term "a reasonable period of time" is too ambiguous". Some users would feel that this could be after one month and others could even feel that this could be after 6 or even 9 months. Moreover, this should not be a strict and absolute rule as well. Just a friendly guideline or advise, perhaps? --Siva1979Talk to me 04:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, for whatever reason, it's different in every case. I can think of a few people who had controversial and failed RfAs, then 1-2 months later met with little serious opposition. Likewise with RfBs, there's actually a great example up right now. A trend (by no means universal) is that it appears to work better if the second nomination is a self-nom... and the candidate just picks the right time to run. Obviously some problems, like a really bad "I hate you idiots"-diatribe, is generally going to be insurmountable no matter how long someone waits. To try to codify all of this seems like instruction creep. --W.marsh 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly: there's way too many variables for implementing a "χ months" rule. A suitable candidate might "get away with murder" and get promoted with a second nomination within a month; an unsuitable candidate might get rejected after a year. I think it would just add instruction creep to the process. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already codified (in people's heads). There are three ways for failed candidates to discover what this code is. 1) they see the comments made to other reapplying candidates after differing time periods - 1, 2, 3 months etc. 2) they find out when they reapply 3) they are given some helpful general indications (not policy). It would save wasted effort to give a pointer such as If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have succeeded again within a month, but many editors feel that at least two or even three months is better. Tyrenius 10:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tyrenius's suggestion is the best of both worlds.  I liked it so much that I put it in.  Dragons flight 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine when such advice is given, although it is still going to be from specific users, whom others might not agree with. The suggestion is just for a generic indication. Tyrenius 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A change in timing? 

message: I know there has been a lot of controversy at various times over people voting before the nominee has accepted the nomination, and I was thinking that a simple change in the nomination procedure would stop all that. We currently create the nomination page before asking the candidate whether they will accept or not, and it strikes me that we are doing this the wrong way around. Why don't we ask the candidate first then create the nomination page if they accept? This way we wouldn't have comments or votes being placed before acceptance, as the page would only be created once the nomination was accepted. We also wouldn't have nominators taking the time to create the page only for the candidate to decline. 
The reason I say this is possibly a stupid question is that this just seems so obvious to me that in the back of my mind I'm thinking there must be a reason why we don't do this already that I don't know know about. I honestly can't think of a reason why are doing it the way we are instead of this way, but I'm feeling a little like there must be one I haven't thought of. Raven4x4x 11:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is at the very least a courtesy to ask someone before proposing them, as well as practical, as you point out. I certainly wouldn't propose someone without asking them (not that I have yet proposed anybody). Furthermore, if the candidate doesn't accept (for whatever reason) this can then be brought up again if at a later time they do accept, although the first nom was nothing to do with them. Thus an unsolicited nom can actually be a later hindrance. Tyrenius 11:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's not that bad of an idea really. Perhaps it could be like RfArs in a way, where in lieu of the candidate accepting on the nomination, the nominator just links to a diff showing them accepting on a talk page. Self-noms wouldn't need this, obviously. But the problem is off-Wiki discussions... e-mail and IRC. Either they'd still need to accept on the nom, or they'd have to post to the person's talk page in acceptance. Either way it does seem like a good way to come up with a pre-formed RfA with minimal instruction creep. --W.marsh 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why the rush?  I'd say that a simple comment to the effect that no votes should be entered before the nomination has been formally accepted would be sufficent. Just zis Guy you know? 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: An RfA shouldn't be added to the main RfA page until it's accepted, so people shouldn't even see it before it's ready for votes.  If people are going around looking for unlisted RfA's, they're just being foolish - there is no point.  The current system works fine. --Tango 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly stupid suggestion 

message: As of now, neither Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/9cds 2 nor Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Terence Ong 2 show up in User:Dragons flight/RFA summary. What's the reason? Misza13 T C 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discuss here link is the usual culprit one way or the other (missing, malformed, etc.). NoSeptember 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I fixed Terence's (I guess we'll know in 20 minutes) but I'm not sure what's wrong with 9Cds'. --JoanneB 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I found the error in the other one as well, I'll wait till the bot updates and check if they're both in the list now. --JoanneB 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discuss here url did not have the action=edit clause. The easiest way to fix these is to closely compare the url to another subpage that is working properly. NoSeptember 18:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should have spotted that, thanks :) --JoanneB 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That missing link caused my hide/show link system to say "(RfA malformed)".Voice-of-AllTalk 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not showing up? 

message: I would like to see a better color scheme on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report and User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report. I invite anyone interested to come to the discussion here and to play with this fun little program to come up with a better color scheme :-). NoSeptember 16:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gradient Colors