Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 114

message: I have recently noticed that some users add their opinions to RfA with only a minute or two between their contributions. While I will assume good faith here, it would seem that users doing so have not put in as much consideration as I am sure the canidate would welcome. Personally, I don't feel as though you can review a canidate in less that ten minutes and I often take longer. It could be done in less time, of course, but regardless of the time one feels is necessary I feel as though we all agree that careful consideration should be taken when voting in RfA. I have seen comments to this end but did not find any language dictating it on the main page. As such, I propose a small addition to the 'Expressing opinions' section on the main RfA page asking users to be take time and consideration in their forming of opinions about users. Being only a sentence, I do not really think WP:CREEP is a consideration and can not think of any other reason one might think of not to add such a notice. At any rate, opinions? SorryGuy  Talk  03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Do you think it will make a difference for the people who don't take the time to look? Myself, I usually wait a couple of days before voting even if I've reviewed recent contributions - just in case someone who knows better brings up something troubling. But you can't really force people to be cautious if they aren't inclined to be so already (even an enforced delay or something would just make people wait and then vote without looking ;-P) Avruchtalk 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, one could make a quick decision to oppose if it's pretty obvious the candidate isn't yet admin quality. I sometimes support based on others comments, and if I'm already familiar with the candidate. There'd be no need to review everything when you know already. Majorly (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Of thats presuming that the editor hasnt already had extensive contact with the editor over an extended period of time. Gnangarra 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the thing about instruction creep: it sneaks in, sentence by sentence :) Actually, I would think RfA would be better if voters took more time to review candidates, but I don't like this idea, because regardless of length, it's telling people how to vote. J-ſtanContribsUser page 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflicted flippin' 3 times) :It depends on the user, I suppose. If I have worked with and am very familiar with an admin candidate, there's usually little doubt in my mind as to their ability as an admin. On the other hand, if I'm unfamiliar, I usually take some more time to look at their background. I don't see how an extra sentence could hurt, but on the other hand, some people are quicker reviewers than others. Besides, we can strike our !vote if something else arises later. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I of course understand that there are exceptions to what I brought up and that occasionally quick decisions  occur and are justified. I also understand that one sentence likely will not effect a user's actions, however it does allow community consensus, because I think we all agree that some care should be taken, to be presented in a pseudo-official manner. Maybe I am being overly bureaucratic. SorryGuy  Talk  04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some care should be taken, definitely, but people should vote how they want to vote. Bureaucrats can determine which votes are frivolous enough to be discounted, or at least given less weight. Drive-by votes that appear to be frivolous would be taken into account, but as Majorly said, you don't always have to examine recent contribs. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Only a sentence, but instruction creep is made up of mere sentences. A better solution here would be to accost the offending users politely and ask whether they really think have done justice to the candidate. — Dan | talk 05:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's almost nothing we can do about people who don't give RfA the amount of time we feel necessary. That's a good thing, as "what we feel" is largely arbitrary, what is acceptable to me might be too short to someone else, and too long to yet another person. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a really arbitrary thing. It's possible that someone who comments 3 minutes apart on every (or most) RfA(s) on the page has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the candidates, then placing their comments all at the same time. I've done it... Keilanatalk(recall) 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of language to 'Expressing opinions'

message: I have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, as I suggested should be done above.  Since I don't know how this process is supposed to work, I may have done it wrong.  If my closing comments belong at the bottom of the page and not the top, then anyone is free to move them.
Based on a suggestion at the RFC by TomStar81 and Warlordjohncarter, I have started a proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins.  Please comment on that proposal's talk page.
I hope everyone will understand that my decision to close the RFC is not "the last word".  My goal was to summarize the suggestions that were made, and to observe that none of these suggestions has garnered consensus.  Further discussion is welcome, as always, in the usual forums.  With best wishes for a happy new year, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the idea, but isn't the whole '!voting' process supposed to equally be a discussion? So this proposal is really about extending the process, and having the first two days of the discussion not count towards the result? Would we be obligated to allow otherwise  snowable closes to stay open for the full first 48 hours? (Maybe 'obligated' isn't the right word here). I think the consensus is that controversial RfAs can be unpleasant, but does that necessarily translate to 'process is broken and needs radical change'? Avruchtalk 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, thinking about it more - while it has the chance to add acrimony to the process (by extending difficult RfAs into the wild blue yonder), it might be worth a couple of test flights. Still, are RfA results wrong often enough (or really ever) that we need to make the process more difficult and constrained? Avruchtalk 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure. I don't think it should extend the period an RfA is open. It might be better to have the RfA remain 7 days, 2 days for discussion, and 7 for voting. Any questionable activity would come to light in that time period, and any obvious snow closes could be shut down early, without pile-on opposes. Maybe there should be a discussion section, and once RfAs pass that, they can be moved to the active RfA area. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the time there is a real discussion on an RFA, it is in the oppose section. People rarely feel the need to discuss the positive aspects of a candidate. This could lead to the initial discussions being overwhelmingly negative and cause inappropriate SNOW closures or have an undue influence on people commenting. Mr.Z-man 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Despite helping the candidate, this may actually harm the candidate.  It would probably cause the community to look into the candidate's history much further and more thoroughly.  I'm not sure whether this period would be a good thing as it has been said that en wikipidia needs more admins.  Let's go BLUE--Malinaccier (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why should we settle for mediocrity? It is the responsibility of the !voters to look in at the candidate and make the best choice. bibliomaniac15 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need better admins, not more. This proposal is a good one. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would have to agree. I doubt that 2 days of discussion would come with a different consensus than our current system. Seven days is plenty, and two days does not make a difference. bibliomaniac15 03:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC closed, and a new proposal 

message: Query: Why does the page say that it's scheduled to end on the 4th? Shouldn't it be the 8th? Did I miss something? J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was created on December 28 which would make January 4th 7 days later.  But since it wasn't accepted and posted until the 1st, it should be the 8th. Metros (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would make sense. AGK's nom statement is even dated for the first. Would anyone oppose to it being changed? If it was only like 5 or 6 days, it wouldn't be such a problem, but 3 days is a bit short. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to have been fixed already. Avruchtalk 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're good, we're good. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: When  is substituted it displays the date 7 days from the creation of the page, and so it isn't 7 days from the time of acceptance, which is why the date needs to be fixed up a second time. Nothing to get worked up over, really. Spebi 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if you spot a problem like that on an RFA, should do no harm just to fix it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canley]] 

message: While going around, I found this RFA that was declined. Do I delete it? bibliomaniac15 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you should ask Alexfusco5 what they want done with it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Alexfusco5, he said to delete it, and Keilana deleted it. All done. :) Acalamari 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice use of diffs there Acalamari. Rt. 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Acalamari 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alexfusco5]] 

message: I just snow-closed WP:Requests for adminship/mr kc, perhaps slightly out-of-step with this discussion, but it truly had no chance, and some of the opposes struck me as almost mean.  The poor guy has been here less than a month, and has less than 250 edits.  Do we really need to very strongly oppose someone for offering to help out?
These three points have all been discussed before, but have been archived.  Perhaps someone less lazy than me can find links to the archived discussions.  But it might bear repeating again:
# Don't be mean.  Extremely new users filing for RFA are only trying to help, and they don't know they don't belong in an RFA precisely because they're new.  Oppose if you must, but I can't for the life of me imagine how a Strong oppose or Very strong oppose helps anyone.
# There's no ticking time bomb; we don't need to transclude someone else's self-nom RFA without talking to them first.  Whether they indicated "acceptance" of their own nom or not, they may not have wanted it  published yet, and might have been experimenting.
# EVula/Tango's suggestion a while back  (I'll find a link in a sec) that there should be a very clear message, right near the button you push to create a nomination, that you should have 1000 (or 1500, or 2000, or whatever we decide) edits to nominate someone (even yourself) seemed to me to have had consensus, but it died and was archived and nothing happened.  I think it should be re-visited.  Not buried somewhere in the instructions, or in the handbook thing, but right there next to the button.  It will spare quite a few feelings, I think.
--barneca (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (as I've stated many times before) - some of the opposes here sound like the user almost felt obliged to comment - it was clear it wasn't going to pass, so efforts should have been made to helping along and give him area's he could work on. There was no need for a "Very strong oppose" here - what's the guy done to deserve that? Nothing, he's just a little keen. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you guys, too; people being nasty at RfA is now becoming out of hand. I see at least 4 users a week treating new users at RfA as if they're something on the bottom of their shoe. However, I have also seen countless discussions like this, but it is never enforced, that is another significant problem... Qst 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a recommendation for 1000 edits is a great idea.  I was surprised at how many people in the last discussion thought the number should be lower.  I think we should even include basic instructions on how to check your edit count ("Go to the button called my preferences...."). These snow closes do nobody any good.  It doesn't even need to be a new rule, just a strong suggestion next to the button.  That way, the exceptions to the rule, the people who are already administrators at four other wikipedias and can knapp flint with a blindfold on, don't have jump through any hoops.  I also think that some basic way to keep RfAs that are sitting around looking like obvious tests  from being transcluded by uninvolved people would be a great idea, but I don't have any ideas free of instruction creep. Darkspots (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is a rule somewhere, people to whom it obviously shouldn't apply can simply IAR.  In fact, that would be a perfect example of IAR.  But I agree there's no need for a policy decision somewhere, just an edit to the instructions that sticks.  Instruction creep is a legitimate concern, but we shouldn't let fear of instruction creep get in the way of actual improvements. --barneca (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was planning on making a comment about that on the user's RfA. It's completely unnecessary. And by the way, I came up with the idea for having 1000 edits to nominate :) Just kidding! But I do think it's a good idea, and I like Barneca's idea of not letting WP:CREEP get in the way of improving the RfA procedure. Remember, Tango's suggestion was for server count, not just edit count. J-ſtanContribsUser page 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: RfAs like Mr kc's are good reasons why we need to find a way to prevent clearly inexperienced users (whose actions are almost always done in good-faith) from submitting RfAs, and getting bitten as a result. What was achieved in that RfA other than telling Mr kc how inexperienced he is? (Which was not even an achievement anyway.) I'm glad to see that some encouraging messages have been left on Mr kc's talk page. Even if we don't set an edit count limit or something like that, I do believe that the RfAs of users like Mr kc's should be closed as soon as possible to prevent biting, and after the closing, a friendly talk page posting full of helpful advice should be given to the candidate in question, explaining to them what they should do. That to me seems far more sensible than strongly opposing new/ish users and telling them how inexperienced they are. Nothing good ever comes out of blasting candidates like that. Acalamari 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate to what I'm suggesting (see instruction #1 of set of instructions), so you can see how it looks (I reverted back right away, as there's no consensus yet, I just wanted to see how it would look).  If, in spite of this new instruction, a new editor files an RFA, I'd suggest an immediate close, citing "per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#Instructions" rather than "per WP:SNOW", followed by gentle helpful advice on their talk page. Any ideas how to emphasize that this is an absolute minimum, and that editors with 1001 edits realistically have no chance of passing an RFA either, in 10 additional words or less? --barneca (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that protecting discouraging well-meaning yet ignorant folks from proceeding is the main goal, so I thought making it a little more prominent was the way to go.  Here's my suggestion.  The number "1000" can be changed to "4000" or any more realistic number if that seems like a better idea, although if a higher number is picked than text along the lines of "there is no minimum number of edits for adminship, this is just a reasonable suggestion" should perhaps be added. I think this will reduce the snow candidates without creating an edit count rule. Darkspots (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not 4000. 1000 is good, although maybe changing the section about self noms to maybe 2000 would be better, as that's where the majority of snow-closes comes from. By the way, I've opened up a discussion at WT:SNOW suggesting a move. It seems kind of bitey to tell an RfA candidate that their nomination didn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of passing. Please participate if you're interested. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good ideas, but change must to should, because this is a recommendation, not a requirement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Once again a newbie gets bitten when they apply, and once again the suggested solution is to stop them from applying, rather than sanctioning those who are biting. Fantastic. --bainer (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I think there was a fair amount of sanctioning taking place above.  But since you can't force RfA voters to be nice, it's not a terrible idea to politely discourage--but not forbid--new editors from requesting adminship--not even because people are going to be nasty (which they will be), but because the request won't be successful.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note to the self-nomination instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate to try to discourage inexperienced editors from requesting adminship.  It creates no new rules--it seems to me that any new rule is unlikely to achieve consensus.  Darkspots (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The object of this discussion wasn't actually to punish newcomers for applying; as I said above, the requests the newcomers make are done in good-faith. However, with "sanctioning" aggressive participants, whenever someone has tried to prevent newcomer-biting in RfAs, the response is almost always "people can decide how they vote" or "people can vote anyway they like", and thus, the biting continues. Whenever someone who is clearly not going to pass runs for adminship, other than a grilling of the candidate telling them how inexperienced they are, nothing is really gained. I don't want to "stop newcomers from applying" because of the behavior of certain users; instead, I'd like to stop newcomers from getting bullied whenever they run for adminship; after all, we're to welcome and guide newcomers, not tell them off. That's what this thread (and past ones like it) are trying to address. Acalamari 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy to sanction people socially for this sort of misbehavior, however, since generally RfA commenters are of a type who will be sensitive to social pressure. If they get a few talk page messages explaining why such opposes are embarrassing to the one making them, I think the problem can be brought under control. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is a good example of how we should treat RfAs like that: the people participating were polite, had good advice to give, and encouragement was given to the candidate. No biting, bullying, or aggression took place. Acalamari 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA's of inexperienced users, yet again 

message: I'm going to go out on a limb.  This admin made an honest, good-faith request to change her username -- completely in line with precedent and policy -- amidst some sort of extenuating circumstance or other.  This is presumably because being connected to her old username created a liability for her in real life.  This whole fracas has effectively "blown her cover," so to speak, and her use as an example in this conversation is regrettable.  We should repair the damage we have done here.
Her reconfirmation RfA should be WP:SNOW closed as successful as soon as it is apparent that it will eventually be anyway (it seems like it's headed that way now, if it's not there already).  The contents of this thread and of the RfA page (sparing the header and s/n/o totals) should then be blanked to give Keilana back at least a little bit of the retrograde anonymity she wanted and to which she is entitled by the Right to Vanish.  Those who truly need to know why she's an admin can always take a peek at the last, pre-blanking version of the RfA through the History tab.  In the case of the RfA page  could be put in place of the blanked content.  Is this a reasonable course of action?  --Dynaflow babble 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly protecting her anonymity would require a different and more significant step. She may or may not want this, and you should probably ask her directly. Avruchtalk 06:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Truly protecting" her anonymity would have required getting a new account in the first place, rather than just undergoing a renaming.  I imagine that was all that was needed.  The level of quasi-anonymity she had before this thread started can be at least partially restored by blanking its content and that of the RfA to avoid search-engine indexing and the like.  In any case, Keilana will be watching this thread, and she can let us know what she thinks herself.  --Dynaflow babble 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, (yes, I have been watching this), I'd leave it up for at least another 20 or so hours. I imagine that if anyone  wants to oppose, they will notice this RfA soon and comment. I also want to leave this up to the 'crats. If they feel a SNOW close is acceptable, fine, let them decide. I am still prepared to run a whole week on this, and would advocate doing so if any user opposes so that their grievances can be fully addressed. I will see how things go regarding anonymity, if the situation warrants proper vanishing, that is indeed what I will do. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 07:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal

message: This seems to have gone a wrong. For some strange reason in the same transclusion, it links to both their previous nomination and their current nomination. 
Or it had for a while. I therefore created the edit count on the wrong one (No. 2). Can someone delete this please Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dreamafter 2 again? Simply south (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. WjBscribe 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Simply south (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreamafter's RfA 

message: Stupid question perhaps - is it really necessary for WP:RFA to have the full text of each RfA instead of the link? I'm sure there was a reason for it initially, perhaps so that you could watchlist the page and get all the changes? I'm just not sure that is really enough reason to have a gigantic page, wouldn't it be easier just to have links to each individual active RfA? Avruchtalk 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchlisting the page only lets you know about the addition and removal of transcluded links, and of course any changes to the surrounding text.  I like the full text as well--it lets me scan through, pick RfAs to contribute to and watch others without having to formally watchlist individual RfAs.  I'm sure I would feel differently if I had a slower connection. Darkspots (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See, since I have a quick connection, I'd prefer the links to RfA's. нмŵוτнτ 00:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a quick connection, and I prefer all of the text in one place. I think it is just easier.   jj137 ♠ 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You can find links and status at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. Many users transclude it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dood. That's srsly what the RfA page should look like. Good link. the_undertow talk 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've got the Tangobot report, I'm just not sure why the state of the RfA main page is necessary. Its huge, its slow for people with slow or medium size connections, and uh, why? But I guess some people do scroll through the whole thing, I'm surprised at that. Avruchtalk 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I have a relatively fast connection, and I guess personally, I don't need the entire thing there. Would there be a way to make the discussion section of an RfA it's own subpage transcluded onto the RfA itself, and also onto the main RfA page? Or the other way around, with the nomination statement and question/answer part transcluded, but I think that would be less useful. J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I use both Tangobot and the main page. Generally, if I am looking for RfAs which I am going to contribute to, I look at Tangobot (because I generally only comment on the unanimous or near unanimous RfAs if I actually know the user in question). However, I am also like to scroll through the entire list, even if they are RfAs that I do not plan on commenting on. SorryGuy  Talk  03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You lost me there. The purpose of commenting on "unanimous or near unanimous" RfAs is what exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorryguy said "I generally only comment on the unanimous or near unanimous RfAs if I actually know the user in question". I interpreted that as: If the outcome seems certain then I'm not going to spend time investigating the candidate, but I may comment if I already know the candidate and can give an informed opinion without investigating. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, personally, it seems fine as it is at the moment. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with  - WP:BN is the best way. Rudget. 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion question 

message: Should this be deleted? I would have opposed, but I wanted to avoid hell. I don't even believe in it, but still, this is pretty blatant POV pushing. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. Thanks, Carribean H.Q.! J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)Tell me this is not a sock of the banned editor, User:Hornetman16? Has he, like, grown up  year and changed his sex?? - Alison ❤ 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I filed a RFCU (wrongly, I bet). Take a look, its Hornetman16_2. Avruchtalk 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, Alison, he must have. Acalamari 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You must not remember that gender is not genetic, it is a state of mind. the_undertow talk 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not! Unless Hornetman has moved as well as changed gender. And remember, we all should applaud her for coming out so spectacularly like that. Mind you, she's still banned :) - Alison ❤ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: PS - I'm going to hell! (Or not, Jews are exempt from stuff like that :-P). Avruchtalk 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would bet it's an impersonator, not a sock ... just my guess from looking at the (now deleted) RFA - Hornetman16 would know to capitalize God. --B (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Keep me a place, too, just in case. And if the Jewish G-d was the right one, please put in a good word for me. I'm nice really!! :) - Alison ❤ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hornetwoman17]] 

message: Are editors allowed to close RfAs, not just admins? 
I recommend early closure of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you do not have to be a bureaucrat or an administrator to close a SNOW RfA. However, it's courteous to let the candidate know why their RfA was closed early rather than just marking it as closed as SNOW and not informing them. Acalamari 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for obviously bad faith / bad idea RFAs (ie, a brand new user making an RFA so he can block his best friend), non-crats shouldn't be snowing them.  5-19 is overwhelming, but not so much so that a well-reasoned argument couldn't potentially turn it around.  There are occasionally RFAs where the "namespace balance" crowd starts opposing in bulk because someone only has 387 WP:space edits and 387 is below someone's magic number of 400.  In those, there is too much potential for it to turn around for a non-crat to make the decision. --B (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: there are some SNOW cases where it was best that a bureaucrat closed the RfA rather than an admin, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov 3. With disruptive RfAs, they are normally deleted. Acalamari 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How long do admin reqs run through before they are closed early? Simply south (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Although I feel a great amount of sympathy, I agree. Rudget. 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing 

message: This is a self nomination for the user " Sahilm " to become an adminsitrator for the following reasons:
As we all know wikipedia is a place where we all like truthful information but there are people who like to vandilize the pages. As fast as our current administrators work, when we find a person who, as per looking up history, continues to vandilize after numerous warnings, we want them blocked from editing. As you may know it could take months for the request to be processed and because of that the perpitrator has already caused more damage.
I want to stop vandels and help Wikipedia!
Thank You
Sahilm (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you're desire, but it is with greatest sincerity that I ask you not to consider this. I've had a flick through your contributions, and it's okay but there are only 6. It may also be of use to advise you that requests go on here, but you'll have had to create it beforehand. Rudget. 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, as Rudget said above me, this isn't the place to request adminship. You're almost right, as this is the talk page, but you'll want to see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and the place to find the nomination forms is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. However, upon looking at your contributions, I don't believe you'll pass an RfA at this stage: I don't like to editcount, but you only have a small amount of edits: two are to sandboxes, one was a good-faith report to ANI which should have gone to WP:AIV instead, and few are to the mainspace. Before you request adminship, my suggestion is that you edit Wikipedia for a few months first, edit some articles to gain experience there (you can edit whatever subject interests you), participate in deletion discussions, familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines, and continue to remove vandalism. You appear to be an editor who is willing and eager to learn and help out, and that's a good sign. I hope you'll find this advice helpful. Good luck. Acalamari 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Nomination: sahilm 

message: :Moved to User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/lolcat RfA. This is probably supposed to stay serious...Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember, RfA isn't ''that'' serious ;) 

message: A serious question (not trolling on the rollback issue): If the community ultimately accepts that 65% is a sufficient consensus to approve rollback, perhaps that same level of consensus should be used consistently and include RfA promotions?
1) Rollback implementation required a dev change, granted a previously admin-only right to hundreds (and soon thousands) of users, inspired a project wide debate and many mailing list posts, created a new process, a new noticeboard and a new backlog.
2) RfA, on the other hand, directly alters the rights of only one individual and creates no new other system changes.
Based on this, if 65% is enough consensus to do 1) then why not 2) ? Reminds me of allowing soldiers to fight and drink but not vote, and then vote and fight but not drink or bet. Avruchtalk 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer this not be implemented for several reasons.  First, having a project-wide numerical threshold for consensus is a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion.  On Wikipedia, consensus is not binary and it's not "numbers in a vacuum."  Furthermore, comparing the rollback poll to RFA is invalid in my opinion.  You're not hurting anyone's feelings by opposing rollback; it can be really quite devastating to oppose someone's RfA.  If you vote oppose in the rollback poll you don't have to worry about whether or not the project is going to lose an editor (similarly, nobody is "WikiFriends" with a rollback poll), thus the percentage of opposition can be expected to increase. --JayHenry (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot compare rollback to adminship. That's all I can say. Majorly (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) You certainly can't. So it's somewhat of a surprise that some do. That's all I'll say. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If we do that, it becomes an RfA with a lower standard. Avruchtalk 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and why shouldn't it be? A "halfway house" between editorship and adminship is IMO a good idea. We should give non-admin rollbackers a title, such as "Senior Editor", and view it as a lesser position of trust than adminship, just as adminship is a lesser position of trust than bureaucratship. WaltonOne 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is EXACTLY what almost no one wants. Actually I thought it was no one, apparently I'm wrong. Avruchtalk 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We seriously don't need another title. It's even more of "not a big deal" than adminship. It's rollback. Why is this being blown so out of proportion? We don't need a waiting period of more than a few minutes, we don't need the approval of more than a couple admins. I mean seriously, what's happened to warrant all this wasted time? Lara❤Love 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My historical recollection is that reducing from 75% to 65% was expected to increase the number of admins created by 20% (using the same sort of analysis you did on older data).  For that to hold here it would mean only ~140 admins were created last year.  Is that correct?  Dragons flight (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 405 promotions in 2007. Kingturtle (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: Does anyone mind if i insert this at the top?  
Simply south (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Top of what? If you mean the RFA page, no. Majorly (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RfA talk. Simply south (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that's fine with me :) Majorly (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought it might be useful in discussion. Simply south (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a small difference but I would prefer the below Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report which transcludes Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report and adds RfB links by hand. I also think it should be linked, but probably not transcluded, early on the RfA page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report 

message: Has consensus ever been discussed on the numbering of "optional questions" on RfAs?  I've noticed some that have the 1,2,3, for the standards and then start at 1 again for the first "user question" while others start at 4.  Not trying to be petty, but it seems that some editors like to support or oppose based an a particular question's answer and they'll say "per A6" or "Per Q1", which of course can be ambiguous.  (Maybe this is coming out of my experience with WP:DPL, I don't know...)  So, is the fourth question #4, or is it #1?   Keeper  |  76 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be renumbered for clarity's sake, you're right. Unfortunately, speaking strictly for myself, I never thought to do that until just now. I'm not sure if it would make sense for there to be a section specifically requesting continuous numbering, but the proposal to have such certainly makes sense. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If I see it in the future (and I'll be watching you like a 3-eyed hawk, Avruch:-) I'll just change it without fuss, unless of course someone does exactly what you just said, which is say "Avruch's #4".  I won't be going around changing anyone's comments, and therefore, I won't be changing the numbering either.  A minor issue at best, but thanks for your response/confession!  Cheers, Keeper  |  76 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Keeper, that for clarity's sake, 4, 5, 6, and so on is preferred. Really, though, it is not a big deal. SorryGuy  Talk  03:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question numbering in RfA