User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Format

Layout (Archive 17)

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask, but would it not be easier if this page and for example Vandalism in progress had a layout like that of Vote for deletion such that every nomination could be kept as an entry of the watchlist? I certainly would not want this whole page on my watchlist since it is so frequently edited but placing a particular nomination on the watchlist would facilitate following. Get-back-world-respect 20:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

VfD switched to that format because it was getting far too large and unwieldy, and edit conflicts happened constantly. This page is big right now, but it's usually not anywhere near this large. Isomorphic 21:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Isomorphic -- I think this is a very unusual number of nominations. And GBWR, I don't really understand why you wouldn't want this on your watchlist? It's only one page. It would actually take up more room on your watchlist to have to watch all those separate votes, I would think. Maybe I don't understand your objection? :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not want all votes on my watchlist, only the ones I am interested in because I do not want to overlook a question as last time when Cecropia got nominated and asked me why I thought he had misbehaved. It does not make sense to put a page on your watchlist that always shows up because it gets constantly changed. I see the same problem with "vandalism" and "protection" and the page where you ask for advice. Get-back-world-respect 01:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Image (Archive 18)

This page needs a janitorial image: a large shiny bunch of keys looking really cool ... and the mop and bucket which are the reason for the keys. Do we have any on the site? If not, I'll see what I can come up with - David Gerard 15:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And one of those "Wet Floor" signs. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. blankfaze | •• | ••

I carry my camera with me everywhere - I'll see if one of the cleaners at work can help ;-) though if anyone else can do it faster, feel free! Don't forget to make the keys really shiny - David Gerard 18:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm he does carry a camera ... whether he ever shows anyone the photographs though is another matter ;-) --VampWillow 20:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Listing previous nominations (Archive 20)

IMO, when a user is being renominated for adminship, any previous nominations should be listed and linked to in the nomination itself. Since some people will obviously know about them, it would be fair if all voters did. Also, when previous unsuccessful nominations are first mentioned in an opposing vote (as has recently happened), people could get the impression that a cover up was attempted. Zocky 04:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion: subpages (Archive 21)

How about putting each discussion into a subpage like the VfD page is organized? That way it would be possible to watch a specific discussion that interests you, or the page as a whole for new nominations/changes to the intro. As it stands the watch mechanism is useless 'cos the page changes all the time. Gadykozma 14:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Excellent idea -- looking up old nominations is a pure bitch. -- orthogonal 20:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would also make it easier to look at people's nomination histories (i.e. I nominated myself twice, and succeeded only on the second try). ugen64 20:46, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't think it was necessary because the volume here isn't comparable to VfD, but the point about looking up historical nominations is good. --Michael Snow 21:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think this is a very good idea. Right now, nominations which end simply "disappear", and one must page through the page history to find out what happened. I've seen so many cases where users wish to leave parting words, etc., and simply have them all erased with the nomination. In addition, I've heard it's a bit of a server load to look up way old versions in RfA (especially with those stupid toctallies). V V 21:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Great idea. --Lst 27 21:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I offer a very wimpy support vote, since I think it's a fantastic idea and I have no personal enthusiasm for actually doing the conversion myself. If others are willing to do it, I think it would be a worthy service to WP, but I don't think I'd be any help at all. Sorry! Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It would be trivially easy to do, I think: /Sample Vote on sub-page for User:Jimbo Wales. -- orthogonal 22:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Link fixed. Graham87 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I was more envisioning pushing votes over without losing any in the transition.....coming up with an agreed on format to make nominations retrievable (for users nominated more than once)....etc. Perhaps I make too much out of it in my head. Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Just start new votes on subpages after some date. As for second nominations, I'd want to conveniently see the results of the preceeding votes for that nomimee, so I'd suggest pushing preceeding votes to a single sub-sub-page, using a move page to preserve history, and linking to that from the then blanked vote page. -- orthogonal 22:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Instead of moving the old vote, just edit over it and add a link to the old revision afterwards. --Michael Snow 00:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bad idea. The page is not too big as VfD was, and it's more practical if you can cast multiple votes on one page. Gzornenplatz 23:47, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Personally, I like the fact that separate subpages could make people give more thought to the individual merits of each candidate. --Michael Snow 00:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - I don't think anyone can complain that Gzornenplatz does not give candidates individual attention. And BTW, Gzornenplatz, I want to thank you for digging up all the evidence against Anarion. Good job. Gadykozma 15:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - I certainly wasn't complaining about Gzornenplatz personally, just saying that casting multiple votes on a page lends itself to less individualized consideration than voting on separate pages. --Michael Snow 15:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea, for the reasons stated by others above. Is it possible to make the "Vote here" link go directly to edit mode? That way, using a tabbed browser, one could cast several votes easily. — David Remahl 23:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, as shown by the last couple comments, I went ahead since it looked like everyone was in favor (then Gzornenplatz showed up with the objection). About making the link directly editable, I'm not sure, but I think the possibility was discussed when VfD switched over to this model. Perhaps it's too difficult, or maybe it's problematic because it's part of the section heading or something. Maybe one of the VfD regulars could explain either how to do it, or why not to. --Michael Snow 00:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To make it editable, just add &action=edit to the to the url and use the one set of brackets and http:// syntax. I demonstrate: [http://en.wiki.x.io/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Sample_Vote_on_sub-page_for_User:Jimbo_Wales&action=edit Sample Vote on sub-sub page for User:Jimbo Wales] .
To accommodate both readers and editors, I'd suggest the following format: View Vote on User:Jimbo Wales Edit
I also wonder if it's easier on reader to not lexicographically include the text of the sub-pages in the main page, and just use links instead; this departs from the VfD usage, but is perhaps easier to read. -- orthogonal 00:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) Fixed link. Graham87 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think there's still enough convenience in having all the text visible on one page that inclusion is the better choice. In fact, your argument seems like it would be stronger on VfD, which has so much volume that trying to load and read the page is overwhelming. --Michael Snow 00:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I changed it so that 'vote here' isn't in the TOC, and so that the links edit directly. clicking twice is indeed annoying. +sj + 20:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is (atleast) one downside to subpages for RFA. After the voting is over, the nomination subpage still remains and people may feel the need to add votes or change their vote after the user has been made a sysop. For example if a user is made a sysop in September, someone may decide a month later that they no longer support that person and remove their vote from their RFA subpage. Of course people shouldn't do that, but unlike before where the discussion was in the page history, the nomination is still readily viewable and editable.

I see your point, but I don't think it's a major issue. When a vote is closed, the page could be terminated with a message, "Voting has now ended. $CANDIDATE is now an admin / $CANDIDATE's candidacy failed to gather consensus. Please do not edit this page." Further changes to the page could then be reverted at sight, and any discussion could take place on the talk page. The history will continue to exist, so verifying that the page has not changed after the voting ended is simple. — David Remahl 18:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why? What the harm in changing one's vote after the discussion is over? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:10, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Format of RFA (Archive 21)

Are any of you getting a huge amount of blank space at the bottom of the RFA page? Of course, I'm using a nightly build of Mozilla,w hich might be the problem, but... ugen64 00:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

It gets worse and worse (Archive 21)

Now someone has even removed the "Vote here" links. How are we supposed to get to the voting pages? Can we please return to the old format? Another reason is that it is impossible to watch the page as before. You only see when a new candidate is added. If you want to watch all votes, you'd have to put every new candidate page on your watchlist separately (and remove it again when the vote is over, if you don't want to clog your watchlist with useless entries). Also, in the old format you could see all tallies in the TOC, and see at once which nominations were essentially decided and which were still open. The whole change was a bad idea to begin with. Gzornenplatz 07:58, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The "vote here" links are redundant following the software change that means the section edit links link to the included template's edit page. Pcb21| Pete 08:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Except to the people who don't do section editing. Gzornenplatz 08:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Right, not everyone has it enabled in their preferences. I figured that was why the "Vote Here" link was there, to cater to those without the edit links. --Golbez 08:51, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Presumably there is a good reason why that preference is available? If so, then that new feature is not so great. Pcb21| Pete 08:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a handy function. However, I have disabled it, because it inhibits my ability to type "edit" to select the edit link at the top of the page in my browser. The vote here links _must_ be there for me to be able to use the new RfA in a reasonable manner. But I don't agree with Gzorenplatz at all, that the whole change was a poor choice. But I do understand that the new format may be less ideal for people with other usage patterns. — David Remahl 10:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It looks much better now. I should note that toctallies were quite controversial when first introduced - I believe the vote was very close to 50/50 re having them. The benefits of being able to watch an interesting candidate are significant, the fact that edits to the main page are now simply nominations, promotions, and removals makes it much easier to track the "big picture", and the fact that nominations are now easily accessible in the future will prove quite valuable in time. All the arguments given above for this change have held. The "edit link" issue I'm sure is within our abilities to handle. V V 10:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't update for me. I am forced to edit behind a proxy, and cannot rely on CTRL+F5 to reload the main page after voting on a subpage: as the page has not changed itself I do not get the new page until the proxy expires. And I miss the edits. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 10:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Has this been filed as a mediawiki bug? — David Remahl 10:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't reach Mediawiki from here (blocked). And the new page now showed, it just takes forever, as if the page is not rebuilt correctly. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 12:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I get the same thing. Frankly I liked the old way better, but I check my watchlist every 10 minutes or so. Although it's a minor thing, I always like having RfA at the top or near the top of my watchlist. CryptoDerk 15:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The support for the subpage idea was nearly universal until it was implemented. Is it really that bad, or are people just griping while we get the kinks out? I would be fine with reinstating the "vote here" links for people who don't have section editing, but I really think subpages themselves are a major improvement. --Michael Snow 15:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There does seem to be some sort of MediaWiki bug/quirk/feature which prevents the RfA page from immediate updates. But like many weird bugs in the new software, it should be sorted out soon enough. V V 23:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any edit to the main page updates displayal of all subpages as well, but that's the only way that does. {Ανάριον } 07:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about a formal vote regarding whether to keep the subpages or not?

What about a formal vote regarding whether to keep the subpages or not? Acegikmo1 14:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Let's have a vote. BCorr|Брайен 15:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let's do it. CryptoDerk 15:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd just like to note we have set no procedure for establishing who has won this vote if no clear consensus develops. Does a deadlock support an inertial preservation of subpages, or an automatic return to the previous model? I know it's tough to make those decisions, but that's why it's kind of important we do it before the vote has concluded and there are clear stakes involved. Next time, please move with a little more care, Jwrosenzweig 20:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote

Vote ends 15:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Support subpages

Much more convenient tracking of individual candidates, better history/auditing, RfA on watchlist lets one monitor nominations and promotions instead of individual votes. David Remahl 15:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 15:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:36, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Much much much better; like we do on VfD. James F. (talk) 19:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Improv 21:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
V V 23:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) For the reasons noted above: Highly valuable for tracking individual nominations, especially for the future, reduces load on RfA page. Objections don't seem very potent.
100% agree with what David Remahl said. —Stormie 02:44, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Changed to a support vote, I can get used to this. {Ανάριον } 07:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can now see the global picture of what's happening by watching the page. Convinient. Gadykozma 09:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 20:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Initially a little skeptical, now very much in favor.
Angela. I've liked this idea ever since it was introduced on the Sep11 wiki earlier this year. I'm surprised it wasn't done here earlier.
func (talk) 00:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) I always agree with Angela... oh, and I like the subpages.
— Matt 13:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ℛyan! | Talk 05:18, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
BrokenSegue 01:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I actually find them convienent, now. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 01:40, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 22:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose subpages

~~Too inconvenient to vote on multiple people. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)~~

~~Seconded. More trouble than they're worth. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 15:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~

Gzornenplatz 15:18, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
New-fangled complexity layer. Don't need it gosh durn it! Gehirn
It is rather confusing, but more importantly it now evades my watchlist and that is a major problem for me (and part of why I don't really follow VfD anymore). The only time I really remember to check is when something is changed here. BCorr|Брайен 19:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
pir 20:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

CryptoDerk 15:14, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) I'm in the neutral category now.. I do like the idea, but the non-updating of the main page is bad. Hopefully that will be fixed.
Too new to support so far, support at 50 subpages. Κσυπ Cyp 19:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

To deal with the issue of updating the page, for now I've added the "Purge the cache" link at the top of this talk page, which is similar to the solution used for the Main Page and the Community Portal. --Michael Snow 05:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Subpages considered harmful! 1 2 3 (added by User:AnAccount)

All those arguments are about subpages in the article namespace, and have nothing to do with whether they're desirable here. --Michael Snow 05:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed instruction creep (Archive 22)

Requests for adminship recent updates
15 Oct 2004 Candidacy notice: Self nomination of Skyler1534 withdrawn by candidate.
14 Oct 2004 Please examine and consider voting and/or commenting on UninvitedCompany's request for bureaucrat status, along with 172's. Bureaucratship is an important responsibility and deserves more attention than these nominations have received.
11 Oct 2004 Please consider and vote in the advisory poll concerning Standard for Promotion to Bureaucrat.

I removed the side bar on the right from the main RFA page, as it violates the KISS principle. We don't need or want a permanent "RFA goings-on" sidebar. Having another place to update creates unnecessary work for future nominators and maintainers. Furthermore, it's instruction creep at its worst: the original vote notice ballooned into three notices, then it found itself cemented into place in a sidebar. I am unabashedly taking a crowbar to it, nipping the instruction creep in the bud.

By the way, I have nothing but respect for the well-meaning maintainers who added the bits and pieces of the creepy sidebar. Instruction creep is a collective disease; it's no single editor's fault. • Benc • 06:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd have just deleted the banners myself, but I didn't want to be called a vandal. I agree with Benc though that none of this belongs. It's a bit too garish. -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

I agree with not having a permanent rolling bulletin board like the one removed. However, I intend to continue to post timely notices that relate to important current matters, such as:

Early removal of a nomination (but just for 24 hours so editors know why the nomination disappeared.
Important notices concerning a particular nomination, such as time extension (removed when the extention ends).
Notice of a poll significantly affecting policy (removed when major voting is finished or approximately 5-7 days) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pages that reflect RfA (Archive 25)

These are edit links to pages that need to be changed as people are added or removed from RfA. Cecropia does an excellent job updating the first four, and I started doing the other one. If anyone sees a good way to integrate this list into the actual page, I think it would be an improvement. If you know of any other pages that belong in this list, please add them.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship - As put up for promotion or promoted
Wikipedia:Recently created admins - As promoted
Wikipedia:List of administrators - As promoted, demoted, or declined
Wikipedia:Adminship candidacies not promoted - As denied or declined, or promoted after having been denied
Wikipedia:Goings-on - As promoted

HTH. --Ben Brockert 07:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC) & 05:01, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Link dates? (Archive 25)

When I self-nominated, I linked the date of my voting deadline, so that the Wiki software would reformat it to the user's preferences, as is common elsewhere in the 'pedia. I am considering doing the same to everyone else's nominations, and changing the instructions. Does anyone have an objection to that? --Ben Brockert 07:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that. Just don't bite anyone's head of if they forget to. :) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good idea. Andre (talk) 20:18, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Notice revert (Archive 25)

Netaholic left the summary "rv banner message. as discussed before, its poor form, and too much like an endorsement". For one, I have seen no such discussion here in the last two months at least. Can you point to one, Netaholic that supports that view conclusively? For another, the notice simply asked to spend some time looking at this one cae because there wasn't enough votes to determine consensus. That is certainly not an endorsement. A revert on that basis is a little hasty and just makes the whole process look bad. How about discussing before reverting? There was no imminient danger that could not have waited until a few other editors chimed in to agree or disagree with your position. - Taxman 17:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't discuss it earlier, but I would go along with Netaholic's position that to place a banner specifically for one person could be considered an endorsement of some sort. Either one asks people to consider *all* nominees, or none. Given that we would expect anyone visiting the page to review all nominees then, qed, one needs no banner. Abstentions are a valid form of expressing an opinion imho. --Vamp:Willow 17:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An expressed opinion of abstention is signing in the neutral category, rather than not signing at all. Not signing is more likely to be apathy or indecision. Assuming that page visitors review all nominees is incorrect, from what I've seen. The banner should be put back. --Ben Brockert 18:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I put the banner back. As anyone knows who follows RfA, I rarely comment on candidacies one way or the other, and if I do, I will either do it straightforwardly or at the end of the nomination for close candidacies. Geni had six votes total when I posted the banner, and, as Taxman noted, the notice asks editors to consider the nomination. Last I looked, there are seven more votes, five positive and two negative.

It's a bureaucrat's job, IMO, to encourage the community to express consensus, rather than make him/her promote/remove on speculation. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to VampWillow, the notice does not ask to consider one candidate above the others. The banner clearly states that there are fewer than 24 hours to go, so requires special attention. I've done this in the past and will in the future. If it would make everyone feel better, I'll change the banner to mention "support" and "oppose", but I think it stands on its own. I'd rather let voters just look at what the banner points to, and decide.

In response to User:Cecropia I've just read your comments on the link noted below. You listed notices .. important current matters, such as:

- Early removal of a nomination (but just for 24 hours so editors know why the nomination disappeared.
- Important notices concerning a particular nomination, such as time extension (removed when the extension ends).
- Notice of a poll significantly affecting policy

The current example would not appear to meet any of those conditions. --Vamp:Willow 19:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This notice is placed for the purpose of avoiding an extension, which is what I would have done if there were insufficient votes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is by no means a reasonable conclusion to draw. There are no written grounds for which a candidacy can be extended, except where "consensus is unclear" (i.e. too close to call). Lack of votes is a clear indication that community consensus is effectively "we don't know this person well enough to say"... especially since Geni was a self-nomination. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I could agree with that general sentiment, but at a time of low interest on the board, it is better to encourage community involvement. The burst of votes in this last day, pro and con, demonstrates this. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If "there are too few votes to determine consensus", that means that, in the end, you do not promote. Adminship is an affirmative action, and the candidate should be well known. Certainly people are visiting this page and voting for other candidates, so if Geni (or anyone else) is not getting votes, then that means that few people are aware of that person and they are not ready yet. To advertise (that's what it is) by using a banner is falsely promoting that person above all others. I doubt Cecropia sees this as such, but it is unfair to other candidates who are well known in the community. This sort of thing has come up before -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is unfair to people who become admins based on being well-known, if something is done to encourage the development of consensus on candidates who are less well-known. --Michael Snow 01:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please do not preach to me the standards for promotion, Netoholic, and as the expression goes in a court of equity, you do not "come in with clean hands." You are opposed to this candidate and are now appear to be trying to manipulate the process. As it is, the banner has provoked interest and it appears the candidacy will fail, but it if it does it will fail on the basis of the expressed interest of the voters as opposed to a bureaucratic decision, or your decision. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how others would interpret your words above, but ad hominem-style attacks do not help this discussion. I would have removed such a notice even if were promoting my own candidacy. You seem proud that your notice got attention and that it appears this candidate will fail... how do you think User:Geni feels about that? Surely they would have rather you not put up a banner that resulted in that outcome. My point is, putting the banner is interference in a process, and noone can say whether that interference is good, or bad. In the future, I'd suggest avoiding getting involved. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I did not describe you personally, I described your demonstrated behavior. The nomination may or may not fail. How Geni feels about that is immaterial to the integrity of the process. Are you now arguing that the notice wrongfully constituted a disendorsement after you complained that it seemed like an endorsement?

I see your point that a banner may seem like interference in the process, but I simply disagree. When there are a lot of candidates people watch the board fairly closely and noone is ignord. When there are few a candidacy may not be noticed. This is about determining consensus. The notice was straightforward and impartial. It didn't even say "insuffient to promote," it said "~~insufficient~~ too few votes to determine consensus." As a bureaucrat I have an interest in finding out what the community wants rather than what I think the community wants if that latter result is easily avoided. IMO, a little prodding is better than a formal extension, which would have been the alternative. For your part, you were the first opponent of the nomination, not in a position to promote or remove, and then fight a notice asking for community input. Now which situation is interference in the process? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Banner (Archive 25)

Previously this page did not use banners noting that voting time on a candidate was near the end. One has since been used; this is a change in practice, and from the above discussion, there seems some difference of opinion over it. So what do people think: Should we do this in the future? Never? Always? Sometimes, and if so, under what specific circumstances? -- Infrogmation 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infrogmation, it has been used before, but only in cases like this, where there was insufficint community involvement for consensus. However, I will post a poll (thought we could avoid that, but hey, most people like to vote). Give me a few minutes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Banners noting expiring nominations (Archive 25)

I placed the banner below in order to encourage voters to consider the nomination of a candidate who had only six votes total, insufficient to determine consensus. Netoholic took exception and removed the banner twice. I removed the banner myself when I saw that there were more than a dozen votes, so it had served its purpose. I'm showing the banner here so we can see exactly what it said, and whether anyone considers that this is not neutral. A banner like it would have been posted anyway in the event the nomination would have to be extended. You may also want to read the discussions above. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please take a little time to consider [[Candidate]]'s nomination.
With less than 24 hours to go, there are too few votes to determine consensus.

Short-time banners may be posted by bureaucrats

As the ones charged with determining consensus, bureaucrats should post banners like the above if they feel consensus is not being reached within approximately 24 hours of the end of the nomination.

Taxman 21:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) Though not one voting in the relevant election.
gadfium (talk) 22:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1 22:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fine, and if the banner doesn't help they can extend the time. &0xfeff; --fvw * 22:46, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
I think this is just part of the job of determining consensus, and hence something bureaucrats are well within their rights to do. Shane King 22:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Of course. →Raul654 23:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Why not? older≠wiser 23:25, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
I recommend the use of banners for situations where "turnout" is the reason for lack of consensus, but not for those where the problem is that the nomination is fundamentally controversial but close to some quantitative threshold for promotion. Experience shows that in the latter situation, advertising the controversy will not do much to resolve the uncertainty. --Michael Snow 01:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The primary job of bureaucrats is to determine consensus regarding adminship, so I see this as no big deal for them. However, I think that if anyone was able to post a banner, we'd soon see "banner wars." Keep this in the hands of the bureaucrats, since it pertains to their job anyway. --Slowking Man 02:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
As the above have said. --Whosyourjudas\^talk 05:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whatever makes the elections go more smoothly, I support it. jni 07:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. Xtra 08:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course. Bureaucrats can promote a user and therefore must be able to do this. Anárion 08:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't see it doing any good, but I don't see it doing any harm either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Certainly, although I'm with Michael Snow - I would prefer to see Bureaucrats use these to encourage more people to examine a candidate with few votes, rather than to encourage them to pile onto a controversial vote. —Stormie 02:11, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Short-time banners may be posted by anyone

Same as above, but may be posted by anyone within 24 hours of the end of the nomination, and the wording must not advocate for or against the candidate.

Andre (talk) 21:41, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Michael Ward 22:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So long as the person does not vote on the relevant nomination, and remains disinterested in the matter. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As long as it's neutral and we have a definition of the required "consensus", it doesn't matter who posts it. --Ben Brockert 23:25, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk 03:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV restrictions apply, of course. (See comments.) A. D. Hair 04:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

No short-time banners

Don't have a banner until the nomination is finished, and the bureaucrats will determine what to do from that point (promote/reject/extend).

support - if not enough people comment/vote on the matter at hand then it is *after* the usual time allotment that options may need to be considered, not during. --Vamp:Willow 21:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If the threshold is about a dozen votes (which is still a lot more attention than some current admins received), then any potential admin should be able have either impressed or annoyed enough people where they can get 12 voters. Let's face it, lack of votes doesn't happen often, and who decides what the threshold for banner usage is? Is Cecropia or anyone else going to police this and guarantee that the banner is made for every eligible vote exactly 24 hours before it ends? I also feel a banner is silly, because it's only visible to someone visiting this page. P.S. Polls are evil when done like this too early. Rather than gathering consensus or achieving compromise, they serve only to polarize the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 04:26, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
This is not about banners, it is about consensus. The banner is only a tool to encourage people to think about the nomination to achieve consensus. It doesn't need to be policed. If no bureaucrat notices that a nomination is lacking in those last 24 hours, s/he will have to notice when promotion time comes, and it may require an extension. My feeling is this: I would rather encourage another 4 or 6 or 10 more Wikipedians to think about a candidacy than leave it to a single bureaucrat to figure it out. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't get it. If someone has 8 votes for and 0 votes against, there is consensus there. There's enough people patrolling this page every day (or every other day, etc.) that if there was any significant basis for opposition, it would surely be discovered soon enough. Secondly, I'm opposed to banners on a fundamental basis - it's an unduly influencing factor on someone's vote. ugen64 02:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a banner. Can't people looking at the page see a lack of consensus for themselves without being told about it? Angela . 02:46, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
No point. Dori | Talk 02:57, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
I had to think quite a bit about this. While I applaud the notion of methodologies that increase voter participation, this is not an appropriate measure. While it does attract attention (and hence potential voter turnout) to an ongoing election, it does so in a manner that is not equal to all candidates. If one candidate gets approved with a 30/3/1 approval and doesn't get a banner, and another gets approved with 30/9/1 but had a banner added 24 hours earlier when the vote was 20/8/1, what does that say about the mandate of those two candidates? A better methodology would treat all candidates equally. At one point the heading of a candidate included the tally and expiry so that they would show up in the TOC. This was problematic for other reasons, but at least it treated all candidates in a roughly equal fashion. If a banner is desired, it should treat all candidates at least as equally as the TOC tally did. Perhaps a template editable only by bureaucrats that is updated in a regular manner so that all candidates equally. - UtherSRG 03:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Uther, I see your point that the wording suggests a short-time banner for any difficult-to-decide nomination, and in fact we have the tool of extensions if consensus is unclear at the end of voting, but this was brought up specifically for those cases (see the banner "too few votes") where there are simply not enough votes to decide. The instant case was (5,1,0) when I posted the banner. That is 83%. That is theoretically enough to promote, but by me it means the candidate hasn't really been vetted.

Now to your other points: You give the example of a candidate with 20/8/1 who improbably gets another 10 positives and only 1 negative after a banner is posted. OK. In the first place, 20/8/1 is 71+ percent, so this isn't a doubtful consensus, it is non-consensus, so the banner wouldn't be posted. The final result you present of 30/9/1 is only 77%, so that is still a judgment call for a bureaucrat. So this doesn't seem like a reasonable example. In the case that provoked this argument, the candidate actually had a smaller percentage of the vote after the banner as before, but there was a much larger body of votes, and some reasoned discussion, and consensus was much better demonstrated, IMHO.

And your point about the 30/3/1 candidate vs. the 30/9/1 candidate and their "mandate." What mandate? There are no tiers of admins here. No senior vs. junior. No admins with an asterisk. The 30/3/1 guy has the same rights, responsibilities and duties as the 30/9/1 guy and will perform well or not. One doesn't have a higher rank or serve longer, or have the ability to ~~overall~~ overrule a "lesser" admin. I think the RfA has gone pretty smoothly in recent months; is there really a problem here? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A banner may kind of 'compel' some people to vote. For example, if I see such a banner, I may be 'tempted' to vote (oppose or support), even if I don't know much about the candidate. utcursch 05:34, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

My own opinion is that it's better to nudge voters a little to complete the nomination in its alloted time, rather than have extensions. I can't be too much in sympathy with the idea that voter's lack of awareness should be protected rather than their interest promoted. If they are visiting RfA they are already interested in the process, but may not realize a particular nomination is about to expire. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would suggest that most of us are quite capable of noting expiry dates and the difference between them and the current date. What would be the next consideration; whether it should be an exact 24 hours, the next day by users' local time, some other figure? --Vamp:Willow 21:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe the heart of the issue is determining whether consensus is absent as a nomination is coming to a close, not another rockbound rule. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's been my, ahem, experience that the 7 day limit is not absolute, anyhow... ugen64 04:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really like the current banner, Cecropia. It's good to see someone with a sense of humor. --Ben Brockert 02:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe there's a need for these banners, personally, but I think restricting such edits to bureaucrats is very unwiki. Has such bureaucracy (a fitting name) really come to be the accepted norm? A. D. Hair (t&m) 08:01, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
While the idea of these banners is a noble idea, the problem is that the criteria used to determine their use is too subjective. Either a different criteria than consensus needs to be used (best idea) or a consensus needs to be reached on what exactly constitutes a consensus (rather impossible idea). Mo0[talk] 07:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote here link (Archive 25)

A couple of times now, the "Vote here" link in the nomination template has been removed. I consider it a very helpful aid, and use it often. Please don't remove it. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Why do you use it, when the edit section link works? The link has disadvantages in both form and function. It's ugly, and it is another place that Username has to be replaced. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:16, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Some people have section editing disabled in preferences, so the "Vote here" link is necessary, I'm afraid. --Michael Snow 17:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving instructions from template space (Archive 25)

The instructions were recently copied from Template:RfAInstructions to the page, and the template was put up for deletion. I asked there, and I'll ask here: How are the attribution requirements of the GFDL satisfied when something like this is deleted? Does the page history of the template need to be merged into the page history of the page it's merged into? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:16, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Minor formatting change (Archive 25)

If nobody objects, I'd like to add ---- at the end of Candidate questions - I think it would greatly improve the readability of RFA. Any objections? -- Ferkelparade π 08:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, it's such a trivial change that I'll just go ahead and add it :P -- Ferkelparade π 08:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the questions aren't included in every nom, putting it there isn't the best way to get it on the page. Previously, people would add a horizontal rule between each nomination, accomplishing the same thing. I'm going to remove it from the template, and add it to the page and instructions. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:48, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

"To nominate someone (including yourself)" (Archive 25)

I maintain that oneself is, in fact, someone, and as such does not need to be specified. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, fancruft. silsor 06:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Best response ever. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, nice remark. I, however, maintain that the purpose of including the "yourself" part was to specify that "anyone, even yourself, can be nominated".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
While that's logically true, the clarification is useful. Kind of like prescription medication that reads "can be taken with or without food." Andre (talk) 16:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I was just clarifying... You don't need to vote about it. :-) - Omegatron 17:43, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA redirect (Archive 25)

I think it is high time to move the shortcut to something else. RFA is too confusing of a redirect because of Requests for arbritration. Personally, it's easier to type adminship over arbritration, so the redirect should have been given to arbritration. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

problem is that there are a lot of places that link through WP:RFA[1]Geni 12:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit counts by namespace (Archive 25)

For the past two weeks or so, I've been including a count of main namespace edits on nominations. (Ben Brockert used to do this, along with witty observations about the nominees' user pages that I couldn't hope to emulate, but he seems to be largely inactive these days.) Is this useful or annoying? Should I continue? And is it worth expanding to a complete breakdown of contributions by namespace? (e.g., JoeExample has 3000 edits: 1500/200 to articles/talk, 800/100 to Wikipedia:/talk, 100/200 to User:/talk, etc.) (Oh, and for those wondering, I find the counts with links like this.) —Korath (Talk) 04:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, notable. And useful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's useful for the edit counters. Total, talk and article count in particular. Inter\^Echo 09:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed useful for the edit counters. Edit counters however, are people who should be shot on sight. ;-) Kim Bruning 10:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's useful information, Korath. There have been a couple of people promoted who, in one case, had made almost no edits to the encyclopedia, but only to talk pages, and in another case, the opposite. Having an overview of the number of edits made to articles versus talk would be helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed useful for the edit counters. Edit counters however, are people who should be shot on sight. ;-) Kim Bruning 10:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Twice? Isn't that a bit excessive. Then again, whose counting. Filiocht | King of Regulars 10:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  - Touchè. Inter\^Echo 18:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

idea for improving this article (Archive 26)

when this Wikipedia project page moved to its new format, in which new nominees were added using the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/furrykef syntax, the page fell off of my radar screen (i.e. my watchlist).

is there a way that a developer could fix it so that any changes to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship sub-pages would show up as a change to the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship main-page? this would help me out considerably. Kingturtle 02:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Another way to do it would be to have all sub-pages appear in my watchlist. Kingturtle 14:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way of doing this would be to make a feature request for the "watch" option in namespaces with sub-pages enabled to be split into "watch this page" and "watch this page and sub-pages", or to have an option to watch sub-pages or not on the added to watchlist screen. Ideally this could be turned on or off by defualt in the preferences. Please feel free to copy this comment to the apropriate place for such a feature request, as here almost certainly isn't it. Thryduulf 15:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grammar (Archive 26)

Knowledge Seeker recently reversed my grammar fix:

(Restore to "Requests for adminship...is a page to..." from "A request for adminship...is a page...")

Can somebody explain to me why, in this case, it's wrong for number to match? —RadRafe 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed it because the title of the page is "Requests for adminship", not "Request for adminship". The lead sentence is not describing what a request for adminship is, but rather is describing what the page "Requests for adminship" is. While the title of the page is plural, it itself is singular. Requests for adminship is a page where people are nominated for adminship; a request for adminship is one of those such requests. Maybe an analogy would be if I opened a video store called "Cheap Videos". If you were writing about it, you would write "Cheap Videos is a store that sells cheap videos", not "A cheap video is a store that sells cheap videos", even though the subject has been made singular. Does this make sense? If I have misunderstood, anyone please change it back. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A template to make it easier (Archive 27)

Hi. Although I didn't want to do it myself (I'm currently up for adminship), I noticed that many people, when nominated, want to invite some people, who know them, to participate (arguably, vote to support). So I thought about a template that would make it easier for those who wish to, do it. Here's the code I propose:
<div style="background-color:#F1F1DE; line-height:1.5; border-width:2px; border-style:solid; border-color:#CC9"><center>Hi. I am currently up for [[Wikipedia:Administrators|adminship]]. If you would like to participate in my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RfA]], please visit the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/{{{1}}}|vote page]]. Thank you. {{user|{{{1}}}}}</center></div> <br clear="all">
The code might need fixing, I'm not used to writing them. I'm also looking for insight on two aspects: 1)Do you think that even creating this would be overkill? 2)Obviously, even if the code is perfect, the wording is also up for consideration. I thought this would be a good idea. I'm not dead set on it though. But if it passes, it could be called "Template:AdminVote". Thoughts? Suggestions? Regards, Redux 18:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There are those who think such requests are bad form, to the extent that they vote against the candidate on the principle that they're trying too hard to be an admin (and thus must be bad in some way). I fear that making such a template might make the unwary admin candidate think that such asking is an uncontroversial practice, which it isn't, and so might tarnish their reputation unnecessarily. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

True. As I said, I myself did not contact anyone directly to request that they vote for me. Exactly, I thought it would be bad form, not because I'd be trying too hard though, but because I felt that, by inviting [directly] a selection of people to vote, I'd be influencing the outcome, and this, I thought, could not be (I only have a note on my own talk page, and it's not too flashy). But, correct me if I'm wrong, technically there isn't any rules prohibiting such an invite, and I've seen people do it. If this was created, I suppose it would be linked in the RfA page, as a tool usable by candidates. We could then insert a very visible disclaimer informing people of the pros and cons of using the template (that is, of directly inviting users to vote). I'm thinking that, many people that a candidate might know are likely very much unaware of the proceedings to becoming an Admin, so they are unlikely to look down on the invite. Of course, ~~if there's anything in the rules that forbid or limit invitations to vote, or~~ if this is currently being discussed (I'm not aware of it), then this absolutely shouldn't be created. Redux 19:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Slight rewording: of course I know the rules don't forbid it. Redux 19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think if one wants to invite others to vote on their RFA, they can do whatever they want, regardless of how it may appear to others. However, the creation of such a template would imply that WP encourages such an activity which, IMO, shouldn't be done. --Death phoenix 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

A very good point. Although the disclaimer could solve it. And, I forgot to mention, it would/should also be implemented at the top of the template's talk page. Very visible, as I said. It would be about making easier the lives of those who want to invite people, so long as it is absolutely clear that they do it at their own risk. The RfAs that I've seen more recently, granted I don't police all RfAs, where the candidate invited people to vote didn't seem to indicate that it had backfired on the nominee. That's why I even proposed this. This reminds me of when you're about to delete a virus/spybot that your antivirus caught: you always get that notice Attention! You are about to delete a file that might be essential for the system. Proceed at your own risk. Sort of like that. Redux 19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if we don't create the template (and it looks like we won't), just for my own curiosity: how is the code looking? If it had been implemented, do you guys think that it would have needed any fixing/improving? Redux 02:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new template for nominating (Archive 27)

I know that at least two other users tried to update the Candidate questions template and got reverted 1 and 2, but I have fixed the general problem with naming of sub-sections.

See my proposed solution: RFA addition template.

To use: {{subst:RFAC|Username}} (not specifially with name of RFAC).

In use: see here.

I welcome any suggestions or changes (you can edit the page). ∞Who ?¿? 22:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe the reason for not using headings for the different sections is that it expands the ToC too much. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats true, and hiding it would make it difficult to scroll down. Mainly just trying to make it easier to vote, granted section editing doesnt really alleviate edit conflicts, but helps. ∞Who ?¿? 22:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the ToC won't end up too big if you use headings. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I am inclined to believe you. Although it seems it would make it longer, the actual comments make the page very long. With sub-headings, you can goto the vote section rather quickly, and dont' have to scroll down through all the other votes or comments to vote. Sometimes by the time i get to the "comments" section while editing, someone else has already edited and you get an edit conflict. This way there is no scrolling through the entire RFA of a user while editing. ∞Who ?¿? 00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming protocol? (Archive 28)

I've just re-nominated Darwinek for admin, and noticed there's no guideline as to how to name a re-nomination. We have subpages called ABCD.09, Alkivar2, B-101 (2), Chanting Fox (2nd), Denelson/First, EdwinHJ (renomination)... it's probably only a trivial matter, but should there be a set naming convention for this? It does make a difference occasionally, especially when a username ends in a digit (I favour "(2)", BTW) Grutness...wha? 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was always Howabout1 2. I think Denelson moved his RfA when his second was created. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 01:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Image added (Archive 28)

Thanks to User:Malathion for spotting this one. I've been looking for a suitable illustration for this page for some time ... - David Gerard 10:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's very drôle of you. gkhan 11:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it. Sorry, but it was unsuited for the page, at least in the configuration used (IMHO, there shouldn't be any images at all, but maybe people would agree to it, if done in a more discrete manner). Regards, Redux 14:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Come on, show some sense of humor - it's not like the image is somehow offensive or makes a joke out of the whole RFA procedure. I won't unilaterally reinsert the image, but I wouldn't mind it being there -- Ferkelparade π 14:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw nothing wrong with the image, and using the vandalism rollback tool to revert it is completely inappropriate. David Gerard is not a vandal. Kelly Martin 15:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

We've been looking for an image of that sort for about a year now, and Malathion used that one on my talk page. The reason why it is suited is that it points out that adminship is janitorship, not being a moderator or higher editorial staff. And please note that using the rollback for editorial differences as here is really not suitable behaviour - David Gerard 15:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that using the vandalism rollback tool is very bad style. Anybody except a vandal deserves a respectul edit summary.

About the picture itself, I find it ugly like hell. Much better would be a cartoon of a guy/gal with a mop in the hand. Focus on the person, not on the mop. Oleg Alexandrov 15:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a fair enough objection ;-) Mop, bucket, LARGE keyring. Put Jimbo's face over theirs? ALL HANDS TO THE GIMP! - David Gerard 16:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And I removed it again. RfA is a place where much happens that is good, bad and quite distinctly ugly; keeping it sterile where we can is only sensible. It often gets comparatively new users visit its pages and vote. The rather cryptic caption and references to a mop are too much of an in-joke to be appropriate. There is (no/a) cabal. -Splash 18:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey removers, stop being wet blankets. Andre (talk) 18:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ya. It's cool. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 18:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Count me among the "wet blankets". It's just not funny, sorry. siafu 19:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There was no intention of comparing David with a vandal by using the rollback, I've had well-meant edits of my own reverted with rollback, even recently. I immediately explained why I had reverted the edit here, and had it been re-reverted, I would not have rolled back again (obviously). However, as per what I said, and also per Splash's comment, the impromptu inclusion of the image, with a joke, in a place that just doesn't seem to be suited for it, appeared to justify a quick reversion. It's no offense David, sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Someone could have reverted it with an edit summary saying "rv. vandalism", or "rv. graffitti". It happens. On the issue itself: I appreciate the humor, and I know that that image is commonly used in association with Adminship, as a "janitorial service", but I don't believe this works here. We might make jokes and funny remarks in the RfAs themselves, but the RfA page, I believe, is best kept joke-free, since in the end of the day RfAs are serious business (especially for the candidates). Sorry if my revert might have seemed (or been) abrupt. Regards, Redux 03:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Point of order (so this is absolutely clear): when I reverted the original edit, it seemed clear cut. As it turns out, however, this was a gray area situation, and in such cases it is clear that rollback should not be used. But it was an honest mistake. Regards, Redux 05:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Should we vote on it's inclusion? Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 14:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Personally, I liked the image very much, but if it upsets others, then why include it? Lupo 14:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

admin tools are not just a mop&bucket. They are the "mop and truncheon". The mop is the rollback button, but the truncheon is for hitting vandals on the head (otherwise you are suggesting the vandals are just 'dirt' too, while in the mop & truncheon metaphor, the mop is for the litter, and the truncheon for the litterbum :) also, the 'mop' metaphor sort of understates that admins are allowed some judgement in locking people out temporarily (subject to the letter of policy, of course), they are not just meekly cleaning up people's mess after them. dab (ᛏ) 15:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

True, I guess we don't need it. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see we are having one of those perennial Wikipedia discussions over image censorship, like we had over at clitoris. May I suggest that we simply have a link to the mop, with a disclaimer:

Warning: This link points to a photographic idealization of adminship that may be offense to some....

Hehe ;-) Func( t, c, e, ) 19:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

WARNING - this page contains images of an EXPLICIT JANITORIAL NATURE and may be offensive to some. →Raul654 19:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

If you're easily offended by depictions of HOT CUSTODIAL ACTION or you're under 18, don't click this link. Andre (talk) 20:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's not exactly what this is about. The image is fine, the joke is fine (I've used the image for this exact same joke). What was said is that this page would not be suited for the joke. It has nothing to do with the image, or the funny stuff we might say about/because_of it. In fact, the image and the "janitorial nature" jokes are rather insightful in terms of what Adminship is about, I don't think anyone would contest that, let alone call it offensive. But in this case, it's more like the real estate market: it's all about location, location, location. Regards, Redux 00:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... depends on the importance placed on being an admin. We're constantly being told that adminship is no big deal - why not add a little levity to this page? ISTR that a similar image is or was used at Wikipedia:Cleanup, which in many ways is a far more serious page, since it deals with the face Wikipedia presents to the readers (i.e., cleaning up bad articles). Grutness...wha? 00:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

True. I, for one, believe that Adminship is a big deal in terms of the responsibility that comes with it. Not in terms of any prestige that might be attached to it; in that aspect, it isn't, and shouldn't be, a big deal (maybe that's what you meant?). The RfA page should, IMHO, retain a certain sobriety so as not to encourage people to participate in RfAs as a joke — it may seem perfectly innocent, but if someone who's never been here finds jokes in that page, this person might come to believe that it's all a big joke, and vote accordingly. Convincing them to start taking it seriously may not be that easy, and they could cause some troubles before we can reach them. If anything, that would be unfair to the candidates, for whom an RfA means a lot, and to the project in general, since Admins are an essential part of Wikipedia (by extention, RfAs, as the means through which Admins are created, are a fundamental part of the "Wikipedia machine", and should be treated accordingly) — we already get a lot of "funny votes", such as people opposing candidates only because everybody else is supporting them, and numerous comments (sometimes creating misunderstandings) for the sole sake of humor. None of this is a serious problem right now (and some humor is certainly welcome), but if we start making jokes in the RfA page, we might be opening a door that we really shouldn't open, and that might be quite difficult to close afterwards. That's just how I personally feel about it. Regards, Redux 02:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-Nominations (Archive 28)

From the RFA main page: Self-nominations Please review the qualifications above. Some editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure", have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits (in practice anyone with less than 1000 edits has no real chance of passing). Obviously unqualified nominations may be removed without discussion. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, some editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees.

The areas I italicized are the sentences I am questioning.

"...have an account name that is many months old..." I don't think this is true enough to include. The minimum is considered by many to be three months old, for both self-noms and outside nominations. I don't think three months is many.
"...have many hundreds of edits...less than 1000 edits has no real chance..." Again, doesn't only apply to self-nominations. Plus, it's not just 1000 edits. One thousand edits to one's own user page won't make him or her an admin. The sentence should mention having most of the edits in the article and Wikipedia namespaces.
"Obviously unqualified nominations may be removed..." This is misleading. The bureaucrats don't directly decide if a user is qualified or not. That's the point of a RFA. The community offers their opinions. Then, the bureaucrat makes their decision based on the evidence provided by the community. Usually, if a nomination is removed, it's because of piling on oppose votes, not because of being unqualified, even if the two go hand-in-hand.
"...without discussion." Sounds a bit harsh. If a nomination is removed, it's a courtesy to inform the user on his or her talk page. Controversial removals are generally discussed on this page beforehand.

Anyway, that's my $.02. Acetic Acid 07:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Acetic Acid. I've edited the self-nom guidelines to a more neutral/positive slant that's been approved several times by consensus on this page (and by Cecropia), please see what you think, everybody. Now the passage reads:

Please review the qualifications above. Some editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure", have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits (in practice anyone with less than 1000 edits has no real chance of passing). This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations. Most voters can be presumed to consider all nominees on their own merits, and there are even a few who look with special favor on self-nominations as expressing a suitable independence. A good solid background is equally important for both kinds of nomination. Obviously unqualified nominations of either kind may be removed without discussion.

Please note especially that we've seen frivolous sponsoring as well as frivolous selfnoms, hence the point about removing both kinds of nominations if they're obviously unqualified. Bishonen | talk 07:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds better. Thanks. Acetic Acid 20:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

/Front matter (Archive 28)

I have moved the front matter to a subpage and transcluded it to make it easier to track the history of changes to adminship policy contained therein, which are otherwise obscured in the history by the great number of additions and removals of adminship request transclusions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What do we do when User:Front matter (who doesn't yet exist) wants to become an admin? It's not a renomination, so the usual system of creating a /Front matter (2) isn't appropriate. (rhetorical question, no answer required).-gadfium 00:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

We {{usernameblock}} on sight for disruption. New registrants are expected to work this kind of thing out for themselves. ;) -Splash 00:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

We call the nomination page /User:Front matter and put a disambig inside <noinclude> tags on the /Front matter page. Having said that though, do <noinclude> and <includeonly%gt; work outside the Template: namespace? Thryduulf 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, or just rename the subpage. Or is that too easy? Sheesh, you computing people. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, way too easy. Never mind, I'm only a computing person for another three days, then I retire.-gadfium 08:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination (Archive 29)

I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. Problem is, I already did, back on April Fool's day, which was a frivolous nomination, but which has now been archived as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JIP. I'd like to nominate myself for real, but am not sure whether to replace the old request page's content or start a new one instead. — JIP | Talk 09:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Start your new nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JIP 2, people will want to look at your original request in order to help them come to a decision. Good luck. Rje 12:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Problems nominating (Archive 29)

All I see is an unsatisfied link Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leonard G. even though entering a template entry that is identical to the opters (having previously made the same error as Admiral Roo and corrected it). (I cleared caches as instructed.) This should be easier to use - see my user talk page (add a new topic) - can there be something similar here? Leonard G. 03:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

# Follow the red link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName and add the following: ===[[User:UserName|]]=== '''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName|action=edit}} Vote here] (0/0/0) ending {{subst:CURRENTTIME}} [[00 Month]] [[2005]] (UTC)''' {{User|USERNAME}} - Your nomination/description of the user --~~~~ {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions}} # Preview your nomination to check it; replace [[00 Month]] with the date from your signature but make the date seven days later. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I left a message on Leonards talk page about that. --Admiral Roo 04:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I did not see your name here Leonard. I should have looked before I left the above message here. Sorry. --Admiral Roo 04:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. How many ppl have trouble understanding how to put up a nomination like me and Leonard? If a good number of ppl do have trouble, perhaps a better discription should be used. --Admiral Roo 04:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is a puzzle test - If you can get your own nomination up you are somewhat pre-qualified ;-) Leonard G. 04:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Leonard, I tried to help you by fixing your nomination code, but I think I just made things worse. (cringe) :( --Admiral Roo 04:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

You could always play around with it in your personal sandbox first so you can get the hang of things. That's what I did before I nominated Asbestos. That way, your mistakes aren't visible to the public. :) Acetic '^Acid 05:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Q from Adam1213 (Archive 29)

How do I do step 2? - please send me a message. sorry for putting this here I could not find anywhere else

Save the page. Follow the red link to the nomination subpage and paste in the the following text (replacing UserName as before):

UserName

Vote here (0/0/0) ending 10:51 [Ending date] (UTC)

UserName (talk · contribs) – [Your nomination/description of the user] Adam1213 10:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC) {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions

I've done it for you, you need to fill in the questions etc. now. Martin 11:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA Template (Archive 29)

Should we change the template for RFA candidates so it no longer says "vote here", as has recently been pointed out on Nandesuka's current request, we do not "vote", we aim for consensus? --TimPope 10:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets stick with a wording that reflect reality.Geni 10:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Geni. While it is true that we do not vote, Discuss the candidacy here! is wordy and misleading. Perhaps Contribute or State Your Position would be better? Acetic '^Acid 01:11, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Notvote here. -Splash 01:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Geni and Acetic Acid; the appellation is harmless, and any person's "vote" may be weighed on the basis of its reasoning (or lack thereof) or its source. All the alternatives are too wordy. — Dan | Talk 01:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

We do, in fact, vote. Its just that the majority must be higher. Though straw polls are discouraged in most of Wikipedia, its what we use at RfA, so keep it. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT damn you dan ;) R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Splash has the right idea. Do not vote here. Acetic '^Acid 01:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A more obvious closing (Archive 30)

Could the bureaucrats (or someone) come up with a way to make it more obvious that an RFA has been closed/removed, and what the outcome was? As it stands now, it is often not easily apparent to someone watching an RFA that it has been completed. Thinking of other examples, WP:AFD has their big blue boxes and explantory messages, WP:RM has little boilerplate text (e.g. {{moved}}), and stuff like this. It doesn't need to be a huge flashy banner, but something which is easy to notice/look for would be appreciated. Thanks. Dragons flight 19:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Could a template bre created? --Terry 19:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

What about something like this:

This Request for Adminship nomination ended and has been archived.
Further voting or comments are no longer needed and may be reverted.

--Terry 20:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

After a candidate's adminship has ended, the transcluded VFA page is removed from here. I don't see any harm in using it, but I feel it should be reworded. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with rewording. I like the concept, but would tweak the wording - "resolved" sounds like there was a problem or disagreement which has been fixed. How about saying "the discussion of this request for adminship has been completed"? Also, "for or against" doesn't capture the occasional neutral comment, so I would suggest "relating to" there. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Or how about simply "This nomination has ended and has been archived. Please do not edit this page." ?Acetic '^Acid 01:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So how would we go about making this some type of policy? and would it be possible to protect the page once it is "archieved"?Terry ^{T | @ | C}

No need to protect the page, really. They never have been, and old VfD's aren't either. Any tampering with a page after the closing date would be obvious in the edit history. As for policy, it's already policy that RfA's end at a set time, and no comments should be added after that time. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here is the example that I think I am thinking of. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWattsDotCom was put up but there was so much ill will a bureaucrat User:Rdsmith4 removed it from the main page of RfA. From what I read the whole RfA should have been considered closed. However, you will see that people are still voting there, likely because the nominee is posting the link to it. Of course, still being a noob here I did not catch on that it had been removed until I noticed its absense from the main page. Thus why I think something that stands out needs to be placed at the top of closed RfA's. Especially the one's that close earlier then the date posted. Hope I got my thought across... Terry ^{T | @ | C}

Ah, now I see your point - I thought you meant "protect" in the sense of an admin locking the page from editing, but you mean just something to signal potential posters that the debate is over, a la closed AfD debates. Yes, that makes perfect sense, and I would wholeheartedly endorse such a marker. I still don't think it requires any policy change, as it were, to start posting a template to bookend such articles that would warn awat posts. It would basically just restate the existing rule out loud. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

How about the wording now? Terry ^{T | @ | C} 11:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Better, but the word deleted seems odd, perhaps reverted would be better. It would also help if the result of the RFA be displayed like we have in VFD. eg. {{tl|RfA closed|P}}or {{tl|RfA closed|NP}} =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Tssk, tssk, Nichalp, there's no VfD anymore! ;-) But your point is quite right! -- BD2412 ^talk 13:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

!!! Old habits die hard :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Terry, could you also include a result field in the template? I'd like to start using it right away. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A request (Archive 30)

I am currently under nomination for adminship and one oppose vote has come. Should I explain my position by writing something as noted below the Oppose vote or somewhere else? OR, Just let the nomination run its course:
“Would you please come closer to me and explain the exact reasons for opposing my nomination for adminship? Do you really feel that wikipedia should have materials, which do not conform to the guidelines? I invite you for a chit-chat, and I shall certainly endeavor to remove your doubts. Thanks.”

Suggestions are requested. In case, I came to the wrong place, sorry pals. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't please everyone, just let it run its course. Martin 15:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The user is well-known enough has given a legitimate reason to oppose, so I'd let this one go. From the looks of it you'll pass no problem. Live to fight another day, ma man. gkhan 15:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It does spoil a cent-per-cent vote I agree, but at 43:1, and a day and a half to go, I don't think its absolutely necessary to respond to each oppose vote. Some users oppose to bait a candidate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nevertheless, I clarified my position at the appropriate place. --Bhadani 14:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Request to Bureaucrats on closing out RfAs (Archive 31)

Bureaucrats; if you would please, when you close out an RfA would you please make a note of the decision that was made regarding the RfA perhaps similar to the way in which AfDs are closed out? In many cases it is not readily apparent as to what the result was. For example, [2], [3], and [4]. Not having the decisions on these pages means a person perusing them would need to check Wikipedia:Recently created admins and/or Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies to clarify the status of the RfA. Thank you, --Durin 16:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Terry had suggested the same. Infact I was going to do the same tonight. A different colour such as the yellow or grey used in fr: meta: could let one know if the nom was sucessful/unsucessful. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Or just a notice at the top of the page. I had that trouble too on my RfA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestianpower (talk • contribs) 22:57, September 28, 2005

Ok, I've done something about it. User: {{rfap}} (RFA promoted/pass); {{rfaf}} (RFA fail). I've used two different colours so that it is clear that the nom is 1) over 2) successful or unsucessful. See this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DESiegel =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't work, as now there is an open box (meaning any text/images following the RFA will be included in the box). Talrias (t | e | c) 20:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

All it needs is a box closer at the bottom, a la {{ab}}. I'll make one now. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Done - tag {{Rfab}} to the bottom, see if it works. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 20:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd prefer the subst: instead of the direct template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

3:55 UTC (Archive 31)

I've noticed that most of the recent noms have been at exactly 3:55 UTC. What's going on? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The history says otherwise, so I suppose people are copy-pasting the last nominator's handiwork. -Splash^talk 05:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

When I made the {{RfA}} template, it was 3:55. I fixed this like three days ago I think. But that's the reason, and the worst possible result is that someone may lose a few hours in their RfA or wait a few more hours. OhNoEs!! R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Another slight modification (Archive 32)

The AfD and RfA processes share similar physical layouts, both using transclusion on list pages to collect them into a single location for discussion. However, I think that RfA misses out on a step that might encourage a wider participation in the process.

Visiting the days AfD gives you a list of transcluded pages. Clicking on the header then takes you to the article. From there, you can click on the link in the AfD template to get to the correct sub-page to add to the discussion.

Visiting RfA gives you a list of transcluded pages. Clicking on the header takes you to the users page which is a dead end as far as the process goes.

I would like to propose adding a template for inclusion on a user's page (and optionally their talk page) after they accept the nomination. Something along the lines of:

	This user is currently being considered for adminship. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Useight/RFA Subjects/Format.

This would make the page mechanics of the system similar to AfD and might encourage additional participation in the process. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that, good idea. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 16:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I support this idea. Fir e Fo x 16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. --Blackcap | talk 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Support - I've created it as above ({{rfa-notice}}). Please move it to a more appropriate title (I couldn't think of one... --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 17:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a-going to add this to the instructions. --Blackcap | talk 18:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Support, if we all advertise ourselves then there shouldn't be any complaints about unfair advertising anymore. Tito xd 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment – 2) what if the person doesn't want it on his page? That should read "Adminship"; administration is rather vague especially to newbies. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "administration" to "adminship" on the template page. I thought the same thing. As to the other bit, it's just a notice, and they can always remove it. I don't see that as being much of a problem: a lot of people with noms already create a template of their own, or add their RfA to their sig. --Blackcap | talk 18:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe change the instructions to say that adding the template is encouraged, but not required. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not require it? If an editor desires to be an administrator, they have to go through the process, and having the template on their page would be part of the process. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of it messing up the look of some user pages that have heavy formatting. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose requiring this template (or indeed having it at all). Advertisement should be up to the user's discretion. This process is becoming far, far too complicated. — Dan | Talk 19:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not an advertisement. It's a notice. That's one of the problems with RfA now: how does one let people know that they're applying for adminship without it seeming as though they're advertising themselves? This solves that by having everyone do it. RfA should be a public, obvious, thing that everyone can see and know about, rather than something that only regular RfA voters see. This does that. Also, adding a template is not complicated. It takes less than a minute, depending on your connection speed. And it won't affect the formatting of a userpage, you just paste it in at the top and leave a gap between it and the rest of the page. --Blackcap | talk 19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Lots of users frequent RfA to vote. If a nominee has done enough positive work in Wikipedia, the nomination should pass easily even when the user does not advertise himself/herself or campaign. —Lowellian (reply) 23:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I oppose. I put a similar notice on people's user page who I nominate, but they can take it down if they please. Some people don't want that stuff on their page, ever. And yes, it does work as an advert cause normally your friends visit yuor page more than people who don't happen to know you... R e dwolf24 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not really true, necessarily. I visit plenty of people's userpages whom I don't know at all when I bump into them on AfDs or wherever. And if you look at the instructions, no-one puts it up on someone else's page, it's always the person putting it on their own page. It's not a forced thing. And why oppose having it at all? It's useful for plenty of people, even if it's not required. It shows that there's a standard RfA notice and that you can let people know you're applying for adminship without it being an ad. And it may help eliminate the string of RfA sigs. --Blackcap | talk 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No one can force anyone to accept a nomination for adminship, but if this makes the process smoother, those who desire admin powers should accept this temporary imposition. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that requiring a user to place this template on his/her user page/ user talk page is a good idea. They can certainly place it on if s/he wishes, but it should, by no means, be mandatory. A user page's content — up to a certain limit — should be up to the user. If the user doesn't wish to place the tag, I don't think they should have to. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Complication of the process (Archive 32)

I think the above proposals has just complicated the process: See m:instruction creep. I've tried to simply the procedure as follows:

Ask a person if s/he would like to be a sysop.
If yes, create this page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CANDIDATE'S USERNAME. Replace "CANDIDATE'S USERNAME" with the username of the person you wish to nominate.
Add the following text to the page and save: {{subst:RfA|User=USERNAME|Ending='''SEVEN DAYS AFTER''' TODAY'S DATE|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}}
Allow the candidate to accept the nom and answer the questions.
Once the details are filled, add the following {{wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CANDIDATE'S USERNAME}} to this page.
Optional: If the user would like to inform the community that s/he is running for the post of adminship, s/he may put up the following notice {{rfa-notice}} on his/her userpage and/or talk page.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I we changed the last line to must leave a notice on the user page then I'd support. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't get you. Are you saying that you want option 6 to be compulsory? =Nichalp «Talk»=

Yes - I wasn't making myself very clear. Sorry. There's no reason for it to be optional. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Celestianpower - it should be compulsory, because it will make it easier for editors to navigate between the nominee's user/talk page and the nomination page, and because it will alert all visitors to the nominee's user/talk pages (including those who are there to praise/complain) that the editor in question is a candidate for adminship. Although it is no big deal, adminship is nevertheless a privilege, not a right, and small burdens can be imposed on those who wish to reap the benefits of attaining this privilege. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the recent changes pointlessly complicate the adminship process. The only useful thing they have accomplished is to codify what should be the most basic politeness: getting the okay from someone before nominating them for adminship. Volunteering someone for scrutiny and additional responsibilities without their consent is a fairly rude thing to do, but if we need to make this absolutely clear then so be it. The other changes are simply instruction creep; focus on paperwork requirements erodes focus from the primary qualification to be an admin -- being a trusted user who is familiar with Wikipedia policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp, I like the simplification! Just a note: shouldn't there be something about self-noms? I am vehemently opposed to making the notification tag compulsory; just because it eases navigation and raises awareness does not mean that is should be required. There's a back tab on most browsers, and we have to keep in mind that candidates are people, not articles that can be mercilessly tagged. If someone doesn't want to have a banner at the top of his/her user page, they shouldn't have to. I know when I was nominated for adminship I would not have wanted that banner; instead, I was pleasantly surprised at the number of people that voted on my RfA anyways. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Then we shall have to agree to disagree - the strength of opinions expressed here makes it unlikely that will ever have a consensus to mandate such a change in policy. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies if I sounded frustrated, or if I was a little blunt. Yes, while I respect your opinion, I feel strongly about this issue. I don't think there will ever be consensus on making this mandatory. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel about the same was as Flcelloguy. When I was nominated, I put a simple little text message on the top of my user page, and left it at that. No notification, sig change, or great big banner across all of my subpages. In addition to this comment, I think that it is highly impersonal to nominated someone for adminship, and leave a pre-fabricated template on their talk page to let them know. Write out a little note, explaining why you trust him/her. Don't treat the editors like articles. Just my 2 ¢. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 20:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree that a pre-fabricated "I have nominated you for adminship" is totally absurd. If you feel strongly that they should become an admin then you should be able to leave a personalised message for them to tell them why you think that they should. However, I disagree that leaving a notification box on the top of their user page is like treating editors like articles. Their user page is an article: it's the article that tells the reader about them. It will also help to increase the number of voters on RfA (and hereby increasing the chance that concensus will be achieved). Therefore, in my opinion, the pros outweigh the cons. "Experienced" RfA voters are less likely to know about a user's activity than those who have interacted with them and are hence visiting their user/user talk page. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 22:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Quick note - the point of the nomination template is to give the nominator a quick means to insure that the nominee gets all the necessary information to carry the process forward (i.e., a link to the RfA page, a link to their nom. page, and a reminder to reply to the nominator, accept the nomination, and answer the questions). It's just a tool, which no one has to use. As my father would say, "it can't hurt and it might help". -- BD2412 ^talk 22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it takes less than five minutes to read and understand the nomination process on the RFA page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe {{RfA-nom}} should be used after the nominator discusses whether the nominee wants to be an admin to make it easier for the nominee to follow the instructions, but leave that to the discretion of the nominator. (Self-nominations should be expected by default to not use the template, since the purpose of the template is to lead to WP:RFA, and a self-nominator is already there.) About {{rfa-notice}}, I'm not sure it would make a difference, but it would make self-promotion signatures unnecessary, so I support it. Tito xd 23:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the template should be optional. We'll never agree to have compulsory use of the template, so its best we have optional templates. The RFA process anyways runs quite smoothly without the template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why I said that it should be left to the discration of the nominator ;) Tito xd^(?!?) 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tweak (Archive 32)

I wanted to cut down the size of the extensive front matter on the RfA page as it seemed very bloated, and I have just done so by moving detailed nomination instructions (now including a more sophisticated way of creating a nomination subpage than by searching for it and clicking the 'create this article' link!) to a subpage, linked from the front matter. Thought I would be bold and do it, but if anyone doesn't like it of course feel free to revert. Worldtraveller 15:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the creation of the new sub-page and the buttons! Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Confused over the new nomination instructions (Archive 34)

I tried to nominate User:Hermione1980 for adminship but found the new instructions somewhat unclear and might have goofed up. What I did was:

Create a new page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980, filling out the template with the ending time and my reasoning,
Add my support vote,
Add the RfA-nom template to Hermione1980's user page.

Was this the right procedure or have I (as I suspect) goofed up somewhere? Why does the RfA-nom template say "a page will be created for you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980" when I already have created it? Or should I have waited until she accepted the nomination? — JIP | Talk 12:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You did it right - the nomination template needs to be changed to say that the page "has been" created - I'll take care of it immediately. BD2412 ^talk 13:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I did pretty much the same thing as above. I nominated Cool3 and it amde a page, but he doesn't show up under nominations. ErnestIsTheMan 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's because it needs to be manually added to WP:RFA, which is something reserved to the nominees now. Please do not do it. Also, the nomination of Cool3 (who has 22 edits and has been here less than 2 days) should not go forward; it would be roundly trounced. --Durin 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? People use templates? I just cut n' paste the thing and adjust as needed - easym scheemzy! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge requests for checkuser? (Archive 34)

Someone has just suggested that checkuser requets be merged here. I appreciate that this page is already big enough as it is, but on the other hand I do think that way it would get a lot more attention, which is a good thing as it's a fairly big responsibility. Any objections here? --fvw * 23:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

None from me. I had supposed this would be where it was done. -Splash^talk 23:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, append it at the end, after bureaucratship. Andre (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

/nominate (Archive 35)

Whoa when did this come in? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. This is a mess, and I've seen it confusing people a lot. Why not go to the old version with a rather simple, copy and paste, set of instructions on the main RfA page? With the new policy I'm sure we'll have ones listed before they accept, but we could add in the instructions to make it  until the person has accepted. I don't like this subpage at all, totally confusing... R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the old process was really confusing too. The thing is that this way could be much much better if it was just slighty reworded. I prefer the /nominate as long as the instructions are worded a bit better(more clear and flexible, some of the intructions only apply for moniations of others but it is not clear on that).

BTW, when is a bereauocrat going to close up my RfA?Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey MTG, it's spelled Bureaucrat (like beautiful). Or you can just say B-crat. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Haha, Redwolf schooled me on the spelling of Bureaucrat too, don't worry VoA. And I agree, the old proccess was WAY better. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It took me ages to learn to spell it, until I had to write it out over and over for a Signpost piece on them. the wub "?!" 08:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually disagree, I actually think the new process makes perfect sense. But I've never made a nomination in the old system, so I can't really compare. Borisblue 03:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

We just need a clearer statement on the main page directing people to the /nominate page for nomination information. BD2412 ^talk 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That nominate page makes the process seem more like a process, with clear steps and guidance, I just wonder how it should be reworded for simplicity.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 03:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the current system is less than ideal and can be confusing and that it would probably be easier to either make people do it manually rather than just using the boxes to do noms and such, or have instructions to do it manually on the same page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as it is simple and works. I used /nominate for my RfA(which still needs to be closed:)!), and I was quite confused.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 03:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well before I looked at it , I just assumed it would be harder. The wording definately needs to be changed, but the "idiot" buttons sure do make it a lot easier for the ones who muck up the "copy/paste". I don't really care which way is used, I think with a little bit of reading, it's all "easy". «»Who ?¿?^meta 03:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I wrote an intro section which (hopefully) clarifies things. BD2412 ^talk 04:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo (Archive 36)

I have made Steverigo's RFA into a link rather than a transcluded sub page. Steve's nom makes the page size extremely large. Those interested in following up on RFA nom, may the follow the link. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Links instead of transclusions (Archive 41)

Might I request that when you remove the transclusion of, but include a simple link to, an obviously failing RfA that the nominee wishes to keep open, that you include a link to the actual RfA page... For example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Staxringold instead of just the "Vote Here" link. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind... I added the link in the template. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, even if the problem's already solved. It's irritating clicking on the user page and the edit page before you actually get to see the page you're after while working out whether you want to vote... The Land 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! My mistake for not including it in my original template. Thanks for fixing it, LV! Owen× ☎ 02:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why an obviously failing RfA would be transcluded, any more than the obviously passing ones. What the reasoning? --mdd4696 04:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Saves some measure of embarassment for the nominee, particularly if the oppose votes are accompanied by harsh criticism. BD2412 T 04:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to go on record as saying that doing this is a really stupid idea, as if you protect those who make dumb self-nominations from the criticism the nomination deserves, then you'll just encourage further dumb self-nominations. Proto t c 13:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Two points on that - 1) we're not deleting the RfA page altogether - anyone can just click the link and see the criticism that resulted in the change; and 2) the RfA does not get changed from a transclusion to a link until it has already gotten pretty bad, so said self nominee will certainly have had a taste of strong opposition by then. BD2412 T 13:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Proto, we're not trying to punish people for nominating themselves prematurely. Most of these nominations are done in good faith, and the effort involved in rejecting them is relatively small. However, this is a very high traffic page, and when an obviously failing nomination clutters up the page with screenfulls of "Oppose" votes and discussion, it distracts readers from other, more relevant nominations, not to mention slowing down loading of this page for those without a fast connection. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Showing RfA's as links instead of transclusions (Archive 41)

I've noticed that RfA's with lots of oppose votes are being shown as links instead of transcluded pages. Why is this? — JIP | Talk 09:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I too would like to know why. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself, but from a cursory glance it appears that all the RfAs that are "failing" are being shown as a link. I don't like this change; it gives people the impression that the RfA is already doomed and that it's not worth voting on. In addition, it also creates more work to look over all the RfAs and discourages users from voting. Thoughts? Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It was already discussed here and here. Previously, we used to completely remove nominations that clearly didn't have any chance of passing. there was some strong opposition to ending an RfA before the seven days are up, but most people felt that cluttering the main page with screenfulls of pile-on Oppose votes was disruptive. This is why I came up with this compromise, which seemed to get a consensus, at least on a trial-period basis. So far, it seems to be working well; none of the candidates have complained about it, and voting does continue, albeit at a slower rate, on those clearly doomed nominations. Owen× ☎ 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should do this. Nominees with obviously failing candidacies should be approached on their talk page and reminded that they have the option to withdraw their nomination at any time. Otherwise, it shouldn't be fiddled with (or hidden) by anyone other than a closing bureaucrat, IMO. —Cleared as filed. 16:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I must have missed the later parts of those two discussion. However, I don't see a general consensus for the idea — indeed, I see considerably opposition both then and now (my opposition included). In addition, it appears that non-bureaucrats have been chaning the transclusions to links. In either case, I don't think we should continue doing this. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm the biggest "offender" in this regard; I'll take full responsibility for being bold and starting things off, hoping to gauge the general reaction here. I was under the impression this was a successful test so far. True, in my original proposal I had bureaucrats changing the transclusion to a link in such cases. I'd be happy to back off and let Nichalp take over doing that. Or continue doing it myself under strict guidelines defined by the community. Either way, it seems most voters believe that pile-on oppose noms are harmful, and that we need a mechanism for avoiding them. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they're harmful, but I don't think the solution is hiding the RfA. People should refrain from piling on unless they have something specific to add, and the user should be politely nudged towards withdrawing. I've personally tried nudging a few in that direction (User:EddieSegoura after his first two self-nominations, for example). But if they want to watch the oppose votes pile in, I don't see why we should hide their nomination before its official end. —Cleared as filed. 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware this was going on, but my first thought was this: Why not make all the votes look like those transcluded ones? That way, the entire RFA page can be loaded onto a single page without scrolling. It's slowly growing in length after all. People interested in participating would then click on the names that they recognize - sort of like people choosing the topic of their interest on the reference desk. A good idea? The only problem is that it has to be maintained, and I am not sure how that would be like. --HappyCamper 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about that before, but the problem is that it makes it harder for people to vote or follow discussions. With a single page, I can review the ones that look interesting without having to click a link and follow it from there. However, if necessary, I don't see that big of a problem with having them be all links. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also like being able to review the ones that look interesting without clicking a link. I think we should go back to the way it was before; all of the nominations are transcluded, and we discourage pile-on-opposition votes by other means than hiding them. —Cleared as filed. 16:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but could we keep the idea of transclusion in the back of our minds? It might become useful later on. :-) --HappyCamper 16:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nominations are trending upwards (as well they should be) - at some point, we will have to consider means to present a shorter page - perhaps employing the solution that AfD has arrived at, which is splitting the nominations into lists by day (but with a twist, that being a central repository that lists all editors currently nominated). BD2412 T 16:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sort of interested in this because it sounds so much like the splitting of the reference desk that was done a while ago. There's WP:RD/A which lists all the active questions on the reference desk, in addition to all the subpages of the RD...maybe some of the ideas can be adopted here as well when it is needed. --HappyCamper 16:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what's the bottom line? There are four of us who seem to support changing transclusion to link for a patently failing nomination, and I see here at least three who oppose this, and one or two who seem to be on the fence. We now have another candidate for this treatment, with 13 Oppose votes (and growing) and zero Supporters. I'd be happy to get some sort of consensus here before I do anything with it. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the change from transclusion to link, but I'd like to see some specifications on when it should be done. I think there ought to be some minimum time on RfA (maybe 48 hours?) before this can be done, no matter the state of the nom. BD2412 T 01:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this debate but good luck finding a consensus on this. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to leave the full page intact unless a b-crat or the candidate wants to withdraw / have it transclused. Changing seems meddlesome, if the candidate wants oppose votes piled on, let them have it. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not just the candidate's choice. The RfA page is already very long, and it will keep growing as the rate of nominations increases. For someone without a broadband connection this might be a nightmare; keeping these hopeless noms in it just makes things that much worse. By leaving these doomed nominations inline, the candidate is not only punishing himself, but also annoying all of us. However, if a candidate specifically asked me to change his nom back from a link to a regular transclusion, I wouldn't refuse. So far none of those I've moved to a link complained, which leads me to believe this is not a real issue. Owen× ☎ 03:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As there really was no consensus in support of this change, I think being bold was inappropraite here. Please lets go back to the agreed way of doing things. Filiocht | The kettle's on

Section break: early RfA linking

Just wondering, why were MegamanZero and WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo untranscluded so quickly? Yes, I agree that these are both going to fail, but they were both untranscluded with less than ten oppose votes. I thought untransclusion was supposed to prevent pileon votes, not prevent an RfA from going through its normal course so early on in the process. I think untranscluding this early on should definitely be done by a bureaucrat. --D e ath phoenix 14:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that there's realists in wikipedia, despite the fact that comment was decidely very diapointing regarding my rfa :(... but yes, I agree, weather by lack of popularity, or lack of experience, I won't succeed in adminship this time- perhaps my thesis staements weren't expressing enough. Regardless, I'm going to see this failing rfa through, and I hope people opposing me can give me constructive critisisim, overall helping me become a more prominent editor in wikipedia. I hope my next rfa in the far future does better!-MegamanZero 0:27 7,December 2005 (UTC)

I see that there are a few RfAs with less than ten votes that are changed into links, so at least there's a precedent. However, these two in particular seemed to have been untranscluded very early on, a little earlier than I am comfortable with. --D e ath phoenix 14:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This time it wasn't me doing the un-transclusion, but I can fully defend Ral315's action. The subject of waiting for a minimum of 10 Oppose votes was discussed here recently, and there was no clear consensus. This was more of an issue when bureaucrats used to completely close these failing nominations. In changing to a link, we are hoping to avoid closing any RfA early, which means we can be more practical in applying this. As you admit yourself, both nominations have no chance of succeeding. Neither of the candidates appealed Ral315's decision to un-transclude, and anyone who wishes to vote or voice their opinion on these noms can still do so, without cluttering the main page. Based on the discussion above, it is clear that we still don't have a consensus for changing transclusions into links, which is why I stopped doing it for now, but I still believe Ral315 did the right thing. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In general, I agree with the idea of untranscluding to prevent pileons. However, I feel these two were untranscluded much too early. Maybe there should be a minimum period of time that an RfA goes through before being untranscluded, maybe 24 hours. --D e ath phoenix 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggested 48 above, and I'm stickin' to it like hot gum on a shoe. BD2412 T 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

48's even better. --D e ath phoenix 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

48 hours is good for me too. We still have a couple of voices here who oppose the whole concept. I'd be happy to get a stronger consensus before I act again. Owen× ☎ 20:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

48 hours is plenty of time. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me say that I didn't see the discussion here; I thought that both the nominations that I transcluded were similar to others in vote reactions, etc. I never thought about time. I'm not sure what's the best way to go, but I'll trust consensus for now. Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

since there was absolutely no consensus to change things I have reset them all back to the original way of doing things until a consensus can be reached changes this large should only be made by consensus and since they were made rashly, I have decided to put it back to the way it was beforehand. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think that's harshly and unfairly phrased. However, I would observe that if there is no consensus to leave an RfA open as a link, then there can be no mandate for early closure (by a non-crat) either. -Splash^talk 22:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  - How is that unfairly phrased, can anyone fairly say that consensus was reached to do this especially considering the amount of opposition (see above threads) that this has had, I have been told and I think most people would agree with me that consensus should be obtained before any massive changes are made and from monitoring the threads on this page lately such consensus did not seem to be reached. In terms of early removals I agree that it should not be done by non b-crats unless the canidate resigns. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't think it was "rashly" done. -Splash^talk 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE THE POLL BELOW. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. -Splash^talk 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ugh. But it is a much easier way to see consensus rather than having one or two people simply claiming that there is no consensus... and you don't have to participate if you don't want to. There is no law requiring you to even look at it. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on a recent RfA mess-up (Archive 41)

The self-nom for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canaen was somehow initially improperly placed in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brendanconway; I cut and pasted the text to a separate RfA for Canaen, but the edit history of the initial votes can be found in Brendanconway's RfA page (mixed in with actual votes for Brendanconway). BD2412 T 21:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll for consensus (Archive 42)

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)
Yes. The purpose of RfA is to identify potential admins, and develop a consensus for their promotion. Nominees who are clearly going to fail should not distract from the discussion of nominees who are likely to succeed, and especially not from those on the borderline. It makes eminent sense to delist hopeless noms in order to reduce what loads up on the RfA page, and the purpose of RfA is just as well served by simply changing the transclusion to a link. However, decision to do that should be in the hands of a bureaucrat, subject to the following strictures: any RfA should be open on the main page for at least 48 hours before being changed to a link; at least 10 legit votes should have been cast; and at least 2/3 of said votes must be in opposition. BD2412 T 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note - see vote in polls below. BD2412 T 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if a bureaucrat decides it's necessary. If there's only a few active RfAs it doesn't hurt to keep a failing one transcluded. However, I suspect that as Wikipedia grows, it will become common to have have dozens of RfAs ongoing at any given time. Thus, it makes sense to reduce the clutter as much as possible. I don't think we need strict rules for this, just the judgement of our elected bureaucrats. Carbonite | Talk 23:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. If after 48 hours there is a clear consensus against the candidate, leaving it on the main page for another 5 days helps no one. Any editor in good standing, acting in good faith, should be allowed to change the transclusion to a link. Closing an RfA should only be done after 7 days, or at the candidate's request, except in clear cases of vandalism. Owen× ☎ 23:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but only after 48 hours, and I would much prefer if a bureaucrat does it. To do otherwise would invite accusations of cabalism. I would personally define "clearly failing" as around 70% oppose after ten votes, but I think a bureaucrat would be a better judge of this than me. --D e ath phoenix 03:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
end negative pileons, allow linking. ALKIVAR™ 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes because the nomination process is a personal issue and oftentimes those who oppose a nominee are rude to a point. An obviously failing RfA should be linked so long as the vote summary is still visible from the main page. I also believe that the bureaucrat should first ask the nomineee if he/she would prefer a linked RfA.--MONGO 12:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Nothing new to add to the above arguments. Tintin 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I think this is a good solution to reducing hard feelings as long as there's no chance the nomination could be successful. ie 50% support should be left alone, but much less than that with a fair number of votes should be shown as a link. - Taxman ^Talk 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely yes!. If, after 24-48 hrs. the RFA is clearly going down in flames, there is no need for the piling on or the humiliation. People can still go the the RFA and make their opinions known, but it is not necessary to have the RFA transcluded onto the main RFA page. ^Blank ^Verse 18:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, our current bureaucrats know what they're doing, and if they see that a nomination is clearly becoming a Forest Fire, they should be able to yank it out or hide it somehow. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No

No, never. The nomination should be only removed before its end time at the nominee's request, or not at all. (And since hiding it discourages participation, it's basically as bad as being removed in my view.) —Cleared as filed. 22:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No, non bureaucrats shouldn't remove or take off transclude nominations. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - but what if it was up to a bureaucrat to change the transclusion to a link? BD2412 T 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case I'd trust the bureaucrat's judgement on the matter. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No, under most cases, no way. If a nomination has been up for a few days an will obviously fail, a bureaucrat should change it. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
as per GregAsche Hamster Sandwich 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
On second thought the question isn't really about who is doing the change, but rather about how the change is made. Is It possible to vote yes and no? Yes to links, no to non 'crats doing it. There, better. Hamster Sandwich 23:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No, the only time an RfA should be changed from a transclusion to a link is if it's getting so large as to overwhelm the rest of the page. --Carnildo 23:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No, this effectively pre-judges the RFA and removes the opportunity to gauge true community consensus. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. If it's shown as a link only, it won't have any chance of turning around, and might as well have just been removed. I'd be in favor of just linking to all the nominations, though, or (better) sticking a <noinclude> after the {{User}} template at the start of the nominations, to increase the chance that first impressions on the nomination are formed on the nominee's merits, rather than who nominated them, or how many have already voted in support or opposition. (And don't even get me started on the tallies. Ugh.) —Cryptic (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Same reasons as Carnildo. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. All my reasons have already been stated. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
NO. I've commented on this repeatedly in the past ([5], [6], [7], [8]). There are a number of very strong reasons why RfAs should remain transcluded until end or until the candidate withdraws. In all of these ideas to not hurt the feelings of candidates, we aren't giving the candidate the opportunity to decide. TELL them their options and LET THEM DECIDE. De-transcluding a nomination is no better than just removing it except that it appears to be better. It's a very poor compromise position. Shutting down noms stifles discussion, will lead to future failed RfAs, and smacks of elitism. And in any case, the only people who should be de-transcluding or removing noms (other than joke noms) are bureaucrats or the person being nominated. --Durin 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. It makes the RfA listing more difficult to read and access, creates an artificial separation between "good" and "bad" nominees, and prevents the reader from viewing the arguments of the voters. — JIP | Talk 13:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. AfDs can be closed early by the person being nominated (preferred) or by a bureacrat (last resort, should be used sparingly, even if very lopsided). Transclusions hurt the page by making some AfDs "more equal than others." Either make them all transclusions or make none of them so. Turnstep 13:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No - this only emphasises the importance of giving potential admins guidance in advance on what they can expect during the process, and that they can seek advice or withdraw. If a nomination looks as though it's clearly failing, the nominator should give guidance to the nominee. ...dave souza 14:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Well said, JIP. It creates seperation. It's almost like saying "only RFAs with a fighting chance of passing are good enough to be on this page" (atleast to me). I say leave it, this page is called "Requests for Adminship", not "A list of RFA candidates who are gonna pass". If the candidate wants his/her page to be removed, then we can go ahead and remove it. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
No, What choice have we, as fair and good-faith citizens of wikipedia have to strike down one election more than another..? That is decidely useless, concentrated, disruptive behavior, and demeaning of another's feelings. Futhurmore, it dictates a popularity contest of sorts, allowing people the assumption that one election is "worth more than the other".-MegamanZero 10:20 8,December 2005 (UTC)
No. Sure, there's approximately zero chance that a 0–10–0 candidate will pass, but there's also approximately zero cost in keeping them on the page. So let them wait it out, who cares. —Simetrical (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Linking would be the equivalent of closing early, which is unfair to the candidate. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Comments

Polls are evil btw, that being said I realize the irony in voting in one at the same time as saying that they're evil and sometimes they seem to be a necessary evil. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be some concern that non-bureaucrats would be untranscluding the RfA. Perhaps the question should be reworded to something along the line of "Should a bureaucrat change a clearly failing RfAs to a link instead a transclusion?" Carbonite | Talk 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I added two sub polls clarifying the issue to who should be allowed to do it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer failing the nomination after two days if the oppose votes exceeds the support votes by 10. RFA is not an election campaign so its not mandatory that an RFA should run the full course. We're actually determining the suitability of the candidate here, and if an RFA is failing miserably it's a lost cause anyways. Form what I observe, nobody likes to vote for a candidate whose RFA seems doomed. In many cases people who initially vote yes, do change their votes after a flood of valid oppose votes. Also, to avoid pileons, very few people vote after the fourth day in a failing RFA. The best recourse for a candidate is to try again after a few weeks or so. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- How about a requirement that at least 15 legit votes must have been cast; and at least 2/3 of said votes must be in opposition - that would inherently require that opposes outnumber supports by at least 10. BD2412 T 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  - - 15 is a bit too high. To promote a candidate 10 oppose votes would roughly need a minimum of 40 support votes in 5 days, and I don't recall any turnaround of such a magnitude ever. I always informed of my intention to delist the RFA to avoid a sticky situation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Except that might actually increase oppose voting on certain RfAs, in an effort to get the nom linked. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Just to clarify, Nichalp is talking about actually failing the nom, as opposed to making it a link. I am not worried about pile-on oppose votes, as I believe editors are reticent to oppose unless they feel that opposition is compelled by the nomination itself. BD2412 T 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The arguments that failing nominations muck up the RfA list and make it too long are in my opinion without merit. If you think we have a lot of RfAs active now, just wait six months or a year. I don't remember the exact figures, but a while ago I projected the # of active RfAs a year from now to be something like 120. There are very real scalability issues here that are not going to be addressed by simply de-transcluding failing nominations. --Durin 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Is this being addressed/discussed somewhere? (the long term scaling issues?) Turnstep 04:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Every RfA should be treated equally, without expections. If a candidate is not likely to succeed, he/she can be asked to withdraw the RfA. If it's obviously going to fail (something like 20-30 oppose votes and 0 support votes) a bureaucrat (and only a bureaucrat) may remove it and mark it as failed. No non-bureaucrat should ever mark an RfA that wasn't declined or withdrawn as failed. I personally have never opposed an RfA just because everyone else has. At the very least, I have a look at the user's user page, talk page and contributions to see how long he/she has been on Wikipedia, and what he/she has eidted. I don't want to see RfA candidates being classified as "failing" or "succeeding" candidates. — JIP | Talk 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Every RfA starts equally (at 0/0/0), but it's often obvious how one will turn out. For those that are absolute locks for failure, there's no real purpose in keeping them active. At best, they'll sit there cluttering the page until the seven days are up. At worst, they'll be a pile-on and the candidate will leave Wikipedia with hurt feelings. Keep in mind, that this proposal is only for RfAs that are clearly failing, not for ones that are still in doubt. Carbonite | Talk 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- If it's obvious an RfA is failing, the nominator or a bureaucrat should contact the nominee and offer to end the process, and the better guidance the potential candidate has beforehand the less likely such problems become. Roll out the WP:GRFA. ...dave souza 19:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If Voting in one of the sub polls it is suggested that you may wish to strike out <s> striked out vote </s> on the above poll'

Should bureaucrats be allowed to make failing RFA's show as a link instead of a tranclusion?

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. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes (but I still think there should be a set minimum time to have it open - even bureaucrats should have some guidance on the matter). BD2412 T 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree but that would be something that would probably have to be determined after figuring out whether doing it in the first place is a good idea. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Second BD2412. Perhaps after say, 36 hours with absolutely no hope of salvaging it. NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
36 hours seem reasonable. Hamster Sandwich 00:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if a bureaucrat decides it's necessary. If there's only a few active RfAs it doesn't hurt to keep a failing one transcluded. However, I suspect that as Wikipedia grows, it will become common to have have dozens of RfAs ongoing at any given time. Thus, it makes sense to reduce the clutter as much as possible. I don't think we need strict rules for this, just the judgement of our elected bureaucrats. Carbonite | Talk 01:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Owen× ☎ 02:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, seems better than removing it all together. Broken S 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Sparing the candidate the pile-ons and reducing the clutter are good ideas. The RfA should be retranscluded at the request of the nominee, no questions asked. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, per above. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
end negative pileons, allow linking. ALKIVAR™ 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but IFF the vote is so long as to cause problems with page loading. It should never be used simply because a nominee is clearly failing, clearly succeeding, clearly mad, clearly a penguin, or clearly anything else. Grutness...wha? 04:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the negative implication that changing a tranclusion to a link has is something that should be done on a limited basis and only by a bureaucrat. Rx StrangeLove 04:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, bureaucrats are the ideal people to judge this. See my vote in the first question. --D e ath phoenix 13:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in all cases after 48 hours where it's an obviously failed nomination. Of course, if results change, it should be brought back. --Elliskev 14:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, after 48 hours. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I think this is a good solution to reducing hard feelings as long as there's no chance the nomination could be successful. ie 50% support should be left alone, but much less than that with a fair number of votes should be shown as a link. - Taxman ^Talk 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely yes! see comment above. ^Blank ^Verse 18:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we gave them a public tarring and feathering to get the job of managing RfAs, so we expect them to know what they're doing if they do it. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. It is their job to deal with RfA's as they wish...this seems OK.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes--Aranda ⁵⁶ 04:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No

No, this is not necessary and makes the page harder to read. If the vote is still active it's helpful for it to appear in full. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Still no. —Cryptic (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, for consistency with my earlier vote. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. See my vote above. --Durin 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. See my vote above. — JIP | Talk 13:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. The nomineee should request closing the AfD, not hiding it away Turnstep 14:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Not everyone would look at it after it's been linked, thus taking probable votes out of the process. --Lectonar 14:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No - see my comment above. ..dave souza 14:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. While the intent is good, I fear that this proposal will encourage oppose votes from editors who might have otherwise taken a pass upon seeing that a nomination was likely to fail without their vote. Even where there are good reasons to oppose, the oppose votes have often had the effect of disillusioning an otherwise good editor who was viewed as not quite ready to handle the extra tools. -- DS1953 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No per my above vote. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
No, see my previous vote above.-MegamanZero 10:23 8,December 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

Comments

Should non-bureaucrats be allowed to make failing RFA's show as a link instead of a tranclusion?

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)
Yes, and in response to Jtkiefer, this does not involve consensus of any kind (especially if the RfAs are 0/10/0 or the like), so why shouldn't non-bureaucrats be able to do it, just like even regular users can close keep AFDs? NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 00:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, deciding whether or not each individual one should be de-transcluded doesn't but the decision to implement whether to start untranscluding things as a general part of the RFA process does. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, any editor in good standing acting in good faith should be allowed to do so. Bureaucrats decide on closing and promoting, but presentation issues may be left to non-b'crats who know what they're doing and reflect general consensus. Owen× ☎ 02:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
end negative pileons, allow linking. ALKIVAR™ 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Administrators can be trusted to act in good faith. Besides, nothing can't be undone. --Elliskev 14:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely yes!. This is something that doesn't require any of an administrator's special abilities. If someone turns an RFA into a link in bad faith, it can always be undone. ^Blank ^Verse 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

No

No, only bureaucrats as part of their role should be allowed to change to link instead of transclusion just like their the only ones allowed to close RFA's. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
willing to leave this to 'crats. Too much potential for feuding if "rival" editors (read:admins) are removing from general list. Hamster Sandwich 00:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, we elect bureaucrats to handle all RfA matters. Carbonite | Talk 01:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, per Jtkiefer. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Still no. —Cryptic (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. That's what are Bureaucrats for. Grutness...wha? 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. See my vote above. --Durin 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, bureaucrats should be the ones to handle RfAs. --D e ath phoenix 13:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Non-bureaucrats should have even less power than bureaucrats. — JIP | Talk 13:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Regulations and similar concensus regarding voting on mainstream pages like this should be carefully dictated, and not haplessly thrown to the whims of the masses.-MegamanZero 16:24 7,December 2005 (UTC)
No. Nobody should be making them links, but if we must, it is really a bcrat's job. Turnstep 14:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. See my vote above, and concur with Turnstep.--Lectonar 14:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No - see my comment above. ..dave souza 15:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No. While this could be helpful some of the time, other times, we could get into more trouble when less experienced people starting trying to link RfAs.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, that's what bureaucrats are for. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't care

I reiterate:I dont believe it should be removed. However, if, in some way it is, then it doesn't matter who does it— just as long as they don't mess it up. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Repeat noms (Archive 43)

Just to make sure: If I nominate myself for the second time, do I enter this into the self-nom box: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deltabeignet 2 or this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deltabeignet_2 or something else entirely? Deltabeignet 03:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Those two would produce the same result, and both are fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible changes for page text (Archive 44)

Greetings. In my recent failed candidacy for bureaucratship, I discovered a few improvements that I think could be made to this page.

It is current practice to promote bureaucrats only when there is an overwhelming consensus to promote, meaning roughly 90% approve and no more than 2 or 3 oppose votes. But the page doesn't mention this. If this is to be our practice, it seems to me that the page should say so.
There is a detailed explanation of "how to promote" for bureaucrats, but there is no information on "how to decline to promote". When a nomination fails, it seems to me that it would be good practice for the involved bureaucrat to note on the subpage that there was insufficient consensus to promote, and notify the candidate of this fact. (In my case, I could only determine what the decision was by looking in the page history.)

Is there any objection to making these changes? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. Since you requested my feedback, here is my impression of what you have just written, and a bit of elaboration.

I agree most with your point that if a nomination fails, the bureaucrat who removes the nomination information should inform the candidate as a matter of courtesy, and I will endeavor to do that in the future. I am reluctant, though, to try to list every nuance of what does, could or should go into a bureaucrat's decision. The community has expressed itself in the past as to what the general rules for promotion (admin of Bcrat) should be and has multiple times (and recently) expressed the opinion that bureaucrats are trusted to make hair-spliting decisions. The one requirement I expect of myself (and would want to see in other bureaucrats) is a willingness to explain my reasoning if challenged, as I did when you asked why your promotion failed. Any time I actually am in a position where I will have to decide one way or the other, I always form in mind the rationale for my decision. This helps me be confident that the decision is the right one and that I am able to communicate that. I am perfect? Gimme a break! ;-) It's like an umpire, you try to be careful, but you must be able to make a decision. "Maybe this, maybe that" doesn't cut it.

There are not many bureaucrats, so I don't think it is out of line to expect those who make promotions to familiarize themselves with the ins and outs, by studying the archived talk where community sentiment has been both polled and discussed, and by asking another bureaucrat (or 'crats) about a particular point. I hesitate to codify these things in numerical terms for two reasons. (1) has to do with the history of how a person is promoted. Since everyone (almost) is most comfortable with numbers, we tend to look at numbers (such-and-such percent, so-many-and-so-many-for-or-against) but the standard is and has always been consensus. That's why promotions are made by a bureaucrat and not by a bot. (2) The more detailed rules we post, the more Wikilawyers we will have chewing on every nomination, not to mention the specter of instruction creep.

So the chief issue is that Wikipedians have confidence in the bureaucrats' fairness and judgment.

I have my own opinions of the mess that RfA can be, but that is another discussion. Cheers, Cecropia 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Then what would you think of a sentence like "promotion to the status of bureaucrat generally requires a stronger and more unequivical consensus than promotion to administrator" or something of that nature? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is surely the sort of thing that a good, well-learned-up ;crat nominee should already know. -Splash^talk 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but a voter might not. And shouldn't a voter know how effective his vote would be? Let's say a nominee already has 48 support votes and 2 object votes. If the nominee is for an admin, and a voter doesn't think the nominee is ready, he might abstain from voting, since his vote wouldn't make much a difference and he wouldn't want to get on the nominee's bad side. He might vote differently for a bureacrat, since his vote would matter much more. Conversely, if a poor bureaucrat nominee has 10 oppose votes and 40 supports, one might not bother to vote against, since his nomination is effectively already sunk. But if it were an admin nomination, one might decide to vote. I'm not saying people should vote this way, but they might, and it seems to me it would be best to give people this information unless there's a good reason not to. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, I see what you mean on the RfB text. It does say that a higher standard is expected for bureaucratship but is a little ambiguous as to what that meant. Some time back, when we were hashing out the expectations of the community on promotion policy, the wording was much more explicit but was watered down in time, I suppose under the Wikisentiment that nothing should sound at all threatening or, well, bureaucratic. I've added a few words to make the point more evident. Clearer now? -- Cecropia 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Much. Thanks again. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about "voting" (Archive 46)

I know there is talk about drastically changing RfA (whether needed or not remains to be seen), but what about a simple slight modification? What about instead of labeling the sections Support, Oppose, and Neutral, what if we changed the standard template to read, Comments for promotion, Comments against promotion, and Neutral comments (or something like that... could be "Comments for" and "Comments against", just something other than what we use now). I think this would facilitate and generate a better discussion, and cut down on people's cries about strict vote counting. Thoughts? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Then again, I like *anything* that is different than the current system. Discuss and debate, discuss and debate. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't even read the headers, I just go on autopilot at that point — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it too....I've always thought that it should be run a little more like an RFC. Views, pro and con...endorsing said views and let a bureaucrat make a judgment. I know that's a little beyond the scope of what you had in mind but it's down the same road I think. Something like this would let the arguments decide and not sheer numbers. There'd still be less people endorsing one "view" and more another but at least it'd be comment based and not support based. For (exaggerated) example there might be 20 people endorsing the view that the nominee is a good guy and 5 people endorsing a view that says the nominee has been blocked 4 times for WP:3RR violations, the minority view would probably be the one that swayed the bureaucrat's judgement. There's some things that would need to be worked out but I'd like to see a live trial. Anyway...another $0.02 Rx StrangeLove 21:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I dislike it. We shouldn't sacrifice clarity for politcorrectness. And one guy writing 500 word "comment against" shouldn't cancel out 20 good-faith contributors saying that that nominee is a good guy. No need to turn a formal procedure into writing contest. Grue 21:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would one person cancel out twenty? Don't you think the BCrats could see that there was only one person against promotion? It's not based on the number of words written, it would just make things less like a "vote" and more like a discussion. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"politcorrectness"? I am not sure what I think about any of these RfA reform ideas, but I am absolutely sure that people should not be using political correctness as a bogeyman against the idea of making things less of a vote and more of a discussion. Jkelly 21:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, terrorists are evil, so let's call them "freedom fighters". Grue 21:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Was this to me or JKelly? I'm confused. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Where the political correctness thing came into play, I have no idea. I'm lost. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we're discussing the fact that if we stop voting, the terrorists win. But that's just a guess. Jkelly 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Prisoners Of War have human rights, so let's call them "unlawful combatants". =) JIP | Talk 09:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

One person writing a clear and persuasive 500 word essay should cancel out 20 people who are all just blindly going <aol> me too! </aol>. That's exactly how it should be. :-) Kim Bruning 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my point in the exaggerated example I gave above. Rx StrangeLove 22:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I take that you never participiated in VfD discussions. The one who has the most to say is most often wrong. Grue 07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the relevance of a comment/argument that matters and not how many people line up behind something. And in any case you're the one that brought the 500 word essay up, it's got nothing to do with the point I was making and it never will. I'll ignore the irrelevant VFD remark...oh wait, it's AFD now isn't it ;) Rx StrangeLove 08:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Going forth, I just want everyone to remember civility. I'm not going to link it, because I trust everyone commenting here has read that guideline. 8^) Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I came off snippy :( Rx StrangeLove 03:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Reminder (Archive 46)

If you're discussing a vote in the support or oppose section directly under the vote, remember to put # before any colons (:) you use so as not to break the numbering. Thanks,--Alhutch 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Box of links (Archive 47)

I've just added a box of links to the front matter page. As a bureaucrat it's handy having links to the three respective bureaucrat pages as well as the three respective admin pages, together from the main page. Feel free to change back or reformat if disapproved of though. -- Francs 2000 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The box is nice, but the bcrat links are overkill. These are down at the bcrat nom is anyone really wants to know. There are ~800 admins and two dozen bcrats--it's not top-o-the-page info. -- Cecropia 03:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please count again (Archive 47)

Obeying the note at the top of the archived page, I won't modify the bureaucrat tally of the recently withdrawn Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine), but I ask User:Francs2000 to please count again. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

It was withdrawn. Why does the tally matter? Just curious. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter hugely, but somewhat, because a) two people took the trouble to vote before the candidate withdrew and now it is as if they hadn't; I wouldn't like that if it was me. And because b) people may look up the archive out of interest, and the tally is probably one of the things that does interest them; in fact I imagine it's on that assumption that the tally is always posted prominently at the top even in cases where the candidates did withdraw. The clincher for me is that if the candidate applies again later, people surely will be interested in what exactly happened at this RFA. May I ask what the colour of your curiosity is? Do you think it's unkind of me to ask to have the two missing voters included? Ghoulish? Bishonen | talk 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Ghoulish... mwhahaha. ;-) No, I just didn't know the reasoning for your request. I just found it a little odd. But now that you have explained, I see your reasoning and drop my question. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any problem wih updating the final tally. I adjusted my final tally after the close (a duplicate vote) and to date, I still haven't been dragged before ArbCom for it :-). NoSeptember ^talk 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember Kim Bruning blocking somebody (FeloniousMonk perhaps?) over doing exactly that thing. Well, over correcting somebody else's tally, not their own. You do it. ;-P Bishonen | talk 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

I think it comes down to whether people see this action as acting in good faith or trying to put a spin on the results. I'm happy leaving that RfA as it is, are you? NoSeptember ^talk 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be pretending I'm happy. But I accept the results and wish to move on. Is it too much to ask of you, Bishonen and Giano to do likewise...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, updating the count (where no suffrage judgement calls are involved (which is only OK for a bureaucrat to do)) seems Ok to me. My comments above were not based on your RfA (which I did not review first to see what impact a count adjustment might have). NoSeptember ^talk 13:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arriving at this after all the discussion has happened already I would just like to add that I didn't count it to start with - the nomination was withdrawn by the candidate before the closing date, all I did was make sure it was de-listed and archived properly. There's nothing to recount because it wasn't counted in the first place. -- Francs 2000 11:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although having re-read your question I can see where you're coming from. Feel free to re-do the final count at the top if I haven't done so already (am at work at the moment and only came on to check messages...) -- Francs 2000

12:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But it is considered bad form in general, yes? I was reverted doing it the other day. Marskell 12:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing a closed discussion is considered bad form in general, yes. I've just recounted and amended the final count in this case. -- Francs 2000

12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

voting subpage layout (Archive 48)

I figured I'd post this here as the template is a little hidden. In case people weren't aware of it (and as someone adjusted one nomination already to the previous format), the voting subpage layout has changed. See Template talk:RfA#Reformatted for discussion. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Request blanked by candidate (Archive 48)

I've removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Minan from the main page, since it was blanked by the candidate (a self-nom) after five oppose votes. I'm not sure what's done these days with aborted requests, so I've brought it up here. android 79 19:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be blanked. It should be archived and linked at the unsuccessful nomination page as "withdrawn by candidate." -- Cecropia 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've unblanked it and closed it our properly. --Durin 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert of addition (Archive 48)

Aaron Brenneman added a paragraph to the RfA intro with a link to Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Nomination cabal. I've reverted his addition because I don't feel that a link to a DfA page, which is currently only proposed and has not gained widespread support, is appropriate at this time. Not only might it confuse people, but DfA is only proposed at this point; linking from it from the RfA main page doesn't seem necessary at this point. Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that we currently have one person nominated for DfA. We probably should publicise this fact on RfA, just to test out the process (instead of endlessly speculating on how effective it might be). Thoughts? Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My only comment is that people keep complaining that the DfA process (which needs to be renamed to RfA 1.2 or something) is untested and incomplete, and then when people want to try it out with someone, it gets blocked. I understand that the process is not necessarily 100% robust yet, but we're a wiki, we do things in progress, and as currently constituted it is a VERY incremental change over the current way we do RfA. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Flcelloguy that the text and link added by Aaaron can be confusing to people who come here solely for the reason of seeing the current nominations, nominating somebody, or being nominated (which is almost everybody). I would suggest you nominate somebody for admin using the DfA process, and just transclude that nomination from this RfA page, as any other nomination; without chaning anything about this RfA page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Would that not be terribly confusing, with DfA's different format? Johnleemk | Talk 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's vastly more radical and controversial than what Aaron did, since that would involve actually nominating someone using the DfA process. The link that was removed does not do that; it nominates people under the RfA process, and just uses some ideas from DfA to help write the nomination statement. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as another attempt at ram-rodding the DfA process down RfA's throat. This was tried once before, and reverted. As I've repeatedly argued, DfA needs at least a heck of a lot of improvement before it can 'go live' for any purpose. Personally, I think it should be scrapped and a far better process for developing a solution be used. I'd apprecaite it if, at a minimum, the promoters of DfA please accept that the community does not yet accept DfA in its current form. --Durin 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to, the nomination of a fellow who *wants* to go through DFA, or the addition of the link? Johnleemk | Talk 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, this seems like a pretty unobjectionable link. I find it hard to imagine how it could be characterized as "ram-rodding the DFA process down RfA's throat" -- the page linked to neither changes anything about RfA nor advocates changing anything about RfA as it stands. Nor do I see why the status of DfA as a proposed policy or rejected policy has anything to do with the matter of this link. I don't think it's healthy to display this level of reflexivenss. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What I don't find healthy is the attempt at "suspending" RfA while DfA was implemented without any attempt at gaining concensus regarding its suitability. This was (thankfully) undone. Now, weeks later after considerable debate and virtually no change at DfA, there's now an attempt to include a link to DfA from RfA? To include a link on the front matter gives the appearance of authority for this process, which it most definitely does not have. So yes, I do perceive it as an attempt to ram-rod DfA through, again. And, as others have noted, it does change RfA by potentially confusing voters about what the process is...and this was all done without any attempt at notifying people here on this talk page (yet again). Twice now changes have been made by the DfA advocates to RfA without prior discussion on the RfA talk page. You should not be surprised that it was reverted, nor should you be surprised that people would be upset at these attempts. Furthermore, it was known from discussion on the DfA talk page that this change to RfA would most likely be opposed...yet you guys went ahead and did it anyway. Work with the community, not against it. See my comments on this from a month ago. --Durin 19:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed a bit antagonistic earlier, but I don't think this is at all similar to the previous issues, which had to do with making substantive reforms to the RfA process. It's understandable why there would be a reluctance to make changes to an important process without airing them to proper scrutiny. This, on the other hand, is just advertising a service for a new way of jointly writing nomination statements. It doesn't force anything on anybody, it just points to a page that is possibly helpful to people using the RfA process, similar to the links to the standards page or the list of non-admins with high edit counts -- both of which are far more likely to confuse people than this link. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, many, if not most, people believe that the current system is not broken, and that the DfA system may not be better (personally I think it is worse). I start to think that there is even no need to test the new system, it is clear enough that there is no big community enthusiasm in switching, and I would suggest this reform attempt be scrapped. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But adding this link isn't a "reform" attempt in the sense that it does nothing to change the current system, which is why I'm mystified that people are treating it as if it involves a change of policy. But it's clear that there is opposition to including the link on this page, so the "nomination cabal" will just have to advertise its services in other ways, I suppose. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, um, gosh. I'm astounded at the level of opposition to what is about as low-impact a change as it is possible to make. I've moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination cabal for now, and will re-link on the main page in a couple of minutes with some new text to distance it from the apparently toxic DfA. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Inoffensive version

I've replaced a version on the main page that is pretty mild. There does exist some indication on the nomination cabal sub-page itself that this has its roots in DfA, but please tell me that we're not so precious that I have to remove those as well. They will only be seen by people actually working on the potential nomination, and most of them will be aware of the history anyway. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The way this would work now is that interested candidates contemplating an RfA could go through this process first, gathering input and identifying issues, and then the results of this process used to formulate their nomination statement, as they would then go through the rest of the RfA process as is. This seems a great idea to me. Since it's entirely optional, I fail to see how it's ramming anything anywhere, but I may be missing something of course. That said I'll certainly be taking the results of DfAs into account in my evaluation and comment on candidates. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This DfA process still has a number of shortcomings that have yet to be rectified. To expect people to go through it at this point is premature. --Durin 00:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, which parts of the collaborative nomination process need work? And it's been pointed out quite explicitly that this is an optional extra. Complain less, {{sofixit}} more. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 06:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

By complaining, as I have done amply on the DfA discussion page and elsewhere, I have already contributed to assisting forward progress on DfA. Several of you are considerably more wedded to the effort than I am. It's incumbent on you to do something about it. --Durin 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what? I've reviewed your comments and I confess, as a bear of very little brain, I'm not totally sure what to do next. I'm at a loss as to why collecting pre-nomination information on a candidate is a bad idea, which is all this proposal is at this point. I am somewhat surprised because usually your commentary is so cogent and lucid it leaves no doubt about how to proceed. (I've said more than once that a RfA nom by you is like a quality certification of the candidate)... ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted, DfA does nothing to address the shortcomings of RfA (whatever they may be). Further, the manner in which DfA is currently constructed is rather likely to lead to revert/edit wars on people's DfAs. I've noted these issues in my comments on the DfA talk page. Primarily, if there is going to be RfA reform, then it needs to address what the problems are with RfA. Right now, it's just a shot in the dark and just as likely to cause harm as not. I'm of the opinion it is actually more likely to cause harm because RfA, if it is broken, isn't significantly broken. Regardless, if DfA is going to actually do good things, then some baseline analysis of problems extant with RfA needs to be done. From that, discussion needs to ensue about what are the core problems with RfA. Then, discussion regarding all possible courses of action to address those core problems. Then, some consensus building on which of those possible courses are the best. DfA, for all the effort that's been put into it, is little more than "Hey, RfA sucks. Isn't this a great idea to replace it?". Well, nobody knows. The DfA supporters are looking for test candidates. That sounds reasonable except you don't have any idea yet what it is that it being tested. I'm quite concerned that the next step DfA is going to take is to run, say, a dozen test candidates and when everything goes smoothly it's going to be trumpeted as a victory. From that it's going to replace RfA and then all hell is going to break loose when we find all sorts of problems with it. RfA is a matured process. Go back through the archives of this very talk page and you can see all manner of 'reform' proposals. The vast majority of them have never come to anything because by and large RfA is a pretty well honed process. Like anything human generated, it has flaws..but it is pretty good. --Durin 02:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- The majority of these objections don't adress the actual issue to hand. I'd urge a less adversarial stance, and ask that everyone try to examine the contributions, not the contributor's stance on DfA. I will thus remove all connections to the DfA process so that perhaps we can discuss this with a bit of clear air. As to the conjecture that edit wars will occur, we have a well-developed system for dealing with those, and seeing someone breach the three revert electric fence on their own nomination would be a nice indicator to future behavior. Additionally, this could serve as a filter to self-nominations from very new contributors without them having gone through having ten oppose votes appear and the su-page moved. If we could hear some discrete and actionable objections to the very limited and unofficial page linked, that would be helpful. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What would be helpful is to first get an understanding of what is wrong with RfA before building a brand new bureaucracy to replace it. I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face if necessary. As for revert wars, it isn't just about the nominee, it's about everyone who contributes to the development of the narrative. As for forcing out new editors, that would create a defacto (and moving) standard for who is and is not acceptable to be nominated for admin. Every time a suggestion has been made to have minimum standards for nominees as a benchmark policy, it's been shot down. At this point, I don't really care all that much what is wrong or right with DfA. What I am most concerned about is identifying what is wrong with RfA as a first step. That hasn't been done yet in any substantiative way. --Durin 12:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So I'm taking it that the admin accountability poll's response to your question was not substantiative enough for you? Read the answers, the majority of them (if not an outright consensus due to the way things were worded) support more discussion in RfA, but keeping "voting"/objective ways of defining support, and more reasons for such. Isn't that exactly what DfA as currently constituted tries to address, in a very incremental way? I'm really trying to figure out why both sides seem to be speaking different languages on this question, so forgive me if I seem adversarial, Durin. I don't mean to be. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

re-indentingI've read that. I don't view that as consensus. I also read User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform#What_is_not-so-good_about_the_existing_RFA.3F, and responded to it. I recognize that there's a gulf of understanding between sides on this issue. I too am sorry if I seem adversarial. I readily admit to being impatient on some of the points related to this because of frequent calls for RfA reform without a reasoned process to ascertain what is wrong with RfA and adequately respond to those concerns. --Durin 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that RfA is seriously screwed up. (At least, I'm not.) Instead, we believe RfA can be improved on. If the changes improve RfA -- even if only marginally -- at least something will have been accomplished. Even if there are only one or two cases where DfA would have a better result than RfA, if there is no downside, overall, DfA is better. I agree that DfA hasn't gotten its details ironed out properly yet, but I think that its basic principle -- that we should gather and collate information about a candidate before voting on him/her -- can't do much, if any, harm. Johnleemk | Talk 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. --Durin 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- You disagree that RfA can be improved on, you disagree that people are arguing that RfA is seriously screwed up, or you disagree that there's not much, if any, harm? Or all three? I know you feel you've been through this before, but please be as specific as possible with regards to the current concept being proposed, if you can? -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Durin, can you help me with this cross-cultural translation over at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Nomination_cabal? I'd appreciate your outside viewpoint, so we're not just navel gazing and going in circles. I hope I never gave the impression that I was claiming WP:AAP gave consensus for change, only impetus and concrete concerns about the process, which you asked for. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting aborted RFA attempts (Archive 48)

I deleted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sujithk, which had no actual content--just the user's name and a nowiki'd version of the nomination template. I don't know what the consensus on this sort of thing is, so I thought I should bring it up here. Chick Bowen 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They are normally kept just so that we have a complete historical record of a candidate. In this case, I can confirm that the RfA was completely empty save for a broken attempt at substing inside nowiki tags. -Splash^talk 21:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, these are kept? --HappyCamper 05:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording (Archive 49)

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)

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" --Joann e B 09:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).

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? ;-) --Joann e B 16:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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... -Splash^talk 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Main RfA Navigation improvement (Archive 50)

Most would agree that any particular RfA vote page can get rather long. With the nomination + votes + comments + discussions, a single consensus can reach hundreds of lines. We've learned to deal with that. However, the main RfA page, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (i.e. the project page for this talk page) has all the discussions for all the nominations. The clutter can be at times difficult to navigate, or even hard to follow. That is why I propose that we have a streamlined main RfA page, that only links to the respective discussions, for easier navigation. Something like this, perhaps with a few tweaks (i.e. a "vote here" button,) would work better than what we have now, separating the discussions for easier navigation. --Jay(Reply) 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times before; the main reason I don't quite like it would be that it would be more difficult to look at all the RfAs and read the discussion. Instead, multiple pages would have to be opened. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. But if anyone is interested in having quick RfA access, just copy {{User:Dragons flight/RFA summary}} onto your user/talk page. --Jay(Reply) 23:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the emphasis on numbers in your example ("oh, a 60-40 vote, maybe I'll vote there"). Leave name and ending date and that's it and I wouldn't mind it. Marskell 23:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy there. Rather than spending 15 minutes putting a decent table together as a graphic, I thought I'd use the nice table already existing as an illustration. It is simply an example. I also specifically mentioned that it would be open for tweaks. You don't have to look at it or even use it if you are offended by the statistics. --Jay(Reply) 00:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm easy. Easy-breezy. Just my thought on numbers. Its MHO in general. The not a vote thing is kind of a joke given how precisely and exactly things get quantified here. Marskell 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand. Numbers are indeed very powerful here. --Jay(Reply) 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea because it would emphasize the numbers even more than now. The reasons and statement are very important and I would not want to see them moved off the main page. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not necessarily mean raw numbers. It's the reason behind the vote, and if we're hiding the reason, the entire RFA process becomes akin to a communist election. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Would something like this work for anyone/everyone/someone? (Note the View Debate link). I do agree that the main page is really cluttered right now, so if we could minimize it a bit, it'd be nice. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like the direct link to the subpage to view the debate. I often click "vote here" and then "project page" to get to the subpage now when I want to read it. A direct link to read (not edit) each page would be an improvement. NoSeptember ^talk 10:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Something like that would be a much better approach. It has the information, and branches off neatly to the correct discussion page. --Jay(Reply) 20:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why not. We could even leave off the running tally in general. Here's the nom, vote if you please. Marskell 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I quite like that. One aesthetic request: can the "vote here" "debate here" links be bigger and, say, centered at the bottom or something? Perhaps even go so far as to put them in the reverse order? -Splash^talk 23:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Sorry to bother, but how did you do it? F e tofs ^Hello! 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but would be an extra click when viewing the nominations if using that format on the RfA page, and I don't see much gain in replacing existing format. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The only thing being left out is the debate discussion; the idea being to shorten the page so it's not such a pain to navigate. If there's some concern that people might vote without reading the current debate, maybe we could omit the "Vote here" link and just provide the "View debate" link? (When viewed from the main RfA page). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put together a test template at User:Locke Cole/Template:RfA. You can try subst'ing it in a sandbox (and then transcluding it someplace else) to see how it works. And of course, viewing the source might help. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Should be possible, FWIW I reversed the order for my test template (User:Locke Cole/Template:RfA) but haven't added the centering/positioning/etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a real detriment to the proposed format and a benefit the current, i.e., to being able to see the discussion on the page without the need to go into the different nomination pages. So, for example, after I have voted it is easy to continue following the discussion until the vote closes on a candidacy without the need to go into the subpage when I wouldn't necessarily need to go there unless I want/need to reply to a comment that was made after I cast my vote. The proposed format does not permit this. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering the complaint was that the main page was getting huge with all the longish discussions, the idea is to trim back stuff so it's easier to navigate. Judging from the other responses so far, people seem to agree it's long (or, at least, that my sample page is better or has potential). I'd definitely like more feedback: if people don't think it's too long, there's no sense with me wasting time working on something that'll never get put to use. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Are a few extra clicks too much a price to pay for a cleaner, easier nomination page? It must be a nightmare for 33k'ers, a now nearly extinct group, to vote on an RfA. I personally just use the table from Dragon's flight to access the relevant subpages. Nonetheless, the main issue is usability, and we have to do something to make the page cleaner. On a sidenote, maybe you could add a nice image for the "vote here" button, liven it up a little more. After all, it is a button:) --Jay(Reply) 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the page is long, but also that any of the proposed changes will result in reduced discussion in the RFAs. It's very easy under the current system to see at a glance which RFAs are contested or contentious and may warrant close inspection. I'd be concerned that 'a few extra clicks' would indeed reduce participation.

Perhaps someone could come up with a clever transclusion method or some other technique to provide a short form to thems that wants it, while still preserving the long form for the RFA addicts and those who enjoy fast broadband connections. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there. It definitely IS long. The thing is there is a benefit to having it and participation and discussion would almost certainly be negatively impacted if this proposal were to replace the "long format" we have now. But I do see the dilemma for those with slower connections. So, I'd second it if it was possible to offer it as an alternative rather than have it replace what's there now. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to WP:GRFA in the RfA template? (Archive 50)

I want to start by saying that this is less about "fixing RfA" and more about informing candidates of RFA resources. This idea was just born out of actually reading the Guide to requests for adminship, which I didn't know about during my RfA, but which I now found to contain a lot of useful info. I think it would be better to more explicitly state this to be sure that RFA candidates know about it, in the form of a simple yes/no question: "Have you read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship?" While a candidate can simply answer "yes" without reading it, at least it's stated there on the outset. Why do this when there is already a suggestion of reading it at the top of the WP:RFA page? When I was nominated, I didn't know about the guide, I just went in and answered my questions. Self-nominated candidates might be more likely to know about it, but maybe not. In any case, this is a very simple question, very easy to fake, but at least the candidate is explicitly made aware of the guide. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I started the guide back in October. Outside of a minor change, I haven't edited it since early November. At the time, a debate evolved over the content of the guide. In a nutshell, the debate was centered around whether the guide should show how RfA is or how RfA should be. The debate did not resolve in a satisfactory manner, and the result is pretty much as you see the guide now. As a result, we had a user who got caught in this trap during their RfA. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyrenius. I think that until such time as it is clarified as to what the guide is, using it as a tool for prospective admins is potentially setting them up for problems. --Durin 18:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. In that case, maybe the link to the guide should be removed entirely from the WP:RFA page. I made it a suggested reading in one of my oppose votes on an RfA. I'll go and correct it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to do RFA soon. (after I hit 3000 edits and 6 months). To get ready, about three months ago I made a check list of the site to make sure that I visited the entire WP. This included all of the policies/guidelines. As I went along, I began watching the policy changes that were suggested. After a while, I began making comments to the suggested policy and guidelines. This helps me feel confident about my knowledge of policy/guidelines. I think doing this was much more valuable than reading the guide right before starting RFA. FloNight ^talk 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that a nomination is wrongfully declared as unsuccessful, you may petition the bureaucrat who made the decision.

Damn :) _→AzaToth 18:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... that might fall into the "this is how we think RfA should be" part, who knows? --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad you didn't know about it, since I actually copyedited it pretty heavily when it first went up and I also happened to nominate you. Youda thought I mighta been like pssst..... I guess I just assumed you'd know about it. Oh well, I think you turned out alright ;-) Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure another member of the phoenix cabal would have done so eventually. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA template (Archive 52)

Towards the end of an RfA, the page can get unreasonably long. Also, there seem to be frequent edit conflicts on the RfAs. To help alleviate this problem, may I suggest reformating the general template so that the comments section is an independently editable section? JoshuaZ 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the current RfA template has each "support", "oppose", and "comment" section as a bolded word, not as a separate section distinguished by headers with edit links for each section. This is done so that the table of contents on the main RfA page isn't bogged down. I'm not sure if there's a way to make a section editable but not appear on the table of contents, short of removing the table of contents itself. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If there IS a way to do this it would be tres nifty... it would really help to have sections editable independently. ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There's always Bugzilla. I'd like to see this feature as well. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've thought of a workaround:

Put the headings in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags.
Put the bold text, together with hardcoded edit links for each section, below the headings in <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags.

It would have the effect of not showing up in WP:RFA's TOC but still with section edit links. And awfully kludgy. ;) Kimchi.sg | talk 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all kind of irrelevant, because one of the devs (CesarB?) has said that edit sections were introduced to make editing easier, and not to avoid edit conflicts. Even if you edit a whole page, the edit merging logarithms of MediaWiki will still be used to prevent edit conflicts. (If I recall correctly, this was from a discussion of preventing section editing on George W. Bush, although I'm not sure if it took place on the mailing list or at the village pump.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Algorithms. Logarithims are different. That particular conversation or, at least, a version of it is somewhere in the archives of Talk:George W. Bush from a little while before the implementation of WP:SEMI. Try Oct/Nov or so. -Splash^talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to mark administrators like featured articles (Archive 53)

Please see relevant discussion at [9]. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Summaries (Archive 55)

Should my RFA summaries be:

Moved to Wikipedia space and/or
Mentioned on the main RFA page?

Dragons flight 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Either and/or both, as it is dynamically generated would it be better suited to not be in wpspace for any reason? I have it watchlisted myself, and find it a very useful tool. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the raw data should remain in userspace, and then be transcluded into one or more WP space pages (which can have additional things added as preferred). I don't like WP:RFASUM because of the ugly shortcut link for example, so I can choose to look at your userspace page. I think it would be fine to mention it on WP:RFA also (my personal opinion, it depends on community consensus) NoSeptember <font color = "green">^talk 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best placed as per NoSeptember, as a transclusion from userspace, but not on the current page. It should be a subpage of RfA, perhaps at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Summary (which could have the shortcut WP:RfA/S). —Cuivi é nen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 00:34 UTC

Agree with Cuivienen, transclude onto a subpage of WP:RFA. It is a useful way of quickly checking which way the discussions are going. Kimchi.sg 00:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

One factor to consider is that to see updates on one's watchlist, one needs to be watching the primary page that the script writes to. Watching a page that merely transcludes the data will not result in an edit appearing on one's watchlist. Hence if we direct people to a WP:RFA/S (or whatever) that transcludes userspace data, they may be surprised if the updates are not actually reflected on their watchlist. Dragons flight 01:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it not the case that the edit summaries that update the page are always the same anyway? So it's not like the edit summaries on your watchlist would be informative. I asked you about that on your talk page once. As long as the edit summaries don't say anything, doesn't really matter about the transclusion, does it? -lethe ^{talk +} 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summaries are always the same (for the forseeable future anyway), but having it appear on one's watchlist is a reminder to check for new noms, etc. Dragons flight 01:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think people should be encouraged to watchlist RfA itself rather than a support page. —Cuivi é nen, Friday, 5 May 2006 @ 01:42 UTC

Well, as a new bureaucrat I find your RfA summary page (your others too by the way) to be one of the best things since sliced bread, Dragons flight. Very easy way to keep track of closing times and which ones need more checking into as an addition to reading the full pages of course. I think it would be a good idea to move to an RFA subpage if you're willing to move it out of your userspace and give it to the community. I actually don't like something popping up on my watchlist that often so I just like a shortcut to type in when I want to monitor it, but both are good for different people. Thanks for putting the work into creating and tweaking them. I like User:Cuivienen's even shorter shortcut idea too. - Taxman ^Talk 02:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One little request: if the current page is also going to be kept, could the new page have the heading text enclosed in <noinclude> tags? It's slightly more appealing that way. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and created WP:RFA/S as a transclusion. If anyone has any objections, raise them there. Thanks. —Cuivi é nen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 17:29 UTC

Voting icons (Archive 58)

Apparently voting icons are appearing on RfAs (e.g. Image:Symbol support vote.svg). They seem relatively rare right now, but if AfD is any indication, and I'm sure it is, they'll be all over the place in a few days. On AfD they were pretty effectively nipped in the bud as soon as they started becoming omnipresent. I do recall they've been rejected in the past... I think people might want to think twice before jumping on this bandwagon. --W.marsh 16:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder for those who weren't here the last time icons were brought up—here's why icons are discouraged at RfA:

They're annoying to editors with slower computers (adding hundreds of graphics to a long page can make page rendering and scrolling take a very long time, or just crash altogether).
They're an unnecessary use of bandwidth. User-side caching tends to limit the impact here, but why use it when we don't have to?
Icons are pointless on this page, since votes are already sorted into support/oppose/neutral sections.
Focusing on the voting aspect of the RfA rather than the discussion is discouraged from a philosophical standpoint.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

On the plus side they are pleasing to the eye, like oasis among the bare sands of plain text. Grue 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Once every vote has them, they will be far from pleasing or an oasis among the sands filled with murky waters of blue, green and red mathematical symbols used to denote one's approval or disapproval of a particular candidate. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate them. Let's get rid of them, quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to RFA, but I'm already against them. They bring out some comments more than others (but not in a way which depends on the merit of the comments), and don't work properly on my mobile phone. Stephen B Streater 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I think the interesting names are OK because they are not aligned on the left hand side a the start of each comment. Stephen B Streater 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note - why do we say Support when it's already under a support header? "Strong Support" and "Weak Support" might be useful (people disagree), but "Support" adds absolutely nothing... I don't think there's any real way to change it - "old habits die hard"... How did it start, anyway? Just a hang over from pages that don't separate votes? --Tango 23:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It has always been part of RfA tradition! Maybe if we stop, just writing a reason for support/oppose then the four tildes, it will spread across all users! Gizza^Chat ^© 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't break tradition! :-) Just keep the bold text and abolish the voting icons. They are really annoying. —M e ts501^talk 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, who says the "vote" has to be bolded? There's no reason to, in fact, except to encourage the idea that RFA is a straight numbers count. Nobody has to add any sort of formatting to their comment.--Sean Black 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I too am opposed to a widespread use (or any use, for that matter, although sparse use is...sufferable) of those icons, but how could we prevent its widespread effectively without entering the much-dreaded helm of instruction creep? Redux 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the only solution that doesn't involve instruction creep would be to wait and hope they don't become widespread. I don't see any other way to avoid it... F e tofs ^Hello! 02:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I never bold support or oppose, if I use those words at all. Instead, I leave a brief comment or explain the rationale for my vote. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove every voting icon you see and leave a message on the user's talk page telling them to knock it off. There aren't too many of them doing it yet. --Cyde↔Weys 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't mind them; as long as everyone is not doing it, its ok. But I agree with Fetofs; we should probably just wait until the trend dies off. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Try making requests and you'd get more results. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Try addressing others in a manner that you yourself would like to be addressed. I don't think anyone likes demands, myself included. — Natha n ^(talk) 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with Fetofs. This discussion itself lets people know that the use of these voting icons is discouraged. The users viewing this, in most probability, will not use them in the future. Rather than getting into a conflict, we can wait for the trend to wear off. It isn't very widespread now anyway. Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You pointed out my ideas better than myself :) F e tofs ^Hello! 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just be careful, when purging, to be nice in the way you do it. Those icons *are* standard other places, like Commons, and people who are more familiar with RfA there may use them by default, without realizing the vehement opposition of this community. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, they seem to be used everywhere except English Wikipedia. Grue 09:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not that standard on Commons, AFAIK. Most places where I've come across them, at the most half of all votes have them. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of Template:Administrators/Requests_and_votes, the Commons equivalent of RfA...I see almost 100% use. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that because Commons is intended to have all sorts of different languages on it? There, a symbol makes sense. Here, we all speak English and know what "support" means, so why add the icon? —BorgHunter (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd shy away from actually removing them from existing comments. Altering of signed comments really is an extreme step, and I know I don't take it very well. However, a nice clear note on the user's talk page about why it's not-so-good has almost always worked for me. I've had on more than a few occasions people I left such notes with turn around and ask other people not to use voting symbols. No reason to play the hard man and get people's backs up when there's no reason to. - brenneman ^{L} 10:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the icons are being used only sporadically around here as of yet. There's no reason for us to start worrying too much about it now. Unless it becomes a real issue, with a significative number of people using them to post here, we needn't be coming up with orchestrated manners of dissuading those few who do for whatever reason lest it becomes instruction creep. There doesn't appear to be reason for us to go as far as altering other users' comments at this point. Redux 11:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support And how about this one? It's pure HTML. I mean, is it a problem with images or with making it pretty at all? Misza 13 ^{T C} 12:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice, but for me this is really a matter less of reading but of writing. I don't want to have to remember any more code than the three apostrophes in order to be able to vote anywhere. '''Support''' is just the maximum number of keystrokes I'm willing to invest, and I'd hate to have to remember anything more, be it the name of a template, or the name of an image, or html code, whatever. And I want to see clean text in the edit window too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea was never to make icons mandatory for participating in RfA. It was in the sense of whether icons should be banned or tolerated, but the bottom line is that there is no fix format for participating in RfA. The three apostrophes themselves are about tradition, or praxis, but no one has to bold the first word of the entry for it to count. Trying to impose a format for participating would be classic instruction creep. Redux 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See my response to Grue above. It looks tacky and gets on your nerves once every vote has it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of images next to the votes anyway? The bolded Support or Oppose should be sufficient. It seems quite contradictory to me to discourage the use of images in signatures partially since they clutter the page, but allow vote images that, well, clutter the page. joturn e r 14:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

-

I can't believe, 4 years after the arrival of broadband, Wikipedia is still worried about bandwidth. Nathan is an angel.

+

Anwar 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I, and presumably you, and many Wikipedia users are fortunate enough to have broadband. Plenty of people don't. There's no reason to make it harder for non-broadband users to participate in RfA. I agree, "support" or "oppose" is more than sufficient. FreplySpang 15:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But its not an image, just harmless DHTML. So bandwidth issues are irrelevant here. Anwar 03:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to your "4 years after the arrival of broadband" comment. I'll leave it for someone who knows to comment on whether the harmless DHTML is, in fact, harmless. I will say that I prefer that RFA (and other support/oppose type pages) be free of that kind of visual clutter. FreplySpang 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm anything but. You really should re-evaluate that before certain other people jump on you for making that very comment. — Natha n ^(talk) 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How about:

(+)Support
(-)Oppose
(=)Neutral

--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is just as much about the tackiness and annoying factor of such icons as it is about bandwidth factors. Coming up with different DHTML/CSS-based icons isn't going to change much. Johnleemk | Talk 07:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Even as the icons becomes smaller, they still don't add any significant purpose to the RfA. If anything it distracts people. I believe decorations should be left for userpages only. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Johnleemk here. Big icons, whether image-based or HTML/CSS-based, take up too much space and distrupt line heights. If anything, they should be semantically defined, for example like <support>I support ~~~~</support>, or <vote type="support">I support</vote> via a MediaWiki extension, so that users can turn them off or change their appearance as they please. This is in line with the current trend of switching to XHTML and XML. As for bandwidth, I don't think the issue is getting less important; on the contrary, it will be more important than ever as the Internet gets more and more crowded. - Tangot a ngo 07:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That could be done easilly enough with {{support}} and {{oppose}} templates and custom CSS, I expect. I'm not an expert, though. --Tango 10:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with voting icons is that you would be using voting icons on something that is not supposed to be a vote. Kim Bruning 11:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well put Kim. Besides, we were not discussing let's not use icons because they don't look good, we were discussing let's not use icons because they are not in keeping with RfA. I don't suppose that new shapes and colors will alter that, since the essence remains the same. Redux 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think they're a bad idea no matter how implemented. Our 'crats are good but there is a subtle subliminal effect at work if some comments are "louder" than others in how they are presented. Speaking of loud, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalya for an example of these symbols at their (IMHO) most obnoxious, the've been made bigger and throw the lines of text off. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bandwidth is an issue if you sometimes read Wikipedia on a mobile phone, as you have to pay for all data sent. The real issue for me though is that it makes some comments stand out more, to the detriment of others, and independently of the instrinsic value of the aforementioned comment. Stephen B Streater 17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So, I've read the comments either way and, for me, I just plain don't like having icons in the middle of text for no good reason. If RfA's a discussion, then discuss, not decorate, hm? (I know, sounds strange coming from me.) On the other hand, the "support/oppose" boldening is nice because it draws your eye to the beginning of that user's arguments for their position, plus for those users who don't seem to be able to indent, it helps seperate sections. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Solution to everyone's problems:

For those who don't want icons

For those who don't want icons, support looks like: Support

<span class=votesupport>'''Support'''</span>

For those who do

Put the following code in your monobook.css (doesn't have to be monobook):

/* Voting */

.votesupport {

   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}

.voteoppose {

   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}

.voteneutral {

   background-color: BGCOLOR;
   color: TEXTCOLOR;
}

Also,

Also, this is not limited to <span> tags. So, you could also use <div> tags. (NOTE: If you use <div> tags for voting, to see the div tags properly you will have to add more parameters to the above code.)

Signature

Thanks, --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be against this style sheet tricks. I suggest that, as it used to be until now, a support vote looks like

'''Support'''

or any other way a supporter may feel like voting. If people wanting eye candy can/would like to do any stylesheet/javascript/etc tricks to make any '''Support''' string show up as a perty icon for them, nothing can stop them. But introducint a new span class, class=votesupport, is somethign which makes no sense to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Look out!!! It's about to bite your head off! Oh no! It's The Instruction Creeposaurus!!! joturn e r 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Background colors on closed RfAs (Archive 58)

Is there an intended meaning to background colors? Consider mine: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lar... no background color, no box around it. Then consider Joturner's: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner 2 Grey background color, with a box around it... The consider Rob's: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robchurch 4 Pink background color, with a box around it too. I'm just wondering if there's a convention here (margins, failed vs succeeded? something else??) that I'm not aware of or if this is just an artifact of whoever closed it or ?? PLEASE NOTE: no criticism intended!!! Just asking... ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I concluded some time ago that they, and their presence or absence, are secret signals to the Cabal. -Splash^talk 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

They are all generated by the templates {{rfap}} (for a successful nomination) and {{rfab}} (for an unsuccessful nomination). People have recently been altering the background colours in an attempt to make it clearer that voting has closed. As the templates are substituted, the closed nominations bear whichever colour the template was using when the nomination was closed. Warofdreams talk 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

{{rfap}}'s background color has only been changed twice (and never to pink), and {{rfab}}'s background has never been changed. So, how do you explain the pink? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Color saturation in computer screen settings? I.e., nothing to do with the template itself. It's a possibility. Redux 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, instead of pink, I mean #fff5f5. It has never been changed to #fff5f5. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be {{rfaf}}, not {{rfab}}, for a failed nomination. That's the template with the pink background. Warofdreams talk 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two templates: Template:Rfap for nominations that passed, and Template:Rfaf for nominations that failed. Rfaf has been altered to be pink, rfap to be blue. I set them both to be gray originally, because I didn't think anybody would be bothered by a gray background (the pink, and to a degree, the blue, hurt my eyes, but I'll fix that via CSS on my end). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Colors were there back in 2005 and then they went away, and now they are back. For the record, I am a proud owner of a colorless RfA :-). NoSeptember ^talk 11:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A proposal (Archive 59)

How about we wrap the voting and discussion in <noinclude> tags to make the main RFA page less of a monster? Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh - ingenious! I like it! Nobody seemed to think of this last time the topic of the length of the page came up... --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neat idea, but of course it puts a crimp in skimming the page to see if you forgot to commment on any key ones that you should have commented on, you have to drill in to the individual subpage to see... (a dirty little secret, since "lar" is a fairly common string, I search for "++" instead...) That loss may well be worth the cost of getting the main page to be faster loading etc., I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. While we are at it could we make the heading of each RFA link to the RFA subpage rather than the userpage? The userpage is already linked using the {{user}} links right below that. Petros471 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That could be done easily. --Rory096 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much the whole page. You might as well just change it to links rather than transcudes. I personally find it useful to be able to read the votes and comments without having to load a new page. I'd like the links to point to the subpage not the userpage though. --Tango 11:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you're left with names, vote counts, edit links, statement ...etc...

Another advantage that I can think of is that we can use headers for === Support === etc because it wouldn't be clogging up the main TOC. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We could also just noinclude these headers. Kusma (討論) 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the lengthy automatic stats that are posted to every RfA should be put behind such a tag? --W.marsh 13:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I hardly ever load the WP:RFA page anymore. I use these portals to the individual subpages: 1 and 2, and if I must have up to the minute information as to whether any RfAs have been added or removed, I go here. I've made links on this page to make it easy to navigate. NoSeptember ^talk 14:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The noinclude tag idea is brilliant. -- Samir धर्म 16:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

At some point in the future, this might have to be used if the list gets exceedingly long. At this time, this takes away usability by people reviewing RfA. --Durin 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be quite reasonable to move User:Dragons flight/RFA summary into project space, as a template trancluded from the main WP:RFA page. — Jun. 5, '06 [19:23] <freak|talk>

Why doesn't someone do a mock-up, so we can see what we're talking about? -lethe ^{talk +} 01:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like this? Note that I commented out votes instead of using <noinclude>. However, it seems to be getting the main idea of JzG's proposal. Edit at your leisure. joturn e r 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

~~Actually, I have to fix something because Cuivienen's signature has comments in it. joturn e r 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)~~

If this happens, and I'm not really sure of the need for it, could we arrange that there is a link to the subpage from each RfA, e.g. by replacing the link to the userpage with a link to te subpage? At present though, I concur with Durin: it would, at the moment, subtract from the process. -Splash - tk 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the mockup. I think it exacerbates the problem of emphasizing votes over discussion. --Durin 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: I know somewhere there's a bit of code that allows you to put buttons to show/hide particular sections of text. Why not use that? Werdna (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a show/hide script written by Voice of All; it can be found here. It does include closing functions as well, but those could easily be written out. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gradient Colors (Archive 59)

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)

Moving around stuff in RfA (Archive 60)

How about we move around the things in RfA to encourage reading of questions and discussion? I think we should move the comments and questions up above the actual poll. It would look similar to this, but they would still be bold, not subheadings (otherwise the main TOC would be huge) and the comments would be on top, like User:Rory096/BetterRfA (feel free to edit that with more suggestions). I'd also suggest that we make an opportunity for the candidate to make a statement if he wishes, below the nomination, where the long Lorem Ipsum is in my example. As it is, the only way for a candidate to express himself when it's not a self-nom is in the questions, which are completely general, and yet specific, so the candidate can't just say what he wants. I'd hope that this statement by the candidate may eventually even phase out the automatic questions, and only direct questions would be asked. This would discourage things like "Oppose, answers to questions aren't long enough." and would allow for more candidate-specific discussion. --Rory096 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RFAs are too big to handle, I think we should just surrender and let everything happen. Although people seem to base votes on other peoples votes so perhaps they should get the facts before being thrown into the opinions, although changing stuff does confuse people. In other words: ignore me and do whatever you feel works. MichaelBillington 04:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Change might confuse some at first, but they'll eventually get used to it, and hopefully RfA will benefit. In the very beginning, we might have a  comment to tell people that the RfA was created correctly and that it shouldn't be edited to be closer to the current version. --Rory096 04:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you want to encourage reviewing the questions and discussions before voting, maybe you should collapse the votes with a Nav div. -- ReyBrujo 04:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but it doesn't work in skins other than monobook, I believe. --Rory096 04:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't work in other skins. --Rory096 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Move the questions above the comment section AND collapse the comment section, even if it does not work in all skins, that's ok. ++Lar: t/c 05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that the collapsing doesn't work in all skins, the show button doesn't appear at all (but it still collapses), so if it was done, people couldn't view RfAs at all on other skins. --Rory096 05:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Rory has said. I reckon the first question that each candidate receives could be mentioned in a statement. We could have like some area which serves as a guideline and refers to what you should put in your introductory statement. The second and third questions are a bit more direct and should still be asked as questions. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. It would make people have a closer look at the candidate before getting overwhelmed by the votings. Collapsing is also a good suggestion, and even if it doesn't work in all skins, if things appears correctly, there should not be any problem. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of collapsing sections for RFA, but Rory's suggestion is good. While we're at it can we have the header changed to link to the RFA rather than the candidates userpage? (I brought this up before and it seemed to get support, might as well put all changes together if it all gets support.) Petros471 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Collapsing sections are out of the question for RfA's. We went through this trying to edit MediaWiki:Edittools. In other skins than monobook all you see is the title of the section and it is impossible to see the content. —Mets501 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, I remember that proposal, and I meant to do it. I'll do that now. --Rory096 20:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm for Rory's re-ordering as well. It puts more focus on the discussion rather than "voting" aspect of requests for adminship. joturn e r 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion Rory! --Durin 15:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is either moving the discussion above the votation, or removing the "Discuss here" link. When you click it, you are taken to the RFA in "edit" mode, thus people find it easier to add their vote than read comments in raw wikitext (in fact, instead of "Discuss here" it should be "Vote here", exactly for that). Note that currently only two clicks (one on the TOC and another in the "Discuss here") are needed to cast a vote, and you can do that skipping discussions. If you remove the link, people would have to go to the RFA in "view" mode. That way they will have two opportunities to review (one at the RFA page, another at the candidate RFA) before they are able to edit the page to add their own vote. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durin. ReyBrujo: As of right now, the discuss here (which used to be vote here, before a bit of vandalism by me) is basically the only way to go to the RfA's page (AFAIK, since I hit the edit button then click on project page; is there another way?). Once the header is changed to link to the RfA, it would be a lot easier to get there, so I guess it could be removed. Or maybe it should be moved down to where the poll is, next to where the tally is now, so people read the discussion before hitting discuss here (though they could always hit the section edit or edit this page buttons). --Rory096 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Introducing a candidate statement and moving votes to the bottom are fine by me. As Joturner said, proposal would make RfA extremely conducive to discussion. ~ PseudoSudo 00:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the order suggested by Rory as well; I think it will bring the questions/answers to more users' attentions before they place their comments. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. It seems only sensible. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

dab linkage (Archive 61)

"WP:RFA" could be confused with a request for article... so perhaps a dablink at the top for WP:AFC and WP:RA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.11.138 (talk • contribs)

So go ahead and do it. Be bold!--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to make an account and then wait a week for it to cure. When it's no longer green, then I could do it, as the page is edit restricted. 70.51.10.208 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I forgot that RfA is semi-protected. I'll go do that now, if it hasn't been done already.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A Suggestion (Archive 61)

Why not make a Table for future nominations - so that we can see a visual charter of the votes (Support, Oppose and Neutral)? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because RFA is not a vote, but consensus. Making a table would make it appear as if we only care what the user vote, not the rationale he had used. There are autogenerated tables for RFAs around, like Tangotango's one. -- ReyBrujo 13:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean a table like Wikipedia:RFA summary, or something else? If the former, then it already exists, if the latter, please explain more. --Tango 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I was trying to find the link to the summary, but couldn't for my life find it :) -- ReyBrujo 13:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New admin nomination (Archive 62)

Do I literaly put it just below the==Current nominations for administratorship== header separation or just above the {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 2}} ?--Jondel 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll just add just on top of the requests.(Horay forthe man who talks to himselfs!)--Jondel 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The nomination seems to be broken. Have you used the generator? -- ReyBrujo 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't but I 've already nominated him.--Jondel 00:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits to front matter (Archive 62)

Discussion now continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter

I made some edits to the front matter of this page. You can see the differences here. I explain my edits below:

I'm trying to avoid more wikislang and in so-doing changed the word "admin" to "administrator".
The civility requirement for administrators should be up front and shouldn't be tied to the erroneous "official face" designation (which is actually not what an administrator is and Wikipedia has been blasted in the media recently for behaving in this fashion). Civility is important because lack of it is an instance of administrator abuse. That is to say, when an administrator uses a tool like deletion or blocking without also being civil, the administrator is disrupting Wikipedia. The power of the tools is not a statement of "officialdom"; it is a statement of the fact that certain editors can block, delete, etc. and others cannot.
As per this, I began to explain what the main criteria for Adminship is (per talk above). Consensus on the risk-assessment of Wikipedians is the primary goal of the RfA, is it not?
Reversibility and extra policy statements regarding seem superfluous to this page which is about "Requests for adminship". The "extra policies" really involve the unique character of the administrator tools and are summarized by the opening statements regarding civility and abuse.
I removed "you may nominate yourself" statement with its conflicting caveats. We may consider reinserting a statement that "you may nominate yourself" if we get queries into this, but I fail to see the utility in scaring people with "some people think this" and "some people think that" prose. What's more important anyway is that the nominator (either self- or otherwise) explains their rationale. This is one of the things that I was bitten on and I think it's more important than arguing over the relative merits of self-nominations.
Removed the offensive 75%-80% threshhold statement which encourages pile-ons in my opinion and replaced it with a statement about the rigors of consensus here at RfA. Consensus is at a higher threshhold, but tacking this number on in the directions is tacky even if it is the standard. It's the quality of the comments not the percentage of users that matter anyway, right?
Removed contradictory statements from the "who may comment" point. If users are allowed to comment on their own nominations, they're allowed to comment on their own nominations. What users are not allowed to do is have their votes of either support or oppose counted toward their own nominations. I moved that idea down to the "who may not vote" section where it makes considerably more sense.
Augmented the "explain your vote" section. This is something which I found to be the most frustrating thing about the whole RfA process was people posting comments that were simply mystifying to me, the unexperienced RFA nominee. I went to numerous userpages to try to figure out what people meant by their statements. The best explainers actually modified their statements when I asked for clarification (User:ragesoss). Others didn't seem to want to be bothered. This is something we should try to change.
Linked to civility in be respectful.

Please let me know what you think. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree with the comment about FA, I don't know if it would be the best idea to have it up there. I'm guessing the RfA page should be somewhat neutral and maybe this could be rephrased without mentioning anything and just stating along the lines of, "An RfA should not be something that a user recieves as an award, but rather a motion to further participate in community tasks in a more responsible fashion." Just an idea, feel free to disregard. Yank sox 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying -- the point may seem a bit contrived, but I think that featured articles are a more visible part of Wikipedia than Administrators especially to newcomers. Making a constrating syllogism then only strengthens the community's position when we are confronted with people who speak of the Wikihierarchy or the "official face" problems I removed from other parts of the front matter. Featured articles are demonstrably better by consensus than articles that aren't featured. Administrators are not demonstrably "better" users, though, even though there is a strong undercurrent insinuating this in the RfA process. Get my drift? --ScienceApologist 20:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the edit is fraught with problems and should be reverted. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what are the problems with it? --ScienceApologist 20:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lethe. Specifically:

I don't understand what "Please note: A request for administrator privileges is not the user-equivalent of a featured article candidate" means. Its unclear and confusing.

"It is preferable to include a critique that is actionable rather than dismissive. If possible, avoid simply voting "per another user"."" Voting "per another user" can in fact be entirely appropriate, I don't see any reason to discourage it.

I don't understand why you removed the comments about self-nominations.

Given that 75%-80% is used as the level of votes required for consensus to be reached in RfA, I don't see why you have replaced that inforamtion with something more vague. This is a disservice to future candidate.

Gwernol 20:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Replaces a very standard turn of phrase "admin" with "administrator" in the interests of reducing jargon, then moments later uses "wikicode", which is not only not jargon, but as far as I know is not a word at all. Leastways, I've never used it.
Removing the threshold percentage is a terrible idea. The last time a bureaucrat violated this number, there was a huge stink. We're not creating policy with this page, we're describing it. This is a rather drastic change, and should have been discussed.
Superfluous wikilinking. We link to WP:NOT to show what adminship is not, but in fact, that page says nothing about what adminship is and is not.
Stilted writing: "Access [...] is granted when the consensus is shown to be that the user will not abuse" makes my head spin. And I'm not sure that's always the motivation driving the consensus.
Claim of "It is preferable to include a critique that is actionable rather than dismissive. If possible, avoid simply voting "per another user" is controversial and counter to existing practice. I make such input on RfAs all the time, and find it preferable to do so. Sometimes "per another user" is explanation enough. Let the bureaucrat decide what this means about consensus.

In fact, I find it hard to find any part of the edit that I like. Hence I think the whole thing ought to be reverted. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Without reading all the points listed above in this thread... Any attempt to define for everyone what the "correct" standards are or should be in RfA will not fly, we have too many opinions. RfA works on consensus with each person bringing their own rules to the table, and the overall community standards vary over time (right now we are very tough on nominees, a few months ago, we were not). We can debate it endlessly, but we will not agree on a set of standards that all must follow. NoSeptember 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To Gwernol -- all good suggestions.

I'll remove the "A request for administrator privileges is not the user-equivalent of a featured article candidate." I think it is illustrative, but apparently it is too distracting.
While it is perfectly acceptable to vote per another user, I think it is much better to encourage people to explain their votes. The statement right now is a suggestion for how to help people who are applying for adminship. It isn't meant to be punative. Does it come across as such?
The comments about self-nominations in the previous version were contradictory. They said you could self-nominate and then said some people dislike it and other people like it. How does this help a potential nominee at all? We might want to include a statement declaring that self-nominations are allowed, but do we need all this stuff about how people may or may not perceive this? I will include the statement that self-nominations are allowed to accomodate a better sense of what a self-nomination entails.
I understand that 75%-80% is the level of votes usually required for consensus on RFA, but given that Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is very crass for us to make this statement. This encourages gaming the system if we codify this level of support. Making a statement that consensus is stronger at RfA than elsewhere is great, but I suggest that including the 75% to 80% statement here is not only unneccessary but causes problems. After all, a nominee cannot "make" 75%-80% of the votes swing in their direction. I hope you can understand my rationale for this. I think it is very important.

--ScienceApologist 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are falling into the trap of trying to describe what (you think) RfA should be rather than what it is. RfA has a threshold, and whether you think it should or not, whether you think it violates the no democracy policy, is not particularly relevant. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that RfA should or shouldn't have a threshhold. I'm merely saying that either we are following consensus or we're not. I'm happy to entertain the idea that this is actually a place where consensus isn't addressed and instead voting occurs. Then we should be explicit in stating this. Does this sound good? --ScienceApologist 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On the 75%-80% issue. When there is a candidate for bureaucrat, this issue gets discussed, and we only approve new bureaucrats who agree to the (now) long standing standard. We could as a community change our mind if we wanted to, but I don't see a rush of people ready to do that. Whether it is technically a super-majority or a consensus is not that relevant. NoSeptember 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think this should be added into the description then. --ScienceApologist 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is it that you are saying should be added? "It is not relevant whether this is a consensus or a supermajority"? This seems like needless jargon to me, something I thought you were trying to fix. What purpose would this addition serve? -lethe ^{talk +} 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We should be clear that 75% is a strict requirement as per bureaucratic fiat. Right now we are weasly about it. I'm rewriting it for your consideration as we discuss.--ScienceApologist 22:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To Lethe

Admin is a shorthand, but why not allow for the actual position to be named? Wiki is nothing more than a computer code and access to parts of the code is all an administrator technically is. I really don't understand this "jargon" objection. It seems to be based not on helping the person going through the RfA but more on what you seem to be personally comfortable with.
I'm not suggesting that anybody violate the threshhold number. Instead, since this is a description of Requests for Adminship (not a description for how Adminship is granted) it should be handled with kid-gloves. I have no problem with the threshhold as a issue for who gets adminship. I do have an issue with the promotion of something that Wikipedia is most decidedly not.
There is no link to WP:NOT.
I'm sorry you consider my prose stilted, but the very definition of Administrators as per the descriptions is that they have certain tools that they can use. Consensus is built around the definition of administrator, it isn't built around vague feelings of comaraderie towards the nominee, you see what I'm saying?
Are you seriously arguing that encouraging people to explain their votes with more than ibids is controversial? We aren't saying that saying "per other" is not allowed, only that in light of common courtesy and not biting newcomers it is preferable to avoid uninspired explanations.

I also think that you have ignored many of the other issues I addressed with my attempt to describe the process better. I'm more than willing to collaborate, but I find your unilateral reversion and condescending tone to be a bit lacking in such a spirit.

--ScienceApologist 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminship has nothing to do with access to source code. I can't really understand what you're saying now.
I disagree with your kid-gloves idea. We should describe how the process works.
You are correct. That was a mistake on my part, for which I apologize.
You seem to be attempting to pigeonhole the reasons for promotion. This is probably impossible, so let's not try. Let's not say what the consensus is about other than the fact that some user ought to be promoted. In the mean time, you might want to practice writing shorter sentences.
Yes, I am seriously arguing that. Ibids are perfectly reasonable in a wide number of situations.

I am sorry you despair of the prospect of collaborating with me, but I do not think it's fair to call my revert unilateral, considering that the proposal to revert was seconded by another user, and that overall reaction to your edit has not been very enthusiastic. As for my condescending tone, I do apologize and I will try to keep that in check. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To lethe

Adminship does have to do with access to certain parts of the code that are not accessible to most users. In particular, most users do not have access to deletion and blocking parts of the code.
Alright, it's clear now that the major ideas behind WP:CON are handled differently here. I appreciate the input into this.
--
I don't want to pigeonhole the reasons for promotion, but we should describe why people get promoted. It's unfair to have a Request for Adminship without explaining who becomes administrators, isn't it?
Ibids may sometimes be reasonable, but is it really problematic to encourage users to explain their edits with more than ibid? If so, why?

I don't despair in the prospect of collobrating with you as long as you continue to dialogue with me on these matters.

--ScienceApologist 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins have access to certain features of the software and certain user interface elements. Your use of the word "code" and "wikicode" has mightily confused this issue for me. Perhaps in the spirit of unnecessary jargon (your original point) we can agree not to use these words, which don't really mean what you think they mean. It would be nice if we could describe who gets promoted, but the criteria are so varied that such a description would be impossible. So let's not have one. Yes, I consider the addition of encouragement not to use "per above user" votes problematic. This is unnecessary instruction creep. Why should we encourage users not to do something which in many cases they indeed ought to do? I'm happy to have a dialogue with you, though allegations of condescension have already cast their pall over my relations with you. And I will revert when I think it is necessary. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On not using wikicode --> I am amenable to this. Would you object to phrasing such as "While administrators are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia" since they have access to more wiki functions.."?

on criteria for adminship --> I understand that the criteria are wide and varied. However, do you object to the statement that "Access to the administrator tools is granted when the consensus is shown to be that the user will not abuse the administrator functions." This appears to me to be a rather innocuous and accurate description of most people's summaries of their ideas behind who becomes administrators. I could be wrong. Let me know. We should be thinking of trying to balance the interests of people who come here wondering what kind of people become administrators and what the general consensus is on this subject. I could be wrong, but I do think there is an overarching consensus on good versus bad candidates. It isn't totally arbitrary.

on instruction creep --> Instruction creep is to be avoided and I totally support you on this. I don't however view a suggestion as being an instruction. I definitely think that well-explained votes are more valuable to the nominee than ibids. What is so controversial about stating this?

on assuming good faith --> If you don't take things personally I won't. I like to assume good faith whenever possible. I certainly have no problem with you reverting, but I will complain if I think it was inappropriate. Thanks for your help in this matter. --ScienceApologist 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not to enamored with the phrase "wiki functions" either. What about something mundane like "administrative features of the MediaWiki software"? About criteria: well, I'm not crazy about it, because that's not necessarily what consensus is meant to determine. Incorporating also a linguistic suggestion, let me suggest instead of "the consensus is shown to be that the user will not abuse...", how about "consensus is established that the user will employ administrative functions responsibly" or some variation thereof. And about the suggestion against ibid votes: it is helpful when the user explains their position, but there are reasons not to do so and suggestions have a way of becoming de facto rules. I might support a milder statement such as "consider that your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence" or something. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions all. I will try to incorporate them into a new draft subject to your approval. Thanks so much for your help. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT has nothing to do with adminship or trophies. Please stop linking to a page that contains no information relevant to the link! -Splash - tk 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT is not linked anywhere on that page. --ScienceApologist 17:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That is because I have removed twice, after you added it in twice. -Splash - tk 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the history and we never linked to WP:NOT. You removed the link to Wikipedia:What adminship is not. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I didn't read it carefully enough I suppose, owing to the nature of the linkage. -Splash - tk 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

hash it out first

I am increasingly concerned about the edits being made to front matter. Recently, we've included "consensus is 75 percent of the votes made in support of the nominee". This is inaccurate, in part because RfA is not a vote and in part because it ignores the role of bureaucrats in reviewing RfAs in determining consensus for fraudulent votes, repeat votes, etc. Rather than the rash of changes that are happening to front matter, can we please revert back to the original state and hash it out further here as to exactly what we want to say first before hand please? --Durin 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Durin; my only concern is whether the drafting belongs here or at Front matter's talk page. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we get rid of the redirect back to this page? --ScienceApologist 20:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. We can probably copy most of the dialogue here to [front matter's talk page] and continue the discussion there, since that is the page that will ultimately be edited when we come to consensus. I'm interested in the edits you want to make/problems you see with the page, but I don't think throwing RfA's instructions into a state of flux while we work out the best version is healthy. I'll wait to hear from at least one or two more people before starting such an edit discussion there, though. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with the ideal that RfA instructions should not be in a state of flux. I'll wait along with you. --ScienceApologist 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Above you said you'd be "will try to incorporate them into a new draft" - did that ever go anywhere, or would you rather wait/star from scratch on the other talk page? I don't want to duplicate effort if you've got a subpage of your own that you're making notes on. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not create a subpage, though I can see why you might think I did. All of the modifications were done at the conclusion of the discussions with the editors who made the helpful comments. Currently, the only misleading item included on the frontpage, in my opinion, is the parenthetical about the 75% threshhold. I'm of the opinion we should state this more plainly since it is a pretty strict criteria (it certainly isn't a "rough" approximation as the wording now puts it). I'm not sure, but I would say that this is the only bit that's left outstanding in the editting process. It may be that we don't need to create a proposal subpage since consensus may have been reached. Cross reference the edits to Front Matter with the comments on this page to see if you agree. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 75% metric is rough. Admins have been promoted below that threshold before, and some above 75% and below 80% have not been promoted. Furthermore, the over emphasis on 75% as being the magic bar depreciates the fact this this is a consensus building mechanism, not a vote. Bureaurcrats have discretion in discounting/emphasizing aspects of an RfA in the name of evaluating consensus, most especially when RfAs are close. There is no lock-step value that a bureaucrat must adhere to regardless of any other factors. If that were the case, we could just have a bot do promotions and we would not need bureaucrats. --Durin 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 75% thing, whilst supported widely in the community and enough to sink an RfB, has not been announced by fiat by the bureaucrats, since they lack the authority so to pronounce. -Splash - tk 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. Might it be possible to make the wording a little less weasly than it is currently? We shouldn't lead people on into believing they'll pass an RfA with less than 75%, should we? --ScienceApologist 20:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than the rash of changes that are happening to front matter, can we please revert back to the original state and hash it out further here as to exactly what we want to say first before hand please? --> Right now, the front matter version is basically back to what it was before with regards to the 75% issue. I still would like to discuss more (see above), but are the other edits really so problematic as to inspire a complete trashing of the edits? Do we really want to reintroduce contradictory statements and misplaced discussion of whether the nominator votes count or not? --ScienceApologist 20:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion now continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter

Horizontal rule (Archive 62)

A very minor point, but should there be a horizontal rule (----) immediately after "", preceding the first nom on the page? I ask this because my bot will currently ignore the first nom if it is left out, and I was under the impression that it was a standard part of the formatting. It has been removed a number of times recently by people adding their noms, and I feel there should be some discussion about this. Personally, I think it looks more aesthetically pleasing with the horizontal rule, but any input would be appreciated. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 10:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why noms didn't appear immediately on your bot report page- I though there was some sort of lag (deliberate or otherwise)... Yes, there probably should be a hr, but maybe if it's an easy fix you should make your bot pick up the RFA even if there isn't one? Petros471 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A question (Archive 62)

The following was found hidden beneath the redirect line on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship, which redirects to here: Russ Blau (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This just occurred to me today. It's not major or anything though. It concerns second, third (etc) RfA noms. The format is WP:RfA/Username 2 is it not? But what if a user's username was - say - Gregory 2? (Don't ask me why I chose Gregory...) Their first nom would look like their second. As *fD noms are listed as * (second nomination) wouldn't it make sense to list RfAs like that? Jm2p. — G a rykirk | ^talk! 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the second would have another 2... Michael 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the situation is hypothetical enough to not worry about it. Should Gregory 2 decide to run for adminship, the nomination could clearly state that this was Gregory's first nomination, the username would clarify that to the voters. I don't think voters ever base their vote on the title of the nomination itself, so it shouldn't be an issue. If we would 'fix' this now, that would definitely make searching for old second nominations more complicated (was this guy's second nomination listed under 'John Doe 2' or 'John Doe (second nomination)'?), which seems like a lot of hassle for a very hypothetical problem. --Joanne B 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Section Breaks (Archive 64)

I know it has been practice to not have section headings in RfA nomination subpages for some time. However with the very high volume of traffic on User:Phaedriel's RfA (including at least two enthusiastic and unauthorised co nominations) I decided to put section breaks in... this of course unbalanced the table of contents in the main WP:RFA page, which User:Hoopydink and I discussed. We decided to change all of the current RfAs to see how they look with section headings in. If this change is acceptable the template that is used to generate a new nom can be changed, and if not, well, it's a wiki. The pages look cleaner (I chose level 5 section heads for no particular reason other than to keep them well below any page level stuff) and I think it really does cut down on edit conflicts... the downside is that the WP:RFA table of contents is massive unless something else is done to suppress it. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To echo what Lar mentioned, the section breaks allow for less edit conflicts and are quite useful. We thought it best to add section breaks into all of the current RfA's so as not to skew the contents section. Again, the section breaks do make the table of contents at least seven times larger, so I can see how that might be an issue. I suppose we'll just have to determine which is the lesser of two evils; edit conflicts or a ginormous table of contents. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Note I think there are templates that can limit a TOC to just the first two levels but I don't offhand recall which ones... that's a possible fix I think. Unless I'm misremembering. And thanks again H for your help! ++Lar: t/c 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: if you were to cast your opinion in an RfA using section editing, two edits would be required -- one under the appropriate section and one to touch the tally. ~ PseudoSudo 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that - kind of annoying, and easy to forget to do. I'm sure time will fix that. As for the change in principle, I don't like how it displays, but that might be a small price to pay for the improvements. The advantage is exactly what is set out above (it was much easier to find the last entry on the list!), but the TOC box is way too long. Again, time to get used to it may be all that is necessary. It may need some test driving, but looks like a good idea in principle. Agent 86 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you killed the RfA Bot which is also on the B's noticeboard. Now the B's can't view the support percentage of any that need to be closed.--Andeh 07:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that the owners of the bots will be able to program their bots to recognise the new format (hopefully with not too much work). DarthVad e r 08:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be because of the format of this discussion, but I didn't kill the bot - I wasn't the one who made the change. I was just commenting with my initial reaction to the change. That said, I noticed afterwards that the change killed the bots (or maybe it was Sarah Connor). I was willing to test the practicality of the change and try not to be resistant to change, but when I noticed this side affect my opinion was swayed. Moot point now that the change has been un-done. Agent 86 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the old format; the TOC looks terrible. And to be honest, if I have to make an additional edit to update the tally, then I'd rather just leave it and let someone else update it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, just from a reader's perspective the TOC is very hard to read now and it's a chore to scroll down through each nom, also even though I haven't added a vote/opinion since the change I imagine per the comments above that it wouldn't be much easier. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the new format as downloading and uploading entire RfAs on my phone to edit takes ages. However, I think the bot people should have been consulted before the change. PS Perhaps the bots could put the totals in automatically, and then we wouldn't need loads of "update tally"edits. Stephen B Streater 08:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, on Phaedriel's RFA, you request people not remove the section headings to avoid edit conflicts and such. I cannot see how this will have a significant impact on edit conflicts, given that she has 68 or so supports and no neutrals or opposes. Furthermore, is it necessary for each nomination to have a separate heading? That seems to bloat the TOC further without purpose. And this is just sad. Please change it back until you can develop methods to overcome these difficulties (bloated table of contents, breaking bot summaries, etc.). — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't see it make much difference in the amount of edit conflicts, and I don't think having to scroll to look at a table of contents is a good idea. I appreciate that it might be easier to navigate on a phone this way, but to be honest, I think the amount of people using a phone to vote on RFAs is too small to be of a large concern for the layout :) --Joanne B 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Now we know why ;-) Stephen B Streater 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The new section breaks are long overdue. Thanks to Lar for doing it. At least please let's give it a try for some time now (two weeks at least). --Ligulem 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I know we have WP:BOLD and everything, but I would have preferred if we (Dragons flight, possibly Oleg Alexandrov, and I) were notified before this change. There have been several instances of this kind of thing happening over the past few months, and it isn't very nice to open my e-mail client and discover several error messages waiting in my inbox. It would be courteous if people contemplating changes could provide a test case so that we can calibrate our bots before the actual changeover. (P.S.: Tangobot and the toolserver tool now support the new format - or rather, formats, as some RfAs seem to use ====, others =====). Cheers, Tangot a ngo 09:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This apparently was just suddenly decided and the urgent reason for it is some "high volume" of support and co-nominations, neither of which are affected by this change: edit conflicts in the support subsection aren't resolved by this, and co-nominations are rather static, if a change to facilitate 6 of them would be needed anyway. This is a null justification. —Centrx→talk • 10:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear a few more opinions but it seems that the consensus so far seems to be tending towards this not being a good idea... I introduced the problem so I'll change it back if it becomes clear, just not right this second. ++Lar: t/c 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea. As someone else mentioned, this doesn't affect Phaedriel's RfA since it's nearly unanimous right now. Instead it just makes the table of contents longer, messes up some of the RfA counters, and allows people to easily forget to manually update the counter. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 10:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tariqabjotu. This sort of change should have been discussed before it was made. While WP:BOLD is great and all, the fact that a number of widely-used tools and bots are now broken and that tally updating is harder alone are enough to have warranted a discussion beforehand. Gwernol 10:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh...well...hrm...nuts... I didn't even think of the bot issues and as such, didn't take any measures to alert them of any possible changes or updates. Apologies all around. I thought the only issue would be edit conflicts against a big table of contents. As I'm fairly certain Lar is asleep at the moment, I'll go ahead and revert the format back to the "original" version for now and perhaps we can continue discussion on a possible format change. I imagine the bots aren't really broken and will be interpreting the information correctly as soon as the section breaks are removed. I'll just have to chalk this up to being a bit too bold on my (and potentially Lar's) part (It is a wiki, after all!). Again, I apologise for any harm our addition of section breaks may have caused hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 11:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Request, will the users whom added the additional headings please revert it back. Not only will the Bureaucrats want their bot working again to review the current noms, but making such drastic changes to the entire RfA page without discussing it on the talk page is quite out of the ordinary. Yes, Phaedrial may be a special user, but did we really have to edit the entire RfA page to suit her RfA needs?.. --Andeh 11:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone did it whilst I was writing that.--Andeh 11:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Hoopydink and I changed it back (mostly Hoopydink, he's fast!) I'd like to continue discussion though, I think the idea has merit...++Lar: t/c 11:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets see if the bot updates properly and the percentages return.--Andeh 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep it's fixed.--Andeh 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite ironically, I was just edit conflicted! :) Here is my message:

Yep, Lar and I started reverting ourselves just after I posted. Again, we hadn't anticipated any bot problems and didn't think what we were doing was at all drastic. We simply thought it would be a helpful formatting tweak. We now know that any tweaking with the RfA template could send the bots off-kilter. We did anticipate the table of contents issue and perhaps at some point we can minimize that. The issue wasn't really with Phaedriel as a user per se, just to point out. The issue was with a high-volume nomination. Other nominations have been quite high volume as well, but Phaedriel's case is what brought the issue to Lar's attention and then to mine. If you'll look at the edit history, I actually reverted Lar due to the inconsistency in the table of contents. We then discussed the matter and felt that section breaks were a good idea (and obviously if one nomination had a certain formatting, we would have to implement uniformity across the board). I hope this clears things up, and all of the nominations are back to "normal". Once again, apologies to anyone who was put out as a result of our adding section breaks (I do hope to revisit this idea if we can get the bot and table of contents issues correct first). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 11:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A noble effort at improvement, but perhaps too hasty without prior discussion. Thanks for reverting. I use the output from Dragons flight RfA summary bot, so it's nice to get that back working again. Section breaks are a good idea in principle, but I think the pro's are heavily outweighed by the con's. The bot issue can obviously be worked around, and the edit window is more compact because of the sections. However, the reduced risk of an edit conflict as a result of the section breaks is minimal IMHO. The massive increase in the TOC length is horrendous, and an extra edit is required to update the tally unless not editing within sections (in which case the small benifit has already been lost). --Cactus.man ✍ 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seemed the thing to do at the time! (hey, I think it was 2:30 in the morning for me, what can I say). Note of course that as soon as it became clear there wasn't consensus we cheerfully and speedily changed it back, no long drawn out warfare about it, or making other people clean up the mess we made. I think that there is a way to fix the ToC bloat problem, I just have to do research on it. The extra edit to fix the tally doesn't strike me as a problem, actually... a small edit gets done faster and with less conflict than a bigger one. Those seem like the major two objections (other than Bot changes... Tango says his already can handle both versions) ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Question (Archive 65)

Can someone keep removing my RFA off the main site. It seems a bit communist to me. Removing my page just because they don't support me.-- Bpazolli 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

After reversion, plans for custom edit links

Yep, a speedy revert was much appreciated by all I think, and no stuff left on the page. Many thanks for that. The bot problem is not an issue, that can be tweaked. If you can fix the TOC problem I may come around to supporting, but the extra edit issue is still a problem IMO. I know that many editors forget to update the tally as things stand, but splitting sections out will only make it worse. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The reduced number of edit conflicts would be a good thing, but not until a) the bots are notified/fixed, and b) the TOC issue can be worked out (I looked last night and couldn't find it, either). Tallies probably should be managed by the bots when they do their checks, but I don't know how they parse things currently (I assume it's by the actual bullet numbers, since WP:WATCH is frequently more correct than the RfA manual tally). Thanks for cleaning up after yourselves, guys. -- nae'blis 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of using section headers in RFAs, but in the interest of neutrality, I'll make the adjustments to my bot so that section headers could be used. Probably won't get to it for 24 to 48 hours though. Dragons flight 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What we need is a new feature to allow us to set what level the TOC should go down to, so the section breaks within RfA's can be set below that level, so they don't show up on the TOC. --Tango 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Or some sort of syntax near the ===Header=== tags to remove a specific header from the TOC. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this with Rob Church a few months ago here, we can ask the developers to add this feature. NoSeptember 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's good at searching bugzilla? Maybe there's a feature request open already we can all pileon? :) If not, perhaps someone wants to write a new one and give the link here. HOWEVER I think james might be on to something. Off to go read about headers and divs and things... ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in Phaedriel's nomination having section headings for every co-nominator was unnecessary I believe. I doubt they much help in edit conflicts also, if everybody is editing the same section (say "support") edit conflicts will still happen. Of course section headings (for support/oppose/neutral) make it easier to vote. I don't know if the gain is that much though. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Could something be done with noinclude's and includeonly's - when the RFA is transcluded, it's all done as one section (with edit links manually added), and when it's view directly, it's all in sections? --Tango 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You can see an example of what I mean here: User:Tango/RFA_test (I've only done the first RFA on that page). If someone can suggest a better way to format the edit links (so they look like normal section edit links would be good), please feel free to edit that page. --Tango 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, Tango, and clever. Maybe this could be templatised somehow... It achieves the effect nicely, I must say. There is, I believe, a way to format them differently, but am not sure what it is. ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your new version really seems good. Nice work Tango. αChimp ^laudare 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be made into templates, but it's beyond me. I'm not sure how to get the includeonly tags to work correctly with one template inside another. Also, it needs someone that knows how to use the fullurl thing to get the edit links to work correctly on different pages. --Tango 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this. It looks exactly like Tango's version once it is substituted once, which is exactly what we want. —Mets501 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks like what I wanted it to do, thanks! --Tango 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

{{phony edit link|page name|section number}} will create an edit link in the Mediawiki style. I note that these hacks all depend on knowing how many sections the page will have, hence using these means agreeing that RFAs shall have only the default sections and no more (or having people update all the links if sections are added). An alternative might be to javascript away the extra TOC entries in a similar fashion to how the Main Page header is removed. Dragons flight 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I really like Tango's proposal with your edit link template (which I renamed from "Template:Phony edit link" to "Template:Edit link" because it sounds better) and my template which I have tested and it works perfectly. I suggest that we should implement it. What do you all think? —Mets501 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I think that's really cool. I like how the comments ( ~~Voting!!~~ Hi WMarsh) section is at the bottom. We need buyin from all the botdevs though so we don't repeat how I flubbed up... ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, indeed! That is quite an ingenious proposal! I like it a lot! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have time to look at all of the test pages, but what we basically want to do to template:rfa is add:
<includeonly><noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>===<includeonly></noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>'''support'''<includeonly><noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>===<includeonly></noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>
which, when subst'ed, renders as <noinclude>===</noinclude>'''support'''<noinclude>===</noinclude>. GeorgeMoney ^(talk) 19:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you guys tested the new versions to see if the edit section links work correctly when transcluded on the 2nd, 3rd, etc RFAs on a page? Also, I added a section header to simplify commenting here. -- nae'blis 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've now tested it, and it works perfectly on all RfA's, as long as no extranious headers are added to the RfA. We should contact the bot owners so they can update their bots and we can implement it (I doubt anyone would object because all it does is add functionality, and doesn't expand the TOC.) —Mets501 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the issue with adding extra sections/links, exactly? I wonder, can't the person who added them adjust the section numbers by hand below them to make things work again? Or, would the bots be depending on section numbers? Thanks for helping me understand! ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)i

As presently constituted, I believe this proposal does not require any changes to my bot. Dragons flight 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I did an (unsaved) transclusion test in the main RfA page, and I think we want 4 ==== rather than three though, right? Although I suppose it doesn't matter, using 4 makes the header less "large" and more the size of what you get when you triplequote bold something. I must say... This noinclude trick seems the simplest trick yet... well done. I say let's change the template if there is no objection (maybe it was already, I am using an RfA I genned from teh template yesterday for my testing) ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Format change? (Archive 65)

Is it deliberate or inadvertent that the questions, statistics, etc. are now coming before the "votes"? I cannot see anything indicative of the format change in the history, so it may just be the way the last two nominations were created. If it was a deliberate change, I can see why one would want to put the discussion first, but after the recent "section-break" matter, it might be best to discuss format changes before making them. Agent 86 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. In the interests of maintaining a reliable service I will be thinking about changing my bot to support both types later. However, I would still have liked to see some kind of discussion, as well as a sample test case as mentioned earlier in the discussion above. It's okay to be bold on articles and other, non-bot pages - but the Requests for adminship page is processed by no less than three bots, so please be civil to bot operators and notify them before any significant changes are made. - Tangot a ngo 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There should have been some discussion about it, but I do agree with the format as format. People should read the questions before the comments/votes (some of which refer to the questions). Now if there were some way to make the associated Talk page more used: People should feel free to ask simple or minor questions of the candidate that are in a centralized place for everyone to read, but that aren't major enough, "top-level" enough, or are such that an answer would resolve it rather quickly. It would also all for more questions and general discussion, whereas the present or at least recent format encouraged more straight-up voting and was not suitable for discussion of various sections. So, I think it should be directly, and perhaps Largely, linked in the main text. As of now, someone browsing the top RfA page (rather than the subpages) doesn't see or isn't reminded that there exists that discussion page. —Centrx→talk • 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It was weird to see, but people should actually need to go past the questions (and actually read the responses) to make a decision which should be based on merit, not just one that goes along with the concurring majority. Michael 04:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No matter what the format (and I agree that questions should be before supports/opposes) the bot generated infoboxes should be at or near the bottom since if nothing else they get in the way and are distracting not to mention the fact that people shouldn't be basing votes purely on those stats anyway. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, though they do attest to how much one has actually done on Wikipedia and the various means of involvement. Michael 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Having the stats for RFA's are definitely a double edged sword, back in the old days people actually had to work to find this information and learnt a bit more about the candidate in the process, now you have the stats at your fingertips and many people vote purely on that without a second thought or a second glance. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

At least they still give it a first thought ;-) Stephen B Streater 08:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I should've thought of the bots, sorry. A few days ago I remembered the old discussion linked above, wondered what had happened to it (recalling general support for the measure), went back to look, saw that there was clear consensus, and so implemented it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What discussion was that? I don't see the link you refer to. --Michael Snow 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ack, I could have sworn somebody linked to it. I gave it in the diff where I made the changes; it's Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 60#Moving around stuff in RfA. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the main problems of RfA are that ~~voters~~ opinioners don't look at the information, but judge the first oppose votes. Hopefully this will force the information onto them before the oppose votes. This should be a change for the better, H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Man, this format looks weird. 1ne 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It probably looks weird because you're not used to it. ;) I think it's useful, in that it makes people at least scroll past the ~~EULA~~ questions and stats before they jump into X per Y. -- nae'blis 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The job-interview format trending towards safe and "approved" answers to questions has been criticized just like the "vote"-oriented aspect of support/oppose discussions and the reliance on edit-count metrics. So this isn't necessarily an improvement, it's just rearranging the furniture. --Michael Snow 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How are the lines on RfA page supposed to be? (Archive 65)

After adding my RfA by copy/pasting the line in the instructions ({RFA/name etc} line line line line), it seemed that that horizontal line was in the wrong place, below mine where there already was one, and causing a neutral vote for Mr. ---- for some reason. So I moved it above. But now another RfA is up and again there is no line above the top one. Is there supposed to be? Mine never seemed to show up on the bot til I put one there, and this one isn't now either (maybe a coincidence), but the way the instructions do it, it would seem there wouldn't be one. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a line above the comments, where it is unlikely any new nominee will have the urge to remove it. Hopefully, that doesn't interfere with any of the RfA counters. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit count tables - hide/show (Archive 66)

Is there any reason we couldn't wrap the edit count tables in Hide/Show boxes, such as demonstrated at: User:Kylu. I feel like the edit counts add clutter and forcing everyone to look at them as they scroll past is not really the attitude we want to promote. Dragons flight 00:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that show/hide labels only work with the Monobook skin, with the other skins you don't see the [show] box and therefore cannot see the contents. —Mets501 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's still better than nothing. Especially considering most people use Monobook.--W.marsh 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. To ensure graceful fallback, we'd need to set the default CSS state of the div to ~~display:none~~ display:block, so it'll incur a brief change in the perceived length of the page at every page load for Javascript browsers, but that seems like a small loss for something that could streamline the page. (Perhaps this fallback hack will fix the problem for non-monobook users?) - Tangot a ngo 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a typo there. The template has to be set to display by default for browser compatibility. But this has nothing to do with Tyrenius' comment (different matter). - Tangot a ngo 10:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "forcing everyone to look at them" is exactly what we want. The record of an editor's contributions in this way is one of the fundamentals of judging their suitability (note "one" of). Tyrenius 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

However, you should look at the contributions, not at edit count stats. Hiding the stats and reminding people to look at the actual edits is a good idea. Kusma (討論) 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The reports are interesting, though the length of them does possibly give undue weight to the quantity of edits. We could have a summary at the top (eg total; article/talk; WP/talk; edit summaries major/minor) on four lines with the full amount underneath. Stephen B Streater 08:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections (Archive 67)

Could we please change the layout of RFA pages to support per-section editing? With lots of questions, edit counts and edit summary histories, and some RFAs attracting over 200 participants, it's becoming very hard to find the place where one needs to "vote". Support, oppose and neutral need to have section headers so that "voting" is as simple as clicking the correct section and scrolling to the bottom. --kingboyk 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. Someone tried doing this last week, but it didn't last very long, not sure why. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict!)I'm in favor of this. I've had similar problems and if I'm not one of the few people who have either supported or opposed within the first 20 or so, I'm stuck locating the proper area, and hoping that there isnt an edit conflict, else I'd have to do it all over again. Although its a small concern, I dont see what harm can be done in changing it. SynergeticMaggot 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Szvest 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Would the various scripts that parse out the pages into summaries cope with this as-is, or would then need updated? (but yes, a good idea) Thanks/wangi 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems was an extremely long table of contents. —Centrx→talk • 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought we found a clever way around that, here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_65#After_reversion.2C_plans_for_custom_edit_links. Probably just need to update the template, as I think all the bots/monitoring programs could handle it okay. -- nae'blis 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If the agreement with the general idea isn't clear already, let it be noted that I agree. Marskell 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to voice out my agreement with the general idea. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As would I. --digital_m e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would like to check out some of the previous discussion, it can be found here. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the new layout of RfA is horrible and it's very hard to find the right place where to add the comment. Sections would help, but I stil don't like this comments before votes stuff. Grue 11:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Chacor 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- You mean you actually have to actually read some of the comments before you manage to put down your own? How awful! Imgine what would happen if people actually started taking comments into consideration and coming to consensus? Why the sky would fall and the world would end! ;-) Think of all the poor WP:OFFICE and Wikipedia:Oversight people we'd be putting out of a job if we had more decent admins! Kim Bruning 12:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  - I like the idea, if practical. The way I get around having to scroll through endless pre-existing text is to CTRF-F for the next section heading. If I'm going to "support" I CTRL-F to "oppose" and paste in my vote there. I have trouble reading the text in edit view anyway, so I read their comments before hitting the edit button. :) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Is that sarcasm really necessary, Kim? I suspect that most people prefer to read comments in rendered form rather than raw wikicode. Making it easier for people to find the correct place to edit and insert comments might encourage that discussion and consensus-building that you value. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    - Hey, it's good humored sarcasm, it's fun! I wonder if we could do an experiment with both formats side by side, and figure out which is handier for consensus? Kim Bruning 16:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I usually only vote on RFAs where I know the candidate (or have seen that candidate's contribs). I saw one who I've seen around and was going to support, but after seeing the large and unwieldy RFA, I simply decided not to vote! RFA has become a huge, bloated beast, and it would take a helluva candidate for me to support. I rarely actually go to the main RFA anymore, because looking at those things makes my eyes bleed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  - I don't mind the new sections (although I think the potential for edit conflict on anyone short of Phaedriel or Whilly on Wheels is probably overstated); what I don't get is why we sometimes need *3* edit count summaries, in addition to all the questions and the like. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Zsinj_2 for an example; one is linked, but it's still a lot of editcountitis. -- nae'blis 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    - Yeah, the edit count summaries are really pushing it. If some people don't mind putting an edit count summary in their userspace (or maybe even have RfA candidates hosting it in their own userspace), perhaps those edit count summaries can be put there instead and have it linked in the RfA. That frees up the clutter from the RfA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The changed needed to do sections without adding to the main table of contents has been prototyped, I thought there was general agreement to add it to the template by now, not sure though. I had heard all the bots were upgraded to work with it too. I am no fan of editcountitis but I think having more than one (and seeing the differences found) is useful. Perhaps they all should be subpage linked I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could put the edit count summaries on the talk page? It would obscure whether or not comments/controversy has been moved there, but might be worth that for a more readable RFA. The questions should absolutely stay on the main page though, including optional ones. -- nae'blis 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes please (or a subpage). People should look at the contributions more than the edit count anyway. And I agree that the questions should stay, but could be below the votes for easier editing. Kusma (討論) 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The questions were moved above the support/oppose/neutral comments (not votes :) ) for at least two reasons, IIRC.. one is to encourage people to read them, and the other is to make it easier to comment, even if there are no individual sections to edit via... by having the support oppose after the questions you can scroll to the bottom quickly and then scroll up a bit. If we put the sections back in (with the noinclude trick so they don't show in the main TOC) that becomes less important, as long as you are willing to first click on the nom and go to its subpage. I am sorry that some folk don't like the questions first but I really really think it's a good thing to look at them and apologise in advance if people think that putting them first is condescension rather than encouragement. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with the current format is the length of some of the comments and answers to questions - they can become ESSAYS! It gets very irritating after a while having to scroll through long prose. Chacor 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess different people look for different things. I don't want snap answers to easy questions, I want to see some evidence that the candidate is thinking long and hard about the question answered. A considered, thoughtful answer goes a long way to convincing me to support an otherwise borderline candidate. I'll gladly admit that's maybe just me, and I have a rep for windiness (many of my answers on my RfA were a whole screen ful or more). So the question then becomes, is one view better than the other (see Kim's comments above, he clearly wants people to read and think, and is OK if it takes them a bit longer)? If neither is... is there a way to accomodate both types of folk? ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get it wrong, if the candidate has a lot to say to questions 1 and 2 that's good. But I really don't need to read a whole chunk about every little small altercation a candidate has gotten into for Question 3, heh. Perhaps posting optional questions to the talk page of the nomination rather than below the compulsory ones, along with moving the comments (suggested somewhere above)? Chacor 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the optional questions often more relevant than the standard 3, because they often are asked to get at specific issues that the candidate might have, and becuase they're not canned, the candidate didn't have 3 weeks to think about how to answer them, you get to see them think on their feet. So I guess the net here is I like the questions before the comments, I like all the questions, not just some, being there, I don't have a problem with length (even for question 3), and I think section heads would help ameliorate problems others might have. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw the addition of section breaks added to Eagle_101's RfA. Apparently those with expertise in markup have figured out a way to include sections without bloating the table of contents on the main RfA page. Is this to be the new format? If so, I like it! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it to be, and (after last time, haha) if there was consensus I'd change the template to put it into effect. Is there consensus? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what happened? I thought we had the bots on board...? -- nae'blis 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

New RfA format (Archive 67)

Can I go on record saying that I don't like the latest RfA format that's just popped up for the last 2 or 3 RfAs; especially the location of the tally - almost every user has missed it, and in fact (aeropagitica) just moved it back to its original location in TruthbringerToronto's RfA^[10] however the template remains the same. Was there a reason for the change I cant see? - GIen 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I agreed with the format change. But, I didn't take a careful enough look. I didn't realize the tally had been moved. I thought just the questions/responses had been moved. I agree with GIen; I think the tally should move back to the top. --Durin 17:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read the archive re the new format. I think the location of the questions is great - encourages those contributing to read them with greater ease, but yes I can't see the rationale for the tally location. I guess once everyone gets used to it changes will be made - but in the last RfA I contributed to I was maybe the 5th or 6th person to do so and the first to update the tally. Just a thought anyway... - GIen 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to de-emphasize the count. The raw count isn't the most important thing. It's ok if people miss updating the tally, the only time the tally needs to be correct is when it is closed. - Taxman ^Talk 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, I never actually thought of that. Makes sense, and, its just a matter of users becoming used to the new location. Thanks for letting me know :) - GIen 21:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have in fact had to tally almost half of the current RfA's earlier today, and for Eagle_101, a few more times. Supports, Neutrals, and Opposers will be clicking the edit button for that location, in which they'd have to go back and edit from the top anyway, to tally. I like the new format change, but this requires two edits. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The move of the tally was agreed upon along with the rest of the reformat several months ago. For some reason it was never put in effect (probably because the person who made the change only moved the sections, and didn't do the minor things, like the place for a statement by the candidate, which I added along with the tally move). This way, the tally is only associated with the vote, rather than the entire RfA, to make it seem less like the vote IS the RfA, which was the same reason the vote was moved to the bottom. --Rory096 20:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, while people might be missing the tally now because it's new, they'll get used to it and know to correct the tally just on top of the vote soon. --Rory096 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Tax, the tally shouldn't actually matter. You can obviously browse and get a feel for where the review is at, but 76% versus 74% should not (in theory) influence comments, nor should seeing how far along the bandwagon has gone on an obvious one. Marskell 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it very useful to have the tally easily accessible at the top, as it's nice to check up on how progress is going, and sometimes I will look at numbers to see if I want to participate, e.g. close numbers might make it worth investigating, 0-24 is a waste of time. It would be very useful to have the table which is on BN on RfA. Tyrenius 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I was only concerned with having to make two edits. I'm not bothered either way, where the counter lies. SynergeticMaggot 23:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just get rid of the counter? People often forget to update it and it highlights the vote aspect of RfA when it's really not a vote. There are plenty of automated counters that do the job just fine and if a potential !voter really wants to know the current tally, he or she can just look at the numbers under each section. -- tariqabjotu 01:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of removing it. I personally never update it, not because I "forget" but because it's not really very worthwhile as far as I'm concerned; usually someone else does it soon enough anyway. Of course, edits made solely to keep the tally updated are, in my opinion, among the silliest on all of Wikipedia. Besides, Dragon Flight's tool will still parse the count anyway, and its page is a better reference if you really just want numbers. -- SCZenz 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I support that idea - especially as Dragons flight's tool works fine to show the tally. However I think that if it is removed a link to the counter should be put at the top of each RFA -> See the tally at Dragon Flights tool --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support removing the tally. Its not in the spirit of RfA and is a distraction from the main game which is for people to offer comments on candidates. If its important, readers can also scroll down to the bottom to see the number against the last vote. -- I@n 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This makes more sense. My original concern was that the new location meant no one updated it - if the purpose of moving it was in fact to induce this effect, then it makes more sense to dispose of it all together. - GIen 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DF's tool is more accurate in many cases for whose who want the numbers, and not having the tally makes it more of a discussion, less of a polling station. -- nae'blis 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What if we got really crazy and used bullets "*" instead of numbers "#" beside each !vote? I'd support this as long as the automated tools still counted correctly. Aren't I Obscure? 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on splitting the standards page (Archive 67)

There is a discussion on splitting the standards page (size > 90) into 4 sections here. Seeing as there is, so far, no opposition to this idea, I'll be doing it later today. I'm mentioning it here for the broader audience I'm sure reads this talk page than Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Standards. Comments on the idea are welcome. Picaroon9288|ta co 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do the titles Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/E-K, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/L-R, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/S-Z sound good? If there is no opposition, I'll go ahead soon. Picaroon9288|ta co 19:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. One thing I like is that you placed "S" at the beginning of the last section (typically a large group of names in any list). As this list is likely to expand, do you think that those breaks in the alphabetical listing will continue to hold up as rough equidistant breaks? - Jc37 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Section breakups per letter would also be useful for section editing. --Thunderhead 19:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing to be wary of: alpha sorting. There are editors who pipe their username so that it shows as something else. Personally, I think they should be listed by actual user name. What do you think? - Jc37 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it will hold up; I originally suggested A-G, H-P, and Q-Z, the traditional breaks in the alphabet song. Then Grutness suggested what he called "London Phonebook" style (I've never been to London, nor have I seen their phonebooks, nor have I seen this style before) because the three that I suggested will be over 32 quite soon, if not immediately. But will an anti-vandal bot revert me when I blank 99% of the wp:rfa/standards page? Picaroon9288|ta co 20:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves, TawkerBot2 will only revert once under normal circumstances, so if it does get reverted, revert it back again. However, you're in the wikipedia namespace, so the bots might ignore you anyway. --Tango 20:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. Anyways, before I do the other 3, what do you guys think of A-D? Picaroon9288|ta co 20:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I might suggest having links at the top (in a template box perhaps?) for the other 3 pages, for ease of navigation. - Jc37 20:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll definitely have links to the other three at the top and at the bottom of all four pages, once they all exist. I can't guarantee a nice looking box, however - boxes have always been my nemesis on wikimedia sites. I'll try, though. Picaroon9288|ta co 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes, L-R is too long by itself. I'll do Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/L-O, and figure how the final two (altogether P-Z) should be split with the halfhour, and probably sooner. Picaroon9288|ta co 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(starting the colons over : )

Suggestion: Add "L" to E-K, and split E-L in half. M-N-O-P; Q-Z. - Jc37 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't notice the suggestion in time, and I'm not an admin (yet ;)), so I can't do anything now. But I think it worked out all right. Picaroon9288|ta co 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much useless clutter (Archive 67)

Why do we have to wade through heaps of bilge these days just to get to the Support/Oppose/Neutral? I have my own way of evaluating a candidate. What is all this random trash doing in the front of the nomination? Couldn't it go on the talk page or something? --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The questions make sense to have there on the main page, they are rather part of the nomination, but the edit counts should go in the Talk page. Even better, maybe we should put the vote in the Talk page, and all the substance in the main page? Anybody? —Centrx→talk • 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that would just be pretending it wasn't really happening when the simple fact is it is. The same reason that, whilst it is not a vote, there is only clumsiness available from blanketly replacing "vote" with "discussion" or "brawl". -Splash - tk 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We've always had the questions. Not bad but they used to be at the end. Until recently people coming up with all this editcount crap would be politely told to stick it. Now the crap gets pride of place. wtf? --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging people to actually discuss on the talk page instead of on the main page might be interesting - but at the moment people rarely look there. If all discussion was put there, then it would force people to look there to determine whether the candidate should be an administrator or not. I'm indifferent on the matter though; I have no preference, as I take in the users contribs and answers to questions into account mostly anyway. Cowman109^Talk 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If an RfA was on your watchlist you would see it pop up everytime someone edited the page. It would be quite easy to track conversations there, the same as the articles. David D. (Talk) 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tony, although the material is useful to have at a glance. Also it does save server load from all the people having to run the edit counter individually. Much better to just stick all the raw stats on the talk page. JoshuaZ 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything the edit counts should be either removed or moved to the talk page - they encourage editcountitis anyway. Cowman109^Talk 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere the new layout is designed to take the focus off the edit and vote counting. I support that aim and anything that will encourage evaluating candidates on what matters and not counts. As mentioned below I'd prefer the edit counts removed completely, but moving it to the talk page would help some too. - Taxman ^Talk 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What really gets me down is the sheer amount of useless clutter I have to wade through to get to the discussion. RFA's didn't use to be this pointlessly HUGE. I never edit an RFA until I've had a very good look at a person's edit history, so what's the point of all the statistics? --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I also felt there is way too much emphasis on detailed statistical counts of all kinds. When Interiot's tool worked, it was simpler, a link was enough. (Hopefully the edit summary link my bot provides does not disturb people.)

PS: Tony, you could tone down your rhetoric, you have a point, but really, it does not need to be so dramatic. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If really needed, I suggest displaying only Article/talk, User/talk and Wikipedia/talk numbers. Voice of All's statistics are too exhaustive for my taste. Moving to the talk page is a good option. Or hide the tables with a NavBar (even if only the default skin is supported). -- ReyBrujo 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Essjay's tool does work. So the edit count stuff isn't really necessary.--Peta 03:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree w/ Tony. -- Szvest 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pussonally, I don't find the statistics useful beyond the broad distribution of edits across namespaces (oh so shoot me). The detail is rather heavy and the 2 decimal places rather emphasise the fact. That said, I suppose there may be those who find them useful for something and there's the outside chance that one day, for one candidate, they might actually hold a nugget of genuinely useful information. I'd be painfully in favour of moving the -itis to the talk page, but to work around the lack of visibility pointed out above, we should retain a link to the talk page where formerly there was a link to Interiot's tool and currently is to Essjay's. We could ask VoA to do that more or less right now, I'd think. -Splash - tk 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are using the monobook skin, you can use this[11] script, as Essjay and some others use to collapse the page. As for stats, there is nothing to stop people from running Interiot's/Essjay's editcounter wich then means that people who use AWB to make meaningless hordes of edits get a huge unfair advatage over others. Thats why I run the stats, to test for that kind of stuff. Its like fighting stat misinterpretation with more detailed stats. Its a necessary evil with all the candidates that thing AWB will give them high edit count that makes more people support them. As for moving it to the talk page, I am afraid that not too many people would look there...on the other hand, if it was known that all the stats, overall and focused and in depth, then they could both complement each other there, so maybe it could work...Voice-of-All 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrat nomination pending (Archive 68)

This is just to point out that we have a Bureaucrat nomination pending. It seems to have been near-universally overlooked because RfB's are added to the bottom rather than the top of the RfA page (perhaps some sort of additional reference at the top of RfA would be worthwhile). The RfB nomination raises some issues that are worthy of discussion and it would be good if more RfA participants weighed in both on the candidate and on the issues raised. Newyorkbrad 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Our last RfB (Redux's) drew 80 opinions back in June and it too (IIRC) was in the same place on the RfA page. I don't think the position on the page is what's driving the low turnout for Ram-Man's RfB. I will note that the number of opinions on all RfAs seems to have dropped over the last few months - this is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but my impression is we were getting around 80 on most RfAs early in the summer and are now seeing 60 on average; I'd love to see the actual numbers. My guess is that not many people have strong opinions they want to express about this particular candidate, but maybe there are other factors? Gwernol 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just the location. When I come to the RfA page, I generally look to the top of the list and see if there are any new additions. Due to how scarce it is that someone is nominated for RfB, the location is a problem. Michael 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Any problems with moving RfB's to the top? Since they're rare enough as it is the introtext can easily be ignored by users looking for new RfA's. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is "Requests for Bureaucratship" (RfB) does not have a forum of its own (and it really doesn't need it), but rather it "borrows" space in the Requests for Adminship (RfA) forum. It would make little sense for people to come to RfA and find RfBs at the top -- it's not only the transclusion of the eventual RfBs, but also the instructions that would need to be moved. And plus, there doesn't seem to be a practical need for any of this: first, and more importantly, because RfBs get included in the TOC just the same, so only someone with little experience might never see it -- of course anyone could miss it once or twice, but it runs for a week, so sooner or later they see it on the TOC; second, and this relates to the first reason, because, normally, only more experienced users participate in RfBs, and they know their way around this forum well enough (or even have it watchlisted, so they notice the transclusion of the RfB). Redux 13:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't !vote on Ran-Man's RfB because I 1) didn't know the candidate and 2) was effectively neutral after reading the arguments presented, they didn't convince me either way. This could have been true for others, which would explain the (slightly) reduced number of !votes on that particular RfB. I'm pretty sure if a seriously popular (or unpopular) candidate appeared at the bottom of the page, people would find it! Petros471 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Section headers (Archive 68)

Looks like someone has aggressively archived this page... Anyway, it seems we still don't have support/oppose/neutral sections for ease of editing despite (I thought) consensus to do it. Also, when editing the page it's hard to find the tally for updating. Edit conflicts are all too common on RFAs and we need to improve the layouts with this in mind. If it breaks a bot or a script so be it, they'll have to update it - Wikipedia pages are for editors first and foremost, not programs :) --kingboyk 09:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Can we have section headers please? --Ligulem 09:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.Voice-of-All 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, I'd say, its so hard finding the tally, i can't be bothered to update it, let alone find it. Plus, when I was writing even this I had an edit conflict. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 20:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no, no! It creates the most ridiculous TOCs as soon as the page gets any busier than its current very quiet state. This is why they've never flown before. No section headers. Just edit patiently. You've got a week, there's no need to !vote right now! -Splash - tk 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Splash, there's a technical solution for the TOC problem and has been for a while. The form contemplated now puts a TOC into the individual nom tha thas the individual sections but they are NOT present in the overall RFA page TOC.. only the noms themselves are, but none of the sections within the noms. This was prototyped and shown to work. Do you still think this is a bad idea? ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Can you point me to the prototype? (I think this would be useful in some articles, too.) -Splash - tk 13:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

As I understand it, it's dead simple (we had a much more complex one that involved wacky things)!!!!... surround the headings with noinclude tags like this:

<noinclude>==</noinclude>'''Support'''<noinclude>==</noinclude>

The effect is that when transcluded there are no headings, only bolded "support" etc but when not transcluded, clickable headings. If you want to get fancy you can also include edit links but that's not needed. It's been tested and it works. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A prototype can be found in Eagle's RfA if you go back in the history, these were there when it went live but someone removed them out. ++Lar: t/c 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: the actual headers would be done with === rather than == as shown in the example above, sorry about that. ++Lar: t/c 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work. Since Template:RfA is a template, those noinclude tags apply to it, so all that comes out on the RfA subpage is "'''Support'''. --Rory096 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All fixed. --Rory096 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lar, Rory096. If whatever Rory096's fix was makes whatever wasn't working work then I see no downside to this. Just as long as we don't finish up with a FA-length TOC this time next week! -Splash - tk 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted myself as it's screwing up both Mathbot and Tangotango's tool, and maybe more that I don't know of. I've notified Oleg Alexandrov, Tangotango and Dragons flight of the change. Are there any other bot/tool operators that I don't know of? --Rory096 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, if you're going to use section headers in large/complex RfAs to avoid edit conflicts, use something akin to the following format:

<includeonly>;Support</includeonly>

<noinclude>====Support====</noinclude>

The first is shown on WP:RFA, the second is shown in the individual nomination. Thanks; this format doesn't break dragon flight's RFA summarizer. -- nae'blis 06:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbered voting? (Archive 69)

Where was the decision made to start using * instead of # in RFA's?--Jersey Devil 21:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Centrx did it here. Looks like a WP:BOLD. Not even an edit summary is there. --Ligulem 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not his only bold action regarding "voting" recently... See here. Seems like some particularly pointed boldness to me. --tjstrf 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has annoyed me. It's not a vote, but is there any reason to make it difficult to count votes just to illustrate that it's not a vote? "Lets make it more difficult for everyone to read so they know it's not a vote". We know it's not a vote... --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I share the exact same sentiments.--Jersey Devil 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"It's not a vote, but is there any reason to make it difficult to count votes" – that didn't quite... make any sense to me. Since it's not a vote, you don't even have to count any votes. Especially since you wouldn't find any votes to count were you to try anyway. How do the soothing little dots next to everyone's comments make them harder to read, of all things? Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make it more difficult to read. All it does is make it more difficult to count votes, which is a problem why? A person can still see the relative magnitude of support and opposition, it just means they can't easily determine whether 51 or 53 people support, which is pointless. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My "quotation" misrepresented my views, apologies. I was in a bit of a frenzy when typing it so I was rather hasty and made a mistake. Anyway, I like counting votes. 80% is the accepted standard for RfAs passing (though this "rule" varies) and I like to see how close RfAs to that threshold. This makes it unneccesarily diffcult for the people reading it and the bcrats evaluating it, since they will use the 80% threshold rule for 99.9% of the nominations. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like numbered and sectioned voting because it makes it easier to get a sense of the overall tenor of an RFA. Perhaps it is not a "vote", but I will rarely take the time to develop an "opinion" unless the "votes" suggest the candidate is potentially controversial. Oh, and the recent changes to {{RfA}} (history) and active RFAs are not being friendly to bots (DF summary, Tango summary), which is one reason why it is nice to discuss these things in advance, so bots have a chance to adjust. Dragons flight 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the view to keep the comments numbered and sectioned, but a simple discussion section without numbers would allow for bureaucrats to determine consensus based on the discussion that transpires. This way, RfA truly wouldn't be a vote. In this system, the quality of comments would overshadow the quantity hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And you believe Bureaucrats have trouble determining consensus when things are numbered and broken into sections? This is a cosmetic change, not a functional change. How we display "votes" is a seperate issue from how Bureaucrats decide RFAs. For my part, I'd rather display the information in a way I find useful rather than mix them all together. Dragons flight 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also fail to see how replacing the numbered lists (#) with unnumbered lists (*) will help in any way the bureaucrats deciding whom to promote.

Also, while comments about "quality" versus "quantity" are apprciated, I do not believe that looking only at the "quality" of opinions expressed while ignoring the amount of people who thought one way or another will improve the RfA process, rather the other way around. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I definitely agree that the numbers should not be ignored, but the discussion format would lend to, well, discussion, and perhaps foster an environment that would allow more free-flowing opinions and comments to the candidate's merit. In regards to how bureaucrats decide RfA's, I wasn't suggesting changing how bureaucreats decide RfA's. Personally, I think it's up to the closing bureaucrat to formulate his own evaluation criteria (which should be published somewhere on Wikipedia). The cosmetic change would simply allow for the "note a vote" ideology to become practise, rather than just something we say hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh of all the doubleplusgoodnewspeak I've seen.... -Splash - tk 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Have we considered asking the bureacrats what they think? We should use whichever method they find more preferable imo. --tjstrf 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer sticking with the #. This doesn't mean it is a vote. --Ligulem 00:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We could also merge people's comments together into one very very long paragraph, to prevent people from just counting up the number of dots. That'll show 'em! --W.marsh 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A cunning plan, but we'd also have to remove the full stops to stop people counting those instead. -Splash - tk 00:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, just forbid signing your name in RfA discussions, so that they can't tell who said what. And require that the page be cut-and-paste moved prior to viewing by the bureacrat so he can't check history. --tjstrf 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am seeing no consensus not to number votes. Should I change it back? - Mike 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The numbered system seems the most convenient, which is what we should aim for. --tjstrf 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I don't really feel like editing the one RfA that is like that though, so if somebody else would do that, great. - Mike 00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --physicq210 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've protected {{RfA}} because there are already ~5 reverts/conflicting changes in the last four hours to this important template. Pleaes come up with a concensus first until making further changes to the template. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a vote. That should be agreed. WP isn't a democracy. 'crats are elected to use disgression, not for their abilities in statistical analysis. I think the above discussion shows why numbering is a terrible idea, because it is trapping otherwise intelligent people into thinking it is a vote and it is about counting things, even as they deny that it is a vote. I mean, we've got crazy stuff like this [12], complete with colours to show who is statistically passing. Where is the discussion in this? It is wrong, wrong, wrong. '#' encourages people to say '#Support--~~~~, which isn't a discussion and should immediately be discounted anyway. The numbers just have to go if we are to move the discussion forward. We need a change of climate in RfA, and since we'll never agree a new system, lets start with this minor change int he template.--Doc 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the section above, I've made a draft for a change of process. _→AzaToth 01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But this is just so much standardised rhetoric. Who in e.g. this section of the page is even close to suggesting it's a vote? I do not see anyone making such a claim. In other sections? Very new users, perhaps, but that's just a matter of education. Replacing # with * isn't going to cause anything to shift. Furthermore, replacing the whole thing with a series of bullet points isn't going to stop people putting the word support or oppose in bold somewhere in their unlikely-to-be-more-than-a-few-lines comment. What edits Dragonsflight chooses to make is no reflection on the "intelligent people" you cite. Wrong, wrong, wrong is being trapped into thinking that people think it's a vote when they are saying it isn't. -Splash - tk 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Crazy stuff, well thanks. Of course it is not a vote, that's what the reasons and discussions are for. Think about it, where else in this world is a "vote" accompanied by a record of your reasoning that can sway others. And of course it is like a vote. Any system where having less than 50% support has never passed and having greater than 80% support has never failed definitely has vote aspects. The foundation of our community is consensus and that requires establishing agreement, which can be measured and quantified. I'm sick of "Its not a vote", being taken as a mantra as if ever quantifying opinions will destroy civilization. Voting can be helpful and democratic principles are a good way of working within a large organization. We don't just vote, and we don't just discuss. We do both and it is better that way. I don't believe that moving towards either extreme is going to improve Wikipedia. Dragons flight 02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Often, there is nothing to say but #Support--~~~~ because the nomination says it all. It's just a way of expressing that you would like to see a user become an admin, but you really have nothing to add to that besides possibly "per nom" or "per all above". Discounting this vote is extremely unfair, because it hurts the nomination process and tells Wikipedians "your opinion doesn't matter as much as this guy's does". Also, keep in mind that this indeed is not total democracy just because voting is involved. Remember that RfAs are straw polls, which ultimately makes them "non-binding" anyway. Also, in democracy, a simple majority is all that is needed for something to pass (in the vast majority of cases, anyway). If this were the case, then somebody who got 51% support on their RfA would become and admin. But that's not what we do is it? No. We aim for consensus, and numbering the votes is an easy way to see what kind of a consensus there is. When you a tally "75 support, 3 oppose, 5 neutral" you can say "okay, there is a general consensus that this guy/gal should become and admin. However when you a see a tally of "40 support 32 oppose 10 neutral you can say "Hmm..there is majority support here, but it's obviously no consensus. For now, this guy/gal shouldn't ba an admin." Not numbering the tally makes for unnecesary hassle in the nomination closing process that can easily be elminated (not to mention it makes the whole nomination process more confusing). In addition, not numbering the votes can lead to many unfair outcomes. For example: Suppose Jim Bob Smith was running for admin, and he ended up with a final tally of 55/15/10 and was denied adminship, but just the day before, Billy Bob Johnson became an admin with a final tally of 55/20/10. There was more of a consensus tht Joe Bob should've been and admin, but he was denied the oppurtuniy! I know that this could still happen occasionally now, but this new change would make that sort of thing much more common. Let's not be paranoid that we may be doing something against this here. Let's instead take into account this, and this and do what makes logical sense. - Mike 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but your example is flawed. A person with 55/20/10 support but mostly frivolous arguments against him or very good arguments in his favour might merit passing, where an individual with a 55/15/10, but significant concerns brought in near the end of the nomination (and hence not considered by most participants) might not if those concerns were serious enough. Judgments must always be made case-by-case. --tjstrf 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but that wasn't exactly the point. There will always be exceptions. The point was, that one got more support than the other did (supposing that arguaments for both support and oppose were reasonable), but the one that got less support passed. It can happen as it is now, but if we move away from the number, it will be more difficult to tell whether or not there is a consensus, and will also lead to lots more unfair promotions/denials. - Mike 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide an archived example where a bureaucrat disregarded the count (owing to frivolous oppose arguments) to promote a person? As far as I'm aware, bureaucrats do hesitate a lot in deciding which argument is "frivolous." Rama's arrow 13:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good lord, why not just leave the numbering in? We've already established that RFA is not a vote. The numbering is "for information purposes only". Sheesh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor formatting and hidden comment changes (Archive 69)

Does anyone object to the minor formatting and hidden comment changes that I made? I removed an extra "----" (horizontal line), merged two adjacent hidden comments into one, and added , because I think I remember one being placed at the bottom a few days ago. I assume no one has any problems with these; am I correct? Picaroon9288 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to instruction paragraph (Archive 71)

Relocated to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter#Changes_to_instruction_paragraph

"Encourage," "Discourage" (Archive 71)

Hey - see this[13] Why don't we take a cue from the UN Security Council and replace "Support" and "Oppose" with "Encourage" and "Discourage" respectively? Rama's arrow 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, "encourage" and "discourage" implies that the candidate can become an administrator without approval regardless of the "vote" - i.e. we discourage you from becoming an administrator infers that the choice is up to the candidate, when it clearly isn't. In addition, the U.N. secret ballot was also an "informal poll", not anything binding or meaningful officially. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The U.N. has an "informal poll" to judge consensus opinion/sentiment - exactly what RfA is supposed to be (RfAs are not "elections"). Nothing empowers the candidate to make the call in the UN or here - I didn't say we change that rule of the process. The decision is made by bureaucrats (based on community consensus). Only this process will allow anyone to say "I discourage your nomination because...." Far better than the election format. Rama's arrow 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically "Discouraging" is the act of a respectful colleague, unlike "Oppose" or "Object" which makes one sound like a candidate's enemy. Rama's arrow 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is opposing or objecting to the person becoming an administrator. When the formal vote comes around, ambassadors will be opposing or objecting, present reality-obscuring political correctness in an informal vote notwithstanding. —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But Rama's arrow is that we are encouraging or discouraging the candidate while the b'crat makes the final decision. If there are significant numbers of substantive "discouragements", the b'crat can choose not to grant adminship privileges. I like this idea. --Richard 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Crats don't make decisions, they simply determine the decision that the community has made. Put another way, they don't answer "Should X be an admin?" they answer "Has the community decided X should be an admin?". --Tango 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

At the least, they do have a veto in cases of serious problematic users. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That is simply not the case given their recent clear and present demonstration that they do answer just precisely that question. -Splash - tk 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As we are all volunteers, I think we should not be given quotas to meet-- we all do the best we can. Although featured articles are important, I think cleaning up marginal articles to encyclopedic standards might be better.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If the language is the problem, then I propose "blue" and "yellow". -Splash - tk 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change in heading format (minor) (Archive 75)

I suggest a minor revision in the heading of a nomination, primarily to make it clearer when one person is nominating another. The current format is:

 CandidateName (talk · contribs) –  Nominating statement goes here, sometimes by the candidate, doing a self-nomination, sometimes by another person.

I suggest:

CandidateName (talk · contribs)
Nomination: – Nominating statement goes here, sometimes by the candidate, doing a self-nomination, sometimes by another person.

The reason for the proposed change is that it's jarring (to me, at least) to have a paragraph start with info on a person and then discover, halfway through the paragraph, that such person is not the one talking; rather, it's someone else nominating that person. By putting the two (info on candidate, nominating statement) on separate lines, this juxtaposition doesn't occur.

I'm tempted to just follow WP:BB and insert this one word into all existing nominations, but perhaps I've missed something about the format, so comments are appreciated. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually kind of like the way it was. I don't see anything wrong with it. Usually the "I" comes pretty quickly if it's a self nom. -- Renesis (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked for examples to illustrate my point, and, not finding any, I'm going to drop the matter: if I can't re-enact my confusion, it's difficult to make a case that others are/will be confused. John Broughton | Talk 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)