Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Slight modification?

Could we modify the RFA process very slightly? I suggest that voting not be opened until the candidate accepts the nomination. This would have a couple of benefits:

1. If a candidate is nominated in bad faith our through poor judgement, it gives them an opportunity to bow out gracefully before getting hit with a bunch of 'oppose' votes.
2. It saves us from all the pointless "Neutral. Will support when candidate accepts nomination/answers questions." votes.
3. It means that candidates on short wiki-breaks won't end up missing their own RFAs.

I would suggest that nominations that aren't formally accepted (or declined) within a week or two(?) be removed from RFA as declined nominations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Ive been meaning to suggest something of the sort. →Journalist >>talk<< 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Martin 22:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with both proposals. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Insert "me too" comment here. android79 00:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but why not go one further and not allow nominations until the candidate has accepted the offer to be nominated on their talk page? That way we prevent the nominations-in-stasis from cluttering up RfAr, which is quite long enough as it is. --fvw* 00:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Extreme <insert least objectionable word> support, and maybe also don't start voting until questions are answered. ~~ N (t/c) 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Here's a step further in the process - don't create the candidate's RfA page until he/she accepts, don't post it on the main RfA page (or allow votes) until the questions are answered. That way, voters get a clean, complete RfA to look at in the first instance. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds good--no RfA pages at all until the candidate accepts on his talk page. --Blackcap | talk 05:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • yes, good proposal by BD2412. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I like all of the above suggestions and would support all of them. Would first support BD2412's proposal, if not then the orginal proposal is at least a step in the right direction. ∞Who?¿? 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Excellent suggestion. I agree with not posting the subpage on RfA until the questions are answered. And barring that, no nominations without consent of the nominee. I think it's poor form to nominate someone without asking him or her first. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm going to go ahead and be bold and implement the changes, since there has been no opposition and it seems general consensus is in favor of this. Just a slight change- I think the RfA subpage can be created by the nominator so that the nominator can write down his nomination; then, the candidate can accept and answer the questions on the subpage, then place it on the main RfA page. Sound good? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. FireFox 15:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too bold in removing incomplete nominations yet. Certainly, I would oppose removing nominations simply because they haven't answered the questions yet; based on the number of people who are willing to support with the questions unanswered it seems clear that they aren't all that important or urgent. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And just to make this clear, I oppose this change in general. The only change we need to make, I suppose, is to make clear that you shouldn't volunteer others for adminship without their okay. It's a bit sad that this rule actually needs to be written down, but looking over recent nominations it seems that a lot of nominators are not following it. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll see your boldness and raise you a nomination template ({{subst:RfA-nom}}):

Comment - (The above template was created and posted by BD2412) If the RfA/nominee page is not going to be listed on the RfA page until the nominee accepts and answers the questions, why is it necessary to have a 24 hour time limit? NoSeptember 16:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Quite right - time limit removed - still, I wouldn't want unanswered nomination pages hanging around too long. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why have a template? It's just impersonal, and it's not like it takes that long to write a message on someone's talk page saying, "Hey, I want to nominate you for adminship, sound good?" It looks nice and all, but I can't see the point of having it. --Blackcap | talk 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Because it sums up the relevant information quickly and succinctly, and can be changed as the policy changes. Besides, as I've indicated on the project page, it's optional. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't hurt, but you're not going to require this one, right? Titoxd 19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly wouldn't - it's just a tool to make it clear and easy. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I quite agree with Blackcap. Not everything must be templatized. — Dan | Talk 19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Really, you don't need templates for anything - for example, if you wanted to, you could send an article to AfD, with all the appropriate links, by manually typing out all of the necessary information (including the code to enclose it all in a nice peach-colored box at the top of the page). But the template contains all of the information, presumably has already been checked for correct spelling, syntax and information, and allows you to do the same job in a few keystrokes. Whether you use it is entirely up to you. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Another slight modification

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/Requests for adminship/Archive 32.

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. FireFox 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... --Celestianpower ^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. Titoxd 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... Redwolf24 (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

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

1. Ask a person if s/he would like to be a sysop.
2. 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.
3. 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 ~~~~}}
4. Allow the candidate to accept the nom and answer the questions.
5. Once the details are filled, add the following {{wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CANDIDATE'S USERNAME}} to this page.
6. 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. --Celestianpower ^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. --Celestianpower ^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. --Celestianpower ^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 {{subst: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. Titoxd 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 ;) Titoxd^(?!?) 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about my RfA

Is the date listed on my RfA correct? I added a question there, but was not sure if someone would see it. Not that I see it heading anywhere but "no consensus", I just want to be fair to all. If the mistake is mine, I am humbly sorry. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, someone probably credited september with one more day than it has. Fixed. --fvw* 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, it's just the principle of the thing. Thanks fvw. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing Quale's RfA

I have recently removed Quale's RfA, added the rfaf and rfab tags, and included it on the failed candidacies page. I thought I'd do this even though I'm only an admin, not a bureaucrat. The reason for this is that it was completely clear that Quale's RfA wasn't going to succeed, as he declined it himself. There was therefore no need for determining a consensus. Heck, even if the entire Wikipedia supported Quale, the RfA would still have failed.

Was I being too bold here? I think closing RfAs for any other reason than candidate declination (i.e. success, failure by consensus, or failure to reach consensus) should be left for bureaucrats, but RfAs that are declined can be closed by anyone, you don't have even to be an admin (or a logged-in user at all) to do it. — JIP | Talk 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You're quite welcome to help out. :) I noticed you removed the nom, so I verified on Journalist's talk and signed on Quale's RFA "closed". You didn't forgot to change the text. Make sure that the text "vote here" is changed to "Closed" (if withdrawn) or "Final"; and "ending" changed to "ended". You can remove RFA's have received <70% of the vote after the expiry date. (Just make sure that there aren't too many votes on the last day; if so leave it to the b'crats). Thanks for helping out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I'm glad I didn't step outside any boundaries. But could you clarify what you mean by "RFA's have received <70% of the vote"? — JIP | Talk 07:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Support:Oppose=70% ie, the person has got less that 70% "support" votes out of the support+oppose. (Neutral votes are not counted) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tweak

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)

"Confirmation hearing" approach?

I would like to propose an alternative procedure for considering new administrator nominations. Instead of rendering "support" or "oppose" opinions, which gives the illusion that a vote is taking place, why not have the nominee answer many questions from individual wikipedians over the seven-day nomination period? Then, after the seven-day period is over, a bureaucrat can read through all the answers the nominee gives, and choose whether to promote that nominee based on the big picture that emerges from the nominee's responses. I do, however, acknowledge an inherent disadvantage of this approach, in that the read-through by the bureaucrat would be very time-consuming, but that could be solved by putting together a "promotion committee" of bureaucrats to read through the responses, and then come to a consensus on whether or not to promote the nominee. In addition, this approach can reinforce the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" doctrine. What do you think?  Denelson83  06:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't want to promote "Wikipedia in not a democracy" by promoting "Wikipedia is a bureaucracy". The bureaucrats are trusted individuals, but do we really want to make every single nomination a pure bureaucrat judgement call? Also, unless the current process is broken, I don't see a reason to dilute the power of common users. Isomorphic 06:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How would people with valid reasons to oppose a nomination voice that and present evidence? ANd for those of us who live in the rest of the world, what is a "confirmation hearing" exactly? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It was a metaphor for the idea I was trying to present, Filiocht. The nominee answers a whole plethora of questions the group considering the nomination asks.  Denelson83  07:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We already expect nominees to stand on their contributions and their responses to the standard questions. What else would we need to know? - jredmond 15:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be great if we encouraged more questions to be asked, however it is impractical to remove the "voting" system. Martin 15:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be too subjective. The voting system is much more transparent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Letting one bureaucrat decide the outcome of an RfA that sometimes gets 50+ votes? No way. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes after closing

No idea what RFA is all about, but I've noticed that there is some ambiguity regarding whether bureacrats count votes after the end of a nomination or not. Should there be some consistency in this, or is it deliberately vague? --216.191.200.1 14:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In theory they should not be counted. However, the vast majority of requests are resolved one way or another by the end of the period so that it does not really matter about a few late votes. Requests are also usually closed within a couple of hours of the voting period ending, limiting the opportunity for extra votes. Lord Voldemort's request is an exception to the latter, it having offically closed almost a day ago, however, even with the extra votes, it will almost certainly be deemed as having resulted in no consensus being reached. Rje 18:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, a bureaucrat has to be online when the nom expires. Strictly speaking the votes shouldn't count, but votes during the last few hours are not very common. As far as I have seen in the past month, post expiry date voting does not influence the outcome, since the rfa position is already clear by the final day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Originally, there were no end times and there was greater emphasis on consensus than votes. I am of the opinion that, now that we have end times, we should disregard votes made after them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a mistake to disregard votes made after the deadline but before the nomination is closed; what is our motivation for invalidating a vote based on the time it was placed on the page? If the point of the adminship process is to gauge community consensus on whether someone should be promoted, it seems to me that the bureaucrat closing the discussion should take into account all the available information. The proposal you make seems to elevate the enforcement of rules for their own sake over the furtherance of what the whole process is intended to accomplish. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with extending vote times is threefold. First, the character of late votes is usually different than early votes. Late voters are more likely to oppose. I don't know why though I have some guesses. Second, it allows, at least in theory, a bureaucrat to wait until the vote totals reach an outcome desired by the bureaucrat. While I doubt that any of us would do that, there is no way for us to prove that we have not, so the possibility undermines the appearance of fairness and transparency. Third, having a fixed end time allows bureaucrats to discuss a close nomination amongst themselves without having to rehash the conversation every time a vote is added. I believe that 7 days is ample time for community input to be gathered, though we could certainly extend the time -- to 14 days or more -- if we thought that extra time would make for better decisions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, look what I did now. Well it sure seems that way. It doesn't really matter in my case, there were enough people opposing me before it ended. Although I strongly believe that if my RfA remained open ended, I would garner a lot more support, but that's beside the point. Having a time limit is a good idea (we wouldn't want these things hanging around forever, eh?), but since the rule is in place, I don't really think we should start deviating now. If it feels like to omuch instruction creep, should we start some sort of proposal to change it?

P.S. On hand, does anyone know if my RfA was the closest to passing, but did not? I could drudge through the unsuccessful candidacies, but thought it would be easier to ask first. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There have been much closer ones. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses here. I've read up more on what RFA is all about and now at least I know what people are talking about. --216.191.200.1 15:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Extreme editcountitits!

Look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#RoySmith. Is the standard for admins now 2000 edits? How do we reconcile that with the apparent cosensus here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_29#Do_we_need_more_admins.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) <insert date here>

There's no consensus, nor should there be. Its a highly personal thing, varying person to person. If there was a consensus on how to vote then every RfA would be either 20/0/0 or 0/20/0 ;-) If you're wondering for when you should run, try about 2000. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Personally, I got in after a month and with maybe 200 edits max. Course that's unlikely to happen today, but I'm just bringing it up as an example .— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

IIRC you were the fourth person ever mentioned at RfA. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but my request was still made on the mailing list. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh the comment that there is emphatically no consensus on any part of the reasons for supporting/opposing candidates, but particularly not on edit count (non-)requirements. -Splash^talk 01:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I eighth that comment. Just look at NicholasTurnbull's RFA. He doesn't even have 1000 edits, yet he is clearly going to get promoted. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

A user went through and cast an Oppose vote without explanation for almost every candidate. Should these uncommented votes from a user on an apparent rant be counted? --hydnjo talk 17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's just Boothy443. As far as I know bureaucrats generally do disregard his vote since he never provides any reasons for his opposition. Of course, since promotion is based on achieving consensus, a single oppose vote isn't much of a problem. If you're really interested, I'm sure you'll find more info in this page's archives. Carbonite | Talk 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll sleep better tonight. ;-) --hydnjo talk 18:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Do BCrats really disregard his vote? (whatever was the result of his RfC?) What about other oppose votes with no explanation? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's less that he doesn't explain and more that he votes "oppose" on almost every single nom AND doesn't have an explanation. I don't know, if I was a B-crat I'd count it. He's entitled to a vote like anyone else, unless it can be shown that he's just doing it to be disruptive (which, as far as I know, hasn't happened). None of us HAS to explain our votes, and if his is being discounted I'd consider it to be a bad thing. --Blackcap | talk 21:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA's are usually pretty clear-cut. I have yet to see one where a failure has hinged Boothy's oppose vote.  BD2412 ^talk 16:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the explanation is the most important part of the "vote". Remember, we're attempting to determine consensus here, not just counting votes. In practice, a support vote without explanation is an implicit comment of "I agree with the nominator or other support votes". Support votes without comment are very rarely challenged by anyone. An oppose vote without explanation is an implicit agreement with other oppose votes. However, since Boothy443 has shown a pattern of consistently opposing without explanation, his votes should be disregarded. Often, he's the only oppose vote. Still, as a few users have mentioned, no RfA has actually hinged on Boothy's vote. Carbonite | Talk 17:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There may have been one that hinged on boothy's opinion - from the person's talk page from the beurocrat "Your decision was a close call, and excluding Boothy's vote the support vote was a shade under 80%."Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - I stand corrected! At least the bureacrat in question chose to give little weight to Boothy's unexplained opposition.  BD2412 ^talk 19:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User Peer Review

Where could I go if I wanted to have a peer review for well, myself? I do not know if I want to become an admin. at this time or ever for that matter. I want to know my weak points so that I may begin to edify them. (Just in case.) Jaberwocky6669 18:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's quite a good idea, I think - there should be a place short of RfA where editors can get general feedback on what they need to do to bring their participation up to admin quality. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not the most traditional usage, but isn't WP:RFC already that place? Nothing prevents an editor from listing themselves and explaining why they want comments. Friday (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

True, but the page claims to be part of the dispute resolution process - just seems awkward. I recall some folks have set up subpages of their user page to invite comments. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That would work too. IMO, the specific wording at RFC is just a result of instruction creep. Perhaps it should say it can be part of dispute resolution. Friday (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know.... Alot of hurtful things could come out of such a process, and I don't think we need another place to attack eachother on wikipedia. If you feel that you are qualified enough for adminship (ie read all qualifications and check that you meet them) and want it, apply for it. If you fit all these you're a shoe-in

• • Preferably >1500 edits
  • Atleast participation in 3-4 months
  • Have atleast around a hundred edits in each the following namespaces Wikipedia:, Talk:, User talk:, and a atleast 500-700 edits in the main article space.
  • You have followed WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL religiously
  • Haven't made any incorrect speedy taggings
  • Haven't made any crazy statements on basic wp-policies ("4-3 is consensus", "3RR is stupid", etc, you get the point)
  • Also, it's a big help if you have a featured article and/or have been involved in a horrible dispute which you handled with great care and resolved

If you have all these, you'll be fine :P gkhan 20:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point Gkhan! Ok, well it seems as if I have all of those except for the featured article. I have a number of articles that I have made a lot of edits to that eventually became FAs but not directly because of me. Dont ask me which ones either lol I may remember one or two. Well, I will take it upon myself to nominate myself! Jaberwocky6669 20:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. maybe... Jaberwocky6669 20:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the featured thing isn't that important :P You should know, there is not guarantee even if you pass all these, but there is a definitly a very good chance that you'll pass. gkhan 20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would consider a featured article all but irrelevant. I've been an admin for more than a year, and only within the past month was an article featured which I can consider largely my work. — Dan | Talk 20:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, you don't have to have it, but if you do, it's a big plus. gkhan 20:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that getting a featured article is irrelavent. Getting an article featured informs the community that 1) you know how an encyclopedia is written 2) Are aware of referencing needed and copyright status of images and 3) is willing to undergo a really stressful week or two. Its a test of character too, and many newbies crack at this extreme form of peer pressure. I've also noticed that most people who do get a FA are quite successful in their RFA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Lemme address a couple of those "criteria".

• Haven't made any incorrect speedy taggings

We all make mistakes. I've mistakenly speedily deleted things. You gonna pull my admin bit?

• Haven't made any crazy statements on basic wp-policies ("4-3 is consensus", "3RR is stupid", etc, you get the point)

I hate 3RR. You gonna pull my admin bit?

• Also, it's a big help if you have a featured article and/or have been involved in a horrible dispute which you handled with great care and resolved

How about you've been involved in a horrible dispute which you tried to resolve, but everyone else in it was too insane to do so and now it's in front of the ArbCom? Happened to me, more than once, actually. Kelly Martin 20:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Allright, you got a fair number of good points :P First one, could have been worded better, second one, well maybe a bad example, and third one, that's fine, I just said it's a plus if you can solve a hard conflict by yourself. Doesn't mean that you have to never have been in a bad conflict. gkhan 22:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

To answer the above question in its originality, may I suggest Esperanza?? I'm sure someone will help out there. --216.191.200.1 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Esperanza will probably do that. Just mention it on our talk page and I'm sure many of us will get on the case. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Simplifying the process - only self-nominations?

Now that there have been changes in the RfA process, the guidelines given on the instruction page are heading dangerously towards m:instruction creep. Now, I know this has been discussed before, but how about allowing only self-nominations for RfA? It would simplify the process a great deal (and the instructions could be put back on the main page so that people would notice them more readily) and would show decent initiative on the part of the nominee. People who wanted others to be nominated could do that simply by suggesting it to them on their talk pages, and a lot of trouble and clutter would be saved. Anyone agree? - 143.167.21.177 19:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree; the person who would now nominate can be first or second vote. (In fact, we could make this like RfC's: if nobody will support the nomination within 48 hours, it's doomed, and should be decently removed.) Septentrionalis 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I refused to self-nom and I'd actually be in favor of prohibiting them. I am likely to evaluate an other-nom more favorably than a self-nom; the fact that the candidate found someone else to put his or her reputation on the line to make the nomination carries significant weight to me. Please don't take away this valuable aspect of our process. Kelly Martin 20:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly Martin - I'd feel uncomfortable lauding myself in an RfA intro.  BD2412 ^talk 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, I felt extremely weird self nominating (just an hour ago) but on the other hand I want to contribute in a different way and didn't want to wait for/ask somebody to nominate me... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with KM and BD. Why should you refuse to self-nom? You believe you are or are not up to the task, right? Self-importance is a negative but so is false modesty, and I think edits and behaviour speak for themselves regardless of where the nom came from. I don't think it should be limited to self-noms but I can't see a basis for their removal. Marskell 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think that a prohibition either way is not the way to go. There is nothing wrong with a self-nomination, but personally I hold it to higher scrutiny than a regular nomination. However, there's cases where a self-nomination is acceptable. I wouldn't self-nominate myself for the reasons BD2412 and Kelly Martin state, but I don't see why it should be disallowed either. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder should there be a required minimum number of edits for self-nominations to be valid? I might be mistaken, but I think most of the nominations of new users who haven't a chance of being accepted come from those users themselves. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yay, but even if this became something like semi-policy, then you'll have the problem of people trying to boost their edit counts; can't have it both ways, me thinks. I for one would opt for a minimum time around (say something like 6 months, or even 9 months), with fairly regular contributions, so one can be sure of people having grasped policy and being sure about their behaviour. Lectonar 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm strongly against the idea of only having self-noms - nomination by others is actually a far better method. I wouldn't go so far as to ban self-noms, but I'd far prefer it if they were actively discouraged. It is far easier for other members of the wiki community to assess whether a person is of admin material, based on their interactions with the wiki community, than it is for a person to judge themselves. Many of the best admins would probably never have become admins if they had not been approached by others prepared to nominate them and while I wouldn't name myself as "one of the best admins" I will add that I certainly wouldn't be an admin either if it was self-nom only). Allow self-noms, sure, but make it clear that (as Kelly and others have implied here) nomination by others is favoured and more likely to result in a successful vote. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

favoured? I tend to view non self noms a wimps who lack enthusiasm and as a result have an increased risk of adding to the ranks of paper admins. Not that this makes much difference since one of my creteria for voteing tend to be (although not always) that I have to have a clue who you are.Geni 10:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just wanna say that people that request their own adminiship are more likely to be active in maintanance tasks than people who have adminship bestowed upon them. I nominated myself 2 months ago and received overwhelming support, and the Wiki is better off because of it! ;) Coffee 12:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

On average, I suspect that history would not support you on this, and I speak as someone who became an admin via self-nom. Unfortunately, many self noms come from people who have not been around long enough to know what's involved or from people on a mission, like the recent User:GordonWatts request. Generally speaking, self noms constitute about 10–20% of all requests. I just did a quick, unscientific sample of 32 failed noms; 18 (56.25%) were self noms. This would indicate that self noms are more likely to come from candidates that the community finds unacceptable. Personally, I think this is a classic case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Besides, in a sense we just fixed it with the requirement that noms be accepted and questions answered before they get posted, so lets see how that works out.  BD2412 ^talk 13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The current system works fine as it is. Please don't prohibit self-nominations. I would never have become an admin if I hadn't nominated myself. And prohibiting nominating others is even more silly. There are a lot of people who never thought they'd have a remote chance at adminship until they were nominated, and once they were accepted as admins, they have done a lot of good work. — JIP | Talk 14:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)