Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Backlog?!

I know the answer to my question is "because the 'crats didn't get around to it yet", but why is there a 2 day backlog here? It's very unusual, unless these RfAs have been extended somehow, in which case a note would be in order. If it's to wait for a consensus...then...if there isn't a consensus...-Splash^talk 05:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

because the 'crats didn't get around to it yet. Quentin Pierce 05:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have warned people several times that this would happen but nooo people still claimed that we had no use for more bureaucrats so I don't think anyone can blame me when I say that I have little sympathy for complaints about a backlog on RFA. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what happens when people refuse to vote in additional bureaucrats on the grounds that "we don't need more bureaucrats".... Seriously, it's a holiday in the US, the European b'cats are all in bed, and the Australian ones haven't really woken up yet. Give it a few hours. It was three days after my RfA closed before I was promoted. The world won't end if your sysop bit isn't flipped on instantly. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• shrug* I've said it before: our current bureaucrats are no longer the most active people at wikipedia. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Never the less, I poked Raul654 to close a few. Back to editing then! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's nice when there's a bureaucrat on IRC or whatever that you can poke to close a few but it shouldn't be necessary. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Between travelling and Thanksgiving, I've had but a few minutes free in the past two days. I expect this is the same for many of the bureaucrats. Adding two or three more would decrease the average time between end of nomination and promotion by only a small margin, and no matter how many bureaucrats there are, there will always be a time in which all are busy. Two days' backlog is certainly an anomaly. — Dan | Talk 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite as passionate about this as Jtkiefer, but I do feel that if we had a few more bureaucrats there wouldn't be a time when they're all busy. Granted we'd need about 100 for that though <_<. But look at our bureaucrats, how many are still really active? About 8? Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My response to the statement that having more bureaucrats would not especially decrease the turnover time is that I disagree, I think having more bureaucrats would give us a wider range of times when someone would be on to help users who request renames (yes the devs finally got around to re-activating that) and dealing with rfa closings. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've decided to nominate myself for bureaucratship due to this situation. I think my timezone and culture (I don't celebrate Thanksgving :-p) as well as my copious amounts of spare time will allow me to alleviate and prevent such backlogs in the future. Johnleemk | Talk 06:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Good luck, you've been here so long you're immune to the scourges of editcountitis and timecountitis though we are working on a cure for both. I even broke my personal rule of not voting on people I haven't personally interacted with for you since after viewing your contributions you seem like such a great editor. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see a need for more active bureaucrats. I don't get much time these days to log into WP during the week. With a 2 day backlog, I think more active bureaucrats would help ease the situation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2 days? sometime I'll tell you about trying to get something through requests for permission over at meta (it was a dark and stormy night). Ok then any volenteers?

Let me rephrase that. I meant if the backlogs continue then the situation calls for more b'crats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

A two day backlog seems rather unusual. (Frex, I just looked at Kelly Martin's RFA, and there was no significant delay at all in the actual promotion (see the bureaucrat log), only somewhat over one day in informing the candidate, which would be simple omission, not backlog as such.) I suppose this demonstrates that the active bureaucrats are rather US-centred, though Christmas would be a more general "problem" in the anglophone and European world. So nominations as "holiday cover" certainly has at least some merit. The people arguing there's some more general problem than two holidays a year, though: what are you suggesting an acceptable "service level" is, and just how many people do you think need to be promoted to achieve it? At least as far this page is concerned, what we're talking about is on the order of ten edits per day, total. Given that there are 11 "active" 'crats, and 20 total, it's hard to see a "too few for the task" argument. Nor do I see any postings at WP:BN on such backlogs, which should surely be the first recourse if people are getting impatient, or are concerned that the system is falling apart. Alai 23:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My question to your question to the bureaucrats about how many they think is a good number is why do you think there needs to be a given number. I am starting to get tired of the same old useless rant that there has to be a concrete number since setting an inflexible number would be just setting us up for issues when the number ends up too low (which I guarantee it will be) because people are paranoid about having a few more bureaucrats. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I ask "how many?" not because I suggest there should be a fixed number (or because I felt in need of a "useless rant", but it's been known to happen), but because I think the current number is fine -- if not unduly large for the modest nature of their main task. While others, such as yourself, assert that there are self-evidently far too few. So it seems entirely reasonable to ask "so, how many would be enough, and how would we tell?" Hence my phrasing the question partly in terms of a desirable service level. At no point did I say there should be "concrete", or "inflexible" number; I'm entirely in favour of promoting on the basis of current need, and the availability of clearly suitable candidates. If you can't or won't answer the question in either terms, I don't see how you expect anyone to be convinced of the "clear need", unless they were itching to have more bureaucrats already. Alai 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As WP grows, the current problems with backlogs will be getting worse. The Wiki needs trustworthy people to take up the load. To ask that we place this increasing work load on such a few individuals is not logical or fair, to them or the community. When Jimbo made the recent appointments, it was out of the desperate need. And I forsee this thing growing exponentialy. Can you imagine when all these little, fresh faced, $100 laptop kiddies get ahold of WP? Ay Carumba, dude! Hamster Sandwich 22:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I happen to be of the confusing/ed opinion that we have enough admins and 'crats but need more of both. By which I mean that neither the admins nor the bureaucrats are so overwhelmed by their tasks that we must urgently promote all and sundry who make Requests. On the other hand, there are shortages in a few key places (eg. AfD/Old) and so we should not deny A/Bship to good candidates who could reliably help out with the various backlogs as and when they appear. The final part of my previous sentence is obviously the difficult bit. -Splash^talk 18:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Both Hamster Sandwich and Splash's comments, above, seem to conflate several different classes of backlog. You don't solve backlogs at RfAr, or at AfD, etc, by appointing more bureaucrats, which there are by any reasonable measure still an excess of. If the supposed numbers are being bulked out by those that are never actually accurate, maybe a good start would be for the inactive to fall on their mksysop bits, rather than simply enlarging the size of the pool, without necessarily increasing its net activity. I agree those other matters are entirely real and live issues, and by all means let us enlarge the arbcom, and continue to appoint more admins, which isn't exactly grinding to a halt as a process. Wikipedia can continue to grow as exponentially as it likes (no great crystal ball required there), and this alleged bottleneck will get by quite happily for quite some time to come, with a fairly gentle trickle of new 'crats, at most. A two day backlog about twice a year, which has yet to even make it to the appropriate noticeboard, much less any possible other means of prodding our existing Bs into performing their appointed task, does not in any way refute that. Personally I'm inclining towards supporting our current nominee, and think some of the grounds for opposition are distinctly slight; but I continue to not remotely buy the "urgency and necessity" argument. Alai 01:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please take a look at Category:Wikipedia backlog and I'm sure that you'll see that waiting two days for your admin rights isn't a big deal. Radiant_>|< 01:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I had to wait two days for mine so it's not a completely new situation (ok not on this project but so?).Geni 01:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A two day wait on this project would seem to be pretty unusual, however. When was the last time, prior to last week, that it actually occurred? I'd have considerable sympathy with someone with an ultra-close RFA left "swinging in the wind", not knowing whether they were actually going to be promoted, but equally those are the cases that might take time anyway, if the bureaucracy has to have a pow-wow with itself about it. If one's vote has clearly succeeded, or equally, if it's clearly failed, a delay in the actual promotion (or closure without same) really shouldn't be "a big deal", indeed. I'm just trying to elicit some more precise requirements from the demanders-of-more-Bs: is it their position that if there's ever a two-day backlog, that's unacceptable, and a prima facie case for urgent RFBs? Or only if this happens regularly, or if a longer delay occurs? Alai 01:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Links instead of transclusions

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)

A fourth question

Given the nature of some recent controversies, maybe we need a fourth question for prospective admins: are there any subject matter areas in which you would consider recusing yourself from using administrative capabilities? I think this might make matters much simpler in the cases where people are objecting to prospective admins who hold strong opinions in some areas. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it. It's kind of a leading question—people will know what the answer should be even if they don't believe it—but it's a good reminder. -- SCZenz 07:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, yes. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur with SCZenz, it is leading, which actually might tell more about the candidate than a non-leading question. If they fail to answer this one adequately, it truly shows a lack of understanding. KillerChihuahua 13:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Although thinking about how I would answer the question, I'm not certain that I could list any specific articles/subject areas. I am not a big article editor, and most of my edits in the article are minor corrections, adding pictures, linking/disambiguating, categorisation, etc. Generally however, I'd take a back seat in admin actions if there was a dispute - I think I've done this regarding at least one protection request. Because of the way I work, the subjects I edit are very disperate (I often go off on tangents). I doubt I'm unique in this, so don't judge people harshly if they cannot say specifically. Thryduulf 14:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this question is going to be very fruitful, first because it will only apply to a very small portion of the nominees, and second because it's likely to be covered in the third question -- the only reason for an admin to recuse himself, as far as I can tell, if he is involved in the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't you always just ask a specific nominee your own questions? Does this really need to be added to the standard nomination? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, situations where this matters can be explored in the third question, and people are free to ask additional questions in specific cases. The fact of having standard questions is already sufficiently obnoxious, let's resist compounding it with question creep. --Michael Snow 18:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Kate's Tool

Kate's tool appears to be down and I say good riddance, I am appreciative toward Kate for making it and it has had it's good uses however since the beginning it has been misused and fostered a community wide outbreak of editcountitis (now replaced by it's evil cousin timecountitis) which resulted in RFA's that failed solely due to the time a user was here. Unfortunately there is no way to know whether Kate's tool will ever be up again since Kate has apparently left the project indefinitely but I'm glad that people will now have to put some work into it (manual edit counting) if they want to continue their editcountitis sprees. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is just one of Wikimedia Deutschland's discs (where KT etc is hosted) that is broken, rather than anything more drastic such as it being taken down purposefully. The tool itself is useful; what is not good is what people do with it. The editors who use it well should not be punished for others' using it badly. [[Sam Korn]] 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sam Korn's views. Just because it may be misused by a certian portion of the population does not mean we should limit the tool. For the record, I'm considering writing a Java program for those with Java and an IDE to count the number of edits, count the edit summary percentage, percent minor edits, and other stats, serving mainly as a backup to Kate's Tool. Of course, such a method would be extremely crude (copying and pasting all the contributions into a txt file and parsing each one) and would also require the downloading of the Java compiler and other freeware, making it very limited. Would people be interested in me programming this and making the code available? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! In fact, I had been working on a complete edit analyzer in Visual Basic, but if the code is available in a CVS, I'll be able to help tweak it too. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll start some work on it when I have some free time. (Which may be a while, though...) Some complexities: making it user friendly, and the many different ways Wikipedia uses to log a user's contributions (i.e. minor edit, the "default" edit summary when you edit a section, many parenthesis, etc.) All of that will make for a much longer algorithm to do stats. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page (for those who want to follow and help :) ) Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that even though Kate's tool indeed has it's good uses it's good uses have long since been overwhelmed by it's use as a tool to foster editcountitis and more recently (when the first edit feature was added) as a tool to foster agecountitis. I doubt this is a technological issue, it's more of a severe attitude issue that needs to be dealt with. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who gets anally retentive about edit count or age of the account needs their head banged against a brick wall. I actually don't think it's really that common, and I expect bureaucrats don't value votes based solely on either of these two factors very highly. If people get told when they make such comments that they are not appreciated, things might work a little better. On the other hand, edit counts and account ages are useful for assessing the suitability of a user for adminship, and KT is a good way of acheiving this. [[Sam Korn]] 12:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We had all this last time the tool went down too. -Splash^talk 22:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it will be quite a happy day when we no longer have to have these debates as to whether Kate's tool is a good thing is a bad thing but until either a workaround is created to prevent it's usage in the pursuit of editcountitis and/or the attitude of people in general changes to the point where they don't judge people solely on their edit count then these discussions should must continue. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Editcountitis and Agecountitis

• Editcountitis:(n.) an uncurable mental disorder which results in uncontrollable bouts of judging individual editors based solely on the the number of individual edits that they have made to Wikipedia. editcountitis may vary in severity and severity may flucuate. editcountitis may also be overpowered or replaced with agecountitis

• Agecountitis:(n.) an uncurable mental disorder which results in uncontrollable bouts of judging individual editors based solely on the amount of time (usually using a measure of months) that they have been an editor on Wikipedia. agecountitis may vary in severity and severity may flucuate. agecountitis may also be overpowered or replaced with editcountitis.

Just what I think the definition of Edictountitis and Agecountitis is, I'd be interested in seeing what other editors think the definitions of them are and what they think of these definitions and/or the two subjects or terms. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm... when have begun to slam using edit counts and account age as a factor? Sure, they shouldn't be the sole factor, but they help to offer a complete picture of a candidate. In addition, there are some things that experience can bring; as such, account age and edit counts are completely valid criteria. While I certainly agree that just looking at those factors or deciding based on those factors is wrong, we shouldn't slam the people (as your "definitions" do) who do. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always defined editcountitis as an uncurable mental disorder centered on an obsession with one's own edit count - at least that's what I suffer from. ;-) BD2412 T 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that too. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; -itis indicates an inflammation, a personal condition. Perhaps Editcountism when applied to others? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue I take with them is that they are all too often used as the sole factor and even when they aren't the sole reason they are the main part of the reason, whenever edit counts are mentioned there are never second to the other reason. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How about letting people vote in good faith and leaving them be? Maybe save some unneeded edits on this talk. Marskell 23:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

At what point does it stop being editcountitis and agecountitis? What I mean is, if there is a user who has made 100 edits, all good, and submits an RfA, would you Support? How about at 200 edits? Conversely, what if there were a user who made an account just a week ago and made 1000 edits in that week, all good? Would you support? How two weeks? A month? If these extreme cases count as editcountitis and agecountitis, then I suppose I suffer from them, because I would certainly oppose the nomination of a user who has made just 100 edits solely based on edit count, and I would also oppose the nomination of a user with a week-old account based solely on the age of the account. --Deathphoenix 00:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the main reason there's more claims of "editcountitis" and "agecountitis" is that many current and recent candidates have less experience than past candidates. I don't think voters are more fixated on these counts than in the past, but I do believe that more candidates have low edit counts and/or a short tenure on Wikipedia. Even if the percentage of inexperienced candidates is the same as a year ago, the huge number of RfAs (26 active right now) means that the absolute number of inexperienced candidates will be greater. Carbonite | Talk 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hey! ;-) BD2412 T 01:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, back in the good ol' days every user had 50,000 edits and 3 years before they'd even think about accepting a nomination. ;) Seriously though, while BD2412 is an extreme example, when candidates have ample time and edits, there's usually landslide support. There's nothing wrong with expecting admins to have a bit of experience under their belt. I mean, we're ranked #35 in the entire world right now [1]! Whether Jimbo thinks so or not, adminship is a bigger deal now than it was years ago. Carbonite | Talk 01:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say it's a bigger deal - in the sense that we need a few hundred more admins! And few dozen more bureaucrats too - it's better if we have more hands to do the work than work to fill the hands. On the other hand, we have plenty of experienced editors for whom neither age nor edit count would be a concern, so we should work on prompting them towards adminship first. BD2412 T 01:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well... granted, we do need one or two more admins, well, maybe 1000-2000 or so. The current admin/user ratio is silly. Kim Bruning 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I think the more pertinent ratio would be active admins/active users. I don't have these figures, but I bet it's fairly respectable since admins tend to be active users. Carbonite | Talk 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm not so sure, what with the huge numbers of people demanding that they get more say than admins, or some such. Kim Bruning 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I took a look at Wikistats [2] and found out some interesting info. The most recent data was for October 2005. There were 1854 users who made at least 100 edits in October.[3] I think this is a pretty good definition of "active", since that's slightly more than 3 edits/day. There are currently 576 "active" admins (see here), so let's estimate that there were 500 back in October. Thus we get a ratio of 1854/500 or 3.7 active users for every active admin. Of course, this doesn't take into account anonymous users or those users who made less than 100 edits in October. Still, I think this shows that while we'll always need new admins, we're not really in an emergency situation at the moment. We can afford to examine each candidate thoroughly and possibly request that they get a bit more experience before being promoted. Carbonite | Talk 03:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Old, incorrectly closed Request for Adminship

While cleaning up policy, you find all kinds of strange things. Mindspillage found this whopper from august:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rl

Most of the oppose opinions provide an invalid reason. Rls interpretation of policy was actually correct. The closing bureaucract fatally misread consensus here, with Rl leaving the project as a result.

I would request a recount, excluding clearly incorrect opinions, and that Rl be given honorable adminship and the record be so amended.

I am somewhat disturbed that this was not caught by a bureaucrat, because the situation expressed is precicely within the required knowlege of a bureaucrat.

Kim Bruning 05:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is the same bullshit as the Bushytails RFA. It really pisses me off. Seconded. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 05:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. The bureaucrat made a big mistake on analyzing this nomination. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 05:35
  • I'm not at all clear on what you are trying to accomplish, though. You want us to award him the adminship anyway? Months later? (posthumously, sort of). If by honorable adminship you just mean we change the some record but not his access, erm, why? I understand that you disagree with how it was closed, but I'm sure plenty of the opposers disagree with you. What does starting a debate over this (rather than the principle I suspect you think needs discussion) achieve in practicality? Dmcdevit·t 05:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • For starters, it lets the bureaucrat know that he has a choice in the matter. After all, bureaucrats do tend to have the most experience out of all of us. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 05:37
    • Of course, that particular bureaicrat isn't a bureaucrat anymore... Dmcdevit·t 05:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So this came up in conversation on IRC in regard to asking additional questions on admin noms. I don't know about automatic promotion: the community did speak. I just happen to think it was utterly mistaken, and this is my example if someone asks me to cite how RfA (while usually decent) sometimes gives the wrong outcome. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The irony is that I think a lot of the reason RFA is crap in these situations is because it is a vote and not about consensus. I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor is probably another good example of the same phenomenon. Dmcdevit·t 05:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how giving RI adminship will benefit anyone, since he has left the project. If he returns to the project in the future, he may always reapply for adminship. Honory adminship may prompt some to leave wikipedia after a bad RFA to achieve the 'martyr' status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

While his leaving is a terrible end to the situation, my main concern is that the bureaucrat did not correctly close. Kim Bruning 06:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Closing an RFA is a subjective decision - rarely is there one correct answer. Ed has exercised his judgment. If Rl wishes to reapply, the prior objections will no doubt become irrelevant, because you have drawn attention to their invalidity. His departure is unfortunate, but has already occurred, and unless you would like to encourage him to return, I don't see that there's anything to be done here. — Dan | talk 06:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to encourage him to return. Kim Bruning 06:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It also reinforces the misconception that adminship is an honorary title. — David Remahl 06:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a good point. Ok, just promote to admin then, minus "honorary". Kim Bruning 06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

...What the? I don't care about the particular vote, but you can't just go disqualifying people's votes because you think their interpretation of policy is incorrect. Bureaucrats should just be counting the votes, figuring out who are legitimate users and who (if any) are sockpuppets or trolls, not determining whether somebody was voting for the right or wrong reason. Everyking 06:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

the same thing is common on AFD. We don't delete articles because someone says "I've never heard of this", or "this article sucks". --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 06:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I remember noting that RfA while it was in progress and thinking that Rl was getting a raw deal; plainly, they were talking about Wikipedia philosophy, understood the philosophy behind consensus correctly, and should not have had their RfA wrecked over those comments. That said, the RFA was closed correctly, and all the issues being raised now were brought up by Mindspillage and others while it was in progress. Bureaucrats may disregard comments on RfAs that they judge to be invalid. They are not required to do so, and requesting that a five-month old adminship request be overturned based on the way a bureaucrat interpreted it strikes me as an unpalatable precident. Bureaucrats are given broad leeway in closing RfAs precisely to prevent requests such as these from materializing. --Aquillion 06:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I am shocked and dissapointed to hear that coming from you. I thought you were very strongly committed to consensus. Kim Bruning 06:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, consensus is never just raw numbers but is much like Justice Byron White's definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it." I would hope that any bureaucrat would consider the nature of the votes in determining whether a consensus exists. That is not to say that a bureaucrat should consider mere differences of opinion as sufficient to discount votes, pro or con, but votes which show that they are based on a clearly erroneous basis should be given less weight in the outcome. Thus, if a particular bureaucrat typically looks for 80% support before approving an admin, he or she might decide that that 40 strong support votes and 11 votes saying nothing truly negative but making points like "We don't need more admins" may be a consensus for approval, while another candidate who has 40 support votes saying "he seems like a nice guy" and 9 votes which strongly oppose his promotion due to repeated documented instances of incivility does not have a consensus for appointment. Of course, the lack of a fixed percentage for "consensus" leaves considerable leeway anyway, but it seems to me that consensus does require the bureaucrat to look beyond the numbers. If that is not the case, we should eliminate the pretense of "consensus" and just stick in fiexed percentages (though I hope that never happens). -- DS1953 08:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how wanting people's opinions to count is against consensus. I see it as being in favor of consensus. Maybe I just don't understand the issue. I just don't think you can discount votes like that. There are reasons for discounting votes, but being wrong, or having an invalid reason, is not one of them. Anybody can see what that would mean if you applied it generally—votes would be discounted left and right for all kinds of reasons, depending on the viewpoint of the one counting them, and every vote would turn into a battle. I think that in the interest of fairly evaluating a debate, you need to just look at whether someone is a legitimate contributor, expressing a view seriously. You hope that if someone has an obvious misunderstanding of policy someone will inform them, and then they might change their mind. Everyking 08:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I voted against Rl in that RfA, and KimBruning has a point- I misunderstood what Rl meant when he said consensus was only 100%- I thought he meant that, for instance he would count a 99% delete VfD as no cosensus(keep). Rl clarified his position the day after my vote, and I didn't see it. Thus my vote (and those who voted on the sameobjection) should have probably been ignored. Borisblue 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't participate in that RfA, but I fully understand those who opposed RI. His answer to Hamster's question was a smart-aleck way to avoid it. The question itself is a legitimate one: Faced with an AfD with X percent Delete votes and 100-X percent Keep votes—all valid, well-reasoned votes—what would be the minimum value of X for which you would close this AfD as Delete? For most admins the answer lies somewhere between 66% and 80%. But RI doesn't answer the question; instead, he tells us that at 100% he'd call it a consensus and at 50% he wouldn't. This kind of non-answer is a slap in the face of Hamster Sandwich and anyone else who was expecting a real answer, as the Oppose votes clearly show. RI had plenty of opportunity to enhance his response and give the voters a real answer, but for some reason he chose not to do that. While RI's understanding of policy may be perfect, I think he showed very poor tact in this case, and that, regrettably, cost him an almost-certain adminship, and cost us an excellent editor. I sincerely wish RI would come back, and hope he runs for RfA again, but I do not think this RfA should be overturned. Owen× ☎ 02:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Rl simply stated that it isn't a simple black and white matter. You don't seem to disagree with that perspective so why do you complain about his answer? It's clear that Hamster Sandwich thinks it is some black and white percentage, frankly I think Hamster's question was the slap because there really was no right answer to his wrongheaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no, please. --Gmaxwell 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich RFA

Some new evidence has come to light Re: Hamster Sandwich.

Would it be possible to reopen extend the RFA?

Kim Bruning 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could be less cryptic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Could you please show the difs you are referring to? I recall Rl stating that he considered 100% unanimity as his standard for closing debates. Hamster Sandwich 06:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, please provide a link to the new evidence. Friday (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich, your statement is false. He said that 100% of opinion was considered consensus at AFD. (which as good an answer as any other, and the answer holds everywhere else).

Your own question and your statement in opposition to his rfa demanded numeric values for consensus. This is a pertinently false and extremely annoying misconception. I would have liked to oppose your request for adminship on that basis. Kim Bruning 06:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kim, we can't just reopen the RFA because of a past mistake. Should we open Radiant!'s, Splash's, et al's RFA's too? Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 06:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The RFA was only closed a couple of hours ago. Kim Bruning 06:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that once promoted, its very difficult to deadmin someone. Only stewards have the power to desysop someone, and a desysop process is extremely bureaucratic and controversial. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Errr, how is something that happened months ago "new evidence"? If you failed to participate and now regret it, come right out and say so. Altho I doubt an RFA would be re-opened for such a silly reason. Friday (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I heard from the cabal, it was closed over a day early. It's not Kim's fault it was closed early and therefore he missed it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 06:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Phroziac, though Friday, indeed I do regret it most dearly. Seeing the terrible howler made by Hamster Sandwich, I don't think my request is silly. Kim Bruning 06:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If the nomination was closed early (and it appears that it was), it should be reopened. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

At the time of the closing of Rl's RfA, there were suggested percentages listed here [4]That is what I was basing my comments and questions concerning Rl's opinion of what constituted consensus (as pertains to VfD votes). Those guidelines have been changed since then. It is disingenuous on your part Kim Bruning to come in here with your own "howlers" about what the guidelines are as compared to what they were back in late August. I see on the history pages of Wikipedia:Consensus and its discussion page that you have been active there. You must have been aware that at one time there were numerical guidelines, expressed in percentages. I can assure you that I will become an active participant in the ongoing discussion at those pages. But, to be perfectly clear, I voted based on my opinion of the candidate, a decision based not only on Rl's responses to my question (which by the way he could have ignored), as well as the responses of the many other editors which voiced there support and opposition to that candidate. I think before you accuse me again of somehow obfuscating, you should carefully read through Rl's RfA. I wasn't alone in my critisism of Rl's standards, and his stance on consensus was not the only reason that was given for the oppose votes. Hamster Sandwich 17:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You asked him what consensus is. Consensus is 100%. That's the definition of consensus. But...you almost never get consensus in AFD. We go by rough consensus over there, which is what the percentages that were listed on that page were for. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to take strong exception to that. 100% is not "the definition of consensus." One definition of consensus is: "1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole; 2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus." Or, if you prefer Merriam-Webster, "a : general agreement : unanimity; b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned; 2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief" . Unanimity is consensus, but consensus need not be unanimity. In particular, consensus can certainly be reached when there are people in a group who do not agree with a decision, but nevertheless consent to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You're rehashing an ancient and ongoing discussion. Apparently for the point of beating someone up after their RfA. -Splash^talk 18:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Early close actually. Some people are basically opposed to actual consensus, wishing for supermajority instead. Since this is virally opposed to en.wikipedia policy, these people should probably just go away. Kim Bruning 01:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Go have a beer with Gmaxwell. He wants a bunch of people to leave the project, too. -Splash^talk 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What was the reason for an early close? It shouldn't have been done. -Splash^talk 17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My guess -- somebody forgot that November has but 30 days, and the closer neglected to notice this. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the time on the nomination was left as the time the nomination was made, not the time that it was accepted/posted at RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like something of a cumulation of contributory errors. The ending time, as listed on the request page, was nomination time+6 days, not listing time+7. So this wasn't introduced by the closer, though ideally they'd have spotted it, as clearly this one wasn't at the head of the queue, but rather before several others (that weren't closed at the same time due to (correctly) having a later closing time listed). Or, indeed, someone else could have fixed the ending time while the nomination was running. Which should it be, acceptance time, or listing time? I assume the latter. If this was more clearly stated, perhaps third parties would be more likely to "sofixit". As it wasn't totally clear-cut, I'd support re-opening for the additional period of time. If there's no significant change to the existing pattern, then there's no problem, and the issue is solved; if there's enough late-breaking opposes to make a difference, we can deal with that if and when it arises. If we have to decide a detailed procedure in advance, we're doooooomed. Alai 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking the nominator was looking at the date for his local time, rather than UTC. The time part (compare to date) of course is auto-done, so he would be off by a full 24 hours. We could always get the devs to make {{ONEWEEKFROMNOW}} and we could implement it ;) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

After reading this discussion and doing some poking around and finding this exchange I felt disillusioned about the RfA process. I wrote the following on Jimbo's talk page:

==Cabal ?==

I didn't believe in such a stupid thing. Then I witnessed a VfA being closed out early after Brian asked Raul to personally take charge of Hamster's nomination. At first I thought it a joke but no, Hamster was plucked out early in a marginal election that could have gone either way if left for the required time. I've been totally disillusioned by the blatant and seemingly open and prejudicial influence with this promotion. Hamster may indeed be well qualified to be an admin, that's not the point. It's the discussion between Brian and Raul with Brian asking Raul to "personally" deal with the nomination and Raul gleefully responding "I did it (I'll leave out the smiley)" that I don't understand. The nomination was pulled early and before others had a chance to Oppose. That stinks of cabal. If you're allowed to read this then take a peek. I deliberately left out the diffs so that you can go through what we all have to do.

I also realize that I will be Persona non grata after this posting and with all my heart I wish that it wouldn't be so but, realistically I know that I will be marginalized after this; the price I pay for this expression. I'm not a wonderful contributor anyway so no great loss to the project, just a disillusioned one. (Heidi and Joe) -- hydnjo talk 02:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• What form of response are you expecting to this statement? Why have you said this? Giano | talk 19:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an observation which hydnjo is quite free to make. I think the expected response is perhaps "yes, we should avoid extra-procedural removals." Marskell 20:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Four of more support votes would have had to switch to oppose, or at least three new oppose votes would have had to register for the concensus to promote would have been nullified. And this is if there were no more support votes garnered. It is doubtful that unless someone got active rallying an opposition that the outcome would have been different and I think this is a bunch of petty garbage over a simple misunderstanding of AfD concensus.--MONGO 20:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Before everyone piles in with their views on Hydnjos's motives for saying this, could Hydnjo please give their reasons. They obviously feel they have a reason for bringing a remark left on Jimbo's page here. Could they please explain their aims for doing. Specifically to the remark: "I also realize that I will be Persona non grata after this posting and with all my heart I wish that it wouldn't be so but, realistically I know that I will be marginalized after this; the price I pay for this expression" Giano | talk 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'm not sure MONGO was replying to Hydnjo. I think there are two issues here: Hamster Sandwich being singled out because of an RfA a long time ago, and the fact that his RfA was closed early. It looks to me like MONGO was saying the first one of those was unjust, which I agree with, and not commenting on the reasons for the early closing at all. -- SCZenz 20:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• You are correct, as I was only responding to this entire charade. I do not think that the early closing was anything other than a simple mistake, and certainly forgiveable. As I mentioned, the outcome would have probably still ben to promote. During my RfA, the concensus to promote or not to changed only three or four percentage points after the first 4 days it was up and even though I was not promoted for a day and a half after the end of voting, this still remained the same. Though it is hard to desysop someone, it is also doubtful that Hamster Sandwich is going to be a bad admin and my sentiments are that he will certainly be better than some we have.--MONGO 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, I'm speaking for the Joe half of hydnjo. The comments I posted on Jimbo's talk were a record of my personal observations. I chose to post my comments there so as to record my observations and feelings somewhere other than my own user space. I remain neutral as to the merit of Hamster's promotion and in the back of my mind somewhere I feel it was a just promotion. My comments were then and still are premised on the intervention that I noted. I copied my comments here at the suggestion of another user, not that I think that the promotion was unfair but that the process was compromised. And Giano, as to your question well, my comments here have already been characterized as "a bunch of petty garbage". --hydnjo talk 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe MONGO clarified that his comment was not a reply to hyndjo, but in any event I think referring to any editor's concern as "a bunch of petty garbage" shows very poor judgment. -- DS1953 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, to make it clear, it was a reply to all. As far as this being a "bunch of petty garbage"...yes, indeed, it certainly is. The thought of condemning an editor and asking for the early closing of an RfA to be reopended just because in a week one or so editors failed to chime in and somehow want to vote oppose just because the nominee contested another RfA which happened months ago, is absolutely petty.--MONGO 22:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

But I don't think that's the responsibility of Hydnjo; they just thought it was suspicious that the early close was done after an apparent request to do so. I personally disagree with them, but I have no intention of ostraciizing or condemning them for asking Jimbo about it. The movement to undo Hamster Sandwich's RfA because of his vote on an RfA months ago is making him a scapegoat in order to make a point about consensus, and I frankly do think that's a bit petty, or at least uncivil and a violation of WP:POINT. -- SCZenz 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think SCZenz has stated his point fairly and I agree. The harm was not in Hamster's question but in how a number of editors interpreted (or, in at least one instance noted above, misinterpreted) RI's response, with unfortunate consequences. -- DS1953 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to stress: I had no and still have no knowledge of any prior situations having to do with Hamster. If folks want argue that point well then go ahead. But please don't misconstrue my comments as having to do with anything other than my personal observations with regard to this early closing by a bureaucrat at the behest of another user. --hydnjo talk 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Close out of RFAs

Finally, could folks please let only bureaucrats close out RFAs? Else it's extremely hard to tell if policy has been followed. Kim Bruning 06:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Nobody but Bureaucrats should be touching the "closing" of such nominations. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 06:10

I added a note to the front matter about closings, however since while it's functional it isn't exactly pretty someone might want to try to rework it if they get a chance. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know how many times I have agreed with someone saying this. -Splash^talk 17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer, I've removed your additions, as they're redundant with the rest of the page, which already stated "Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureacrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved." I don't have an objection to someone coming along and tidying old nominations (though it's not as though the bureaucrat workload is that high). Any non-bureaucrats tidying up closed RfAs, could you please make a note if you do this of the closing bureaucrat as well as the closing time so there is no confusion? Would this be an acceptable solution? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe something should be done though to make it more prominent that non bureaucrats can't just randomly go removing noms. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I added what Mind quotes about a month ago. I think its pretty clear and if front matter is followed as it now stands this shouldn't be an issue (and for the visually impaired we now have a bold for the critical sentence). Marskell 21:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Showing RfA's as links instead of transclusions

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. --Deathphoenix 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. --Deathphoenix 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. --Deathphoenix 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. --Deathphoenix 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)

Backup to Kate's Tool

I've created a crude and rudimentary backup to Kate's Tool. Please see User:Flcelloguy/Tool. Comments appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on a recent RfA mess-up

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)

IP 202.58.85.8

This vandal ip [5] is casting oppose votes on several rfa,s. Isn't that against policy? One the votes has been struck out already.--Dakota ^{t e} 08:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Since anons aren't supposed to vote anyways, I'd just strike all his contribs to this page, and add a note to his recent ban. The biggest pain however is that the anon voted on most, if not all the recent RfAs. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (updated 08:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC))