Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

RfA publicity

Currently RfA is dominated by people with no particular connections to a candidate that merely vote in a lot of RfAs. To change this, I have begun a campaign to publicize all new RfAs. Any one who wants to help should see user:ShortJason/Publicity. Please join in this effort to improve the proccess. Thanks! ShortJason 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the so-called "RfA regulars" can carry a candidate through or "bury" a RfA; there's just not enough of us (I include myself, of course). Besides, making a RfA public can very easily be mistaken as advertising, which is frowned upon. Redux 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, the "RfA regulars" may be more experienced in knowing what to look for-- that sounds horribly elitist to me. On the other, publicizing all RfS's would even the field and not advantage one candidate. Perhaps publicizing would increase particiation by people who never gave it a thought. I agree with Redux otherwise. Also, we seem to vary in temperament and standards enough that we balance one another out. For a nom to pass requires a strong concensus, and that gives me confidence that the process works well most of the time.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, doesn't the lack of connections eliminate bias??? Could publicizing turn RfA into a popularity contest??User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think people who are not yet administrators tend to be "popular" enough on Wikipedia for RfA to become a popularity contest. Plus, new admins aren't elected over others but selected by the community. (Potentially, every candidate or no candidates could be promoted.) —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:54 UTC

People who know a candidate often find out because when they visit the talk page of the candidate there is usually a thread about the RfA there. Rest assured, people who interact with candidates will find out - one week is a good long time. Anyone who is admin material will have interacted with quite a few "regulars" too. You are trying to fix a problem that does not need fixing. NoSeptember ^talk 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your intentions may have been good ShortJason, but from experience, I don't think it will be a good idea. For instance, during my last RfA, some people didn't appreciate that someone else decided to notify other editors of the RfA (or "campaign") on my behalf. It's hard to say how many people opposed on those grounds, but it was very obvious that nobody liked that, even though I did not sanction the move. joturner 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat different. Alerting selected editors most certainly can introduce bias in the selection process, but notifying everyone merely allows us to get a perspective from a wider band of the Wikipedia community. (It's one of the reasons I think polls should be advertised more. Having only people intimately involved with a policy proposal discuss it can introduce systemic bias, and promotes the feel of cabalism, whether a cabal exists or not.) —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:54 UTC

Should've read the proposal more closely. I disagree with this proposal, but could stand with, for example, a brief section listing current admin candidates on the Community Bulletin Board. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:59 UTC

Isn't the presentation of all RfAs here enough? However, a link to the requests for adminship page from the Community Portal would be nice; this page seems to be buried very deep, only known to the most experienced editors (although that may not be a bad thing). joturner 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's buried, not any more than any other project or noticeboard is. Once one discovers this page, how can one stay away for the rest of one's WP career? How hard is it to check the RfA list once a week. That's all we ask :-). NoSeptember ^talk 21:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine this would lead to an influx of people who have no idea of what they are doing. It is probably best to leave the system as-is, since it is more likely than not that people who are voting regularly on this page have a vested interest in the well being of the project (or are trolls, but those votes are for the most part not considered by Bureaucrats). --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If a user ever goes looking for any kind of information on Admins and/or adminship, s/he is bound to find a link to this page, if not the page itself. It is not hidden (or buried) at all. All it takes is that the person has a minimal interest in knowing at least what are Admins: they will go to Wikipedia:Administrators and will find a link to this forum. And if the person has no interest at all in the subject... well then they wouldn't be participating here even if they knew about it. Redux 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think “publicizing RfA’s” is a bad idea. I agree with tomf688 that, “we could see an influx of people who don’t know what they are doing.” I think that those who care about adminship and understand the RfA process do monitor it and do vote as they feel the need. The system is not broken, and if it were, this would not be the solution to fix it. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Amen! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: We send out welcoming templates to new users. Maybe we should send out an intermediate template out to users who have reached about 500 edits saying basically "now that you have been here a while, here are a few community and project pages that you may want to consider visiting and participating in...", and RfA would be included in the list. So, don't send them about specific RfAs or to people who interact with specific candidates, but rather send a note to everybody who has stayed around at Wikipedia for a while. We could even have an Intermediate Welcoming committee :-). NoSeptember ^talk 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, The RfA page isn't buried. When they are ready, they will come. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As I noted on User talk:ShortJason/Publicity, there are problems with this advertising idea, the main ones being that not matter how neutral the wording, it is still an "unsolicited bulk message", which will suffer from the same default dislike as spams/UBE's in email. Also, the criteria of contacting people with "significant talk-page" interaction would cause a great deal of difficulty to many candiates for Rfa, as what group of people do these candiates often contact on their talk pages? Yep, vandals. A further problem is that receiving a message like this would give the impression to many that they are required to vote, even where they might have had no major interaction with the canditate, with the problems that would cause. I do like NoSeptember's idea of "Intermediate Welcoming", but I think the current method works well as it's self-selction - those that are interested enough in how wikipedia works are the sort to find this page, and this page is designed for people who want to help wikipedia work. Regards, MartinRe 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Oversight

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

Opt-in personalized alerts for RfA

I think that publicity would be a good thing for RfAs but spamming isn't the way to do it. I think there would be significant support for the ability to specify a list of people you have interacted with and be automatically posted a warning if they come to RfA, though. As far as I can see, such a customized service would ultimately be a personal choice, though, and not a policy decision whose rights and wrongs need to be debated (unlike, say, deciding the boundaries for indiscriminate spamming or a publicity campaign). The proposal in full is here (it's not long!); if interested you can sign up here. If there is enough demand for it, the next step would be finding somebody prepared to write and operate an RfA alertbot. Any assistance would be welcome! TheGrappler 03:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy, or rules, regarding whether or not a candidate can contact people about his or her RfA. What has been said is that this practice is discouraged because it is frowned upon, and it may cause some users to oppose the candidate, not because they are mandated by any rule, but rather because of how publicizing one's RfA is perceived in the community. I don't believe that anyone here has any intention of designing rules to either encourage or forbid the practice, since that'd be instruction creep, so it is up to the candidate to be sensitive, and well informed, enough to make his or her decision about whether or not to publicize his or her RfA. It is also worth mentioning that countless proposals for a standard template, or "RfA notice" message, have been rejected over the last two years. Redux 11:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning for bureaucrats closing RFAs

I'm not sure if this was an isolated incident, or something that's hit other RFAs as well, but my opinion on Ynhockey's nom was removed by an AOL IP last night, and wasn't restored for nearly a day, when I revisited the page and noticed it missing. It wouldn't matter on that particular nom, but on close discussions, this might be more of a problem. Ral315 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not RfA (unless I'm confused) - B'crats are not allowed to close AfD's? -- Tawker 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just changed the header. RFAs, not AFDs. I need sleep. Ral315 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

{{sogosleep}} - seriously, I think its something not just 'crats need to worry about, we all do. The sprotection on the RfA listing page makes sense, no non autoconfirmed user would add an RfA to the list anyways so hopefully that will solve the problem -- Tawker 18:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But Ral is not talking about something that happened in the listing page. It took place in a specific RfA, which is not edited from the main RfA page. That is, what happened would not have been avoided by sprotecting the RfA listing page. As far as RfAs are concerned, I believe we have already discussed and decided against any kind of protection for RfA pages, since anyone is allowed to comment (although unregistered users are not counted in determining consensus for promotion). It is rather unfortunate that a blatant act of vandalism (as it seems) on a RfA could have gone unnoticed for this long. Although I believe that it is highly unlikely that it would not be noticed until the RfA's deadline, we all need to be prepared to help out in instances like this, which might slip by a single user's vigilance. Redux 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As has been said before: Bureaucrats are not, and cannot, be responsible for watching every single edit to every RfA. It is the responsibility of every editor on Wikipedia to watch for inappropriate editing, and to correct it whenever they find it, whether it is in the articlespace, the userspace, on an RfA, on a template, etc. etc. ad nauseam ad infinitum. There are dozens of participants on ever Rfa, and less than a dozen active bureaucrats; participants (and indeed, non-participants as well) need to be watching for this sort of thing, and correcting it, or at the very least, noting it, when it happens. We watch for signs of foul play when closing, but it's impossible to track each and every one of the multiple hundreds of votes cast on dozens of RfAs each day. This has to be a community effort. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an Idea, there should be a list of RfA's with a "watch" link next to them that links to "WP:RFA/Username&action=watch". Then when the RFA is done, it should be moved to another list and there could be a link to "unwatch". There still should be people watching RfAs after closing them, and I'll be happy to keep them on my watchlist. I don't have enough pages on my WL. I have 1500 pages. That is too little. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually noted the missing vote. The related comments suddednly showed up under my comments, and I made another comment asking what happened. I should have gone through the diffs to find what happened. Again fatigue stops someone from taking a needed action. Whta would have been a better way to draw attention to something like that.11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

Placing a note here on this talk page would be a good start to getting a number of people to check into what went on. You could also leave a message on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this incident is a good enough reason to semiprotect RfAs. In the same way one could say that Wikipedia articles must be semiprotected as they get occasional vandalism. Semiprotection is something which goes againt the Wikispirit and should be used exceedingly sparingly. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection, in general, is against this enigmatic "wikispirit" too, but there still exist pages which are permanently protected. Who knows how often this really happens? I know I rarely ever go back and check to see if my votes are in still in place, and I doubt many (if any?) people religiously check every edit that a user adds to a nominee's subpage. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the key here is that we do not do preemptive protection. In the case of the RfA page (the "listing page"), we have no grounds for any protection (full or semi-). The incident in question doesn't count towards that page, since, as I said in my previous comment, the page that was edited in order to remove Ral's rationale was not the listing page, but rather a specific RfA. And as far as protecting any RfAs, again refer to our previous discussions where it was decided that that shouldn't be done (anons are not allowed to support/oppose, but they are allowed to comment). Redux 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on RfAs are the same as vandalism anywhere else, and there are standard procedures for dealing with them. It seems one slipped through the net for a while, but that can happen anywhere on Wiki. Hopefully most editors contributing to a RfA would spot and revert. Tyrenius 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say for the record that I don't support semi-protection either; my original post was simply to warn that this may have been an effort to affect more than one RFA. It appears that didn't play out. Ral315 (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL IPs and RFA

I'm concerned about the recent spike in AOL IPs attacking RFAs forging votes. It constantly seems to be the same IP, should we block it? I've already had to semiprotect two RFAs in the past week. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:19 UTC (2006-06-04)

I already have blocked it. 30 minutes. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question is, would it be possible to consider a logner block? It doesn't seem to be a dynamic IP from first look. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:30 UTC (2006-06-04)

Which is sehr unusual, static AOL IP? I'm not sure blocking it for longer is a good idea if it is an AOL IP. I'm expecting the abusive "OMG h0w dar3 u b10xxor m3" emails soon. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's an IP range that's been attacking RFAs. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:40 UTC (2006-06-04)

At the risk of opening up a Pandora's box, can we (at least temporarily) semi-protect all RFAs? NSLE _(T+C) at 02:11 UTC (2006-06-04)

It would make perfect sense for RFAs to be semi-protected by default as well, in my opinion, since IP votes are not accepted anyway, though that would be a hassle to Sysops. Cowman109^Talk 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IPs are not allowed to vote, but they are allowed to comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yesssir! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just semiprotected Siva1979's RFA. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:16 UTC (2006-06-04)

Just voted on Kukini's RFA. I suggest a longer block. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. Also, this isn't just any ol' AOL IP, it's a proxy. If vandalism continues from there once the block expires, I'll indef-block as an open proxy. RadioKirk talk to me 03:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a simlar but non-AOL example, signing as "froggy". The user (I'm pretty sure it was the same one) later registered an account and voted under his username Uninsureddriver. Related info also at the bottom of this talk page archive. Kusma (討論) 03:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Uninsureddriver has also edited User talk:Containment Unit, another name used above, so there seems to be a connection. Kusma (討論) 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

152.163.101.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also doing it but has good edits coming from the IP also so I am hesitant to block. JoshuaZ 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It does, however, come back as a proxy and is in the same IP range as the one I note above. RadioKirk talk to me 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an AOL proxy, I doubt it's an open proxy - it's probably just AOL being a bad ISP and not issuing separate IP addresses to every user when they sign on, and using some kind of NAT. Which makes it impossible to block individual AOL users, even for short periods. Someone should contact AOL about it, I guess... --Tango 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, hence the 24h block rather than indefinite. RadioKirk talk to me 17:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a problem for a very long time, and AOL don't look any closer to solving that problem than they were years ago. Unfortunately, a lot of good editors and administrators also come in through AOL, so long blocks to AOL IPs also have a fair bit of collateral damage. I never block for more than 15 minutes, though some folks block for a little longer. It's a pity, because some AOL vandals know full well the potential for collateral damage and are laughing at us. One AOL vandal I remember removed a test3 or test4 warning with an edit summary like "Ah, another n00b admin. Enjoy your collateral damage". I blocked that one for 15 minutes --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to block only non-logged in AOL users? --Tango 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, but it's being planned - see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal. Regards, MartinRe 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Osbus's RFA was full of sock voting and impersonation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to ask, but why don't we use the method Wiktionary uses. Apparently requiring an https certificate for an AOL user forces the unique IP address to be exposed. That would allow individual blocking, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the server load would be too high for Wikipedia. It only works for Wiktionary because they have far less users. Https puts a much bigger strain on the servers than normal. Nice idea though. Petros471 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We just installed 40 new apaches. Is the extra load really that much? - Taxman ^Talk 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is a great idea. Tackling this long-standing problem for some extra server-load isn't a bad deal. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to see hard data on this. Won't the reduced load due to AOL IP vandals and the associated rollback / talk page edits make up for this? (assuming https is used only for submitting edits, not normal browsing). Kusma (討論) 16:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no server admin expert, I just heard the above reason given quite a few times when others have asked (and no I can't remember where they asked...). You could try WP:VP/T, which looks like a more suitable place for this question. Petros471 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another RFA semiprotected. can we just put a ban on the offending ranges, and get users to complain to AOL or something? This isn't an RFA-only problem now, it's spread to AFD. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:06 UTC (2006-06-08)

I still like the https idea. Has anybody talked to a dev about it? I tried to ask Rob Church but he wouldn't talk to me. --Rory096 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I beat the nom support!

Is adminship so trivial that people should be racing to "vote"? Can you make an informed decision about a candidate in as little as a minute? If it is someone that you already know (or knew that they would be nominated), couldn't you state something of value about their abilities or demeanor instead? Or am I just being cranky? Kotepho 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• OMG FIRST COMMENT SUPPORT! Never thought of this in this way before. A fair point, I think. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never really thought of it like that either... I guess it means they feel they know them well enough to vote without needing any research. "I beat the nom" doesn't add anything to the aim of RfA, which is reaching concensus, so it should be discouraged, but I doubt you'll get anywhere. --Tango 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone hypothesized a few days ago on this page that RfA regulars are better qualified to judge suitability, having had more experience. But this first post culture is clearly a refutation of that hypothesis. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you're just being cranky. It's a vaguely irritating habit but does no harm... I doubt anyone rushes to support someone they wouldn't have supported in any case. The Land 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Voting before the candidate has accepted the nomination indicates either trust or friendship. I agree with trust, but not with friendship: you should never vote based on it, as it taints your WP:NPOV. Just because I WP:AGF doesn't mean I won't wonder why some don't change their vote when an extremely good oppose one is raised. -- ReyBrujo 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, there's no effective way to prevent this, if it were the case, without resorting to...gah...instruction creep. This is just one of those things where if someone is overdoing it, we need to reason with the person and hope that s/he will listen and discontinue. Redux 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Only n00bs try to get first post. Established, serious editors of course camp for the 100 spot. -- grm_wnr Esc 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

*cough*ExperiencedUsersWaitfortheOtherstodotheWork*cough* ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's called the "{{sofixit}}" mentality. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :D RadioKirk talk to me 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Please close ILovePlankton's RFA

ILovePlankton has withdrawn and is asking to have his RFA closed.[1] --Bishonen | talk 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been delisted, closed, and added to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies Naconkantari 03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can remove it if the candidate has withdrew, am I right? -- ReyBrujo 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Prodego ^talk 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, non-beaurocrats can close RfA's as long as they have failed. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they have withdrawn, not "failed". Only BCrats can close a "failed" RfA. We specifically chose them to determine consensus, I propose we let them do so. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he means removing them from the page, if a crat has already marked them as failed but didn't remove them from the page. I can't see that happening, but whatever. --Rory096 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-bureaucrats may close and remove RfAs that are clearly snowballing, it's better to protect the candidate than wait for a bureaucrat to decide that (0/19/0) might just be a consensus to not promote an individual. Whilst not everybody agrees with this practice it certainly does, and should, happen. The purpose of bureaucrats, at least as I understand it, is to promote candidates and make the close calls on consensus, not to necessarily carry out every action on RfA. Although I would stress that if in doubt a non-crat should not close a request. Rje 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So if a user with 2 edits who joined 3 minutes ago applies in good faith, you (a non-crat) can remove it to prevent too much pile-on, right? Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking I would not, this would set a terrible precedent; however, if the application was mangled I would (and I have). Although all circumstances are different, I would advise non-crats to not close requests before the pile-on has actually occurred. There are several reasons for this: the most obvious being that there is no such thing as a sure-thing. I imagine many people would consider any candidate with below 750 edits a certain snowball, but I can remember a candidate with under 400 edits getting (16/11/1) a while ago. I think we have to assume good-faith and that all requests are made with sufficient forethought, especially now that an account has to be four days old to edit WP:RFA, therefore they should all run to at least the point where a conensus is clear (and a snowball at (0/12/0), or so, would be sufficient proof that the candidate will not be promoted). Rje 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A change in timing?

I feel that this sentence, If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least a month – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination should be changed to If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least three months – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination under the heading of nomination process. The reason is obvious. Based on past experience, many users feel that running for adminship after one or even two months is considered too soon and as a result, in most cases, the renomination would fail again. This same situation is also applied to RfBs. The reasonable amount of time for RfBs renomination should be six months and not three months. Any thoughts about this is much appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. I think people applying just after one month are too rushed, but people must be given freedom of choice, even if that is freedom to screw up (and some people succeed after just one month). Forcing people to wait three months is too much micromanaging of what people can and cannot do I would say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually, they fail, but sometimes they don't. There's no reason to change the page so people can point out "oh it's not 3 months" just because it's there. It's instruction creep as it is, and it's totally arbitrary. --Rory096 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That might be a prudent step, though there is the oddball case who 28 days later manages to pass an RfA - so it might be a highly suggested policy but not a strict "your rfa will be removed if you don't" policy -- 03:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tawker (talk • contribs) who doesn't know that it's 4 tildes, not 5. (a typo, it happens :o -- Tawker 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

I would suggest removing any specific time. "a reasonable period of time" is good wording, let's not marry ourselves to a specific length of time, which might change depending on circumstances. Plus putting specifics makes it look like a rule, which it is not. Remove it. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lethe is correct. Instruction creep is a Bad Thing. --Rory096 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not suggesting a policy here. It could just be a guideline to guide users who are too keen on renominating herself/himself. Remember, RfAs can be a harsh process and some users are known to be discouraged or even leave Wikipedia after 1, 2 or even 3 failed nominations. However, there are exceptions as well to this. Additionally, I feel that the term "a reasonable period of time" is too ambiguous". Some users would feel that this could be after one month and others could even feel that this could be after 6 or even 9 months. Moreover, this should not be a strict and absolute rule as well. Just a friendly guideline or advise, perhaps? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for whatever reason, it's different in every case. I can think of a few people who had controversial and failed RfAs, then 1-2 months later met with little serious opposition. Likewise with RfBs, there's actually a great example up right now. A trend (by no means universal) is that it appears to work better if the second nomination is a self-nom... and the candidate just picks the right time to run. Obviously some problems, like a really bad "I hate you idiots"-diatribe, is generally going to be insurmountable no matter how long someone waits. To try to codify all of this seems like instruction creep. --W.marsh 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: there's way too many variables for implementing a "χ months" rule. A suitable candidate might "get away with murder" and get promoted with a second nomination within a month; an unsuitable candidate might get rejected after a year. I think it would just add instruction creep to the process. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's already codified (in people's heads). There are three ways for failed candidates to discover what this code is. 1) they see the comments made to other reapplying candidates after differing time periods - 1, 2, 3 months etc. 2) they find out when they reapply 3) they are given some helpful general indications (not policy). It would save wasted effort to give a pointer such as If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have succeeded again within a month, but many editors feel that at least two or even three months is better. Tyrenius 10:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Tyrenius's suggestion is the best of both worlds. I liked it so much that I put it in. Dragons flight 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In a lot of failed RfA's people are advised on how long they should wait before trying again. The advice given varies from a month to 6 months depending on the candidate - people should just follow that advice. If someone has failed because of little more than a low edit count, a month is often more than enough time for them to get up to 2000 edits of whatever people are asking for. --Tango 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OzWrestlemaniac

Could someone please delete this. It is a bad RFA nomination that was started by a sockpuppet of the nominee. Theres really no reason to keep this. The King of Kings 04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME

And this one too. The King of Kings 05:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gone. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:22 UTC (2006-06-08)

Possibly stupid suggestion

I know there has been a lot of controversy at various times over people voting before the nominee has accepted the nomination, and I was thinking that a simple change in the nomination procedure would stop all that. We currently create the nomination page before asking the candidate whether they will accept or not, and it strikes me that we are doing this the wrong way around. Why don't we ask the candidate first then create the nomination page if they accept? This way we wouldn't have comments or votes being placed before acceptance, as the page would only be created once the nomination was accepted. We also wouldn't have nominators taking the time to create the page only for the candidate to decline.

The reason I say this is possibly a stupid question is that this just seems so obvious to me that in the back of my mind I'm thinking there must be a reason why we don't do this already that I don't know know about. I honestly can't think of a reason why are doing it the way we are instead of this way, but I'm feeling a little like there must be one I haven't thought of. Raven4x4x 11:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is at the very least a courtesy to ask someone before proposing them, as well as practical, as you point out. I certainly wouldn't propose someone without asking them (not that I have yet proposed anybody). Furthermore, if the candidate doesn't accept (for whatever reason) this can then be brought up again if at a later time they do accept, although the first nom was nothing to do with them. Thus an unsolicited nom can actually be a later hindrance. Tyrenius 11:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• RfAs are often created and worked on by nominees/nominators for some time before actually being posted to RfA. Creationo of an RfA does not automatically indicate acceptance of the RfA in its current state. The current bit-flip is the nominee accepting the nomination. Changing it to creation of the RfA would remove the time frame needed by the candidate and/or nominator to fully craft the RfA. The current instruction works well, and is easy to understand; if its accepted, it can be on WP:RFA. If not, then no and the RfA can exist in limbo indefinitely. --Durin 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Qualified opinions.

From the 'About RfA' section:

"Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to express their opinion, including the nominator, however, expressing an opinion on one's own nomination is discouraged..."

Why are nominees allowed to comment on the nominations of others? --Folajimi 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And why not? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they are Wikipedia editors like everyone else and should be free to express their opinions about RfAs? Did you have a specific reason in mind that lead you to think they shouldn't be allowed to? Gwernol 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider the following pair of scenarios:

1. A group of users decide to seek administrative access, and they all vote to support one another. If you have enough users teaming up, what would keep them from pushing the nominations through?
2. Consider the case where a nominee expresses opposition to another nominee's candidacy. Is it without the realm of possibility for the second user to become petty and start mudslinging? --Folajimi 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this text is a great example of why blindly substituting words doesn't work. The original version—which discussed voting on one's own nomination—made perfect sense; the new text seems rather silly, since a nominee will obviously express an opinion on their own nomination, by accepting it if nothing else. Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... and on this corner "Voting is evil!" Okay, let's run the blind substituter to get "Expressing an opinion is evil!". --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I need to dig out the diff on that, it's hilarious. Way to go, misguided idealism! -- grm_wnr Esc 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, look at how it continues: "expressing an opinion on one's own nomination is discouraged, and will not be counted by the closing bureaucrat.". So we've gone from vote-counting to opinion-counting? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you find the diff. I'd like to inclde it on my userpage as a source of humour. It seems "vote" is Wikipedia's new four letter word. I made the following as a commentary on AfD, but I think it applies here: User:Deathphoenix/When a vote is not a vote. If it's so evil, maybe we should call it a "!vote" (said as "not-vote"). Like "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to !vote, including the nominator, however, !voting in one's own nomination is discouraged, and will not be counted by the closing bureaucrat" Remember, folks, voting is evil, but !voting is perfectly acceptable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Or "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to !vote, including the nominator, however, !voting in one's own nomination is !encouraged, and will be !counted by the closing bureaucrat", just for consistency. -Splash - tk 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That appears to read "failure to vote in one's own nomination is discouraged, but it won't be counted because there's nothing to count." — Jun. 9, '06 [16:06] <freak|talk>

Any Wikipedia with an account is !welcome to !vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not showing up?

As of now, neither Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/9cds 2 nor Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Terence Ong 2 show up in User:Dragons flight/RFA summary. What's the reason? Misza13 ^{T C} 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The discuss here link is the usual culprit one way or the other (missing, malformed, etc.). NoSeptember 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed Terence's (I guess we'll know in 20 minutes) but I'm not sure what's wrong with 9Cds'. --JoanneB 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I found the error in the other one as well, I'll wait till the bot updates and check if they're both in the list now. --JoanneB 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The discuss here url did not have the action=edit clause. The easiest way to fix these is to closely compare the url to another subpage that is working properly. NoSeptember 18:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Should have spotted that, thanks :) --JoanneB 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That missing link caused my hide/show link system to say "(RfA malformed)".Voice-of-All^Talk 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gradient Colors

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