requests For Adminship/Archive 114

While I will assume good faith here, it would seem that users doing so have not put in as much consideration as I am sure the canidate would welcome. Personally, I don't feel as though you can review a canidate in less that ten minutes and I often take longer. It could be done in less time, of course, but regardless of the time one feels is necessary I feel as though we all agree that careful consideration should be taken when voting in RfA. I have seen comments to this end but did not find any language dictating it on the main page. As such, I propose a small addition to the 'Expressing opinions' section on the main RfA page asking users to be take time and consideration in their forming of opinions about users. Being only a sentence, I do not really think WP:CREEP is a consideration and can not think of any other reason one might think of not to add such a notice. At any rate, opinions? SorryGuy  Talk  03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think it will make a difference for the people who don't take the time to look? Myself, I usually wait a couple of days before voting even if I've reviewed recent contributions - just in case someone who knows better brings up something troubling. But you can't really force people to be cautious if they aren't inclined to be so already (even an enforced delay or something would just make people wait and then vote without looking ;-P) Avruchtalk 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

There's almost nothing we can do about people who don't give RfA the amount of time we feel necessary. That's a good thing, as "what we feel" is largely arbitrary, what is acceptable to me might be too short to someone else, and too long to yet another person. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a really arbitrary thing. It's possible that someone who comments 3 minutes apart on every (or most) RfA(s) on the page has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the candidates, then placing their comments all at the same time. I've done it... Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have closed Wiki: Requests for comment/Wiki:Requests for adminship, as I suggested should be done above. Since I don't know how this process is supposed to work, I may have done it wrong. If my closing comments belong at the bottom of the page and not the top, then anyone is free to move them.

Based on a suggestion at the RFC by TomStar81 and Warlordjohncarter, I have started a proposal at Wiki: Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins. Please comment on that proposal's talk page.

I hope everyone will understand that my decision to close the RFC is not "the last word". My goal was to summarize the suggestions that were made, and to observe that none of these suggestions has garnered consensus. Further discussion is welcome, as always, in the usual forums. With best wishes for a happy new year, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the idea, but isn't the whole '!voting' process supposed to equally be a discussion? So this proposal is really about extending the process, and having the first two days of the discussion not count towards the result? Would we be obligated to allow otherwise snowable closes to stay open for the full first 48 hours? (Maybe 'obligated' isn't the right word here). I think the consensus is that controversial RfAs can be unpleasant, but does that necessarily translate to 'process is broken and needs radical change'? Avruchtalk 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, thinking about it more - while it has the chance to add acrimony to the process (by extending difficult RfAs into the wild blue yonder), it might be worth a couple of test flights. Still, are RfA results wrong often enough (or really ever) that we need to make the process more difficult and constrained? Avruchtalk 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I don't think it should extend the period an RfA is open. It might be better to have the RfA remain 7 days, 2 days for discussion, and 7 for voting. Any questionable activity would come to light in that time period, and any obvious snow closes could be shut down early, without pile-on opposes. Maybe there should be a discussion section, and once RfAs pass that, they can be moved to the active RfA area. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time there is a real discussion on an RFA, it is in the oppose section. People rarely feel the need to discuss the positive aspects of a candidate. This could lead to the initial discussions being overwhelmingly negative and cause inappropriate SNOW closures or have an undue influence on people commenting. Mr.Z-man 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite helping the candidate, this may actually harm the candidate. It would probably cause the community to look into the candidate's history much further and more thoroughly. I'm not sure whether this period would be a good thing as it has been said that en wikipidia needs more admins. Let's go BLUE--Malinaccier (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Then why should we settle for mediocrity? It is the responsibility of the !voters to look in at the candidate and make the best choice. bibliomaniac15 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
We need better admins, not more. This proposal is a good one. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Forcing more questions and longer RFAs won't make better admins, this is fruitless bureacracy and I oppose it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Let's take this up at Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When making 'new' proposals, it is often useful to check that it is not, in fact, an old one. Such as, for example, WP:DFA which is functionally identical to this 'idea'. Splash - tk 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Query: Why does the page say that it's scheduled to end on the 4th? Shouldn't it be the 8th? Did I miss something? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was created on December 28 which would make January 4th 7 days later. But since it wasn't accepted and posted until the 1st, it should be the 8th. Metros (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It would make sense. AGK's nom statement is even dated for the first. Would anyone oppose to it being changed? If it was only like 5 or 6 days, it wouldn't be such a problem, but 3 days is a bit short. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Appears to have been fixed already. Avruchtalk 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
We're good, we're good. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
When {{RfA}} is substituted it displays the date 7 days from the creation of the page, and so it isn't 7 days from the time of acceptance, which is why the date needs to be fixed up a second time. Nothing to get worked up over, really. Spebi 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if you spot a problem like that on an RFA, should do no harm just to fix it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon Monotonehell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who seems to have essentially not edited since very shortly after their successful RfA. I didn't find anything as to why, but I wondered whether this is a common phenomenon? I dorfbaer I talk I 17:12, January 2, 2008

A lot of admins unfortunately seem to see adminship as a trophy - once they get the tools they stop as they've achieved their goals (I'm not suggesting that this is the reason in this case, and there's probably a legitimate reason for it) - we see this happen quite often actually. Once someone sees what the tools are like (and realise that they're nothing special), they give up. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There are also other factors at play, as well; not long after I was promoted to admin on Commons, I had a lot of real-world stuff come up, which made me look (effectively) like I'd all but abandoned my post. There could have been a change/loss of job, a death in the family, or for that matter, a death of the editor... though I do think Ryan's got an excellent point, I'm just providing morose alternatives. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The admin in question seems to have edited last month, so he's probably just busy. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it was a single edit in three months.[1] Ryan's point more or less reflects my own thoughts (which is why I posted here). OTOH, serious RL issues would of course be another plausible explanation as to the abruptness with which the contribs end and why there is nothing like a wikibreak notice (or some message to another user). However, I suppose inactive admins are not doing any harm, it's just curious to see someone leave directly after their RfA. I always wondered whether there actually exists some kind of "beaten the game" attitude with regard to becoming an admin. As a wikisymptom, it would imo be even more disturbing than the perception (held by a minority) that some are in it for power-hunger etc (see also WP:MMORPG). I dorfbaer I talk I 17:47, January 2, 2008
Such as the power hunger displayed in self-noms? :) I couldn't resist, sorry! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was quoting Kurt Weber (although his regular opposing RfAs is IMHO idiotic, the associated general concerns he and others hold are more than justified). The answer to such a situation (people playing "become-an-admin" for whatever reason: "just so" as well as power-hunger), as usual, seems to me to make sysopping as well de-sysopping a lot easier. Straight votes, 50% support for a sysopping/de-sysopping request to succeed. Would reduce possible grudges, because people may change their status far more often. No idiotic lengthy discussions. Three days for an RfA/"RfDA". So easy. But I'm dreaming again. RfA will never be reformed (because it's not flawed/there can be no consensus to change it/all proposed alternatives are much worse/etcpp). I dorfbaer I talk I 18:09, January 2, 2008
Off topic, except it's about Kurt Weber. Has anyone every opposed an RFA with the reason "Accepting a RFA nomination is prima facie evidence of not having enough desire for power." It's not nice to make jokes in real RFA's (as there is already enough nervousness when you have a RFA but this is a talk page). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a little odd, but admins are not required to ever use their tools so I think we should just let it go. No harm. 1 != 2 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's the possible implication of people editing (and successfully so, at times) so as to become an admin which worries me. In contrast to Kurt Weber, I don't see this as a reason to run around and oppose every self-nom (because I do not agree with the validity/viability of the self-nom criterion). I'm inclined to view it as a symptom of what is wrong about the current RfA process. I know you and many others disagree that anything needs to change, and it won't, but I thought bringing it up could do no harm as well. I dorfbaer I talk I 18:15, January 2, 2008
You know, I think as a rule, we have to assume good faith with candidates. We don't know if they'll use the tools, but I'd rather them not use the tools than to cause disruption with them. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that there are a not insignificant number of school-age admin candidates, for instance, who might consider that being able to say that they are a wikipedia administrator would look good on a future application for higher/further education. Showing responsibility and all that jazz. As to the more specific point about people editing so as to become an admin, well that happens all the time doesn't it? How many admin candidates have you seen advised to keep their heads down and not to disagree with anyone for at least the 3 months preceding a nomination? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Advice to students: Don't brag that you are an admin on applications. Employers can look up your edits and find fault. A few are known to look up myspace and decide not to hire someone because of a silly profile. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats very true. Thats why when you're on the net, you should remain anonymous and be careful of what you write. Once its there its virtually impossible to undo. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why you set your profile to private obviously.
Who would put wiki admin on a job or college application? --Charitwo ^talk 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is ironic, because once you become an admin, people seem to disagree with you much more often(er?). J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe one of the requirements for an admin candidate should be that they must have had at least one disagreement with another editor in the preceding 3 months. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I find the idea not half bad. Dorfklatsch 19:40, January 3, 2008
I wrote a nice story about a MUD where anyone who was selected King of the Neidar Clan would mysteriously disappear, but the computer crashed :-( Anyways, people look for new goals. I enjoyed dealing with copyright violations, and that made me become an admin. But shortly after, I was interested in dealing with spam, and became temporary administrator in several small wikis to help purge that. Then, I was interested in Commons and getting images for articles lacking them. Now I am back to Wikipedia as an editor. That is the good thing about this place: there will always be someone else to cover you up ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He could just be on winter break. Not everyone has internet access at home. Although I think some people think adminship is a bit more intense than it actually is... I'm not saying they see it as a trophy, they just get a bit intimidated by editing as an admin, thinking they'll be held to a higher standard. I remember feeling it way back when, like the admin cabal was going to pounce on me the first time I screwed anything up. Becoming an admin could just cause someone to not feel like editing any more... it doesn't have to mean they saw it just as a trophy. --W.marsh 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is another explanation that occurs to me (and I should stress, this is highly speculitive and I haven't ooked at this users edit history): http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15117 Viridae^Talk 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What an editor does away from Wikipedia [isn't our business. We don't need to know why they haven't edited. We should assume good faith not only in an editor's edits, but in an editor's lack of edits, and in an admin's lack of participation. I hope that Monotonehell is safe and well, and it would be nice to have her/him back to help Wiki English. Outside of that, it isn't our business. Kingturtle (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let people know monotonehell is almost definitely safe and well and does have internet access. He's has chosen to take a wikibreak and this sort of thread I suspect highlights one of the reasons he's chosen to do so. Does it really matter why someone chooses to be an admin? Even if their reasons are less then 'wholesome', if they have contributed to wikipedia, understand policies and don't misuse their tools then it's none of our concern. Adminship is not intended as a reward or a 'goal' for editors but although I'm sure some editors do view it that way, there's no need to get so worked up about it you start assuming bad faith. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. :) Just to put an end to the rampant speculation, which was a load of fun I'm sure, so sorry to spoil it. ;) My unplanned but self enforced wikibreak was a culmination of a lot of reasons. Most of them real world and nothing to do with my RfA. Things like starting a new job, Christmas, family, suddenly gaining an unexpected social life (I know - who'd-a thunk it?) and a few other things I wont mention. I'll be back, I just can't stay away from Wikipedia, I've even been cheating and sneaking in a few anon edits from time to time. But real life has been busy. Once I settle into this new job a bit more and get past the backlog of work I'm sure I'll be contributing again. Thanks to Nil Einne who came looking for me in my absence, you big softy you ;P --Monotonehell 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

While going around, I found this RFA that was declined. Do I delete it? bibliomaniac15 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you should ask Alexfusco5 what they want done with it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I asked Alexfusco5, he said to delete it, and Keilana deleted it. All done. :) Acalamari 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice use of diffs there Acalamari. Rt. 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Acalamari 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just snow-closed WP:Requests for adminship/mr kc, perhaps slightly out-of-step with this discussion, but it truly had no chance, and some of the opposes struck me as almost mean. The poor guy has been here less than a month, and has less than 250 edits. Do we really need to very strongly oppose someone for offering to help out?

These three points have all been discussed before, but have been archived. Perhaps someone less lazy than me can find links to the archived discussions. But it might bear repeating again:

1. Don't be mean. Extremely new users filing for RFA are only trying to help, and they don't know they don't belong in an RFA precisely because they're new. Oppose if you must, but I can't for the life of me imagine how a Strong oppose or Very strong oppose helps anyone.
2. There's no ticking time bomb; we don't need to transclude someone else's self-nom RFA without talking to them first. Whether they indicated "acceptance" of their own nom or not, they may not have wanted it published yet, and might have been experimenting.
3. EVula/Tango's suggestion a while back [2] (I'll find a link in a sec) that there should be a very clear message, right near the button you push to create a nomination, that you should have 1000 (or 1500, or 2000, or whatever we decide) edits to nominate someone (even yourself) seemed to me to have had consensus, but it died and was archived and nothing happened. I think it should be re-visited. Not buried somewhere in the instructions, or in the handbook thing, but right there next to the button. It will spare quite a few feelings, I think.

--barneca (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as I've stated many times before) - some of the opposes here sound like the user almost felt obliged to comment - it was clear it wasn't going to pass, so efforts should have been made to helping along and give him area's he could work on. There was no need for a "Very strong oppose" here - what's the guy done to deserve that? Nothing, he's just a little keen. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you guys, too; people being nasty at RfA is now becoming out of hand. I see at least 4 users a week treating new users at RfA as if they're something on the bottom of their shoe. However, I have also seen countless discussions like this, but it is never enforced, that is another significant problem... Qst 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that a recommendation for 1000 edits is a great idea. I was surprised at how many people in the last discussion thought the number should be lower. I think we should even include basic instructions on how to check your edit count ("Go to the button called my preferences...."). These snow closes do nobody any good. It doesn't even need to be a new rule, just a strong suggestion next to the button. That way, the exceptions to the rule, the people who are already administrators at four other wikipedias and can knapp flint with a blindfold on, don't have jump through any hoops. I also think that some basic way to keep RfAs that are sitting around looking like obvious tests [3] from being transcluded by uninvolved people would be a great idea, but I don't have any ideas free of instruction creep. Darkspots (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if it is a rule somewhere, people to whom it obviously shouldn't apply can simply IAR. In fact, that would be a perfect example of IAR. But I agree there's no need for a policy decision somewhere, just an edit to the instructions that sticks. Instruction creep is a legitimate concern, but we shouldn't let fear of instruction creep get in the way of actual improvements. --barneca (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I was planning on making a comment about that on the user's RfA. It's completely unnecessary. And by the way, I came up with the idea for having 1000 edits to nominate :) Just kidding! But I do think it's a good idea, and I like Barneca's idea of not letting WP:CREEP get in the way of improving the RfA procedure. Remember, Tango's suggestion was for server count, not just edit count. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
RfAs like Mr kc's are good reasons why we need to find a way to prevent clearly inexperienced users (whose actions are almost always done in good-faith) from submitting RfAs, and getting bitten as a result. What was achieved in that RfA other than telling Mr kc how inexperienced he is? (Which was not even an achievement anyway.) I'm glad to see that some encouraging messages have been left on Mr kc's talk page. Even if we don't set an edit count limit or something like that, I do believe that the RfAs of users like Mr kc's should be closed as soon as possible to prevent biting, and after the closing, a friendly talk page posting full of helpful advice should be given to the candidate in question, explaining to them what they should do. That to me seems far more sensible than strongly opposing new/ish users and telling them how inexperienced they are. Nothing good ever comes out of blasting candidates like that. Acalamari 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I just changed Wiki: Requests for adminship/nominate to what I'm suggesting (see instruction #1 of set of instructions), so you can see how it looks (I reverted back right away, as there's no consensus yet, I just wanted to see how it would look). If, in spite of this new instruction, a new editor files an RFA, I'd suggest an immediate close, citing "per Wiki: Requests for adminship/nominate#Instructions" rather than "per WP:SNOW", followed by gentle helpful advice on their talk page. Any ideas how to emphasize that this is an absolute minimum, and that editors with 1001 edits realistically have no chance of passing an RFA either, in 10 additional words or less? --barneca (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that protecting discouraging well-meaning yet ignorant folks from proceeding is the main goal, so I thought making it a little more prominent was the way to go. Here's my suggestion. The number "1000" can be changed to "4000" or any more realistic number if that seems like a better idea, although if a higher number is picked than text along the lines of "there is no minimum number of edits for adminship, this is just a reasonable suggestion" should perhaps be added. I think this will reduce the snow candidates without creating an edit count rule. Darkspots (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not 4000. 1000 is good, although maybe changing the section about self noms to maybe 2000 would be better, as that's where the majority of snow-closes comes from. By the way, I've opened up a discussion at WT:SNOW suggesting a move. It seems kind of bitey to tell an RfA candidate that their nomination didn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of passing. Please participate if you're interested. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Good ideas, but change must to should, because this is a recommendation, not a requirement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again a newbie gets bitten when they apply, and once again the suggested solution is to stop them from applying, rather than sanctioning those who are biting. Fantastic. --bainer (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I think there was a fair amount of sanctioning taking place above. But since you can't force RfA voters to be nice, it's not a terrible idea to politely discourage--but not forbid--new editors from requesting adminship--not even because people are going to be nasty (which they will be), but because the request won't be successful.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a note to the self-nomination instructions on Wiki: Requests for adminship/nominate to try to discourage inexperienced editors from requesting adminship. It creates no new rules--it seems to me that any new rule is unlikely to achieve consensus. Darkspots (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The object of this discussion wasn't actually to punish newcomers for applying; as I said above, the requests the newcomers make are done in good-faith. However, with "sanctioning" aggressive participants, whenever someone has tried to prevent newcomer-biting in RfAs, the response is almost always "people can decide how they vote" or "people can vote anyway they like", and thus, the biting continues. Whenever someone who is clearly not going to pass runs for adminship, other than a grilling of the candidate telling them how inexperienced they are, nothing is really gained. I don't want to "stop newcomers from applying" because of the behavior of certain users; instead, I'd like to stop newcomers from getting bullied whenever they run for adminship; after all, we're to welcome and guide newcomers, not tell them off. That's what this thread (and past ones like it) are trying to address. Acalamari 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's easy to sanction people socially for this sort of misbehavior, however, since generally RfA commenters are of a type who will be sensitive to social pressure. If they get a few talk page messages explaining why such opposes are embarrassing to the one making them, I think the problem can be brought under control. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And this, Ladies and Gents, is how we do it, IMHO. One editor retained. Pedro :  Chat  00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

• See the discussion of 25 July 2007 (UTC) for older talk on this topic.

User Keilana is an admin, yet doesn't appear to have a successful RfA under that name, although I'm open to being corrected on that. His user page [4] says he has invoked his 'right to vanish' so presumably he passed his RfA under another name. Shouldn't he have to undergo another RfA in that case? I'm not implying he did anything wrong and I don't know, or want to know, the circumstances of what made his earlier incarnation want to vanish but it seems strange that someone can escape their history in this way and stay an admin. If this has been dealt with elsewhere then fair enough but it did catch my eye. How many admins passed their RfA under another name? What's to stop people abusing this system? Once again can I make it crystal clear that I'm NOT accusing Keilana of anything dubious, I'm just using this case as an example. Admins get that position on the basis of their record of edits, if the record goes then how come the admin status stays? Nick mallory (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll undergo another RfA right now if you want. I'll self-nom. Just ask on my talk page, and it'll be done. I'm utterly serious about that. If you don't think that that was a good idea, then by all means, ask for reconfirmation. Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this was in good faith. I think this thread may have became more involved with your case though, considering that Nick was talking about it generally (I think?). Rudget. 15:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to underline (again) that this is nothing personal against Keilana, I was merely using her case as an example. I am quite happy with Keilana being an admin, I was just wondering what the protocol was in general. I don't think I can be any clearer than that! Apologies that I've used 'his' instead of 'her' too. Nick mallory (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
From WP:ADMIN:
"If you have exercised your right to vanish, and return under a new name, your new name can request administrator access by contacting a bureaucrat privately and producing satisfactory evidence of being the same user, provided you did not originally request desysopping under controversial circumstances. This will not guarantee privacy, however, as new accounts which are granted sysop rights without an RfA tend to attract attention and speculation."
It's shady, but it's explicitly allowed. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In general, I really dislike the idea of vanishing and then coming back with admin rights. However, since I can actually verify the former identity in this case, I can't complain. -Amarkov moo! 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Keilana is a woman. Secondly, It's quite within the rules of Right to Vanish to request your sysop bit back when moving to a new name. Other admins have done it. I also happen to know who she is and can state that she did not leave her previous nick under a cloud and there were no unusual circumstances involved - Alison ^❤ 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If "there were no unsual circumstances," I'm sure she wouldn't have abandoned her first account. Perhaps you mean that this admin did not behave controversially, which is one of the prerequisites to getting the mop under an new account w/o an RfA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Keilana has not abandoned any account of hers at all. She has not jumped from one account to another, she has kept the same account the whole time and none of her user rights levels have been altered. Can we drop the Keilana example, please? As for "unusual circumstances", such do not always take place on-wiki. Many circumstances arise in real life that may force one user to change accounts for the sake of their own safety. Dropping one account, getting a new one, and asking for the bit back is completely fine. It's up to the bureaucrats to decide to sysop, remember. Spebi 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We're discussing two (slightly?) different things. The WP:ADMIN passage I quoted seems to refer to new accounts. To the OP, if a user simply changes his or her name (which Spebi says is the case here) than you can view their earliest contributions and even see what user name they used to previously sign their talk pages. It should all be in their contributions. Strictly speaking, changing your user name isn't really vanishing, is it?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not something to discuss here. If you have an issue with Keilana's previous identity or how she has stated that she edited under a different name (note name, not account), take it up with her, preferably via e-mail. Spebi 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We're discussing the general issue "of right to vanish" and sysop rights; I'm not particularly interested in the specific editor the OP named.Also, I feel it's a bit glib to say that getting a new account, complete with sysop privileges is "completely fine."--unless by fine you merely mean allowed. Some legitimate editors don't feel it's "fine," and I sympathize with them, though I also understand the reasons why it's allowed; the inherent shadiness/secrecy of this sort of thing will invariably make some editors uncomfortable, especially those who prefer to know to know whom they're dealing with.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why people want to get adminship back immediately anyway. If you do that, someone will find out your previous identity, and that someone is going to be a person who doesn't particularly like the idea of admins vanishing and then coming back with adminship intact. Why would you trust such a person to not reveal what they found? -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It is likely that experienced editors (rather than newbies) will be more nervous when they hear about admin changes of identity, and experienced editors should probably realize that such changes are hard to conceal. Different people have different ideas of 'vanishing', and sometimes even a thin disguise will be felt beneficial by an editor who wants to keep their name out of sight. One person wanted to keep his name out of Google searches and his recent change (though paper-thin) probably had that effect. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - admins who have vanished are perfectly able to be re-granted their rights. So it has always been. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this has found its way into policy, I have very, very little trust in any of these anono-admins, especially the ones who try to make it impossible to find out what identity they went through RFA as. Your reputation is important, if you want a new one... I really think you need to just make a new account and start from scratch, rather than get the perks but none of the baggage you accumulated. --W.marsh 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Almost every day I encounter a "new" admin, who is actually an old admin reinvented. One of them even prevented me adding a redirect from their old id to the new (with the old userpage being red but protected thanks to some Mediawiki trick). They wipe their history clean but keep the sysop bit; they have admin rights but no identity. It seems shady to me and runs counter to the system of trust on which adminship is based. Of course there are special cases (admin was harassed for example, or revealed too much real life personal info) but when it's a vanity name change, the user should redirect their old pages to the new and have clear disclosure on their new user page, or surrender the sysop bit, imho. Probably the latter: an RfA is no big deal for a good admin . --kingboyk (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends on how it's run. As I've stated before, if anyone comes to me and wants me to step down, I have looser criteria than most. And some are not vanity name changes, they have legit reasons to go. Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This thread shouldn't be about you personally. As far as I'm concerned it's the issue which needs to be discussed and it's regrettable that you were named. --kingboyk (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Every time this happens people complain, but nobody attempts to change the policy that allows it. Please respect this person privacy, if you wish to change policy do it at the policy page, not by drawing attention to a specific person. 1 != 2 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just talking about the amount of confidence I have in the actions of anono-admins, which is nearly none. That's just how it is... policy can't legislate me into feeling confident about the actions of someone who has no reputation, who I've never heard of. If you don't like that... you can always go through RFA again on whatever identity you think you can stick with for a while, then you will probably gain the confidence of people like me. --W.marsh 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No wonder. Changing the policy on almost anything is a Heruclean task. I share the general feeling of uneasiness about anono-admins, without wishing to point the finger at any individual. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I change policy all the time, you just have to convince people. 1 != 2 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say if it bothers you so much and you really want to know who a vanished admin or user is, you could just ask them via e-mail. Unless you were the one who caused them to exercise right to vanish, I don't think they would begrudge you that information. bibliomaniac15 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, you don't even have to do that, you just need to look at Keilana's earliest contributions and see the old name for yourself. Since that's the case, I really don't see the point in trying to be secretive about it. If you are going to invoke the right to vanish, you need to actually vanish, not just have your account renamed. --Tango (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The disguises of the renamed administrators are not very effective. Why should anyone be so concerned? It is mainly the outside world (that knows nothing of how Wikipedia works) that will be unable to connect the old and the new identities. Since m:rtv is often used because of outside-world issues, I believe we should be tolerant of these apparently-quirky requests. The renaming results in a temporary loss of credibility, but it should normally be regained if the renamed admin does good work. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Sometimes, only a thin diguise should often be all that is needed to drop of the radar of non-Wiki-savvy people with whom one is having trouble IRL in regards to their Wikipedia activities. For those who are experienced enough in this environment to know how it works, even those like me without admin tools, it is a simple matter to find out definitively who someone was before getting a name change if you really feel the need know (though I won't detail how, per WP:BEANS). Using Keilana only as an example, I was able to look through her (nearly unanimous) RFA within a minute of reading through the first several posts of this thread. If someone feels an overpowering need to establish how credible an admin is by reading through his or her RFA or edit history, and knew how to look for them for accounts that have not been renamed, he or she should have little trouble in figuring out how to find them even after an account renaming. If a simple renaming is what it takes to throw the wolves off the scent, then so be it. There should be no loss of credibility amongst those knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia to demand it. --Dynaflow babble 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record.... — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why though? It's not necessary. Acalamari 03:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Especially with RTV and privacy issues, this is a perfect example of when not to reconfirm. the_undertow ^talk 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say more even if at liberty to. But please, please, please do not speak the old name on the RfA page. Did I make that clear? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Please don't get into a fight over this. I'd like this to proceed as peacefully as possible. Keilana^talk_(recall) 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Appears there is a misunderstanding on the part of some folks regarding the level of secrecy here. I've removed all my comments, and I'll explain via e-mail. ^Avruchtalk 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I'm going to go out on a limb. This admin made an honest, good-faith request to change her username -- completely in line with precedent and policy -- amidst some sort of extenuating circumstance or other. This is presumably because being connected to her old username created a liability for her in real life. This whole fracas has effectively "blown her cover," so to speak, and her use as an example in this conversation is regrettable. We should repair the damage we have done here.

Her reconfirmation RfA should be WP:SNOW closed as successful as soon as it is apparent that it will eventually be anyway (it seems like it's headed that way now, if it's not there already). The contents of this thread and of the RfA page (sparing the header and s/n/o totals) should then be blanked to give Keilana back at least a little bit of the retrograde anonymity she wanted and to which she is entitled by the Right to Vanish. Those who truly need to know why she's an admin can always take a peek at the last, pre-blanking version of the RfA through the History tab. In the case of the RfA page {{Courtesy blanking}} could be put in place of the blanked content. Is this a reasonable course of action? --Dynaflow babble 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Truly protecting her anonymity would require a different and more significant step. She may or may not want this, and you should probably ask her directly. ^Avruchtalk 06:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Truly protecting" her anonymity would have required getting a new account in the first place, rather than just undergoing a renaming. I imagine that was all that was needed. The level of quasi-anonymity she had before this thread started can be at least partially restored by blanking its content and that of the RfA to avoid search-engine indexing and the like. In any case, Keilana will be watching this thread, and she can let us know what she thinks herself. --Dynaflow babble 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, (yes, I have been watching this), I'd leave it up for at least another 20 or so hours. I imagine that if anyone wants to oppose, they will notice this RfA soon and comment. I also want to leave this up to the 'crats. If they feel a SNOW close is acceptable, fine, let them decide. I am still prepared to run a whole week on this, and would advocate doing so if any user opposes so that their grievances can be fully addressed. I will see how things go regarding anonymity, if the situation warrants proper vanishing, that is indeed what I will do. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 07:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for this, she used RTV under non contrversial circumstances and it is fine to move her bit in that case. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have gone a wrong. For some strange reason in the same transclusion, it links to both their previous nomination and their current nomination.

Or it had for a while. I therefore created the edit count on the wrong one (No. 2). Can someone delete this please Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dreamafter 2 again? Simply south (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. WjBscribe 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Simply south (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stupid question perhaps - is it really necessary for WP:RFA to have the full text of each RfA instead of the link? I'm sure there was a reason for it initially, perhaps so that you could watchlist the page and get all the changes? I'm just not sure that is really enough reason to have a gigantic page, wouldn't it be easier just to have links to each individual active RfA? ^Avruchtalk 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the full text, as it gives me information about the candidates right there. I guess that's a lame excuse, but yeah, I like full text. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisting the page only lets you know about the addition and removal of transcluded links, and of course any changes to the surrounding text. I like the full text as well--it lets me scan through, pick RfAs to contribute to and watch others without having to formally watchlist individual RfAs. I'm sure I would feel differently if I had a slower connection. Darkspots (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
See, since I have a quick connection, I'd prefer the links to RfA's. нмŵוτнτ 00:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a quick connection, and I prefer all of the text in one place. I think it is just easier.   jj137 ^♠ 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I do think the page is teh suck. It's long and I hate scrolling. Someone who's been here longer than me can probably explain why it hasn't changed, but I agree with Avruch. the_undertow ^talk 01:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can find links and status at Wiki: Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. Many users transclude it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Dood. That's srsly what the RfA page should look like. Good link. the_undertow ^talk 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got the Tangobot report, I'm just not sure why the state of the RfA main page is necessary. Its huge, its slow for people with slow or medium size connections, and uh, why? But I guess some people do scroll through the whole thing, I'm surprised at that. ^Avruchtalk 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I have a relatively fast connection, and I guess personally, I don't need the entire thing there. Would there be a way to make the discussion section of an RfA it's own subpage transcluded onto the RfA itself, and also onto the main RfA page? Or the other way around, with the nomination statement and question/answer part transcluded, but I think that would be less useful. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I use both Tangobot and the main page. Generally, if I am looking for RfAs which I am going to contribute to, I look at Tangobot (because I generally only comment on the unanimous or near unanimous RfAs if I actually know the user in question). However, I am also like to scroll through the entire list, even if they are RfAs that I do not plan on commenting on. SorryGuy  Talk  03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You lost me there. The purpose of commenting on "unanimous or near unanimous" RfAs is what exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorryguy said "I generally only comment on the unanimous or near unanimous RfAs if I actually know the user in question". I interpreted that as: If the outcome seems certain then I'm not going to spend time investigating the candidate, but I may comment if I already know the candidate and can give an informed opinion without investigating. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, personally, it seems fine as it is at the moment. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA transclusion was added in September 2004. Before that, The RFA's were just added as straight text with no easy way to look up previous nominations. I don't think transclusion was even possible before MediaWiki 1.3 was rolled out to Wikipedia in May 2004. For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the way things are now - I can just use shortcut keys with my screen reader to navigate around the RFA's. Graham87 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PrimeHunter (talk · contribs) - WP:BN is the best way. Rudget. 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, at the moment, there are fifteen RfAs going. It takes some time to load the page. :) Acalamari 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this be deleted? I would have opposed, but I wanted to avoid hell. I don't even believe in it, but still, this is pretty blatant POV pushing. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Thanks, Carribean H.Q.! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Tell me this is not a sock of the banned editor, User:Hornetman16? Has he, like, grown up year and changed his sex?? - Alison ^❤ 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I filed a RFCU (wrongly, I bet). Take a look, its Hornetman16_2. ^Avruchtalk 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Alison, he must have. Acalamari 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You must not remember that gender is not genetic, it is a state of mind. the_undertow ^talk 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not! Unless Hornetman has moved as well as changed gender. And remember, we all should applaud her for coming out so spectacularly like that. Mind you, she's still banned :) - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
PS - I'm going to hell! (Or not, Jews are exempt from stuff like that :-P). ^Avruchtalk 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would bet it's an impersonator, not a sock ... just my guess from looking at the (now deleted) RFA - Hornetman16 would know to capitalize God. --B (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep me a place, too, just in case. And if the Jewish G-d was the right one, please put in a good word for me. I'm nice really!! :) - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like an impersonator than anything else. --Deskana (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are editors allowed to close RfAs, not just admins?

I recommend early closure of Wiki: Requests for adminship/BQZip01 per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Time to close Rdgoodermote as snowed? ^Avruchtalk 15:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Earlier today I saw in this RfA what I thought to be some unfair accusations of canvassing. It may well have failed for other reasons, but the accusation certainly didn't help.

But I've been wondering. What is the substantive difference between what was alleged there and placing the {{rfa-notice|User}} on your user/talk pages? Is there any? And why are people just supposed to blindly stumble across RfAs anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is whether one puts a notice such as this up on their own page, or whether they go around to the talk pages of others to put up notices. In the latter case, it's all too easy for a selection bias to be introduced, even if the canvasser is intending to be neutral. In the former case, however, it's all up to whoever might come across the notice. In fact, there might even be a negative bias here, as I know I tend to check out the user pages of people I've had disagreements with a bit more than those I get along with. So one might even argue that someone putting up a notice like this is acting against their own interest. (Of course, this is all based on a sample size of 1, so don't take it with too much weight.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So, as I thought, no difference at all. Just more "happy-clappy" let's do whatever it takes to get those extra tabs.

To be brutally frank, I find the idea of a serving officer in the US Air Force being offered advice on how to conduct himself by a schoolkid to be little short of obscene. Your mileage may vary, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My mileage certainly varies. It is perfectly possible for a school kid to know much more about proper conduct on Wikipedia than a serving officer, and be able to give appropriate advice. If BQZip01 is smart enough to listen to good advice from whoever can give it then he may pass RfA another time. Wikipedia has decided, for good reasons, that canvassing is inappropriate. Candidates are supposed to read Wiki: Requests for adminship/nominate#User notification. If a candidate thinks it's OK to advertise his RfA on selected user talk pages while saying "This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated" [5], then I think he has a poor understanding of canvassing.
Many school kids probably know Wiki: User page#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces. Suppose one of them politely advices BQZip01 to remove the false new messages banner, with a link to the relevant guideline. Do you really think that would be "little short of obscene"? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your "I'd have probably supported anyone in the US military" [6], I suggest you give less significance to an editors workplace, as it may have little relationship to their editing. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't verify what editors say about their identity. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the Air Force bit, who an editor is in the real world is 100% irrelevant to how they handle themselves on-wiki. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 8 January 2008

People seem to have drifted away from, or chosen to ignore, the question that I asked at the start of this topic. Curious. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the safest way to go is to do nothing, and say nothing... to anyone, apparently. Hey, I simply put up the standard {{rfa-notice|User}} on my page when I ran, and people objected to even that, somehow! I guess we are just supposed to watchlist the page & regularly check it. However, I've read the Signpost once or twice and seen editors on whom I really would have wished to comment, and be upset that I missed their RfA's. нмŵוτнτ 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have responded to it, but Infophile summed up my thoughts fairly well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as canvassing is concerned, I substantially agree with Malleus Fatuarum. I personally don't think we need to prohibit canvassing in RfAs at all; the people best qualified to judge a candidate are those who have previously worked with that candidate, so I would say that notifying them of a current or upcoming RfA ought to be perfectly acceptable. (Plus, we can't stop people canvassing by email or IRC, so the people who are penalised are those who are honest enough to do it on-wiki.) In a case like this, a few neutrally-worded notifications to other editors are absolutely fine. Walton^One 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some candidates may not canvass those who know them best but instead those who are most likely to support, for example people sharing a POV. Who will be honest enough to canvass somebody who usually criticizes them? And if editors unfamiliar with the RfA process and admin requirements are canvassed at the beginning then an RfA might start with a bunch of supports before anybody has really examined the candidate. Some editors say if they were canvassed so trying to conceal it can make matters worse for the candidate. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing has never bothered me. If the RfA is public, why does the process have to remain a secret? the_undertow ^talk 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Why all the secrecy? Surely the more editors that know about it the better? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the proportion of non-bias voters in an RfA needs to remain as high as possible. If the nominees are allowed to get their friends to vote, the opposers will also be allowed to get their friends to vote, and it will just turn into a battle of who's got the most friends. Epbr123 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So how would be be different to the current RfA process? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. It's true. The consensus is that the only viable voters are those who stumble upon an RfA accidentally. the_undertow ^talk 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside, it will become even more true if canvassing is allowed. Epbr123 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd, isn't it. You tell all your wikifriends - and anyone else that happens to be watching - that you're going to put yourself forwards for an RfA on such-and-such a date. But once that date arrives, you daren't tell anyone else for fear of being accused of canvassing. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, people don't need to be pompous asses and tell everyone that they're going to run for RfA. —Kurykh 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it's interesting how many do. Is that not canvassing? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there isn't a difference between canvassing before and during an RfA. How many have been doing this? Epbr123 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The no canvassing rule really is stupid. In this thing we call life, anytime anyone runs for anything, they're allowed to campaign, no? Not that I want "Vote for X" banners posted, I would like for people I've worked with to let me know they're running for admin. Say they drop a note because they know we share a POV and I'll support. I'm sure people that disagree with that POV will see this RfA alert on my talk page when they come to bitch at me about my POV and then POOF, greater scrutiny on the RfA. The more eyes on RfA, the more that comes out. Personal experience does much more for determining one's qualifications for adminship than some admin-hopeful trolling RfA, skimming contribs, and voting to game the system for their own future RfA. However, more scrutiny would probably just result in more failed RfAs, more stress, fewer applicants, less admins, the destruction of Wikipedia, the end of life as we know it, the sun exploding. A vicious downward spiral of decay. So I guess it's best to leave it alone. Lara❤Love 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this discussion to Wiki talk:Canvassing? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a self nomination for the user " Sahilm " to become an adminsitrator for the following reasons:

As we all know wikipedia is a place where we all like truthful information but there are people who like to vandilize the pages. As fast as our current administrators work, when we find a person who, as per looking up history, continues to vandilize after numerous warnings, we want them blocked from editing. As you may know it could take months for the request to be processed and because of that the perpitrator has already caused more damage.

I want to stop vandels and help Wikipedia!

Thank You Sahilm (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand you're desire, but it is with greatest sincerity that I ask you not to consider this. I've had a flick through your contributions, and it's okay but there are only 6. It may also be of use to advise you that requests go on here, but you'll have had to create it beforehand. Rudget. 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, as Rudget said above me, this isn't the place to request adminship. You're almost right, as this is the talk page, but you'll want to see Wiki: Requests for adminship, and the place to find the nomination forms is Wiki: Requests for adminship/nominate. However, upon looking at your contributions, I don't believe you'll pass an RfA at this stage: I don't like to editcount, but you only have a small amount of edits: two are to sandboxes, one was a good-faith report to ANI which should have gone to WP:AIV instead, and few are to the mainspace. Before you request adminship, my suggestion is that you edit Wikipedia for a few months first, edit some articles to gain experience there (you can edit whatever subject interests you), participate in deletion discussions, familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines, and continue to remove vandalism. You appear to be an editor who is willing and eager to learn and help out, and that's a good sign. I hope you'll find this advice helpful. Good luck. Acalamari 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved to User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/lolcat RfA. This is probably supposed to stay serious...Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A serious question (not trolling on the rollback issue): If the community ultimately accepts that 65% is a sufficient consensus to approve rollback, perhaps that same level of consensus should be used consistently and include RfA promotions?

1) Rollback implementation required a dev change, granted a previously admin-only right to hundreds (and soon thousands) of users, inspired a project wide debate and many mailing list posts, created a new process, a new noticeboard and a new backlog.

2) RfA, on the other hand, directly alters the rights of only one individual and creates no new other system changes.

Based on this, if 65% is enough consensus to do 1) then why not 2) ? Reminds me of allowing soldiers to fight and drink but not vote, and then vote and fight but not drink or bet. ^Avruchtalk 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer this not be implemented for several reasons. First, having a project-wide numerical threshold for consensus is a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. On Wikipedia, consensus is not binary and it's not "numbers in a vacuum." Furthermore, comparing the rollback poll to RFA is invalid in my opinion. You're not hurting anyone's feelings by opposing rollback; it can be really quite devastating to oppose someone's RfA. If you vote oppose in the rollback poll you don't have to worry about whether or not the project is going to lose an editor (similarly, nobody is "WikiFriends" with a rollback poll), thus the percentage of opposition can be expected to increase. --JayHenry (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot compare rollback to adminship. That's all I can say. Majorly (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You certainly can't. So it's somewhat of a surprise that some do. That's all I'll say. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I think we may need a more formal requests for rollback process. User:Platypus222 made a request there today. I briefly reviewed his recent contribs, and found a couple of edit summaries that I wasn't really happy with, e.g. [7] [8] - but as I was posting them to the page for other admins to consider in deciding whether to grant the request, I was edit-conflicted by Alison granting the request and by the bot removing the successful request from the page. I know my concerns weren't necessarily serious enough to refuse rollback, but I think we should have a brief discussion, giving users time to raise relevant evidence, before actually deciding whether to grant the rollback status - maybe a bit like an XfD. Walton^One 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If we do that, it becomes an RfA with a lower standard. ^Avruchtalk 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and why shouldn't it be? A "halfway house" between editorship and adminship is IMO a good idea. We should give non-admin rollbackers a title, such as "Senior Editor", and view it as a lesser position of trust than adminship, just as adminship is a lesser position of trust than bureaucratship. Walton^One 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what almost no one wants. Actually I thought it was no one, apparently I'm wrong. ^Avruchtalk 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We seriously don't need another title. It's even more of "not a big deal" than adminship. It's rollback. Why is this being blown so out of proportion? We don't need a waiting period of more than a few minutes, we don't need the approval of more than a couple admins. I mean seriously, what's happened to warrant all this wasted time? Lara❤Love 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And anyway, I wasn't comparing adminship and rollback. I was comparing the various measures of consensus used, and the relative importance of the different venues. Obviously, adminship and rollback in and of themselves have no relation. But the processes for determining consensus for selecting an admin and making a significant feature change (that requires a quickly growing support system) are two processes worth comparing. And I have to say I don't appreciate the frequent attempts to shut discussion down about anything related to rollback, either by saying "Don't like it, shove off" or leaving pithy but unproductive comments on a talk page. ^Avruchtalk 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a little research. If our benchmark here was 65% rather than 75% we would have promoted about 35 more admins in 2007 than we did.

As it stands now, the decision on whether a nomination succeeds or fails is a subjective decision by an individual bureaucrat. The 75% threshold is a guideline, but it is not used as an objective measure. No nominees in 2007 who had a 75% or higher support rate were denied their promotion. However, eight nominees in 2007 were promoted without reaching the 75% mark (those marks were 74.3%, 74.2%, 73.9%, 73.3%, 73.1%, 70.5%, 68.4% and 67.3%).

So, in 2007, the lowest support rate for a promoted admin was 67.3%. In 2007, at least twenty-nine nominees with a support rate of 67.3% or higher were denied their promotion. Thirteen of them were 70% or higher. Four of them were 73% or higher (74.7%, 73.8%, 73.7%, 73.7%). This is because the support rate is a guideline, not a clinching factor. Bureaucrats are given wiggle room: "there is no precise "pass" or "fail" percentage, and the bureaucrat may discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity."

75% seems to be working as a good benchmark. Kingturtle (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

There were 405 promotions in 2007. Kingturtle (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if i insert this at the top?

Simply south (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against it, but it doesn't seem necessary. ^Avruchtalk 14:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Top of what? If you mean the RFA page, no. Majorly (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA talk. Simply south (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Then that's fine with me :) Majorly (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought it might be useful in discussion. Simply south (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a small difference but I would prefer the below Wiki: Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report which transcludes Wiki: Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report and adds RfB links by hand. I also think it should be linked, but probably not transcluded, early on the RfA page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Has consensus ever been discussed on the numbering of "optional questions" on RfAs? I've noticed some that have the 1,2,3, for the standards and then start at 1 again for the first "user question" while others start at 4. Not trying to be petty, but it seems that some editors like to support or oppose based an a particular question's answer and they'll say "per A6" or "Per Q1", which of course can be ambiguous. (Maybe this is coming out of my experience with WP:DPL, I don't know...) So, is the fourth question #4, or is it #1? Keeper | 76 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They should be renumbered for clarity's sake, you're right. Unfortunately, speaking strictly for myself, I never thought to do that until just now. I'm not sure if it would make sense for there to be a section specifically requesting continuous numbering, but the proposal to have such certainly makes sense. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably the main culprit here recently - since I usually always ask the same initial questions regarding things you can't really pick up from an edit review, I've written them into a page and transclude that page. It doesn't seem like its been a real problem, people just refer to "Avruch's #4." If its an issue I can just renumber them when I post them, no big deal. ^Avruchtalk 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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