requests For Adminship/Archive 171

Download's RFA is the most active with 7. Come on, what happened to the flogging spirit? Thirty questions might be over the top, but I'm sure the flogged flagged revision folks can easily drive the count into twenties. NVO (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank the gods. Questions are instructive when they probe into an aspect of the candidates personal history or perspective. Good riddance to tiresome single-issue campaigners and boilerplate-peddlers. Skomorokh
Once one has enough info to make a decision, one need not inquire further. Dlohcierekim 03:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Perfectly put, Dlohcierekim. hmwithτ 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
People stopped asking useless questions to find a reason to oppose? Yay ^^ Wizardman 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we delete this? Looks like a bit of premature exuberance. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not transcluded, the candidate does not object to its existence, and someone has a word with the nominator re: formatting and expectations and so on, I don't see a problem. Skomorokh 20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
We could have a series of lengthy threads discussing whether they are going to run and hound them with accusations of causing a disruption by daring to even consider a run for RfA. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I left CD a note. Dlohcierekim 00:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
User already declined. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
CoM - That's just stirring up embers to try to get a fire started again. Let it go, and in a few months take clean shot at the mop. You do good work, no need to poke any tigers here. :) Ched2 (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see this. The voice your opinion link is pointless and is being abused by certain people. Majorly talk 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's redundant, but I don't see a compelling reason to remove it. I like the idea of rewording it, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is redundant, why keep it? Majorly talk 20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would you care to be more specific about the alleged abuse? The link would seem to me to be useful and intuitive, preventing unnecessary scrolling and having to find the right edit link. Skomorokh 20:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's say certain users are taking the "Voice your opinion" wording to the extreme. I think you all know who I mean. Is it really hard to scroll and find the edit button? How long have you been editing? Majorly talk 20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Why add an attack? And I also don't know who you mean. And just change it to "...about this candidate" like you initially proposed, then move along. Keeper | 76 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Because someone will surely wiggle their way around it to soapbox about anything other than the candidate. It is redundant to the other numerous edit buttons. Majorly talk 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I meant you, Majorly. Why add an attack? (namely - is it really hard to scroll and find the edit button? How long have you been editing"). I agree that the link should be changed per your proposal elsewhere. But why attack someone's intelligence to make your point? Keeper | 76 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There are no attacks, only questions. I am merely curious as to why someone who has been here as long as Skomorokh has would need an extra link to click on. Perhaps I worded it funnily, but I did not attack anyone. Majorly talk 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It's cool Keeper, Majorly and I speak British English, and speaking personally I enjoy a good passive aggressive snarking. In fact, I had never noticed the link before now, but can see that it would be useful to neophytes. Skomorokh 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (damn I'm slow) Wikipedia is enough of an insiders cult already, I really don't think raising the barriers to contributing without any compelling need is a smart move. If editors are abusing RfA it's not because of the wording of some link, unless they cite that wording in their defence. A tool is "redundant" if it "does nothing different than" another, which is not the case here. I suggest you follow Keeper76's proposal. Skomorokh 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The irony here Skomorokh, is that it's not my proposal. It's Majorly's. Keeper | 76 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They have been using the wording in their defence! :) That's why I'd like it removed. The link is identical to other edit links on the page, so actually, it is redundant. Majorly talk 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm simply ignorant of the abuse in question and you're valiantly trying not to stir drama or call anyone out by pointing to it, but you can't expect editors to go along with effecting a solution if the main need for the solution is hidden from them. But I think we have conflated two issues:
The wording "voice your opinion" encourages troublesome editors to declare they have a right to take a position based on any whim they like.
The link has little utility.
I think more input would be helpful on the second point, and that we all agree that the wording could be improved, but the underlying issue of frowning on !votes considered unreasonable by many has been decisively settled by the recent RfC.Skomorokh 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent + ec) I could be misunderstanding this completely but it seems to me that this proposal is a wee bit pointy. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the former. How about not reaching for POINT and actually thinking about the proposal? I can think of more obvious POINT violations myself. Majorly talk 21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Just a thought. I'll accept that I've misunderstood this completely, apologies. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A tad better, but now it's far too big. As I said, I'd prefer to remove it altogether. There's enough template as it is without a redundant link to click on. Majorly talk 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It solves the problem, gets rid of the "loophole" your ragging on about with this alleged "abuse" (I still don't know who or what you are talking about, maybe I'm daft). Keeper | 76 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I'm "ragging on" am I? Now who's making attacks? :) Majorly talk 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Keeper's crabby. Lay off the Keeper. In my neck of the woods "ragging on" isn't an attack. It's a right. :)Keeper | 76 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
He's on his anti-DougTech/Kurt soapbox. He wants the wording changed in an effort to curb !votes that he doesn't feel should be allowed. Since other proposals have failed, he's going to try this. Although, I have to say, I think his proposal would have been stronger if he hadn't admitted that this is an attempt to curb somebody's posts.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've already changed the template to be explicit: "Voice your opinion on this candidate". That won't stop someone from opposing on whatever grounds they wish, so if those are your motives, Majorly, it won't work. Continuously pounding your head against a brick wall expecting anything other than a bloody forehead is unreasonable Majorly. Let it go. Keeper | 76 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Support change and agree.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Skomorokh 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just for some context, "Voice your opinion" resulted from the days where editors disagreed over whether the classical "RfA is a vote!" or "RfA is a !vote" or "RfA is a discussion!". Originally, it was just simply "Vote here". - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've often wondered why this was not removed when the s/o/n sectioning scheme was introduced. It's practically useless with so many participants in a regular RfA and with more convenient subsection [edit] links. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but consensus seems to say otherwise. Majorly talk 13:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There was an IP address that vandalised the article of Cassie Davis, saying she was born in 1962 when she was born in 1986.

I have waited a long time to be an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 (talk • contribs)

Apparently not long enough if you still do not know that you should sign your posts. Anyway, I suggest you read the suggestions on Wiki: Not now which outlines what would very likely happen if you really submitted a request for adminship at the current time. While we appreciate your offer to help, I do not think adminship is right for you at this time. Regards SoWhy 22:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Malinaccier/Administrative retention philosophy. Just some thoughts on the subject. Would anyone care to comment? Malinaccier (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Now on ANI here.

There are so many things wrong with RfA it would be difficult to know where to start, but here's a suggestion. What about a clear intent to deprecate comments like this one in a current RfA? Supporters slinging mud at opposers, or vice versa is at best unseemly and at worst inflammatory. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I believe such an issue is (surprise!) a common concern. Or at least there's been some discussion on it in the past on this page...  GARDEN  16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

... but nothing is ever done to stamp it out. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
A potential solution would be to do what dewiki does: a straight vote, with little or no discussion. But there are just as many issues with that system, so... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This RFA is an example of how not to conduct an RFA, with far too much drama, vitriol, and incivility on both sides. Unfortunately, there are strong emotions on both sides, tempers have flared, and it just needs to burn itself out. It's too late to close the door on the incivility and drama in this one. Hopefully, if people just refrain from responding, it will all die down and sanity will return. Any attempts to suppress what residual feelings remain will only escalate the drama and inflame more anger. Sad, but true. Dlohcierekim 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
We are a consensus based system and not a democracy. The supports and opposes shouldn't mean as much as the arguments. If you want a better system, it would probably be best to have 5 sections based on traits needed to be an effective admin (knowledge, philosophy, behavior, etc) and then have people discuss each one. If they end up positive in each then they become an admin. That is, if we want a system closer to what Wikipedia is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any particular RfA, as this problem is recurring and endemic. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to make RFA a bit less of a hazing ceremony. I believe some months ago one of the crats struck a vote during an RFA, and of course various crats have mentioned in their summing up that votes opposing RFA promotion in principle are ignored. Personally I don't regard unfocussed comments such as the one Malleus quoted as being as bad as attacks targetted at a specific editor. I would suggest that !voters at RFA making individual attacks be given reasonable opportunity to supply diffs, and if those are not forthcoming their !vote be removed from that RFA (arguably an attack not supported by diffs should be being removed anyway - but custom and practice at RFA is so far from normal that that would probably be considered too abrupt a change). ϢereSpielChequers 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can accept that scatter gun abuse such as I quoted is any less bad than targetted abuse. Indeed Iit may well be even more inflammatory, as there are more targets who may be inclined to respond to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a crazy notion--you leave a negative comment about the candidate anyone on their RFA RFA/RFB/AC/CU/OS elections, you're required to back it with a link to evidence, or it can be struck. rootology (C)(T) 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You've missed the point. I'm talking about negative comments made by opposers about supporters, or vice versa. Candidates have to accept that negative comments will be made about them as well as positive ones. As there is no need to provide evidence in support of positive comments made about a candidate I see no need to provide evidence in support of negative ones either. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, modified. And there should be a requirement for negative sourcing in things like RFA & RFB & AC elections, since WP:AGF is a policy. If nothing else can fix the broken system, maybe a stick can. rootology (C)(T) 17:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AGF has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact a strict application of AGF would require you to accept that anyone making a negative comment had good grounds for doing so without you requiring evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The comments of supporters and opposers should be uncensored. In the example you cite, the comments reveal a lot more about the voter than a simple "support" or "oppose" would. Hence those comments are useful for the deciders, though maybe not in the way the voter intended. AGF has to do with editing articles, and is irrelevant in RfA's. We need to know as much as possible about both the nominees and the voters. And I say "voters" as a convenient if somewhat misleading reference. If you want to switch it to a pure vote, you would need to canvass every possible editor, rather than the RfA's being left to a small cadre of "RfA fans" as they are now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that a vote saying, for instance, "I'm supporting because I think all of the opposers are hypocritical wankers" isn't counted?" What if the majority of a candidate's support votes were along similar lines, with 90% support. Would they all be discounted and the candidate not promoted? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should ask the deciders a question like that. I'm not an "RfA groupie", so I don't know all the ins and outs of that process. However, if I were a decider, if 90 percent of the supporters made comments like that, and if I weren't lazy, I would start to examine the motives of the opposers and see if they are part of a group that votes "no" all the time, or if their arguments are reasonable and it's the supporters who are off base. If it were the latter, I would probably reject the nominee. However, you've given me an idea. Maybe every supporter and opposer should be accompanied by a graphic that shows a count of his votes in previous RfA's, to better enable the deciders to see if a voter might simply be an obstructionist, like that one guy who always votes no just because he thinks there are "too many admins". That would be in addition to the reasons given, though; not in place of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The difficult thing about looking at a graphic of an editors voting pattern is that two editors with the same standards can have very different voting patterns. It takes time to properly assess a candidate; a voter who never assesses candidates who have over 85% support would have a much higher oppose rate than a voter with the same standards who doesn't assess candidates who have less than 60% support. ϢereSpielChequers 21:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Groomtech is asking a couple of really pointless questions to every RFA. Normally I'd shrug and say to myself "it's just another question templater" but I looked a little deeper. The account has fewer than 50 edits, and their previous account has fewer than 100. I'm not sure what's up with that, but it doesn't seem right to me. Majorly talk 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

His userpage is interesting. Majorly talk 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I made the editor aware of this thread. Pedro :  Chat  21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
And yes, the 14th edit by this account was this. No-one finds RFA that quickly, and certainly not with that kind of input and edit summary. And yes, incredible though it may seem, I have read AGF before someone points me to it. This looks like another SPA that hides under bridges and eats goats. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look like this is his first account: [8]. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That account has, as I mentioned, fewer than 100 edits. Majorly talk 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There should be a name for this sort of editor. Not quite an SPA (as they have edited a few articles), but nevertheless, one of those that hides under bridges, and trying to remove this assocation through the making of trivial article edits. Majorly talk 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Check User - 3 or 4 accounts here looking at the talk pages and links Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:SPI is over thataway. The CU backlog is pretty low right now too… -- Avi (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
User:The Wiki House appears to be a role account, judging by the statement on the user page.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Please see Wiki: Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House; please add more evidence if you have. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, lots to respond to here.
Firstly, my questions. If Majorly doesn't see the point, he doesn't have to read the answers. Most, but not all, of the candidates have seen fit to give answers, some quite thoughtful. I think the point might have been felt by the candidate whose off-the-cuff response (later redacted) clearly showed that they thought of "Wikipedians" and "admins" as being different classes of creature -- that's a reaction which might well influence a decision. I'm glad Majorly found the discussion on my user page interesting, I look forward to discussing it some time.
Secondly, how to find RFA. It's on page 197 of "Wiki: the missing manual" by John Broughton and Nan Barber, published by O'Reilly, 2008, ISBN 0596515162 (see the index under "Admininstrators, selection of")
Thirdly, may I suggest that "a name for this sort of editor" is "editor". I don't think my edits are all "trivial", though of course opinions may vary.
Fourthly, WP:SPI is indeed somewhere else. What a pity no-one has yet felt it necessary to inform any of the users concerned about it. I'll cheerfully discuss my relationship to other editors now that I have found out about it. Groomtech (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Not to defend the status of Groomtech, but I've actually found the answers to his question interesting. It seems not to occur to most candidates that there are two "rights" that are pretty widely acknowledged, the right not to outed, and the right not to be hounded outside of Wiki English. Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, thanks. I hope everyone feels free to use the questions if they find them useful. BTW, I gather the "status" issue which you mention is now cleared up too. Groomtech (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm confident that there is already a page for this and someone will be quick to link me there, but considering I couldn't find it quickly I figure I will ask here as it is related to administrative rights. I got got an email from a group known as the above asking me to donate to them my administrative tools so that they could use it for "freedom fighting." I know there is no way that this sort of behavior is being condoned and it bothers me greatly. You can't tell me that project has gone that far downhill? At any rate, I was disturbed and am willing to be of help fer any assistance I can. Let me know, SorryGuy  Talk  05:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Already being looked into: WP:AN#Possible intent to hijack an administrator account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And here kicks off another discussion on the merits of removing the tools from inactive sysops. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Kickoff... How about we have a bot automatically find administrators inactive for over a year, and sends them an email asking if they object to removal to the tools. If they don't, they're desysopped. Xclamation point 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little slow sometimes. Has anyone noted the connection between User:Groomtech's userpage and this thread? Dlohcierekim 13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I brought this up a while ago here and at WP:VPP. It should be: if you don't use the tools in over a year, then yank them. Just like CheckUser. While the status of being an admin is not supposed to be a big deal, usage of admin tools can be extremely disastrous if placed in the wrong hands (like these "freedom fighters"). MuZemike 18:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of a single reason not to desyssop an account that has gone unused for a year. Dlohcierekim 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• With all the problems our world faces today, can we just reflect on how mind bogglingly pathetic someone is if they feel like a digital encyclopedia is the most productive place to start a revolution? Move. Out. Of. Your. Mother's. Basement. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • And catch swine flu?! No way!  GARDEN  14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not? More people get information from Wikipedia than say the NYTimes. Dragons flight (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Freeing Wikipedia-- from the Cabal, from the evil admins, from its undemocratic principle's, from it's consensus driven way of doing things-- is not a new concept. This feels like a user that was banned back in 2006(?), who had promised to come back and liberate us from all the ills of the way we do things. He also said he would amass an army of admin level socks. Perhaps this is a new approach Dlohcierekim 14:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I must be even slower than Dloh. What is that connexion of which you speak? Groomtech (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The NYTimes probably wouldn't be my first choice to start a revolution, either. I'd start with a country (possibly a small one, and almost certainly one with lots of sun, sand and rum). Need to move out of my mum's basement first, though ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That'll be because of the NYTimes's registration/paygate (: Stifle (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• All these so-called freedoms fighters will end up doing is bringing long-lost sysops back into our midsts... So...net positive? ;> –xeno ^talk 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be bad karma. Dlohcierekim 04:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Groomtech has said he is not connected with this group in any way, and I apologize for getting the wrong impression from his user page, where he calls for "all Wikipedians to unite. That sounded like a something I associate with Freedom Fighting, and wondered what others thought of it, as I was wrongly thinking that he might share sentiments. I apologize for any consternation I have caused. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Dloh for such a prompt and complete response. Groomtech (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While many people criticize User:DougsTech for opposing every admin request. There is a whole bunch of users that I will not mention that Support every admin request, which is awfully more dangerous in my opinion. South Bay (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Elaboration and examples would be nice. —kurykh 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, please provide some diffs or just use X!'s RfA vote counting tool to point out which users you speak of.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I'll go ahead and put myself on the chopping block. I've supported in somewhere north of 90% of all RfAs I've participated in, but that doesn't mean I'm doing it mechanically. I always actually think about the decision. Of course, I have supported some RfAs that were obviously not going to pass (and that I would not have supported if they had a chance), but that's only because it sort of defeats the purpose to call it a "moral" support. So, yes, there are some of us that support an awful lot of RfAs, but I don't think we're "dangerous". Cool3 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not that you're dangerous - it's that a single line of 'per nom' text is no more disruptive than Doug's oppose. You just read it and move to the next. Law _{type! snype?} 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
We could just say anyone who uses NBD or Why Not as a justification. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"Per nom" is shorthand for,. "having reviewed the editor and the nom statement, I concur with it." "Why not" is shorthand for, "having reviewed the editor, I find nothing that would cause me to oppose." Why waste words? Dlohcierekim 03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
↑ Precisely. A "per nom" means you agree with the hundreds—many times thousands—of words you read above. To oppose, you have to specify a good reason. NBD is there for a reason; because it's true. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Or, why not means "I don't care about it, let anyone in regardless of who they are". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
AGF strikes again! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
↑ Precisely. (I should make a template out of that...) wadester16 | Talk→ 08:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that's pretty outrageous, Ottava. Just because people have different standards at RFA from you does not warrant that canard. Anyone involved with this project enough to spend hours each day and to participate in RFA does care deeply. Even those with whom I personally disagree. intensely. Dlohcierekim 04:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It is 100% factual that some people have no standards. That is why RfA is a discussion and not a vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want some actual statistics, User talk:I'm Spartacus!/RfA votepercent. The survey is a little old (September 2008), but at the time roughly 23% of the users who were !voting supported 90% of the time or more.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Soutbay, what is objectionable to many of us is not that DougsTech opposes every RFA, but that he offers a specious rationale unrelated to the candidate's merits or demerits. Some see it as making a point. Some see it as disruptive. Such opposes and opposers come and go. There is nothing dangerous in either specious supports or opposes. Wikipedia works by consensus, and some rationales are better, and therefore weightier, than others. I don't understand the uproar over adding or not adding a rationale for this reason. The better stated and founded a position is, the more weight it is likely to carry. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the cricitism is that Doug's opposes are valueless, but is "per nom" any more defined?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I only support RfAs. (There was one "oppose" along time ago, though I can't recall why I made that exception). Every editor whom I'd have wanted to oppose was already opposed by enough participants that another negative vote wasn't necessary. But I rarely vote in RFAs so perhaps I'm not a good example.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think SB's concern isn't the occassional supporter such as yourself, but rather the person who supports every RfA.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to mention, since it hasn't been said yet, that an individual supporting every RFA moves the support percentage, mathematically, much less than an individual opposing each RFA will. Not that consensus is dependent on the math, just bringing it up. Useight (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Er how do you figure? If one person in 100 supports, that is 1%. If one person in 100 opposes, that is still 1%. Now I think you are talking about the general rule of thumb that it takes 3 supports to counter an oppose? Thus an oppose is worth 3 times as much? You might also be referencing the fact that a person who opposes 90% of the time is more likely to be noticed than a person who supports 90% of the time. Well, if those are your observations, there are a few counters to them. First, as a person such as DougTech/Kurt stand out due to their opposes, their opposes are more likely to be discounted/discarded by the 'crats. The 'crats know that DT/Kurt's positions are not respected by the community and thus, their !vote doesn't carry the same 3:1 weight. Second, the counter does not exist. As people who support 90% are not noticed, they blend in better, their supports are never discounted---even if they routinely just say "NBD" or "Support" or "Per nom."---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and I agree with the likelihood of being discarded and the probability of the 3:1 weight not being taken into consideration. All I was saying is this: if an RFA is at 9/1/0 or 90%, and then the serial supporter adds, making it 10/1/0, it moves to 90.9%. If, instead, a serial opposer adds it moves to 9/2/0 or 81.8%. Based on the math alone, which like you said, isn't even close to being the only thing considered, the numbers can change much more drastically if a serial opposer makes an appearance than if a serial supporter does. So that's how I figure on the numbers, but, yeah, I also agree with the points you make. Useight (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I find myself often in the same situation as Will Beback - in general, I think my admin criteria are a little bit lower than the average in the community; so most of the time if I would have opposed an RfA it's already unlikely to pass and I don't bother piling on. Occasionally I will oppose if I have particularly strong feelings or if the outcome doesn't already look like a foregone conclusion; but it's pretty rare. I imagine my support percentage is very high these days. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that any RFA !voters Support every admin request. Looking at Wiki: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) I found six RFAs in the last month with only one moral support between them, and that from an editor who I've seen in the oppose column more than once. Of course most of those were only up for a few hours so some of our more supportive !voters may have missed them. I have a support record of over 90% in the RFAs that I appear to have participated in, which I attribute to my RFA criteria being lower in some respects than many. But I rarely if ever !vote neutral - those RFAs in which I have not !voted are a mix of ones closed before I'd had time to assess the candidate, ones I ignored as foregone conclusions and ones I didn't !vote because after assessing them I did not feel able to either support or oppose. ϢereSpielChequers 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ha! With the edit count inflation, partly driven by animation, and the "article builder" requirement others have, I often wind up supporting candidates that don't succeed. I joined Wikipedia at a time when it was easier to demonstrate cluefullness. I certainly don't have DYK, or FA, or GA. You really don't need all that to be able to exercise due diligence before using the tools. And all Hugglers aren't bad. Certainly, if you make thousands of patroller edits, it's going to be hard for others to see your article building. Look at quality, not quantity, and evidence of understanding the button related policies, and a lack of the sort of temperament that would lead to misuse. Most of our candidates are pretty good users. Quite a few are excellent. So, Were, your standards may not be too low. And if this project is to remain a high quality encyclopedia, we will need more admins to mop up the place and show people who mess up the place to the door. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed a lot of people who support even obviously bad candidates. And, yes "Why not?" is a terrible rationale. To those asking why not, I offer the big list of bad admins we've had who have wasted so much community time. But, it seems unpopular for crats to do more than simply count noses, so what's to be done? Friday (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Hi Dlohcierekim, I'm aware that my standards are lower than many, and probably quite similar to yours, but I don't regard my standards as too low, if anything I'm probably too strict. However if there are users who are concerned about those of us who frequently support I'm more than happy to discuss my standards either here or here. But I don't accept the label "I don't care about it, let anyone in regardless of who they are" and I doubt if anyone active at RFA does hold that position. Yes I want adminship to be less of the big deal that it currently is, and I believe that most experienced editors should be admins. I don't think it is healthy to have a small admin cadre who must perforce spend a large amount of their Wiki time doing admin work; If we had far more admins then the norm would be for admins to be active experienced members of the community who occasionally also use a mop. ϢereSpielChequers 14:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Friday, that should be obvious-- if someone supports based on why not, you tell them! It is more than a "nose count." And if the reason you give to not support carries strength, others will embrace it as well. If enough do, the RFA will not succeed. If sufficient opposition does not arise, then the consensus is that the objection is strong enough to counter the willingness to trust. And looking at the deluge of new articles and edits that are never reviewed, we need more patrollers patrolling and more admins checking there work. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Friday has two good points there. "Why not" or indeed "NBD" does need to be combined with a proper review of the candidates contributions, talk page and so forth. Also we do need to pay more attention to those we've desysopped, are there any patterns in their RFAs that could indicate things to look out for in order to screen out similar candidates in future? Conversely are there things that some !voters are looking for at RFA that past experience show to not be predictive as to whether candidates make good admins or not? ϢereSpielChequers 15:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I support nearly every RfA these days, though I do review each candidate thoroughly see User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Reading those statistics what I see is what looks to be a bell curve at around 80%. Given it takes 70% to pass and losing in RFA is traumatic (heck winning one often is) that doesn't seem like anything you wouldn't expect to see. People who go for an RFA are going to be people who think they are likely to make the mark and the voters are splitting close to the way they would be expected to. jbolden1517^Talk 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Were, needless to say, reviewing RFA's of de-admined users for patterns has been suggested before. Worthwhile to take another look, though. It's a complex issue. Dlohcierekim 15:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I support RFAs of users whose names I am familiar with, and only oppose if there is a good reason to. I always read the oppose opinions, and more often than not, completely disagree with what they are saying, or do not believe what they are saying warrants an oppose. Majorly talk 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• The main difference is that people who support with very little listed rationale are not doing so to be gigantic d-bags. By the same token, people who oppose with minimal explanation are not doing so to be gigantic d-bags. However, people who blanket oppose an inane reason, with exactly the same phrase, are doing so only to be gigantic d-bags. More so when the inane reason looks like little more than pathetic attention seeking gambit. "Look aht mee... a ahm zo deeeep zat a cahn awfer zees ahbstrahct seery ahs to zee zingular gweatest pwoblem wiz zees encyclopeeediah!" Hiberniantears (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So - let me see if I've got this right - we should assume that contributors are acting in good faith, unless there's a good reason to think otherwise? You sir are a dangerous revolutionary. The Wiki Freedom Fighters are over there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I carefully assess recent edits of candidates, review activity using the soxred counter, read the opposes, and support when I believe that the is no reason think that they will abuse the tools, and oppose or neutral when I have concerns. The result of that practice will vary by individual standards, but for me, it does mean that I support nearly everyone. I do not believe that this is a "dangerous" practice, rather, I think it is very positive.--Res2216firestar 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• I could probably consider myself an excellent example of an editor who pretty much always supports RfA candidates. I would only really oppose somebody if I see good reason to believe that they will abuse, or badly misuse the tools — to me, administrators are not necessarily standards for all Wikipedians to follow, they are (or should be) trusted editors who the community trusts with an extra set of tools to help with maintenance work around the site. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever thought of creating a bot to update the tally's in RfAs. I have been manually updating them quite a bit lately and I notice that there can be several new "votes" added before anyone updates the tally. Anyway, it just seems like a logical area where we would have a bot take care of. I do not personally have the computer skills to create such a bot, but it seems like it would be a tremendous help, no? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, several people have.  Skomorokh  03:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, wow! How did you find those so fast! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was just thinking of ways that could compromise the few opposing views. Right now, the problems are that people update it manually, adding hundreds of useless revisions; RfA is a discussion, not a vote; and that it would just add useless revisions. My idea is that the bot updates a single page in its userspace that contains a {{#switch}} element. It would run every 30-60 minutes, and that way, it updates a few RfAs at a time, saving revisions. The template would be transcluded on every RfA, which eliminates the people updating it constantly, and lets people focus more on the RfA itself than the tally. When a 'crat closes the RfA, then they just subst the template, and then the bot can remove it from the template, saving resources. Win-win-win all around. Xclamation point 04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a really good idea. I support.  :) -download ׀ sign! 04:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Really great idea, X - you'd solve two problems (manual tallybot + useless revisions) that way. FlyingToaster 07:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't see the issue with extra revisions, but alright... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember SoxBot V/StatusBot? Although it could be said that this is actually providing a purpose... Xclamation point 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So here's my planned template: User:X!/Tally. And because I'm bored and I don't have a lot to do,   Coding.... Xclamation point 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First update done. Hows it look? Xclamation point 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I support this proposal. –xeno ^talk 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Same here. With X! on it, I'm sure it will be fine. Synergy 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So, I see no opposition. When will this go live on RfAs? Xclamation point 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it going live tomorrow. -download ׀ sign! 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've thought it out, and all it needs is a simple replacement of:

'''(0/0/0); Scheduled to end {{subst:#time: H:i, j F Y "(UTC)"|+7 days}}''' 

with:

{{rfatally}}'''; Scheduled to end {{subst:#time: H:i, j F Y "(UTC)"|+7 days}}''' 

on Template:RfA. Xclamation point 00:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a consensus here so I've gone ahead and added it. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No self noms, require others to nominate you, to reduce Rfas that are clearly wont be success and to weed out bad canditadates. Arma virumque cano (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Closing SNOW RfA's is part of the process... ceranthor 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
But it makes the canditates feel bad and its better to not have them at all Arma virumque cano (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above user (Arma) appears to be an SPI. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That was a Freudian slip. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I made two self nominations of myself for adminship, but both failed to a massive extent. I don't see a problem with self-nomination, although I believe that nominations by others indicate some trust. I don't see a need for such a ban as it is not helpful and it is excessive. —Mythdon t/c 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As we saw with CoM, there is no practical difference between a self-nom and asking someone else to do it - he still got clobbered, on merit (or lack thereof). I am personally suspicious of self-noms, but am equally suspicious of asking someone else to do it. It's the same thing. But there's no reason to prevent it. As for "feeling bad"... they'll get over it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Some self noms succeed, and I'd be loathe to describe self noms as bad candidates. An automated system that prevented users with fewer than 500 edits self nominating would save dozens of newish editors a year from being badly bitten; But I see no need to prevent self noms in general. ϢereSpielChequers 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I'm suspicious of self-noms, but that doesn't mean they don't have merit sometimes. Maybe a minimum number of edits AND a minimum number of months editing would be a useful minimum requirement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite what Kurt Baseball Bugs feels about self noms, we've had many successful self noms in the past. Heck, we've even had several motions to require that all noms are self noms---and those proposals actually have more merit than the notion to ban self-noms.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"Kurt"??? I may make a "curt" comment from time to time, but that's about it. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just being a little silly... slap me with a trout---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please provide links to the motions? Not that I'm interested though. I just want the links so others can see them. —Mythdon t/c 22:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where they are off the top of my head, but the proposals have been along the lines that certain people have too much clout here and that their nominations carry too much clout. If we forced everybody to be a self-nom, then you would "minimalize" the impact of these nominators by relegating them the discussion section.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent to reply to BB. "As for "feeling bad"... they'll get over it." Perhaps they do, but looking at the subsequent contributions of rejected RFA candidates IMHO there are too many good editors whose getting over it involves leaving Wiki English. The last time we discussed a minimum threshold there were concerns that we should avoid editcountitis, hence I'm now suggesting 500 edits, happy to also stipulate a two month minimum. It would still be possible for an unusual candidate with either less than 500 edits or less than two months tenure to run provided they could persuade an editor who did meet that criteria to nominate them. Looking through Wiki: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) since the beginning of March there have been more than a dozen candidates who could not have self nommed if wp:RFA was set to not allow candidates to run unless they had both 500 edits and two months tenure. I doubt if anyone bothered to seriously evaluate any of those candidates; so putting such a threshold at RFA would avoid biting about sixty newbies a year. A threshold for self noms of 750 edits would have ruled out another three candidates, and no blocks in the couple of months would have ruled out at least one more. ϢereSpielChequers 12:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

i think edit count is bad but 500 is a clear no no so okArma virumque cano (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous D was challenged on his talk page for the wording he used in closing an RfA. Apparently the wording implied that RfA's with less than 50% support were to be closed as "unsuccessful" and those with more than 50% that were closed by a 'crat should be closed as consensus not met. This wording IMO (and echoed by Julian) was wrong. So I changed it. I rephrased it to state that those with less than roughly 70% would be closed as Unsuccessful and those that fell into 'crat discretion would be closed as "consensus not met." I then indicated that 'crat descretion was 70-75% but may be higher or lower depending on the circumstances.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you; RfA's aren't a vote. -download ׀ sign! 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just change it to winners and losers? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "winning" and "losing". I have found that I can be a much more effective vandal hunter without being an admin. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who "challenged" Anonymous D, though if you read the actual discussion I think you'll see that it was a civil inquiry. It is worth noting that the practice Spartacus is discussing has been used since at least January 2006 - ie. more than 3 years. The change Spartacus has made implies the range of 'crat discretion is narrower than is suggested by "most of those below ~70% fail" on the RfA page. The change would require all closes since April 2004 that are currently described as "consensus not reached" to be checked to see whether the need reclassifying based on Spartacus' new definitions. Further, I think the idea of the distinction is that it gives some idea whether the RfA was majority supported or not. I can see that being useful in looking to a future RfA, and I see no particular benefit flowing from the work needed on reclassifying the last 5 years worth of unsuccessful RfA's. EdChem (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I could go for a change like this, but only if the archived unsuccessful RFAs listed there are changed to comply with the new definitions. Useight (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with putting a percentage number on it - that is heading towards a vote. Bureaucrats should have the discretion to weigh the discussion and there may be times when a higher or lower percentage than 70 percent would be appropriate. Dean B (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a number on it before, 50%, this simply moves the cutoff to 70% for archival purposes. Useight (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the 70% number is dangerous in a way that 50% is not. Let's suppose that an RfA closes with 69% support. Should the closing 'crat class it as "unsuccessful", implying that the percentage was the important thing? Or should s/he close it as "consensus not reached", implying that the 'crat exercised his or her discretion in deciding not to promote? If categorised as "unsuccessful", can't a case be made that the 'crat should have exercised her or his discretion as RfA's are not votes - and thus the decision should be reviewed? If that means that all 69% cases are "consensus not reached" then the cut-off for the "unsuccessful" category is not actually 70%. Since no serious case can be made for promoting under 'crat discretion at 51% no similar problem arises with the 50% cut-off. I suspect that most 'crats aren't going to want to define whether borderline cases were decided primarily or numbers or other criteria, which is what the new definitions risk forcing. EdChem (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Which leads into the difficulty of changing the archives to match the new defintions (which have been reverted): the archives would be better refactored by the bureaucrats, which would be no small task. Useight (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ultimately, I don't think it really matters. There were a few cases where the !vote was above 50 and closed as unsuccessful and one where it was below 50% and closed as no-consensus. (But those were clear and rare exceptions).---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked into the history, and for the most part going back to at least august of 08, 'crats have accurately used the original criteria when notating the outcome. As such, I went ahead and self-reverted myself. I do think the criteria should be revisited.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If a bureaucrat had to mull a particular request over a while before deciding not to promote, the "no consensus" wording ought to be used; if the result was clear from the discussion and no judgement call needed from the bureaucrat, call it "unsuccessful". We need to move away from seeing RfA as a vote, just as we have done for AfD. Instead of formalising arbitrary thresholds, we should trust those chosen to assess consensus to do so, and respect their decision as made.  Skomorokh  06:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, who cares? :( Stifle (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't, I haven't really cared what the specific wording a crat used when preserving an unsuccessful candidacy. If it didn't pass, it didn't pass and consensus was not achieved.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's just a matter of sparing hurt feelings. Looking at CoM's RfA, for example, they could be kind, and quote Maxwell Smart: "Missed it by that much!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
come on Bugs ... be nice. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the wording to be:

• unsuccessful means the voice of the community clearly indicated that the candidate was not ready, at the present time, to become an admin.
• consensus not reached means the candidate received enough !votes in support that the final decision fell, in part, on bureaucrat to measure the strength of argument.

This would eliminate all reference to percentages and place it more upon the individual 'crat as to how it was closed. Was the final outcome obviously a failure or did the 'crat have to closely review the RfA?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a thread on ageism or blanket opposes or WikiProject endorsements or something... Getting down to the bottom of the barrel on things to argue over with this one ;-) Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Nathan, I think it's a very valid topic. I'm personally not one to support or oppose based on "age"; but, User:Malleus Fatuorum, as cold and insensitive as his posts can appear, really does have some valid points at times. Sometimes what looks good on paper, doesn't always play out quite as well in the field. Depending on the areas that admins work in, they can come under some pretty unsavory posts and accusations. An editor who is very young in physical age could be adversely affected by some nasty remarks. As long as an editor has been around long enough to understand that some crappy attack text written on a web page shouldn't be taken personally, and the candidate is mature enough to not get all "bent-out-of-shape" by USENET type text - then I think it's fine to ignore the age issue. BUT - that is a pretty big "if" indeed. Not a "bottom of the barrel" issue at all I think. The bottom line is: it depends on the individual candidate, are they wiki-qualified, and can they handle adversity in a mature manner. — Ched :  ?  15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ageism is a valid discussion, sure - I was contrasting it to this current topic, which is a little less earth shattering in importance ;-) Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I like "consensus not reached" as a polite way to describe the conclusion of any unsuccessful RfA that received a substantial amount of support and ran for its full duration. I presume that a desire to avoid embarrassment is one reason why many borderline RfAs are withdrawn by the candidate before they run the full duration (and also is a reason why many potential candidates are reluctant to be nominated), which leads me to think that it's a good idea to make the closure as unembarrassing as possible when a candidate bravely chooses not to withdraw. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Terminology, as I understand it and have used it:

unsuccessful - less than 50%
no consensus - more than 50% but not successful
successful - ...really? I need to define that?

Just my two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever decision is reached here, I don't think that crats should be expected to trawl through archived RfAs trying to figure out which need to be changed. They are called "archives" for a reason, and changing them retrospectively is revisionist wonkery. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
@EVula. successful defined: Means, you asked for it - now you're stuck with it .. lol. ;) (note: That's a collective, in general, "you" - not a "EVula" specifically "you") — Ched :  ?  17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this distinction between "unsuccessful" and "no consensus" is a very good idaa. It gives editors like myself and Ottava Rima something to aim for. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's quite aimless to have a protracted discussion about this, really. I've changed the RfA to reflect the norm; it's a "no consensus" now. Still, I would urge the changing of the practice here. Something is either successful or unsuccessful. A third definition is completely redundant, in my eyes. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support the current system, as described by EVula above. Indeed, I just reverted the description of BQZip01's RFA on Wiki: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) here[9] - admittedly before seeing this thread. This system makes it extremely simple to list an RFA without having to make a judgement call about whether it fell into the 'not successful' or 'closed by crat discretion' zones. Besides, I like the description of RFAs that failed at 50%+ as 'consensus not reached' - it indicates that there was, in fact, majority support for this user becoming an admin; just not consensus, as we define it here at RFA. Robofish (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Are such descriptors really necessary? I think the tally speaks for itself; and usually the two are located next to one another. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
They aren't strictly necessary, no - but for the sake of the extra effort it involves (none) it's nice to describe a close RfA as "not quite enough support" rather than "failed". I don't think anyone's going to break down in tears because their RfA was "unsuccessful" rather than "no consensus", but I see no reason not to use the more encouraging phrasing for the less-blatant failed RfAs. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is why I don't use the descriptors at all; see RfA/CRGreathouse for an example. I just say that I closed it, and leave the "pass/fail" commentary in the hands of the closing templates (both the verbiage and the colored backgrounds). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)