requests For Adminship/Archive 33

Maybe just Strong Support, or Extreme Support. The purpose here is fairly serious, but seems to be treated more-and-more like a joke. At least, that's the way I feel. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It makes the page look silly and unprofessional. I mean, it's not necessary to limit what phrases can be used on an RFA, but so much of it seems to be attention grabbing...it really takes away from the purpose of having an RFA page. Plus, it's highly distracting. --216.191.200.1 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Since when have we been professional?Geni 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If we're to believe this guy our amateurishness is one of our best selling points. Or something. Hell if I know. Kelly Martin 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
If anything it takes a bit of inginouity (right word?) to come up with the variants so I'd take it as the opposite :). It seems like people are taking this a little too seriously though - if there's a serious objection I'll agree to dampen mine a bit if you'd like. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
EXTREME LESBIAN PENGUIN WEDDING AT THE CENTRAL PARK ZOO SUPPORT for Voldy's stand against RfA vote silliness.  BD2412 ^talk 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Damn, there's little hope of topping that. Friday (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh. I'm outta here! --216.191.200.1 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Joking! Seriously, I do agree with Voldy's point - smart comments beat shock comments.  BD2412 ^talk 22:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Hehe. Well, I always thought having it partian to the candidate would be nice like EXTREME ACTUALLY-WIKIFIES-INSTEAD-OF-TAGGING SUPPORT!!... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This sounds a little to much m:instuction creepy for my taste. Come one, they have already gotten old, people will stop using them and go back to the "no 1 rfa cliché" votes. gkhan 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course this doesn't require a new rule, but those leaving inane votes should know that they're only embarrassing themselves. — Dan | Talk 22:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this practice. Why should we discourage ourselves from having a little fun? And how is this hurting our goal of building an encyclopedia? Yes, Wikipedia is serious business, but that doesn't mean we should all act dour and humorless. As long as the "EXTREME XYZ SUPPORT" votes are tasteful and don't attack anyone, they're OK with me. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 23:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure they're fine occasionally, it's nice to make people smile, but recently it has moved towards becoming a farce. Mature humour is good, but it isn't funny when its constant, actually gets in the way of constructive comments, and makes the whole process look like a joke. Martin 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
As long as they're not offensive, I don't see a problem with them. Too little humor is just as bad as too much humor. Besides, once they get old, people will stop using them. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Too little humour as bad as too much? Um, would you rather go on holidays with someone who makes too many jokes or someone who makes too few? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

People get called out for not providing a reason for oppose. Why should supports not get the same treatment? EXTREME WHATEVERTHEFUCK SUPPORT doesn't stike me as a good vote. It strikes me as a bandwagon vote where the main interest is coming up with something clever. Marskell 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC) To clarify slightly, would we accept Extreme lesbian oppose? Marskell 23:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, people hopped on the bandwagon anyway before the slew of witty votes, they only did it with Support instead of Extreme GNAA Support or whatever. I don't know if Extreme lesbian oppose would be accepted, no one has tried it yet... Titoxd^(?!?) 23:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
To be clear, EXTREME BLAHBLAH SUPPORT and simply Support can both be criticized for not providing reasoning and both may be bandwagon votes—it's just that in the former case I often wonder if the person is only voting for the sake of coming up with something clever.
Extreme lesbian oppose hasn't been tried as far as I can see either and it would probably elicit comments against—"what's this mean? is this good faith? etc." I don't see that we should hold support votes to a lesser standard (you may get the implication that I disagree with "explain oppose particularly"—this isn't AfD and I don't think the default should be accept). Marskell 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
That is a completely different issue, but I agree with you on that one. I try to leave the remark I would have left if I had voted Support instead of Extreme I'm-trying-to-think-of-something Support. Users should leave their reasoning (or at least try—I know I have forgotten to do so once or twice) whether they are voting support, oppose or neutral. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, not completely different—how you tag supports and how you should weight support versus oppose are related incidentally and both of my points speak to the substantiveness of votes. While I know otherwise fine editors my use a colourful descriptor on their supports, the more colourful the less seriously I take the vote. Marskell 00:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that it get less funny each time, and is now becoming tiresome. I'd love to see editors going back to helpful remarks like, "Strong Support. Good sense of NPOV, always explains his edits, and is courteous towards other contributors." I don't often vote for someone I haven't come across, but when I do, it's very helpful to see what other have said about him/her, before taking a quick look through the user's contributions. Personally, I don't care about the number of edits (as long as it's not ridiculously low for an RfA). I care a lot about how a user treats others and deals with conflict. If several voters comment on the reason why they're supporting (or opposing), rather than whether their vote is lesbian or sadomasochistic or whatever, then I can get a feeling for what kind of candidate it is.Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that the proliferation of these incredibly dangerous and probably highly-damaging to many people all around the world style votes was caused by the request to stop using The Original One. It's what happens when you tell people to stop acting in a particular way that isn't wrong. We('ve) all escalated like that when(since) we were kids... Oh, and FWIW, I laughed-out-loud at Phroziac's new disclaimer. -Splash^talk 00:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we call this WP:BEANS. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts are that I don't care about what kind of goofy peacock adjective opinions anyone offers, as long as it's accompanied by a valid, legible, coherent reasons for their support or opposition. However, I don't particularly like where the trend line is pointing. I think the real problem is that people are thinking harder about how to be clever in their vote than how to be expressive in their reasoning behind it. Unfocused 00:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
What Unfocued said. It adds a bit of fun to what would otherwise be a fairly stodgy process, and as long as they're being used to complement rather than replace comment, I see no problem with it. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Extreme lesbian disagree. What's wrong with simply having a little fun? This is not a parliamentary or governmental election. This is an informal process for determining which Wikipedians are suitable for adminship. And the "support" or "oppose" vote is clear enough despite the silly qualification in front of it. — JIP | Talk 09:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Everything in moderation. Martin 09:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with extreme lesbian disagree is that the grammar doesn't work. With extreme lesbian support, extreme and lesbian are both adjectives modifying the noun support. It's really an exclamatory phrase standing in for I give my extreme lesbian support to this candidate. To fit the pattern on the negative side, you'd have to use extreme lesbian opposition (in the case of a vote) or more apropos for a comment on a talk page, extreme lesbian disagreement. --RoySmith 10:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I never thought of that. I have been viewing "support" and "oppose" as verbs, and have merely seen "extreme lesbian support" as short hand for "support in an extreme lesbian way". But this way people would have to write "extreme lesbian opposition" if they were to use it in oppose votes, or start writing "extremely lesbianly" instead of "extreme lesbian". (I never thought I'd write the word "lesbian" so many times in succession, particularly when I'm not talking about porn.) — JIP | Talk 10:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Extreme lesbian disagree on wheels - it's just a fad, and I'm sure that it will die down eventually. --Ixfd64 09:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Fool! The extreme lesbian vessel must not be damaged! Now... we must take control! — JIP | Talk 14:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these votes are getting unfunny, but I find worries about "unprofessionality" of an internal Wikipedia process baseless. Why do we have to be spending time on this issue? It's hard to see how silly RFA votes could somehow impugn Wikipedia's reputation. This, perhaps, is a good point of view on the issue. ~~ N (t/c) 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• At the risk of beating an already well-beaten horse, being the wiki it is there really aren't much in the way of internal processes here, these discussions are 2-3 clicks from the main page and can be read and edited by anyone. Some people will see those types of votes as a reflection on the editors who contribute to Wikipedia, some won't...perception is reality and you can't control how people will perceive these sorts of things. Rx StrangeLove 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For pete's sake - we have a meta page for "Don't be a dick" with a link to an essay about f**kheads! I really think the public perception here is not that big of a problem. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we do have a public perception problem, but it's in article space, not wiki space. A friend of mine at work (we're both technogeeks) says, Wiki is like a public toilet; when you need it, you're glad it's there, but you never know who was there before you and what they left behind. If we could get the quality of the articles improved, our public perception would go up. I don't think anybody cares what happens behind the scenes (even if behind the scenes is pretty much visible to anybody who cares to click on the discussion tab we conveniently put on every page. It's just like at work; nobody (least of all our customers) cares that I wear grubby jeans and t-shirts to work, but they do care that the software we ship is the best it can be. WP space is our office, article space is what we ship. --RoySmith 21:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up something serious but the Vote here link isn't working for candidates Denelson83 and Rd232. Anyone know how to fix? The code looks good. --hydnjo talk 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

AHA! As the writer for Template:RfA I see my mistake. Allow me to fix it. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

OK - Thanks. --hydnjo talk 01:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Here was the problem: I said /{{{user}}}, so users who have been nominated more than once would get their first nom. Now I made it {{PAGENAMEE}}, so it'll work on all future RfA's. But as the ones there were subst:'d they won't be affected. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hope anyone wanting to vote for them knows enough to work around (or shouldn't be voting anyway). --hydnjo talk 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

On the "how to nominate" page instructions it says: "Please do not add the Rfa to Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship yet." How long is it until one can nominate somebody? Thanks Banes 11:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're nominating yourself, you're free to add it once the questions are answered. In the case of nominating someone else, you need to get them to accept the nomination and answer the candidate questions before adding it to the RfA page. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 14:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm nominating somebody else. He/She is aware of it and will accept once I nominate. So, I just go ahead and follow the instructions on the nominate page then? Banes 15:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Write the nomination page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Your candidate's name as per the instructions and tell your candidate that he/she has been nominated, and should fill in his/her acceptance and answers. Once that has been done, transclude the nomination page into the main listing. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone notice taht since the new procedure has been used that more Rfa's are successful? JobE6   15:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a case of correlation does not imply causation! Talrias (t | e | c) 16:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is in part a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc - the new procedure prevents unaccepted nominations from building up, which otherwise might lead to lingering strings of neutral or oppose votes based on nonacceptance, and which may raise doubts about a candidate's availability in general.  BD2412 ^talk 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

First let me say that I am one of the strongest proponents of having every voter count, but do you think we should encourage RfA nominees to withhold from voting on other people's RfAs until their's is completed? I know I might take some flak over this, but RfA nominees may be voting support just to gain reciprocal support. It doesn't have to be a firm policy, but perhaps merely a suggestion? Anybody? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I promised to avoid doing just that, but I feel that Rob Church's RfA is something I want to contribute to. Yes, I could've waited, but I can see how maybe another user can have trouble doing that (because of time constraints). It opens the door for "misuse" but I think the policy is fine as it is. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: I wasn't commenting on a specific person. I am not intending to single out people who may have done so in the past. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

LV, I didn't take it personally, but it did struck a chord, especially because of what I wrote when I voted. I know you it wasn't your intention. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a fair amount of that going on, even if partly unconscious. It's probably a minority of cases though, and even then not likely to get enough votes to actually influence the outcome. People that will be promoted will be anyway and those that won't, won't. That said, I am generally in favor of encouraging candidates not to vote while they are being considered, but I'm probably not in favor of making it a rule. To justify a new rule, it has to meet my instruction creep guideline which is, is the new rule important enough to overcome the cost of complicating the guidelines. In this case I don't think it is; there is a lot more cost to complicating policies and pocedures than many editors reallize. - Taxman ^Talk 17:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is, as usual, no need to constrain the RfA process in any way. It works fine as it is. People can see if people vote for others while their RfA is in progress and can reach judgements of their own based on that observation. We also have Bureaucrats who are skilled in understanding how RfA works. There is no need to add instructions to the process that wouldn't enhance it any. -Splash^talk 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Splash. The RfA procedure is working fine without further restrictions on who can vote. Joyous (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If a candidate is worth voting for (or merits opposition), anyone who holds this conviction should vote accordingly. Consider the possibility, rare as it may be, that your silence may make the crucial difference for a worthy candidate who would better promote the ends of Wikipedia through the judicious exercise of admin powers.  BD2412 ^talk 17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I personally do not vote on RfA's while I am active in one, but that's a personal choice. I don't think we need this type of restriction, as it will be obvious if there is a rash of cross voting. Plus Splash points out that we have Bureaucrats for monitoring these things. Not to sound absurd or condesending, but will the next request be for other nominee's not to read another ongoing RfA, so as they don't get any ideas on how to respond on theirs? :-p m:instruction creep. Actually, I think they should all send in pictures of themselves in a chicken suit, because at one point or another you're gonna feel like a fool. Btw, my pic is in the mail. ∞Who?¿? 19:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I just see a lot of odd behavior lately around RfA, and thought about pointing some of it out. Stirring up the pot a little. (No, not WP:POINT.) We already have plenty of unnecessary rules and guidelines, so why not talk about a few more. BTW, BCrats are really no different than regular editors (same thing with Admins). Yes, I know they have different features, but they're really not better than the non-vandal, non-troll everyday editors. But that's a discussion for another place, another time. And this chicken suit you speak of... do we have to buy our own, or is there a community one that we can borrow? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A minor, very nitpicky point to raise here, BD2412. If one vote really is crucial to turn an RfA around, if it's that close, the user really shouldn't be promoted. There is obviously not consensus for him being adminned. gkhan 22:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Then you get into a problem of infinite regression - if a nominee gets 15 support and 5 oppose votes (75% support), you could then argue that but for a single one of those support votes, the nominee would not have enough suport and "really shouldn't be promoted" - that moves the bar up, but the same argument can be made again for the nominee who falls on the edge of the next level, until you reach the point where only 100% support qualifies a nominee for adminship. Of course, the argument is also reversible - if a nominee has 15 support and 6 oppose votes, and one of those oppose votes should not have been cast, you could argue that if it's that close (and with that much support), the user really shouldn't be denied promotion. An overarching concern, I think, is that under the prohibition being discussed here, not only would current nominees not cast votes, but they would also likely not provide the underlying rationale for those votes. If any editor can point to particular evidence of why another should or should not be promoted, that information is as important to the discussion as the vote itself.  BD2412 ^talk 22:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
You're looking at this waaaaay to much like a vote. RfA is not, nor has it ever been about numbers. If there is general agreement ("rough consensus" i think the wording that's used), there are no major arguments against him/her, then the user should be promoted. It is a matter of bureocratic judgement. Ofcourse, if a user has important information about another user that would lead to him not getting the promotion, that's a whole 'nother cupcake, but this is not the case here (besides, that stuff always gets out one way or another). Lord Voldemort was talking about reciprocal support votes, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"-kinda-of-a-deal. One more "Extreme hula hoop support" should not, nor does it ever, tip the scales for a voter. gkhan 23:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
In short, RfA does not violate the Sorites paradox :D gkhan 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
But bureaucrats do, to some extent, hang their hats on raw numbers (as they must, where not every vote to support or opposed is qualified by an explanation). Moreover, my overaching concern remains intact - that prohibiting some editors from voting will discourage their participation altogether, thereby depriving the process of the substantive comments which that editor may have made along with a vote.  BD2412 ^talk 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be a nice way of blocking someone who you think might vote against you, nominate them! ;-) --TimPope 20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Interesting point. I assume good faith and hand't even thought about it that way--just business as usual, but can understand how appearances can be. I will also refrain from participating in RfA(s) (uh starting now) during a time period that I am involved. However, one should be careful with such restrictions--it could be proposed for other such consensus gathering activities such as AfD. We've all seen an individual nominate an article for deletion only to find one of their own nominated as well in retaliation. Such is communal life, I suppose.  :-) >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
One could argue that it is simply a matter of good taste and etiquette to refrain form voting when your RfA is up. On the other hand, if we cannot trust candidates with excercising their right to express their support or opposition to other RfAs, how can they be trusted with admin tools? I would argue that an "effusive" voter who's RfA is up, will be too evident of a trolling for votes excercise as to raise a red flag, visible for all to see. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the point BD2412 was getting at (or maybe he wasn't, but I took it this way), is that if an voter (whether up for adminship himself or not) can potentially bring to light things which would sway the votes of others, he should be able to vote. I see no good reason to restrict voting on RfA's while one is going for yourself, if a significant problem of reciprocal voting starts to occur, I'm sure we can do something about it then. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly the point I was getting at, thank you. I shall, in the future, endeavor to eschew obfuscatory rhetoric! ;-)  BD2412 ^talk 03:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A point to consider: Administrators should be sufficiently mature that they won't let their candidacy affect the opinions they express here. In my opinion, most of the cases where this occurs will probably be obvious, and should be dealt with accordingly—with closer scrutiny. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason not to vote on someone's RfA just because you're nominated for adminship yourself. — JIP | Talk 12:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have recently endeavored to undertake an ambitious project of my own. I have read through all of the successful adminship archives for the month of October and took count of the major support and oppose entries. I have compiled all of the recurring phrases and such into a list and am preparing to count them. If anyone is interested they may go here to see what I have done. Anyone is invited to help. I still have unsuccessful nominations to sort through. You don't have to do what I did and take on a whole month. You may do just one admin's nomination. Please go to the above page and comment about what I'm doing right or wrong. Thanks! Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 21:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, that is some project you are working on... Please go ahead it might be useful for future candidates. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've proposed some new policy for managing m:Checkuser at Wiki: Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal, please have a look. --fvw* 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I support your proposal if the vandalbot issue grows too difficult for us to handle without Checkuser access. — JIP | Talk 10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)