requests For Adminship/Archive 52

Here's my question--why? There's no shortage of great administators out there; why don't some of them run? Just throwing that out... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The question whether there is a shortage of bureaucrats depends on how much work you expect every single one of them to do. The workload could easily be handled by four or five, given that on the German wikipedia, all admin promotions are done by one bureaucrat. So it is unclear whether more bureaucrats are needed; perhaps more bureaucrat activity is needed, but whether that will be provided by electing additional bureaucrats is also not clear. Kusma (討論) 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Bingo. More bureaucrat activity would be best. I myself am not always around (I'm a college student... busy busy) but I try to make time for Wikipedia as often as I can. The reason why we don't like having too many bureaucrats is a matter of security. You don't want to promote someone to bureaucrat that might end up going rogue. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Linuxbeak, that explanation is the first rational reason I have heard for why there aren't too many bureaucrats. Before I thought it was silly not to have a a bunch more but after hearing this little fact I've changed my mind. (And before anyone says anything, I'm sure Linuxbeak's point was made before on these discussion pages but this is the first time I've heard it.) Thanks, --Alabamaboy 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
With Essjay promoted, I doubt we will have problems anyway.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, Essjay has not taken a pledge to never go on vacation or to avoid getting busy with other things. Reliance on any one individual is not a good idea. We shouldn't promote unqualified candidates, but there is no good reason to reject a good trustworthy candidate. NoSeptember ^talk 13:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I am not saying that we only need Essjay, but that with the addition of a new crat (him), we should be OK. I'd still support a good nom though.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I realy hate the say we do RfBs. We let someone nominate themselves, and then we simmultaneously have the 'do we need more crats?' and the 'if we do, do we want him' debates. (It is like going for an arduous job interview, when you arn't even told in advance if the job exists.) It would be better to agree how many more (if any) we need at present (or let the existng crats tell us). Then let anyone apply, and vote by approval/diapproval voting - the highest get appointed - any others with high approval form a reserve lists when the existing crats decide they need reinforcement. When/if the list is used up, we open for new nominations again.--Doc ^ask? 14:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
An ArbCom style election would be fine, as would a Steward style election, but when discussed here it got mixed reviews. NoSeptember ^talk 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't subscribe to the "we have enough 'crats" idea, but it does motivate me to have high standards for 'crats. If the only concern is that a 'crat might go on a rampage, then select those who won't go on a rampage. It's as simple as that. I normally wouldn't feel so strongly about this, since on a wiki we ought to be eventualist (how much does it matter if we get a few delayed promotions now and then? How many of these delayed RfAs would be controversial?), but as Doc has pointed out, this creates a nasty problem with RfBs. We shouldn't be turning qualified people down and yet at the same time leaving applications open if we have "enough" crats. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Our newest admin
• on Meta
• here - proof that a large edit count is not all that matters.

Does this mean he will be doing some of the WP:OFFICE functions, like protecting pages for legal reasons?
This will be a good thing for Wikipedia and clearly he should be an admin, but it would have been fun to cast a vote for him ;-).
Welcome aboard Brad. NoSeptember ^talk 04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, meta admins are meta admins, they have no special role in en.wikipedia whatsoever. --Doc ^ask? 13:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, that was the en.wiki bureaucrat log, and he is an en.wiki admin not a Meta admin (at least not yet). NoSeptember ^talk 14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, got you now, I don't see why we should get a vote on this. This guy is a lawyer, and I guess the foundation has given him rights to help wth legal matters. The foundation is not answerable to the community in how it deals with legal questions, because ultimately it is the foundation and not the community who are legally responsible (in so far as they are) for what is on their servers. If we found this guy objectionable (and I'm glad we don't), well then tough. --Doc ^ask? 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't complaining in the slightest way, in case that didn't come across through the internet. I agree that a vote is totally not needed. I only said it would be fun to do ;-). We should enjoy the fact that this is a very rare occurance. With the exception of readminning former sysops and the occasional test (like user:Angela1) or error (quickly reverted), this is the only occurance I am aware of, of a non-RfAed sysop being added since 2002 when there were fewer than 40 sysops in total. And I have gone through the entire history of sysop promotions back to September 2002 in the process of creating this page. I fully trust Jimbo, Danny, and Angela. I am enjoying the uniqueness of the occasion, come and enjoy it with me. NoSeptember ^talk 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

On that note. I shall rejoice with you too. :) --Doc ^ask? 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OMG, once he didn't leave an edit summary, where do I go to protest about this!!! Martin 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

File an arbitration case against Jimbo, Angela, Anthere, et al for promoting an obviously unqualified candidate outside of process. Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It was Danny who did the out of process promotion, and not for the first time (he attempted to) this year either ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 17:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I advised Brad to ask Danny to promote him; Mindspillage concurred in that recommendation. Having Brad go through the motions of an RfA would have been pointless; Brad needs this level of access in order to do his job for the Foundation, and that should be the end of the discussion. At least nobody is screaming too loudly yet. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, Kelly, I don't think anyone disagrees with the promotion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, no disagreement after seeing what he does. Still, it would have been nice if Danny would have made a note here or somewhere else on Wikipedia why he promoted Brad, so that we don't have to go hunting around before finding out that he's WMF's legal counsel. --Deathphoenix ʕ 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, an RFA would have just been embarrassing, because some really would have opposed on the grounds of editcountitis/editsummaryitis etc. regardless of the evident qualifications. Martin 10:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Danny has created his new sockpuppet Dannyisme as an admin and bureaucrat. Sockpuppets have been promoted in the past to test the bureaucrat buttons. This case is different, of course, see the statement on the sockpuppet user page. NoSeptember ^talk 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to rewrite the proposal. Please see WT:DFA for more. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you weren't here before, that's a proposal to reform RfA. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the reform attempt was dead by now. There was a very insightful comment on this page a while ago, by NoSeptember[1]. To paraphrase, it said that the current RfA system is mostly fine, and if anything, changes to it will come gradually as the process evolves and issues show up. I wholehartedly agree with that. Suggestions for big overhauls did not gain much tractions so far, and I don't see a good motivation for trying. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We've been discussing on there. RfA isn't broken, we agree. It is good enough. But we can do better than good enough. And I haven't seen any changes to the RfA process in a long long time. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I’ve only been here for four months and have had about 300 posts. I know people won’t vote for me right now, but I’m just wondering... how long do you guys think it would take before I stood a good chance of being voted as an admin? --EKN 03:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

At least a thousand more posts. --maru (talk) contribs 03:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And learning how to sign posts properly. NSLE _(T+C); at 05:17 UTC (2006-04-16)

Also, see the guide to RfA. It may help explain things further. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not posting jokes about dead Jews might help too. [2] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, That one is a showstopper for me. If EKN were to start all over again with a new ID then there might be a chance. It's only 300 wasted edits. --Ancheta Wis 01:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
With respect, if there is one place in Wikipedia that that joke was appropriate, that was the place. Stevage 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll leave a comment here, since I imagine my decision may provoke discussion. I realized I'd been absent in my role of bureaucrat for far too long -- the discussion following Cecropia and Francs2000's resignations put very much in my mind the fact that I've been neglecting my responsibilities. I came here and saw that the time had come for Master Jay's nomination to close. I spent some time reading through all of the comments and considering carefully what I thought the community was expressing, and decided that a consensus had emerged in the responses. I recognize with respect the objections of those who opposed Master Jay, but felt that the nomination had succeeded, and that it was my job (too long neglected, as I said) to make these difficult decisions. Either I'm good at making such judgments (and can be trusted to do so), or I can't. If I can't, I should clearly resign so that a better community representative can promote the will of our community--if I can, then I thought shying away (out of a desire to do uncontroversial promotions only) was simply a further failure to do the job I signed up for months ago.

If you take issue with what I did, I'm very open to your comments, and as noted above, if the community clearly feels that I'm not as good a judge of its will as I hope and strive to be, I will step down without hesitation. I have no desire to rock any boats, and am merely, at long last, trying to get back to work assisting this project in whatever limited capacity I'm capable of. All my best to you all, Jwrosenzweig 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you made the right decision. It was 77% to promote and despite the fact that there were good reasons to oppose many of the people were very reluctant to oppose and at least one should probably have been discounted off the bat to begin with as yet another disruptive me to vote so I think you definitely made the right choice to promote. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support your decision; you have worked on the encyclopedia a long time, and your judgements fit the situation. Clearly Francs and Crecopia will be missed, and you are stepping up. --Ancheta Wis 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for stepping back into this difficlt role and putting yourself in the firing line - which so few bureaucrats seem prepared to do. I think the promotion was fine but, in response to the request for feedback, it may have been a good idea to extend the vote a little longer as the numbers were still in the gray area and there had been a lot of recent voting activity (at a quick count, 10 new/changed votes in the final 5 hours). Not a major concern though, plus I'm very happy to see Jay promoted :) Cheers TigerShark 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your honest feedback--the idea of an extension is certainly a tool available to bureaucrats, and one I have given some encouragement to in the past. My decision not to use it in this case was based on several considerations--although (as you rightly note) votes were continuing to be added a few at a time, the overall percentage had hovered in the vicinity of 75% for at least the final day of the candidacy. It seemed to me that, rather than indicating a trend which it might be fruitful to see continue, the voting pattern suggested that the current state of affairs was likely to be the status quo. I have grown hesitant to extend votes over time, as it seems to me that 1 or 2 day extensions can become battlegrounds where both "sides" recruit votes, and situations become more tense and confused, not less. As a result of this thinking (which I admit may well not be shared by other bureaucrats), I find myself leaning away from extensions out of a desire to avoid putting the intensity of a spotlight on a "make or break" day of voting. Finally, the number of votes was high enough that the odds were low that another 10-12 votes would swing the total decisively into the mid 80s or the high 60s, and I consider anything in the 70-80 zone to be a matter of bureaucrat discretion (with the pressure against promotion intensifying as you reach 70). I give this lengthy explanation because I think bureaucrat decision-making ought to be relatively transparent, and because if any of the assumptions or guidelines by which I travel are out of step with the community, I hope to have that brought to my attention sooner rather than later. I hope they provide some insight as to why I did not opt for an extension in this case (and we shall see if it proved a wise decision). Jwrosenzweig 06:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
You mention a 70 to 80 range. I think the current consensus is a 75 to 80 range. Aside from Luigi30 and Freestylefrappe, I can't think of anyone who has been promoted with under 75% in the past 8 months. NoSeptember ^talk 06:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks--I'll definitely keep that in mind, as the voting standard seems to have gone up slightly since I was last active (however briefly) in promoting users. I'll go have a look at the two exceptions you noted to get a sense of when to dip below 75. Jwrosenzweig 06:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Luigi30's promotion is regarded as a new bureaucrat's mistake. Here is the <80% list from Durin (a few more have occurred in the past 2 months). NoSeptember ^talk 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree on the extending of the review period. Absent a specific reason to extend, the RfA should be closed. Just being in the borderline area of pass/fail is not a good reason to postpone a decision, and it happens all the time. I'd hate to see a precedent established for continual postponements. NoSeptember ^talk 06:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd disagree with the reluctance to extend on the part of the bureaucrats. If people are still weighing in, and if RfA is not a straight 'vote', then it makes sense to extend if there's still a pendulum/momentum in effect that could affect the outcome:
1. The nomination is hovering +/-ε around the 80/75/77.5% mark;
2. The nomination is on a steady rise toward passing, and has continued to do so in recent hours!
3. The nomination is on a steady decline away from passing (this may be more touchy), as above.
Anything else would seem to increase the trend toward voting, and move things away from a caerful and thorough deliberation of the candidate. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is that you are back, doing the job, and willing to make considered judgements. If you feel any need to review current community standards for bureaucrat decisions, read the last few successful RfBs and the archives of this page, but I think you are doing fine so far. NoSeptember ^talk 06:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: I did some reviewing before my promotion, but I will certainly continue to do so, and more information about recent disputes can only serve to help me in making appropriate decisions. Jwrosenzweig 06:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh em gee! How dare you actually do a job some people don't seem to want to do!! On top of that, one you were even chosen to do. Just kidding... It seems okay. But then again, we are not BCrats, so what do we know? ;-) Keep up the good work, Jwrosenzwig. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With the two exceptions, it should be noted that while Luigi's been okay, Freestylefrappe was desysopped after having that arbcom case against him. While my analysis is that of a non-bureaucrat, I think some of the complaints about him as an admin were the very factors that were mentioned against him with many of the oppose votes in his last RfA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you and NoSeptember. I'd say it's become fairly clear to me from your comments and some digging in the archives that any promotion below 75% is treading on very dangerous ground--I won't go there anytime soon, myself. I'd say this doesn't change my position on the promotion I made today, but it certainly is good to know that the community's range has narrowed (though I do see some Wikipedians still support the idea of a 70-80% range, or did in late 2005). Jwrosenzweig 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept 75% because I see widespread support for it, and the rarity of anyone passing below 75% reinforces that. I could live with a lower standard than 75% (and the 90% for bureaucrat promotions), but I don't see much support for it from experienced users. The fact that someone who fails their current RfA can reapply shortly seems a fair reason for keeping the 75% barrier, since it means they are only delayed in getting adminship typically. There is a lot of fear of promoting rogue admins (which I don't share so much now that ArbCom is more active in desysopping) that motivates many to keep very high standards IMO. NoSeptember ^talk 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I respect your decision and support it, even though I opposed, as Master Jay has good qualities. Tyrenius 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you took on a difficult and possibly contentious decision in this case and am impressed by the thoughtfulness shown. (I've weighed in in the past as not being too keen on extensions in the general case (technical issues not withstanding), so won't repeat that bit) Further, I won't say "and I wish other 'crats were like that" because they are. It's a little funny to remark on one decision in this fashion I guess, but in the final analysis, this is what the community chose you 'crats to do, and you're all doing fine at it, please keep doing it. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Glad you took it on, and glad you arent shying away from judgement calls (which is basically why we need you guys!). And a good call it was. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Towards the end of an RfA, the page can get unreasonably long. Also, there seem to be frequent edit conflicts on the RfAs. To help alleviate this problem, may I suggest reformating the general template so that the comments section is an independently editable section? JoshuaZ 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the current RfA template has each "support", "oppose", and "comment" section as a bolded word, not as a separate section distinguished by headers with edit links for each section. This is done so that the table of contents on the main RfA page isn't bogged down. I'm not sure if there's a way to make a section editable but not appear on the table of contents, short of removing the table of contents itself. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
If there IS a way to do this it would be tres nifty... it would really help to have sections editable independently. ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There's always Bugzilla. I'd like to see this feature as well. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've thought of a workaround:
1. Put the headings in ... tags.
2. Put the bold text, together with hardcoded edit links for each section, below the headings in ... tags.
It would have the effect of not showing up in WP:RFA's TOC but still with section edit links. And awfully kludgy. ;) Kimchi.sg | talk 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all kind of irrelevant, because one of the devs (CesarB?) has said that edit sections were introduced to make editing easier, and not to avoid edit conflicts. Even if you edit a whole page, the edit merging logarithms of MediaWiki will still be used to prevent edit conflicts. (If I recall correctly, this was from a discussion of preventing section editing on George W. Bush, although I'm not sure if it took place on the mailing list or at the village pump.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Algorithms. Logarithims are different. That particular conversation or, at least, a version of it is somewhere in the archives of Talk:George W. Bush from a little while before the implementation of WP:SEMI. Try Oct/Nov or so. -Splash^talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Google searches for misspellings sometimes turn up all sorts of wierd and wonderful things, but today my search for "admistrator" turned up the funniest fake request for adminship I've ever seen (linked above). I've put it in BJAODN, but what else should be done with it? I myself was fooled until I read the history. What kind of joke was this, and how did google find it? Graham talk 09:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's been moved to BJAODN already, I've deleted. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
In case people can't find the link, here you go :) jacoplane 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a lot of failed nominations, including many with comments along the lines of "come back in a month". Might it help to have a separate page for people why want to say: "I plan to nominate myself for adminship in a month, what should I spend the next month doing to best meet your criteria?"? Such a page would serve the same purpose as a failed nomination without people getting hurt and without wasting an admin's time closing it. --Tango 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that idea if it were entirely voluntary but it can pretty much be assumed from past ideas like this that like the questions on RFA's they would be technically voluntary but would in reality become required by the fact that people would vote oppose just because people didn't go through it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it would need to be made very clear that it's voluntary and anyone opposing purely because someone didn't use it would need to be hit with a large stick (or just told not to - personal preference). --Tango 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• There's several, including Esperanza's Admin Coaching. However, there seems to be a lack of "peer reviewers", as you've called them, and no shortage of requesters. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't work and here's why... We'd implement this and people would take part in it. It would become the norm then when it becomes mandatory by default due to opposes for not going through the process people will object to that fact and they'll be shouted down for proposing more policy-cruft and thus it would become a new default procedure for all time (or until Ed Poor tries to delete it, though that would be tough since he's no longer an admin) and that's why this is an extremely bad idea. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Ref note for all the newbies, in my previous statement I referred to User:Ed Poor who used to be a bureaucrat and admin and is notorious for his deletion of Wiki: Votes for deletion now Articles for deletion. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That page seems to be similar, but not quite the same, to my idea. If I understand it correctly, the coaches take a personal responsibility for the candidate and work with them over a period of time. In my idea each peer reviewer would just make a one-off comment and move on, as they do on RFA or article peer review. I imagine there aren't many coaches because it looks like a lot of work - a review, however, would take no longer than voting on RFA. --Tango 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

God, things are bad enough already. Adminship isn't supposed to be a big deal. All this would do is add another layer of bureaucracy that's completely unnecessary, because, as Pegasus said, there's no possible way this would stay optional. john k 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago, about six or eight months I believe, it became fashionable for admins to request "confirmation" of thier adminship. That is, they would put up a new RfA and promise to request desysopping if it didn't "pass." These requests were quickly stamped out (quite rightly) by the bureaucrat staff as they added unecessary requests to an already overburdened page (anybody on a slow connection that has to wait several minutes for RfA to load will know what I mean by overburdened).

The suggestion made at that time was that if you wanted others to comment on your performance, you should set up a page in your userspace in the style of an RfA, and invite people to comment. I encourage those who would like to be "screened" or "vetted" to determine readiness for adminship to do the same thing. (Advertise it off your user/talk pages, and perhaps a few messages to some of the people you know; it'll grow from that.) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a peer review for users already existing on Wiki English. The founder, Computerjoe, is taking suggestions. Just to let you know. (^'-')^ Covington 02:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've MfD'ed it, please share your thoughts on it there.Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The main reason people seem to have for not liking this idea is a fear that it will end up becoming a de-facto requirement for RfA. Certainly a legitimate fear, but I don't think that's reason enough to dismiss the idea straight away. Is there no way to avoid it becoming compulsory? Is a firm policy saying you can't oppose someone for not going through it not going to be enough? It would also be worth saying not to suggest people go through it when you're opposing for some other reason - it serves no purpose if people have already commented on a RfA. --Tango 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about what happened with this RfA (history). The last vote cast put the tally at (0/8/1) (old edit). When Essjay closed it early, it was changed to (0/17/2) (diff). But this is not just about rectifying the record. That's easily done, and the whole thing could be attributed to an honest mistake. But I don't know about closing an RfA that had been open for just five hours with just nine votes in — granted, eight of which were to oppose, but it just seems way too early. Maybe if there were indeed 17, or even more, votes opposing. It would have been nice to have waited at least the first 24 hours though. But that notwithstanding, I'm confused. Was this closed at (0/8/1), or did Essjay have (0/17/2) in mind? I thought it would be best to post this here. Regards, Redux 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it was a typo. Essjay closed 3 at the same time and the first one was 0/17/2. He probably just forgot and went nuts with the copy paste. None of them were going to succeed...so I don't see the problem with closing them and sparing the candidate the pain of pileon opposes. Any contructive critcism that they could get out of the Rfa had already been said. pschemp | talk 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said: the incorrect tally is credited to an honest mistake, but the RfA was only five hours old when it was closed. And there had been only nine votes cast (and one was not to oppose). The possibility of early delisting notwithstanding, I'm not sure it should be done this early. An RfA must be given a minimum amount of time open: it is not unusual for a candidate to get four, five or more oppose votes in a row, and then start receiving consecutive support votes in the same fashion. An applicant/candidate/nominee (whatever we call them) is entitled to an accurate community feedback on his/her standing as a potential Admin. With just five hours, only the nine people who happened to be around got to vote. And again, eight votes to oppose is not a landslide, especially considering the particularly short life of this RfA. Redux 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
True, but I have seen other RFA's close earlier than 5 hours. Usually someone will delist an RFA due to lack of support/bad nomination and this is quite often. Usually an RFA is delisted after 10 or more opposers in a row because it highly unlikely that a user will gain enough support in a row to gain adminship. The chances of a new user/user who has 10 opposes in a row, obtaining adminship is really low. Moe ε 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It is also reasonable for a 'crat to let what the oppose votes are saying. To use an extreme example, the first oppose vote details a massive string of personal attacks, the second oppose vote details massive POV pushing by the candidate, the third oppose vote shows a dif of the candidate saying that they want to be an admin so they can block users they don't like, and then the next 4 are oppose votes per the earlier ones, the 'crat has every right to delist even if the number of opposes isn't that high. JoshuaZ 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I too remember this instance when a three-day-old account nominated a week-old account. That's different. And, as I said, it would also have been different if there had been a staggering number of votes (such as those 17, or more), but that was not the case. I had opposed the candidate myself, and, realistically speaking, I don't believe that the RfA would have succeeded. But the delisting still feels like it was premature to me. Unless it is a clear-cut case (such as in the examples Joshua mentioned, or the one I just did), an RfA should be allowed to run, at least for some time. I don't believe this RfA showed any indication, five hours in, that it was a clear case for early delisting. Maybe in a [full] day or two, the tally would have read something like (0/67/1). That would have been different. Without at least a full day, there are countless users out there who never even saw that RfA, because they were asleep, or at work, or doing something other than editing Wiki English. Some of those could have supported. And it's one thing to have a RfA fail with a consensus of 45%, or 60%, or whatever. It's something quite different to fail after being delisted in just five hours with 0% support. It can be taken as disconcerting by the candidate (and the user who nominated him/her), and no one can guarantee, with that tally and in that amount of time, that the RfA would have gone any specific way. We have had users promoted who had approximately the same time with the community (~6 months). And of the people who opposed, myself included, no one said anything like is that some kind of joke? On the contrary, the candidate was recognized as being on the right track. Again, no indication, that early on, that it was a clear, obvious case for immediate delisting. Redux 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am generally opposed to early withdrawal of RfAs. There are some RfAs that are clearly vandalism. Anything else...where do we draw the line at what is a permitted and not permitted RfA? Is 100 edits enough? 1000? One week on project? One month? Two months? Where? A bureaucrat pulling non-vandalism RfAs early makes a judgement call that is, at best, subjective. Such early withdrawals will be controversial. That's my take on it. Others have different opinions. I have created a page which addresses this issue at User:Durin/Withdraw policy. On April 6, I left a message with Essjay regarding early closures and referenced that page [3]. Essjay left an extensive response which may serve to show his stance on the matter at User_talk:Essjay/Archives13#Early_withdraw_of_RfAs. --Durin 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am just wondering if someone check history before closing a RfA. There is possibility that some other user signs with different user to have fake voting at a RfA. So, I just wanted to know this query. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many experienced users around at the RfA forum. Trying to fake a signature is highly unlikely to succeed. Bureaucrats are, by definition, very experienced users, so it would be very surprising if any of them were to miss such a crude attempt at tampering with a RfA. Normally, Bureaucrats don't even need to "unmask" that sort of thing themselves. Usually, other users will have already posted pointing out any attempts against the proper functioning of a RfA. Regards, Redux 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not so much easy job that you are understanding. It is difficult to check without checking history and crosschecking sign and user who have posted the signature. So I just wanted to know this. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes: if the perpetrator has a minimal understanding as to how Wikipedia works, the forgery is only apparent by cross-checking the history. But that's pretty much on autopilot for a user with at least some experience — not that people are always specifically on the lookout for forgeries and other dishonest tricks, but it's just something we do. And on RfA, we always check the history. So, while it is possible (although not likely) that something like this could slip passed one [experienced] user, someone else will catch it in time, and the final outcome of the RfA will not be affected by something like this. Redux 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely it would take a lot of fake signitures to make a difference since it's not a vote, it's concensus, and one or two extra "votes" won't change that. That's one of the best things about the 5% "burocrat's discretion" band, forgeries that are going to really change the result would need to take it all the way over that 5% band, otherwise the buro will be making a far more detailed check before making a decision. --Tango 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that an individual's vote has no significance. Then I do not agree with you. Every single vote has the same value. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not a vote. It is not a vote. It is NOT a VOTE. The Land 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Then why does the template say "Vote here"? :-) --W.marsh 00:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess he wanted to say that theoretically, it's not a vote. Practically, it is :-) Fetofs ^Hello! 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT a democracy. We don't guarantee that an individual's vote will have any significance -- in theory we shouldn't be having any votes at all. RfA has the trappings of a vote, but it is modelled on straw polling, where we aim for consensus; this is where bureaucrats' discretion comes in. Johnleemk | Talk 20:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I take my words back and assume Wikipedia is not a vote. But it does not answer my question. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The significance of a "vote" depends on how the bureaucrat views it. "Votes" from suspected meat- or sockpuppets ought to be discounted, and so on. There's no hard and clear way to answer your question -- as I said, it depends on the bureaucrats' discretion. This doesn't mean a "vote" is insignificant; its significance merely varies depending on the circumstances. Johnleemk | Talk 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Assuming a reasonable number of people have "voted" then no, a single "vote" is not significant. It has a value, certainly, but that value isn't enough to change the result, so it's not significant. --Tango 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose theoretically, it would be conceivable that, in a very close RfA, someone with a serious attitude problem and who may deeply dislike the candidate could try to forge a vote (also by creating sock puppets, v.g.) in order to sway consensus and cause the RfA to fail — I mean, an 80% consensus is required for promotion, and, depending on how things are progressing, a single "oppose" can "offset" three or four "support" in terms of the percentage required for promotion. In theory, one single "oppose" can bring down to 73% or 74% (under the cut off for Bureaucrat discretion) a consensus that was at 75% or 76%. But then, back to what I said: something like this will not be allowed to stand — remembering that the original question was: would something like this possibly go unnoticed? Absolutely not. And all that notwithstanding (have I been using that word too much? :)), impersonation is unacceptable behavior under any circumstance, and if it's done in a place such as a RfA, it's that much worse. Whether or not the action had an actual relevance in the RfA where it took place is not essential in that regard. Redux 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Redux, you are quite correct for a single fake vote. Let's assume an user has one non-detectable sock-puppet account (reason may be using different proxy or IP for sock-puppet account). He/She signs a particular RfA with one or two fake votes per user account. This adds total 5 signs from his/her side. If (s)he does this process in very beginning of a RfA. Let's say (s)he opposes by all these 5 votes and other users have signed 4 supports and 2 opposes. By adding this particular user's contribution RfA stats is (4/7/0). I am just guessing (not sure) other users may follow the same trend as majority opposes the vote and it may be converted to unsuccesful promotion while it was deserved a succesful promotion. It's just a virtual incident. So it may matter too much. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suggest this conversation trend be dropped and the above deleted per WP:BEANS. JoshuaZ 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with deletion per above, if it can create such kind of situation. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can drop it, although this is nothing new around here. This is "Disruption 101". And the message I'd be sending out is: it won't work, if you do it, you'll get busted. But since the original point was to address Shyam's doubts, if he's satisfied, there's no reason to continue this discussion. If you would like me to explain more, you can copy your latest questions to my talk page, and I'll explain as best I can. At your discretion. Redux 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)