Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

The appropriateness of optional questions

I just finished making a statement on the talk page for Gazimoff's RfA. I really did not want to see this happen to such a nice guy. I asked him if he wanted Keepcases question on his RfA, because if not, I would revert it. He said he would consider answering it, and to leave it for now. I undid the edit that removed the question, noting this in the edit summary. And I am to be reverted regardless. We need to establish more than one thing here. What questions are appropriate, and what to do when they are added. Lastly, what should we do when a candidate has offered to answer. Synergy 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My take, let the candidate decide, and make it clear that they have the authority to decide these things. We shouldn't make them answer questions they aren't comfortable with when they don't directly pertain to the candidate's ability to be an admin. As far as removing the question in question goes, there's no point edit warring over it; if Gazimoff wants to readd and answer it he can and probably will. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is why I haven't re added the question. I still think we should create an essay (I've suggested Wikipedia:Optional questions twice already) to reflect what the community thinks about it. Synergy 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, after this concludes (by which I probably mean is no longer going anywhere useful, but I've got my fingers crossed) I'd be happy to help you write one. Or write one myself with your help (but then it'd be at User:Lifebaka/Optional questions and mostly just be my opinion, which I might do anyways). lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, whatever happens, just sort it out here, don't edit war over it please. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate for another editor to remove these questions. The candidate has several choices, including refuse to answer explicitly, ignore it (implicitly refusing to answer), answer directly, answer humorously, ask for clarification...all of which are appropriate responses and do, in fact, expand on the community's knowledge of the candidate's demeanor. As I've said elsewhere, as far as I can tell, every one of User:Keepscases' questions is unique and they are pretty hard to "study" for. I will also say that the drug one wasn't my favorite, and this one is a bit morbid, but I would follow up with: how many of us do have a plan for what would happen in the case of our permanent, unalterable, retirement?  Frank  |  talk  20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Of all idiotic questions which have been asked at a RFA (and there are/were a lot of those), this one ranks pretty high. Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep your comments at least productive. Synergy 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth is not productive? :) Garion96 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth is relative, hence WP:V requires something stronger than truth. Therefore, no, truth is not inherently productive. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What I meant Garion, was that calling the question idiotic will not help the situation. I'm asking for constructive comments to produce consensus for future actions. Basically, something to reflect upon for later events. Synergy 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. It just was an idiotic question. Removing it was a sensible thing to do and should be done again if another one of those will be asked (and it will) in a future RFA. Garion96 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that essay mostly suggests that we don't, as it tends not to send discussions in useful directions. Exactly what's happening here. Take it to user talk pages, please. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is the other essay Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. But this is getting too unrelated to the topic at hand. My point is still the same, whether you call it an idiotic question or not. I think it is a good thing that the question was removed since it really served no good purpose. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet, you weren't the one who asked the question, so you really aren't able to know whether it served its purpose to the editor that did ask it.  Frank  |  talk  21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the question quite interesting. I actually have a request in my will to be added to WP:DIED. Useight (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny, because I actually did that, too. I think they'll just take it as a suicide threat though, so it might just get rvv'ed. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm...I've always wondered how one gets added to WP:DIED. I'll do that and bequeath my negative assets to the Project. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet...would that work? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep me aprised of this situation if it escalates. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you are granted adminship status, who in real life will you tell about this?. Totally irrelevant, invasion of privacy. –xeno (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  These questions are getting ridiculous. I'm guessing this question might be a way to maneuver around an age question? Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  Theoretically it could be, but knowing Keepscases, I'd have to assume good faith and say he isn't trying to circumvent that. Perhaps he's trying to determine how much the candidate would brag and, therefore, possibly indicate that he sees adminship as a trophy. Just a possibility. Useight (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  A very possible option also. Either way, I don't think this is relevant in any way. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I did remove it, but the candidate answered it nevertheless. Here's another example of the question irrelevance. Rudget 16:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to (as usual) jump in against censoring this question. First of all, the candidate can choose not to answer it. Second, it's not a problem to find out a bit about how a person thinks outside of Wikipedia. I don't think it's irrelevant at all and might well serve to illuminate about the candidate. I would add that while "age-ism" is probably wrong-headed, it can work to support a candidate too. My own RfA received some support on the basis of me being a parent (of multiple teenagers) IRL. Relevant? I wasn't asked, and I offered it really sort of casually...and some appreciated it. But it was real - it was about who I am - and at least some editors found it illuminating enough to support me for it. Heck, one even called me a silver surfer, and I'm well under 50 :-)  Frank  |  talk  16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why everyone's so surprised. It's a bit of an odd question (and IMO, unnecessary and probably shouldn't have been asked), but Keepsakes is notorious for asking questions that are sort of 'out there', and they've done this before. Is this really any different from the other questions (s)he's asked candidates? As Frank said, the nominee has the choice of answering the question or not; obviously since this one's so controversial no one's going to oppose him for not answering it, so it's not that big a deal. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's because of discussions like this that people keep asking questions like that. If there wasn't a porcelain-based typhoon after every odd RFA question they would stop being asked. There does not need to be arbitrary rules about what can and can't be asked, it just needs to be reinforced that if a candidate is uncomfortable with a question they don't have to answer it. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Everybody is shouting at Keepscases. What about the question of Kurt Weber? (Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?)

If your answer is “no”, Kurt will oppose your RfA and if your answer is “yes”, others will oppose your RfA. Just look at the RfA of MrKIA11. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a tricky question. It involves the thought process of the candidate. If the answer is well reasoned, it will be accepted, if not, you will fail. End of story. Synergy 11:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an easy one. If you answer inline with policy Kurt will oppose. If you answer against policy, every man and their sockpuppet will oppose. Basic math. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 11:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions about RFA

I'm a relatively experienced editor, but only recently started participating in RFA discussions, and I've got a couple of questions that aren't answered in the Guide to RFA. Just wondering:

1. As well as 'support' and 'oppose' votes, 'neutral' comments are also frequently made at RFA. Are these taken into account by bureaucrats when closing RFAs? A 'neutral' position would seem to me a little like a mild oppose, as it shows that the editor is unwilling to support this candidate; hence, could a candidate's RFA could be rejected purely on the basis of concerns raised in the 'neutral' comments?
2. Similarly: Another common vote is 'Moral support' - in fact, I just made one myself. But then I thought I should probably check exactly what it means. Does 'Moral support' mean 'support, despite reservations'? Or does it mean 'I wish I could support; morally, I would; but I actually can't for such-and-such reasons'? If it's the latter, that's really more of an 'oppose', and should perhaps be listed in the other section. How do Bureaucrats treat these?
3. Lastly: after receiving some myself, I'm just wondering if Wikipedia has a policy on RFA 'thankspam' - talkpage messages by candidates to those who commented on their RFA. Is it possible to opt out of receiving these? Personally speaking, if I've commented on an RFA, I'm going to check up on it later to see if it passed or failed - I don't need a message telling me such. (It also seems to me that placing a template on the talkpage of 100 or more users might qualify as Excessive cross-posting, but perhaps I've misunderstood that policy.)

Thanks in advance to those who can answer these questions! Terraxos (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. For all practical purposes neutral votes don't matter, they aren't in the math. But they are taken in to account by other !voters, and if the RfA is very close, could be examined by the crats.
2. Moral support is the latter, basically "I would oppose, but I don't want to make you feel bad, and this is not going to pass anyway".
3. Nope, that is a long tradition. Prodego ^talk 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Since this is a discussion and a subsequent evaluation of WP:CONSENSUS, I think that neutral comments are definitely important to the process. Many, many times, editors will change their stance during the process. Sometimes they'll move from neutral to an actual side, sometimes from oppose to support...it happens all over the place. The point is that this is a discussion, not a vote, so it is definitely important. It's easy to say after the fact that "the math showed xx%", but it's a far different story when you watch it unfold.
2. Moral support amounts to the same thing - it's part of the discussion. My own take is that editors generally intend that to mean "this isn't going to pass, but I support you anyway because I like what I see and I want to say so rather than just pass this RfA by". But that's a mouthful; who knows if that's what people really mean.
3. Some editors specifically request that thankspam not be left on their talk pages. Sometimes, RfA candidates even honor it :-)  Frank  |  talk  00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies guys. I think I'll just go leave a note on my talk page about thank-you messages. Terraxos (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool down blocks

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Cool down blocks about the attempted removal of the provision discouraging cool down blocks from the blocking policy. Nsk92 (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Islaammaged126 5

Would a WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW closure be in order? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not in my opinion, no. It's running 2/2/1 at the moment. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2 supports are Moral Support. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

3/3/1 now. Gears of War 2 21:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's a borderline one. I could see arguments for and against early closure. I'd let it run some more, although it's pretty much a sure thing that it won't pass. Nevertheless, we don't early close things just because they won't pass. I'd suggest waiting a few hours and then possibly asking for an early closure. Enigma ^message 21:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much a lock to make an unsuccessful run, but it should be allowed to run for a bit longer, it's only been going for 30 minutes. Useight (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Still, only three opposes - give it some time is what I'm saying Shapiros :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) multiple times: Eh, give it a few more hours. There's been one actual support. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Borderline, let it run and perhaps contact Islaammaged126 and ask him to withdraw, that should always be the first step. There's no hurry. RxS (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always found it interesting how long some RFAs are open before they snow and how quickly others are snowed. I did some research on it, both comparing the number of edits the candidate has to how many opposers piled on and comparing the number of piled on opposes on a timeline. My data can be seen at User:Useight/No Support. I'm not the best with statistics, but I think there' a decent correlation between piling on and time: in the past, more opposes would pile on before it was closed while now we snow close them faster. If anyone wants to do a real statistical analysis on the data, I have it in an Excel spreadsheet. Useight (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with RxS and I think Useight has a point that SNOW is used kinda quickly, this user's past RfAs are a good indication for that. But I think when he accumulates 10-15 opposes (and I count moral supports in that category because they do not support the request but the spirit) and no support, then SNOW is quite likely. On a side note, I think it would be a great idea to have such a statistical analysis, I would do so myself, but I lack the knowledge to do so, but I am sure someone will be able to. It could serve as a guideline to closing crats. So#Why 21:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I put the "moral support" there because I honestly appreciate his enthusiasm and didn't want him to feel too bad when the opposes arrived. Closing it before it has a chance to get a few of those opposes kind of defeats the purpose somewhat, but I think we've pretty much reached that point now (there are nine in the oppose section). I'd close per NOTNOW, but I participated; instead I left a message on the candidate's talk page. Useight (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I alone in believing that offering moral supports (while very nice gestures) may cause the candidate to feel a little despondent - that they require pity supports? Just throwing that out there. Anyway, SNOW closures are rampant lately. Someone drop the candidate a note insisting the likelihood of a fail and see what they wish to do in terms of an official withdrawal. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see that they have been notified. Might I suggest something else. If you notice that a user has already suggested a withdrawal, don't pile on and agree on their talk page. I find it quite unnecessary and it comes off as just wanting to get a word in edgewise. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, usually will also oppose instead of morally support (just check my history), but in this case I just felt like it. Useight (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, Useight, my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I was just wondering how others felt about the abundance of moral supports that pop up when it appears that an RfA will take a downward spiral. Sometimes I even see "moral support" very early on in the process (before a significant number of opposers have even opined) - makes me go..hmmm. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't link to a policy page supporting my view, because.... there is none. But the rational approach, in my opinion, is to snow close RFA's where the applicant doesn't really know what they're getting themselves into. Islaammaged126 has been here long enough that he does know what he's getting himself into, and it shouldn't be snow closed no matter what. If people feel a compelling need to pile on at an RFA that's at 2-20-1, the personality traits that exposes are their problem. If someone doesn't feel the need to withdraw their RFA when it's at 2-20-1, that's their problem. The existence of such an RFA is not disruptive, and we should avoid the deathwatch of trying to decide when to snow close it. RFA snow closes should only be used (again, IMHO) to spare a clueless neophyte the humiliation of getting their head handed to them because they wanted to help and didn't get it that admins need to have been here a while. --barneca (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. And I thought we had a moratorium on subjects entitled Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/XXX user? –xeno (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, this is the case here. The answers to the questions show a lack of policy understanding and while I agree that the fifth try can be regarded as "well, he wants it that way!", in this case I think the user still fails to understand how he will be treated. SNOWing is a case-to-case decision after all. So#Why ^{review me!} 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He's done this four times before, and you don't think he has an idea about how he might be treated? --barneca (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The tally is now 2/10/2, so at this point, I doubt it has a snowball's chance. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

BITE doesn't just apply to newbies

Look, I'm sure those who opposed in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natl1 3 had valid points, just as I'm sure I had a valid reason to support (maybe try asking me for clarification if you're confused?), but do we really need to oppose with such civility, or lack thereof? Reading over some of the opposition, some of them seem to be acting as if the candidate requesting adminship is some sort of personal attack against them or something like that. Can we try and assume some more good faith (especially when the candidate has commented on this manner) and not be so accusatory of candidates who, while maybe not ready for adminship, are still good contributors (so please stop insinuating that they're not). —Giggy 06:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, welcome to RfA, where the true natures of both candidate and the real world manifest themselves... —Kurykh 06:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And where participants sometimes discard the "respectful" bit of being civil - Peripitus (Talk) 06:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Giggy. At least three of the opposers were unnecessarily snipy. Epbr123 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've only been here a year.  :-) I was kinda hoping we could (try to) avoid the wonderful inherent nature of RfA, though. —Giggy 06:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, do you (Giggy) not think the candidate would have interpreted your comment as sarcasm/incivility/WP:BITEing? [sic] ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd hope my obvious sarcasm would have been interpreted as such. It had serious merit though; he basically explained the justification for my support in his Q7 answer. My concerns are with opposition making out the candidate is trying to stealithily game the system by (God forbid) taking a wikibreak. —Giggy 07:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Failed to follow self nom instructions ... Sounds like good admin material" - looks more like you're taking the mickey. Sarcasm works really well online because it's so easy to pick up on. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Was that sarcasm? Or is this? --T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, it's the artificial, cloying civility that hurts the most. The type where a user feigns civility when he or she clearly wants to bite your head off. :( --T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 07:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But that is what civility is. You don't need to like someone to be civil, just talk to them nicely. You can even tell someone that you don't like what they do in a civil fashion. Civility is not affection, it is politeness, so I don't see how it could be feigned(unless you mean insults and taunts veiled in civility). Chillum 15:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not referring to being polite, but to insults that are worded in such a way as not to violate WP:CIVIL.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 18:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's an insult, it's not civil. Civility in this instance means not rude, and an insult is intended to offend, while politeness, the opposite of being rude, is intended to not offend others. So, if it's an insult, it violates WP:Civil. --Blechnic (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE = Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Yes, Bite only applies to new editors. Experienced editors have WP:CIVIL to cower behind. That aside, I didn't see any of the opposes as being mean or un-civil. People didn't like the fact that he took such a long break, so they opposed on those grounds. To say that people who disagree with you "...seem to be acting as if the candidate requesting adminship is some sort of personal attack against them" isn't really WP:AGFing.--KojiDude ^(C) 14:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, but WP:BITE is only a special case of WP:CIVIL, so there is no real difference. Other than that, everyone is a newbie in a certain field and thus WP:BITE can be used for everyone in a certain way. Also, WP:CIVIL also says that you should not bite experienced editors - you should bite noone ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoWhy (talk • contribs)

>_> Ah, yes, but with BITE being a special case of CIVIL, it is also a specific case, and that specific-ness limits it's use only to newbies. ;-) Bwa-ha!--KojiDude ^(C) 15:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Running for RfA is like saying "Look at me and point out any flaws". Unless a comment is a breach of civility I don't see a problem with pointing out all the reasons someone should not be an admin. Of course, there is no need to be rude while doing this. Chillum 15:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point, often RfA regulars aren't careful enough about harming the feelings of the candidate when they comment. It can be a little hurtful sometimes, so please remember the second of the trifecta. ;-) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to get more people to !vote in RFAs

I've seen some RFAs that get about 70-80 votes and then suddenly, there are no more votes. And it's a shame because just like MRkIA's RFA(sorry if I spelled his name wrong), if he could get more voters, he might suceed. But most editors are not active in RFAs. Which is a reason there are many fails(partly). How do we get more people to start !voting? Gears of War 2 03:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MrKIA11's RfA has been at almost exactly the same percentage ever since it started. There's no reason to think more votes would all be supports; we'd likely just have more votes split along the same rough proportion. People who are interested in RfA participate; people who aren't interested don't, and shouldn't. --barneca (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, my inexperience kicking in. Gears of War 2 03:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up, GoW. It's great enought that you care about the process insofar that you started this thread to improve it. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers. Gears of War 2 03:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Gears hit on an interesting point. Basically it's the same group (the RfA cabal, aka "regulars") who contribute to the discussion. I can't think of a quick fix to getting the word out. I've always thought it a good idea to place the RfA template on one's userpage while running, but beyond that you run the risk of borderline canvassing accusations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In a way, thats what I was trying to say. The regulars like iredecent and Useight(more mis-spelled names)etc. are always !voting and others dont vote at all. Gears of War 2 03:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Us "regulars" are regulars because we're interested in it. I don't think there's much you can do about this. I don't even think doing something about it would be a good idea; aren't we always bitching about "drive-by" RfA votes? People who support/oppose based on two minutes of looking at the other !votes? I think for someone to really vet a candidate, they inherently have to be interested in the process. Soliciting more votes is always a double-edged sword, even in politics... there was a proposition here in Arizona a year or two back that would have created a "lottery" for voters, meaning that one voter at random would win $1M. The proposition died a horrible death; no one wanted people voting just for the hell of it. I know this is an imperfect analogy, but is it better to have 70 votes that are thought-out and meaningful, or 150 diluted ones? Tan ǀ 39 03:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Numbers only succeed in increasing the pile-on or fuelling the snow storm. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Tan, but getting more people interested in the process doesn't necessarily translate into perfunctory thoughtless drive-by voting. That's more an issue with XfDs than here. Then again, the reason we see the same names over and over again is because we're (they are?) heavily interested in evaluating potential candidates. Personally, I feel we could always use more administrators, and it's important to give everyone a fair analysis/vote. Double-edged sword is a good description. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, the last thing you want to do is ask people to vote... ;-)
But seriously, I'm a fan of the proposals of an "RfA jury" that have come up in the past. We need less voters, not more. —Giggy 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? Gears of War 2 04:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should you not ask people to vote? Click the link; it's fairly self evident.

Why do we need less voters, not more? Click the link; it's fairly self evident. —Giggy 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What matters is not that a process be democratic, but that it be effective, that it give the sysop bit to the right editors. Plenty of RfA regulars only jump in if they feel like it or feel they need to. Giggy's link shows what happens when everybody and their cousin feels like they need to jump in. I would be the last person to remember who first phrased it this way, but it's been said that RfA is the worst process we could come up with, except for all the others. Darkspots (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully Gazimoff will help improve that via RREV, then... —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the number of people weighing in doubled, for instance, we'd likely see pile-ons in either the support or oppose column. Sometimes editors who jump in when there are already 100 votes in can add substantial content to the discussion, even changing the swing of the RFA, but usually after a lot of people have weighed in, the votes become "Per above" or "Per everybody". Doesn't really add a lot to the discussion nor does it (usually) change whether the RFA will be successful or not. These pile-ons usually occur when the RFA is at 97% anyway. If people were bringing more meat to the table at this point, then going from 80 to 160 people would be great, but usually most all of what must be said has already been said by that point. Plus, yes, RFA is full of the "regulars", the people who are interested enough to stick around on a consistent basis, but there is a problem when trying to get more people interested: canvassing. If everyone knew about the RFA, that'd be great, but the problem with telling people is that you ("you" as in "anybody") can't tell everyone, so it leads to "selective canvassing", or at least the potential and/or appearance of selective canvassing, in which voters may accuse the candidate of telling people that he/she thought would most likely support the RFA. Okay, that was a mouthful. Useight (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that I rarely participate in RfA's after 20-30 edits have been cast. By the time 20-30 edits have been cast, 90-95% of RfA's are already determined. I try to be one of the first 10-15 to either support or oppose a candidate. Getting more people to !vote isn't the key, getting people to actually do their homework first is. I see very few people who actually get beyond the RfA page before making up their mind. Therein lies the problem with RfA. I'd rather see 10 people who investigated a candidate make the decision than have 1000 sheep !voting with the crowd based upon surface impressions..---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen you make this statement before and, just out of curiosity, would like to know how you determine that "very few people get beyond the RFA page before making up their mind". When I choose to participate, I'm either already very familiar with a candidate or I do actually vet their contributions quite thoroughly. But this doesn't necessarily show in my supporting comment, and I'm assuming the same goes for other RFA participants as well. How can you tell how profoundly we checked the candidate's contributions? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Objectively/scientifically, I can't prove it... but there are quite a few people who state things to the effect that they are basing their vote (solely) upon the way the questions were answered, or upon the support of a respected user... there are also enough people who !vote on enough RfA's that I am reasonably convinced that they don't do their own homework. I spend a fair amount of time vetting candidates before !voting. I KNOW that most people don't spend half the time I do (unless, it's a weak support) I've spent as much as 6 hours reviewing a single candidate before! There are some editors who, I am convinced look at others and go, "Wow, if XXX is supporting, then I guess I can support" Heck, I've seen it in reference to myself. Just about two weeks ago, I gave somebody a "weak support" with the explanation, "per my guidelines on how I !vote ... but have an overall favorable impression of him from my few interactions with him." Now, if you looked at my guidelines, you would realize that when I give a weak support, it is because I didn't properly vet the candidate, but see nothing upon a cursory review to oppose. A few days later, somebody wrote, "I was leaning towards a neutral vote but the support of User:Balloonman ... tipped me." I've seen enough of these "per so and so !votes" that I've grown convinced that there are certain people whose !voting carries a disproportionate amount of weight. To be honest, there are some people who I look at and go, "Well, if that person has XXX's support, then they have to be a decent candidate." I may not always agree with say Keeper76, Rudget, or Wisdom89, but if they give their support, their support does mean something in my book. There are others who I consider to be the "Anti-Kurt." I know it sounds rude, but there are some people whose support is almost as predictable as an oppose from Kurt---people just remember and chime in on Kurt's opposes and don't notice the supports without reason. Kurt is not alone in his predictability---but he is the most persecuted. So, just as I know that Kurt doesn't dig into the histories of 95% of the candidates he opposes, I know that there are some who support like robots. This is why I would rather see a few people who dig into candidates histories than mass hysteria.

There is also the issue of voting trends. I've said this before. A candidate runs for RfA. Somebody comes along early on and opposes with a sound reason. Soon everybody and their brother and sister has followed along. Same candidate, same oppose, but rather than the oppose coming along early on, the opposer doesn't !vote until there are 20 supports. The same oppose that in a different circumstance would have killed the RfA now has no bearing. This tells me that people aren't !voting upon the merits of the candidate, but rather upon the trends/how others !vote.

This is why I don't get involved with RfA's that have 20+ supports and a few opposes... I don't see the value in spending my time when even if I come up with a significant reason, the odds are that it won't matter. Very few RfA's fail after a strong start. Likewise, few RfA's survive after a bad start.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that later supports or opposes in an RfA discussion are generally pile-up votes. That's belittling to anyone who's happened to arrive late at an RfA and, looking at MrKIA11's nomination, not supported by evidence. The way I see it there may be a handful of compelling reasons to support and a handful to oppose a candidate, and these tend to come out early on. After that, there's not much new material you can present. Of course it's always possible that someone might, late in the piece, discover a new reason to oppose or support, but I can't see that happening too often. I think it's safe to assume that the candidate's history has been thoroughly picked over early on and there's little new material to be mentioned after that. That's why later comments tend to be briefer and sound like "Support per diffs provided by Randomdude", or "Oppose per JBloggs". These are not necessarily pile-ons- it's just as likely that these later voters have carefully weighed up the pros and cons provided previously and decided some arguments are more compelling than others. Judging the evidence is as important as digging it up in the first place. Reyk _YO! 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've not called them pile on... but I will state that by the time 40 !votes are in, the course of 95% of all RfA's are set. There are a few notable exceptions (H20's last one and Van Tucky's first come to mind.) But very rarely do you see even the strongest of evidence turning cases after 30-40 !votes, but not only that, many people will not oppose a candidate who appears to be on the way towards passing. In H20's last RfA, despite his qualifications for adminship, there were plenty of reason to oppose his nomination. It wasn't until a stupid action of one of his nominators (me) that those opposer's came forth with those reasons. I don't waste my time after the fate appears to be set, and I've talked to others who echo my sentiment, once a candidate has 20-30 supports and no more than 10-15% oppose, people who might otherwise oppose, won't do so. As one of the best known WP editors told me, "Why make enemies?" It is also a fact, that an early oppose will have a much stronger impact than the same oppose later on.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"once a candidate has 20-30 supports and no more than 10-15% oppose, people who might otherwise oppose, won't do so." Stating that as fact without a lick of evidence doesn't help your argument much.--KojiDude ^(C) 03:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing, Sluzzelin. Pray tell how you know, Balloonman? I thoroughly review the user contributions, user page, talk page, and other important factors before voting, and I'd say most of us 'regulars' take just as much time to study the candidate as you claim to. In fact, that's really the only way to ensure you know whether or not they're trustworthy. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Peripitus' RfA has expired. Crats, hurry up and close it! :P (Not to say it has a time limit, but it is over) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there are a few that do their homework, but I'll go out on a limb and say that 90% of the people voting don't put in close to the amount of work Balloonman does with each of his votes. Enigma ^message 05:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'll freely admit that I've probably never spent 6 hours going through one candidates contributions, there is a wide range of possible efforts between that extreme and not going beyond the RFA page. I guess I was confused by the words "very few" in Balloonman's statement. Anyway, thank you for your explanation, Balloonman. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Balloonman, it's a lot clearer now. My apologies for the misunderstanding. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 06:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just honored to be mentioned by Balloonman. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol. You three are regarded as being very respected and eminent users, and many editors agree with you and base their votes on what you say, so he's right to include you. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You just want a plate of cookies don't you? : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably wrote "Very few" in one of my cynical moments... I've lost a lot of respect for this process as a result of the sheep mentality.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the sheep mentality is pervasive among even the RfA regulars, I'd welcome new voices. I'm tired of seeing people opposed for shit reasons like they like video games. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That actually gets kudos in my books ;-) Actually, I personally like niche candidates. While I prefer some diversity in their breadth of editing (it shows that they've been exposed to thoughts outside of a single silo) I don't mind people who are interested in what others might consider fanboy type areas (WWE, comics, video games, etc.) BUT they have to show expertise elsewhere.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that this entire conversation throws WP:AGF out the window for anyone that gets late to an RfA, who in the hell cares if people make base-less Support/Oppose's? The closing Beurucrat (jesus christ, someone teach me how to spell) gauges the weight of the votes. And, just because someone is saying "Per JimDave" or "Per EricBob" doesn't mean their vote is automatically-100%-thoughtless. Reasons for Support/Oppose can get repeptitive, so "per SteveJohn" is sometimes just people's way of sparing you some monotony.--KojiDude ^(C) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be ignoring AGF if I accused a specific person of not doing their homework. But it doesn't take rocket scientist to recognize the fact that some people do not dig into candidates before supporting. You can make those kind of generalized statements without ever looking at an RfA. Heck, I think it is safe to say about a lot of things---all the way up to presidential elections! And no, it doesn't say anything different about people who vote late as compared to early.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, please. When have you ever seen a closing bureaucrat promote, or deny promotion, in the face of the popular vote, except in reconfirmation RfAs? Never? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean how many RfA's fail that are above 50%? Quite a few (especially in the 60-70 range).--KojiDude ^(C) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I read Malleus's question as "how many are promoted below 75%". These dubious exercises are the only ones I can think of in recent times. – iridescent 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. Please don't try taking the piss KojiDude. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

...? I don't even know what "the piss" means. :-/ Anyway, in America "popular vote" = "majority vote", and "majoriity vote" = 51% or higher. At least, that's what I learned in school.--KojiDude ^(C) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking the piss Enigma ^message 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That's a new one for me. Sorry MF, lost in trnaslation.--KojiDude ^(C) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In that context it basically means "don't be facetious" –xeno (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

51% is a majority, but there are many things that require more than a simple majority. The general rule of thumb is that for every oppose it takes 3-4 supports to counter the oppose... EG 70-80% is supposedly the murky territority where 'crat descretion comes into play. I am still trying to talk our newest 'crat (Rlevse) into showing his independence and failing somebody with 98% support! Come on Rlevse, you can do it!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy... but RfA isn't a discussion. Otherwise, it wouldn't need a talk page so that we have a place to dump all the discussion. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's one thing that saddens me out of all of these. The fact that you have some people, like Balloonman, Wisdom, Keeper and others who thoroughly research a candidate and present their opinions with backing. I thought, after starting to process the RREV information "hang on, why don't we just have a question/debate phase where we can discuss the pros and cons AfD style, then have a vote phase where everyone can decide how they feel in a simple and clean support/oppose based on the outcome of the debates". That way, i thought in my nievity, we could isolate all the arguments to one end and avoid the badgering, questioning etc. After having experienced the process firsthand, I'm not so sure that's a good idea any more Gazimoff 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've come to the regretful conclusion that RFA is not fixable, and that it's also not totally broken. I guess it's like a chipped mug. It still holds the tea and you can still drink from it, but you wouldn't like your mother to see you using it. Pedro :  Chat  22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Balloonguy said "It wasn't until a stupid action of one of his nominators (me) ". I think you typed "stupid" when you meant to type "honest." If honesty is stupid, then there's no hope for Wikipedia, no hope for the human race, no hope for anything. ;-)Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr IP

I'm all in favor of notnowing this RfA... no, snowing it. I haven't seen something this pointy in a long time... and it is without a doubt a failed RfA... I would kill it myself, but I am too appauled at the gual of Mr IP.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Mighty audacious. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTNOW is there so people who didn't know exactly what they were getting into don't get demoralized. Mr IP comes off as a guy who knows what he's doing, and as someone who isn't going to get demoralized by negativity. Darkspots (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Very true, but SNOW can certainly be invoked. Given that Mr. IP has announced his experimental RfA, it defeats its purpose and he will not walk away with any constructive criticism. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse snowball closure. NOTNOW is mainly for newbies, but there is undoubtedly not a snowball's chance in the bottom of the seventh layer of Hell that this RfA will succeed. Forgive me if this sounds uncivil. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 08:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's easier said than done, don't get me wrong, but what if Mr. IP ran his own experimental RfA and nobody came? Nobody should feel a moral obligation to comment on an RfA if it's a game. Just ignore him. Darkspots (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree... NOTNOW isn't the rigt way to clase it, which is why I didn't use it. But SNOW can be... this is a deliberately pointy RfA and here only to cause disruption.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from WP:SNOW: "WP:NOTNOW, an RFA-specific application of the snowball clause" SNOW is probably more appropriate though. It is disappointing that people even give "experiments" like this the time of day and encourage them by supporting. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT-EVER-OR-AT-LEAST-NOT-FOR-A-VERY-LONG-PERIOD-OF-TIME is more suitable, then? Again, I really don't mean to be rude, but I have to be honest, this is rather ridiculous. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 08:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, you did support, oppose, and go neutral. ;) Enigma ^message 08:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like I said; it's a very unusual circumstance. I was ready to oppose when I saw the nomination, but I appreciated Mr. IP's contributions to the Village Pump, and had no negative interactions so I remained neutral. Later, I was convinced to support, but Balloonman and Wisdom89's arguments were strong enough to switch my stance again. Kind of silly, but there were good arguments on all sides. :-) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why the candidate can't try again in a few months when they have amassed more than their current 500-or-so edits. Of course, it'll probably result in a snowstorm of references to this RFA. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr IP actually has more than 500 edits... but most are under his IP address... he doesn't like to log on. He is actually a farely well established editor here... but that makes this all the more pointy.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have clarified that I meant "500-or-so edits on the account they are running for adminship on". Edits spread out over IP addresses can't be checked, vetted and torn apart, like in usual RFA fashion. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this RfA, while it will quite possibly be SNOW-worthy in time, hasn't reached that point yet. While I agree that the drama-potential is far too high, I think allowing some more discussion first harms nobody. While we may feel it doesn't have "a snowball's chance in hell of passing" at the time I write this there haven't been enough votes to demonstrate that. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 08:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"You may be able to prolong your life RfA, but it's not like you can escape your its inevitable death, is it?"— Jack Krauser, 2005 ----KojiDude ^(C) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the POINTYNESS I oppose.75.53.105.213 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed, reopened, all done.Pedro :  Chat  19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I opposed the user I strongly object to Mercury's closure of the RFA on the grounds that "statistically, won't pass." That's not a valid reason to close an RFA with 11 serious supports, nor is Mercury deputized to make that sort of determination for the rest of the community. I'd object even from a bureaucrat whom we selected to close such discussions. --JayHenry (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with JayHenry. Rather POINTY to close it, ironically. Tan ǀ 39 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Whatever you might think about that RFA, imho 8/18/5 is not a score for SNOW. MAybe 018/0 would be, but in this case there was support as well... So#Why ^{review me!} 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If this was allowed to run its full course, then Mr. IP's RfA shouldn't have been closed. I agree completely - CL — 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be no note on Mr. IP's talk about an intention to close, nor has Mr. IP requested it to end, at least on wiki. Given the context of the RFA I strongly suspect that he/she will be rather displeased the "experiment" has ended early. Pedro :  Chat  19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the closure, but allow me to be blunt here and say that his experiment is tainted and poisoned by his public announcement, and therefore it has defeated its own purpose. Still, it should remain open at this point. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A better example would be the RFA of one of Wikipedia's absolute finest admins and editors: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan. It got off to a worse start than Mr.IP. This was not a valid statistical inference that it was doomed; this was therefore not a valid SNOW closure. --JayHenry (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• JayHenry, next time, leave a note on my talk. I would have been happy to revert myself. Does everything have to be dramatic? I gather of course, this was not likely your intention. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  I did leave a note on your talk. I raised it here as well because it needed to be brought before the community. --JayHenry (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  No you did not, you left a link to this discussion. I mean next time, ask me to revert myself. This could have been handled so simply like that and did not need to be brought before the community. I do not need a consensus and long discussion of my actions to realize I may have made a mistake so to revert myself. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the "don't be dramatic" defense. Classic. You didn't make a dubious content edition, you closed an ongoing RfA. JayHenry was perfectly within boundaries to post this here and verify that the community shared his concern. Tan ǀ 39 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And I was perfectly within my right to let him know that I am amicable to reverting myself without long discussions. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also people who have !voted (Support or otherwise) in the RFA shouldn't close it, unless specifically requested to by the candidate. –xeno (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, hence the quick revert. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.