Revision as of 23:07, 10 October 2005 editOskar Sigvardsson (talk | contribs)2,978 edits →New proposal?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:04, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,080 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 270) (bot | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} | |||
== Archives == | |||
{{Skip to bottom}} | |||
<div style="font-size:x-small"> | |||
{{info|This is '''not''' the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. '''To do so, please ].'''}} | |||
* Prior to June 2003, requests for adminship were made and discussed on the ]. | |||
*]: June-August 2003 | |||
{{RfA Navigation|WT:RFA}} | |||
*]: August-December 2003 | |||
{{RFX report}} | |||
*]: Discussion in December 2003 about time people should wait before making request and a note | |||
<div style="float:right; text-align:right">''Current time is {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{FULLDATE|type=dmy}} (UTC)''. — {{purge|Purge this page}} | |||
*]: Some January 2004 discussion | |||
*]: Discussion on ], ] about distributing the task of making other admins | |||
*]: (]'s claim about being attacked on this page (January 8-9, 2004)) | |||
*]: Complaint against tannin (January 24-25, 2004) | |||
*]: Abuse of de-sysop area (January 30-31, 2004) | |||
*]: Discussion on ], ] about how to deal with misuse of admin privileges | |||
*]: Recent discussion archived in advance (February 2004) | |||
*]: Policy on Anons and this page (], ]) | |||
*]: Discussion on 19-25 February 2004 about who can vote and how bureaucrats should be appointed | |||
*]: Discussion of what consensus is needed for a request (February-March 2004) | |||
*]: Polls on making all admins bureaucrats, and on possible minimum requirements for adminship (February-March 2004) | |||
*]: Discussion of nominators, self-nominations, and nominating procedures (March 2004) | |||
*]: Possible minimum requirements for voting, discussion and poll about bureaucrats exercising individual judgment in determining consensus (March-April 2004) | |||
*]: TOC tallies, relative merits of a firm 80% threshold compared to "bureaucrat" judgement, creeping upwards of requirements for support of adminship, possible periodic renewal of adminship, issues regarding specific nominations (March 4-May 20 2004. No discussion May 20-June 1) | |||
*]: Questions about adminship, Lst27, JediMaster16, this page needs an image... | |||
*]: Discussion and poll about early removal of nominations, possible timelags between re-nominations (July 2004) | |||
*]: Sockpuppets and qualifications for voting (August 2004) | |||
*]: Edit counting, subpages, boilerplate questions and more (September 2004) | |||
*]: Promotions to bureaucrat (October 2004) | |||
*]: Adminship standards; de-admining inactive admins; limit on concurrent nominations (October/November 2004) | |||
*]: Candidate acceptance of nominatopm; change in mediawiki users; number of bureaucrats (November-December 2004) | |||
*]: January-April 2005 | |||
*]: May-June 2005 | |||
*]: late June-July 2005 – Weyes, Seth Ilys's revalidatation, bureaucracy reform + poll, rfa reform, removing blank votes, 500th admin, Uncle G + suspension proposal, DrZoidberg, Boothy443, WP:TRI, new template proposal, sockpuppets, vandalism of MarkSweep | |||
*]: August 2005 – Boothy443, Lucky 6.9, a proposal for bureaucrat reform, doing away with the self-nomination section, an illustration for this page, Boothy443 again, non-admins with high edit counts, inconsistencies in the procedure, premature removal of nominations, changes to the self-nomination guidelines, editcountitis, admins and valid e-mail addresses | |||
*]: About Bureaucrats | |||
*]" Gordon Watts's proposals, BDAbramson's proposal to hand out admin powers piecemeal (rejected) | |||
*]: Editcountitis, Sam Spade's criticisms, sysop promotions suspended | |||
*]: minor changes in nominating procedure. | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Recent}} <!-- {{User:X!/RfX Report}} {{User:SQL/RfX Report}} {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} --> | |||
<div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
|counter = 270 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
|algo = old(31d) | |||
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{archive box| | |||
{{flatlist| | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
}} | |||
---- | |||
{{center|Most recent<br />{{Archive list|start={{#expr:{{#invoke:Archive list|count}}-9}}}}}} | |||
}}__TOC__ | |||
== Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation == | |||
== EXTREME TRY-TO-ONE-UP-YOU-IN-CRAZINESS votes == | |||
Is there a way we can stop all these types of votes? I understand some people want to have fun and support their friends, but there needs to be some limit. 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. --]]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 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. --] 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Since when have we been professional?] 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::If we're to believe our amateurishness is one of our best selling points. Or something. Hell if I know. ] 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. <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:'''EXTREME LESBIAN PENGUIN WEDDING AT THE CENTRAL PARK ZOO SUPPORT''' for Voldy's stand against RfA vote silliness. ] ] 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:: Damn, there's little hope of topping that. ] ] 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Sheesh. I'm outta here! --] 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::Joking! Seriously, I do agree with Voldy's point - smart comments beat shock comments. ] ] 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!!'''... <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 21:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:This sounds a little to much ]y 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. ] 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. — ] | ] 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, Misplaced Pages 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. <font color=green>] ], ], ] ]</font> 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. ] 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. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 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''? ] ] 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. ] 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
To clarify slightly, would we accept '''Extreme lesbian oppose'''? ] 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 ] Support''' or whatever. I don't know if '''Extreme lesbian oppose''' would be accepted, no one has tried it yet... ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 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). ] 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. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 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. ] 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.] ] 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. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah, we call this ]. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 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. ]] 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. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 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. ] | ] 09:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Everything in moderation. ] 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'''. --] 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.) ] | ] 10:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
I agree that these votes are getting unfunny, but I find worries about "unprofessionality" of an ''internal'' Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's reputation. , perhaps, is a good point of view on the issue. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 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 Misplaced Pages, some won't...perception is reality and you can't control how people will perceive these sorts of things. ] 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. <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 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, ''Misplaced Pages 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. --] 21:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
=="Vote here" link== | |||
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. --] ] 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
AHA! As the writer for ] I see my mistake. Allow me to fix it. ]]] (]) 01:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:OK - Thanks. --] ] 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 {{tl|PAGENAMEE}}, so it'll work on all future RfA's. But as the ones there were subst:'d they won't be affected. ]]] (]) 01:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Hope anyone wanting to vote for them knows enough to work around (or shouldn't be voting anyway). --] ] 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Nominations == | |||
On the "how to nominate" page instructions it says: "Please do not add the Rfa to Misplaced Pages:Requests for Adminship yet." How long is it until one can nominate somebody? Thanks ''''']]]''''' 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. ] <sup><small><b>]</b></sup></small> 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? ''''']]]''''' 15:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::Write the nomination page ] 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. ] | ] 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
==Success== | |||
Anyone notice taht since the new procedure has been used that more Rfa's are successful? ]]] ] 15:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
: I think that is a case of '']''! ] (] | ] | ]) 16:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, I think this is in part a case of '']'' - 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. ] ] 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
== New proposal? == | |||
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? --]]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 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. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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. --]]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 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. :) --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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. - ] <sup><small>]</sup></small> 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. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::*I agree with ]. The RfA procedure is working fine without further restrictions on who can vote. ] ] 22:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation}}. ] (]/]) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (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 Misplaced Pages through the judicious exercise of admin powers. ] ] 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 ] 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 ]. 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. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 19:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Odd patterns == | |||
::::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 ].) 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? --]]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
The currently open RfA (]) has unanimous support votes (201/0/0 as of last check). I can observe that such unanimous supported RfAs are often for indviduals who have an ''exceptional'' track in copyright matters, if I remember correctly, since this area tends to be understaffed when it comes to admin capacity, as is the case with the subject of the RfA. Furthermore, for some reason, co nominations tend to be successful and self nominations tend to be unsuccessful (through means of withdrawal, ] e.g ], or ] e.g. ]). These are a few patterns that I could find at RfAs, but I do not see a reason for the latter (co noms better than self noms). ] (]) 20:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::A minor, very nitpicky point to raise here, BDAbramson. 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. ] 22:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:All ill consider RfAs - i.e., someone ignoring all the guidance - are always self nominees. That alone would create a bias towards self nominations being less successful. The other reason is, perhaps, that !voters can't be bothered to review the track record of most candidates so for self noms will either tend to not !vote at all, or if they do !vote oppose, but will happily trust nominators and support. But without surveying !voters, who can say for sure. ] (]) 21:47, 22 December 2024 (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. ] ] 22:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::I'd say that when the person is qualified and happens to self-nom, they tend to pass. Some relatively recent examples include me, Spicy, and 0xDeadbeef. ] ] 06:20, 23 December 2024 (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. ] 23:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Why, self-noms are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", of course! /j ] (]) 11:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It would be a nice way of blocking someone who you think might vote against you, nominate them! ;-) --] 20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Let me put it differently: If a respected user nominated someone for RfA and that RfA ended as NOTNOW, it means that something went seriously wrong, most likely the nominator did not make proper research. Most nominators do, or at least attempt to do proper research, this is why NOTNOW RfAs tend to be self-nom. ] (]) 11:17, 23 December 2024 (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. :-) '''>:''' ] <sup>] • ]• ]</sup> 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Nominators also serve as coaches. They often tell the candidates if and when they should run or not run, and provide other very useful advice during the process, helping to avoid common missteps. A respected nominator can also provide a boost in supports, due to folks trusting the nominator. –] <small>(])</small> 17:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 15:04, 25 December 2024
This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions. |
Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives | ||
---|---|---|
Administrators |
| Shortcut |
Bureaucrats |
| |
AdE/RfX participants | ||
History & statistics | ||
Useful pages | ||
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Sennecaster | RfA | Successful | 25 Dec 2024 | 230 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Hog Farm | RfA | Successful | 22 Dec 2024 | 179 | 14 | 12 | 93 |
Graham87 | RRfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 20 Nov 2024 | 119 | 145 | 11 | 45 |
Worm That Turned | RfA | Successful | 18 Nov 2024 | 275 | 5 | 9 | 98 |
Voorts | RfA | Successful | 8 Nov 2024 | 156 | 15 | 4 | 91 |
Archives |
Most recent 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation
There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Odd patterns
The currently open RfA (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sennecaster) has unanimous support votes (201/0/0 as of last check). I can observe that such unanimous supported RfAs are often for indviduals who have an exceptional track in copyright matters, if I remember correctly, since this area tends to be understaffed when it comes to admin capacity, as is the case with the subject of the RfA. Furthermore, for some reason, co nominations tend to be successful and self nominations tend to be unsuccessful (through means of withdrawal, WP:NOTNOW e.g wp:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit, or wp:SNOW e.g. wp:Requests for adminship/Numberguy6). These are a few patterns that I could find at RfAs, but I do not see a reason for the latter (co noms better than self noms). ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- All ill consider RfAs - i.e., someone ignoring all the guidance - are always self nominees. That alone would create a bias towards self nominations being less successful. The other reason is, perhaps, that !voters can't be bothered to review the track record of most candidates so for self noms will either tend to not !vote at all, or if they do !vote oppose, but will happily trust nominators and support. But without surveying !voters, who can say for sure. MarcGarver (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that when the person is qualified and happens to self-nom, they tend to pass. Some relatively recent examples include me, Spicy, and 0xDeadbeef. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why, self-noms are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", of course! /j GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let me put it differently: If a respected user nominated someone for RfA and that RfA ended as NOTNOW, it means that something went seriously wrong, most likely the nominator did not make proper research. Most nominators do, or at least attempt to do proper research, this is why NOTNOW RfAs tend to be self-nom. Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nominators also serve as coaches. They often tell the candidates if and when they should run or not run, and provide other very useful advice during the process, helping to avoid common missteps. A respected nominator can also provide a boost in supports, due to folks trusting the nominator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)