Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:22, 1 October 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 203.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 00:22:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

time delay

Hi - if a nominee requests, can other admins/bcrats freeze voting for the first 24 hours so that the nominee can answer extra questions in full before people make up their minds? (I'm not proposing a procedure, just if an individual request is made). Shiva (Visnu) 10:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that this shouldn't be allowed. Answering the questions is part of the process, and if the editor does not have the time to do that, they should not put forward their candidacy until they have the time to do so. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\ 12:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, that means !voters who read the page early may see a bunch of unanswered questions (and could easily jump to assumptions about the lack of an answer, depending on which timezone they're in rather than the candidate's timezone, and so on); and !voters who read the page late see answered questions - but prior !votes that seem to overlook them. I think that's not ideal. If !votes are supposed to take into account the responses to questions (and not be randomly skewed by who has free time in what part of the day/week &c) I would support a move that gives candidates a little time to answer those questions first, although there might be other practical concerns.... bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The original question wasn't about the 3 standard questions (which should be answered fully before the RfA is transcluded onto the main page), but for extra questions. If we said "yes" to this, does that mean that every time someone added another question, we'd put it on hold for another 24 hours? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if an RfA was open for 5 days and then an additional question was added, then the people who contributed to the discussion during the first 5 days would not have seen the latest question, let alone the answer. That's part of the process of RfA. The only way in which this would be feasible would be if we changed RfA, so that it is put up and questions can be added during a set time period (be it 24 hours or whatever the community thought), and no !votes can be registered during that period - and then after that time period, no more questions could be added. However, I would not feel comfortable with this - what if I only come on to edit once or twice a week, and miss the "question" period? What if I only log on during the "no !votes, only questions" period? In either case, I can't fully participate in the RfA. So in summary, I still think this would be wrong! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points, thanks. I was thinking of something more like your latter case(ie. rather than setting the clock back every time some random wikipedian wants to ask a question, there's a pre-voting period upfront when these questions are asked - similar to most real-world elections). Is there any need to shorten the period in which !votes can be cast? bobrayner (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The only way in which this would be feasible would be if we changed RfA, so that it is put up and questions can be added during a set time period (be it 24 hours or whatever the community thought), and no !votes can be registered during that period - and then after that time period, no more questions could be added" - the problem with that is that RfAs are open for a full week because some people work on Misplaced Pages only on specific days, and we can't assume everyone is here every day. So restricting the asking of questions to a shorter period is going to effectively prohibit some editors who don't visit on the special days from asking questions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI there was an "experimental" RFA last October that used this model. See also the discussion –xeno 14:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, xeno, and did you see how many questions there were - 48! ... who'd want to go through that?! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep - looks (even more) grueling. –xeno 15:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blatantly ridiculous, wasn't it? As I have said many, many times, no wonder there are fewer and fewer candidates coming forward. If it were my RfA, I would just bin the lot and withdraw.--Kudpung (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, his last RFA (in standard form) attracted 45 questions. He may not have been the best test subject if 'level of scrutiny' was the key metric. Kuru (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on this matter are pretty simple: if we had a period of time specifically for the asking and answering of questions, the number of questions would probably increase drastically. Ironholds is a prime example. Useight (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. As Kuru pointed out, I got a shedload of questions in non-experimental RfAs as well (mainly along the lines of "you're APPLYING? WHY!?"). It must be pointed out that a large number of questions in the non-experimental model were due to a troll; the results of the experimental RfA aren't, therefore, as unreliable as Kuru seems to think. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, did not notice that on first pass. Indeed a very large number were simple trolling. Quite the circus. Kuru (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The user is free to transpose his/her RfA whenever he/she feels ready to do so. Thus, if they want to wait until they've answered the bare 3 and transpose fine. If there are a number of other "optional" questions they want to answer before transposing fine. The things to take into account: 1) Answering a lot of questions or getting ANY supports before transposing could be seen as stacking the deck. 2) Having numerous people asking questions before transposing, could be seen as "canvassing." Generally, while it is possible, I wouldn't recommend it---unless the user foresees some questions and wants to take a proactive approach. EG they were blocked or in a bitter dispute, and want to address those issues in more detail. Or perhaps they ran before, was asked a question to which they answered poorly, and want to answer the same question again. Or C, they've ben following RfA, feel that some of the questions asked are fairly standard and want to answer those questions ahead of time. But remember, the more info added before the start, might work both ways.---Balloonman 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this proposal is necessary. in my experience most sensible !voters are aware of time stamps and time differences and don't feel ignored unless a reasonable time has passed and the candidate has disappeared or done other things without answering their question. That said I would recommend that any serious candidate pick a week when they are planning to be on wiki for a chunk of time daily, at least in the early days. I'd also suggest submitting your RFA at the start of a new editing session, not as I did at what I intended to be the end of one. PS If anyone out there is thinking of running and fancies a nomination, please drop me a line if you think you meet my criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 14:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

When I see a new RfA, and it's for an editor that I'm not very familiar with, and there aren't any optional questions asked (or answered if asked) then I'll make a check of their contributions to see if anything leaps out at me as atrocious or fantastic. If the former, I oppose, if the latter, I support. If neither, then I'll wait a couple days for questions to be asked (or answered) or pose a couple myself if I can think of something relevant to ask. I've never opposed an editor early in an RfA because of unanswered questions. To be frank, anyone who does is an idiot. That's like watching a sporting match when it has just started and giving up on one side because they haven't scored yet.

I'll also second what WSC has said, it's good to have your RfA at a time when you're going to be around. RfA opposes have a tendency to snowball, where one editor will oppose for something you did, and then suddenly a half a dozen oppose for the same reason. If you can swiftly address the concern you might head off those opposes. Unfortunately, many people will oppose an RfA and then not look at it again, so even if you address the reason for the oppose quite adequately, the opposers may not be aware of it to change their minds. I consider it perfectly okay to leave messages for the opposers to inform them that you've addressed their concerns and they should reconsider (I've had a few candidates do so to me after I opposed, and a couple of times I've changed my !vote as a result) but others may see that as badgering your opposers. Some people also just don't want to change their minds. RfA can be a nerve-racking experience, but it's less so if you can keep an eye on it. -- Atama頭 16:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Secret

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.

Is this a correct thing to do? User:Secret stated in an edit to it that he was quitting the project, but he's only "semi-retired" on his profile, and I'm not sure that it's exactly correct to blank an entire RFA, 'courtesy' or not. If he'd requested to vanish, then I could understand, but there's nothing stopping him from running for RFA again in the future, and even though the entire RFA is accessible via old revisions, I still don't think it's right to blank it. Thoughts? Esteffect (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never been happy with courtesy blankings except from in the rarest circumstances (such as a heated AFD on a BLP). Secret, who admitted he knew it would be a bloodbath and knew he handled criticism poorly, brought it on himself. Of course, if he had left I'd be more sympathetic, but if he's still here, it should stay up for all to see. I don't think RFAs are cached by search engines anyhow, and it just causes a nuisance when people want to look at it. Aiken (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I didn't really blank the RfA, I just replaced the already-blanked RfA with the {{courtesy blanked}} template. I don't have any opinion on whether it should stay this way or not. —Soap— 22:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Too bad WP:COMPASSION is a redlink. Secret made an error of judgement, it seems, which could have been easily avoided. It is also equally easy to find if you're the sort of person who needs to find such things. Misplaced Pages loses nothing by being nice to people who had an oopsie and need a little empathy. Sleeping dogs. → ROUX ₪ 22:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Secret blanked his own RfA. For reasons I can well understand. I agree with Roux. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Meh, it's ultimately up the the 'crats, but unless he runs again, I'd say just leave it as is. What's to be gained by unblanking it? Courcelles 22:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Even if he runs again I have no problem with blanking, after all it only takes it out of Google. I expect that almost anyone voting in an RFA can go through an edit history and see what was once there. ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Does this not, however, set a precedent? What is being suggested here is that, if an RFA does not go your way or includes comments and so forth that you're not fond of, you can simply blank it. We don't blank snowball closes, WP:NOTNOW closes, and others withdrawn only, but this suggests that it's acceptable. It'd be interesting to have a bureaucrat's word on this. I'm not all that privy to Secret's case so as to know whether or not there's special circumstances here, but others have withdrawn an RFA and left/went on a wikibreak before, and their RFAs remain visible. Esteffect (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• A look at the RFA indicates no real drama on it, in fact, and simply 18 supports and 8 opposes. Yes, the RFA was not looking promising, but I'm not convinced anything unique occurred on it to suggest courtesy blanking is appropriate. Esteffect (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of personally revealing details. → ROUX ₪ 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that now. I'm still against the blanking of RFAs (other debates are not blanked), but if it's within process I'll withdraw the objection. A bureaucrat should still perhaps note whether or not the process is acceptable, though. Esteffect (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have left a not on WP:BN to that effect. Given that no bureaucrats (who watch RFA carefully, for obvious reasons) objected to the blanking, it would seem that they do not disagree. → ROUX ₪ 23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this sets a precedent, I'm pretty sure that it actually follows precedent - this isn't the norm but similar things have happened before. ϢereSpielChequers 23:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to this RFA being blanked. I wouldn't like it to become the norm for all RFAs, but as Secret is a well-established editor, I don't have a problem with it. There have been other RFAs of well-established editors that have been blanked as well, but I'm making the courtesy of not mentioning them here. Often would-be SNOW'd RFAs remain open at the request of the candidate, particularly if the candidate is a longtime Wikipedian. Goes against the norm, but so be it. Useight (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And would it really make ANY difference if it did become the norm? No, the RfA is still visible to anybody who wants to look at it. This whole thread as far as I am concerned serves no valid purpose other than to rehash old wounds.---Balloonman 02:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going with "Who cares?". I don't see much point in courtesy blanking it, but at the same time I also don't see any problems with courtesy blanking it. If he would like it courtesy blanked, then that's fine by me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblank it, I blanked it out of frustration and to prevent damage to my health. I was upset that I was being labeled as a dramamonger, and I thought that was my reputation with the community, which isn't true though I did expose it with my later edits, that I am a drama when my health becomes affected. I plan to move on with the RFA and try RFA again in the future. Deskana knows my editing history well, that I tend to be like that when things doesn't go as plan especially with RFAs but I'm harmless to the community. Secret 01:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana, what does it hurt to have it blanked? It is not as if it hides the RfA from anybody who wants to look. If it makes the user/subject of the RfA sleep a tad bit better at night and feel a hair better about the project, why should we care? I can't think of a single valid reason not to adhere to somebody's request to blank it. It is not as if we are talking about Deleting the RfA. Anybody who is interested can go back and see what happened and what was said.---Balloonman 02:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. It is the same as a waiter saying "Certainly, Ma'am, there must have been a computer error, let's use your other credit card." It is a courtesy to allow people to avoid embarrassment. Again, I am depressed that WP:COMPASSION (for fellow editors) is not blue. It should be. → ROUX ₪ 02:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an RfA historian, but I have seen other courtesy-blanked RfAs (ex. DHMO's, I think?) Ed  03:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This courtesy blanking doesn't seem to conform to WP:CBLANK, which is policy. As Secret notes above, the RFA should be unblanked. Townlake (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And again, a significant amount of personal information was disclosed in the RFA. See WP:COMPASSION (which I have rewritten from a redirect) again to gain some idea of where everyone else is coming from. → ROUX ₪ 06:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Which part of "From time to time, a discussion will have its content hidden from view based on the judgment of the community, an administrator or another functionary. This is generally not done except under rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation." doesn't conform? I'm with Roux; there is no harm done in blanking it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's long been well known that RFA is a stressful experience; these are hardly rare circumstances. Are we really going to start blanking RFAs because the candidate felt discomfort resulting from the process? (If we are, that's fine, but the policy should be updated and all candidates should be informed up front that it's an option - heck, it might boost RFA participation.) Townlake (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an issue wit the blanking. Anyone is welcome to review the actual content if they wish. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy-blanking does not suppress any information, which remains fully available in the page history. I strongly request that the page remain as it is unless and until the user seeks a new RfA or otherwise is the subject of a privilege discussion. The circumstances here are such that little useful purpose will be served by further discussion of or dwelling on the matter at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... so far we only have Townlake calling for the RfA to be un-blanked. Even the person who initially raised the question has withdrawn his concern. I think it's time for an univolved admin/crat to clost this thing down. There is no useful purpose in keeping this open other than to bring pain to the surface. If a person feels embarrassed by the results of his.her rfa, then it can be deleted/blanked. WP:BLP could be applied here. Anybody who insist on keeping it unblanked needto provide a valud reason to do so.---Balloonman 06:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Armbrust Closure

The user has 47000 edits and has been closed under WP:NOTNOW here in a non admin closure within hours of it being put.Clearly WP:NOTNOW does not to editors with substantial edits and it does not apply here.It should have been withdrawn only with the candidate's consent and been given more time.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it and left a note on Porchcrop's page. S/he has been doing a lot of this sort of thing lately. Reminds me of a long-departed user whose name I frustratingly cannot remember. → ROUX ₪ 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a checkuser could jog your memory... :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No.. if I'm right about who it is, they haven't edited in quite a long time and so a CU wouldn't have anything to compare to. Ugh, I wish I could remember the name. In some ways I am reminded of User:Andy Bjornovich, though the obsessions aren't the same. (Then again, everyone changes). The one I am really reminded of was a guy who kept trying to create these Byzantine organizational structures; I seem to recall he tried to put together some sort of 'Misplaced Pages CSI' for finding evidence for ArbCom cases? And there was something else, a whole raft of pages in his userspace devoted to some strange governmental thing on Misplaced Pages. It's possible I am conflating two users. → ROUX ₪ 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

u so crazeh.  f o x  11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrible use of WP:NOTNOW and yet another example of people who link to essays they've either never read, or if they have, then have utterly failed to understand. Pedro :  Chat  19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Akilandy, 26 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

This was just a copypaste of the RFA main page. What do you want changed?--Chaser (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)