Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for adminship - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 29 November 2006 (→Template for candidates user pages: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:07, 29 November 2006 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Template for candidates user pages: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

RFA discussions prior to June 2003 took place on a mailing list


Shortcut
  • ]


Recently failed RfAs?

I was looking for a list of recently-failed RfAs, like there is for recently successful RfAs, and I couldn't find it. Did this exist, or am I just imagining it? I was looking for this because I wanted to see which RfAs had been closed recently, without digging through the page history. I only managed to find an alphabetical list. I found exvicious at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies/E, but only because I remembered the name. I eventually found a chronological list at User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological), but this seems to be updated less frequently. Would it be possible to make this all clearer, rather than spread between 'official' pages and 'user' pages? Carcharoth 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) is updated frequently; it appears just about up-to-date to me. If you're looking for a list of failed RfAs, sans the chronological order, you should take a look at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, which is linked from the top of the Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about the update frequency. I'll try and be a bit more patient. I was already aware of Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, as that was where I found Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/E... but thanks for that link as well. :-) What do you think about the material being split across Misplaced Pages and User space. Is that a problem or not? Carcharoth 17:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think NoSeptember's page should be moved to the Misplaced Pages namespace. It doesn't pose as a problem right now on NoSeptember's userpage, but I just think moving to the Misplaced Pages namespace would be more logical. Nishkid64 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no problems with any of the pages in the The NoSeptember Admin Project being moved to WP space if people want them there, but I also don't want to create a bunch of WP space pages that others don't want. I think the amount of updating that other people do now may be an indication of how interested people are in a particular page. User:NoSeptember/Desysop and User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records get updated a bit more often by people other than me, so I usually consider these the most popular pages. Although I include User:NoSeptember/Admin stats and User:NoSeptember/List of Administrators as my favorites. Anyone who wants to update any page is welcome to do so. Curiously, now when someone gets desysopped, there are 4 (sometimes 5) pages to be updated (1 2 3 4 5) :). NoSeptember 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

I would like to be a Admin for Misplaced Pages. I stay up late at late and see alot of bad things happen on Misplaced Pages. I would like to power to block someone if they mis-use wikipedia. Thanks, Senator Heimermann 02:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I should be intermittently reloading that talk page to see what you are about to say... ;-) Maybe I'll be patient and wait for you to stop writing! :-) Carcharoth 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A diff will probably have to suffice now: ; Asher deleted most of the text on his talk page about six hours later: John Broughton | Talk 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2

Is there a reason this is not being closed for the better part of a day already? - crz crztalk 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering that. HighInBC 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding a !vote, but am not sure if that is OK after the 'deadline' has passed. Regarding the closure point, I would have thought that borderline cases would be allowed to run further to allow a consensus to develop one way or the other, but the proper way to do this would be to have a bureaucrat officially extend the closure date so that people can see how many more days are left. If this was done, I would then add my comments and !vote. Carcharoth 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
NB. 4 support votes added after the 'deadline' and 3 oppose votes added after the 'deadline' (as of the 61/17/4 tally. Carcharoth 03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
RFA lottery... - crz crztalk 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am running for RFB. Right now... :) - crz crztalk 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, seems like an unfortunate coincidence, with all Bureaucrats absent for most of the day. Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline). The only "problem" is that, at this time tomorrow, I'm not going to be here to close it, but I'm sure Essjay or Taxman can do it, and I don't think that it would be fair to close now, in light of the present situation. Hopefully, this will be enough to patch this up. Redux 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Erm... If it was above the traditional approval range at closing and is now within traditional range - how does leaving it open longer for more RfA Russian Rulette make sense? I don't understand. Please gauge the consensus - as of now or as of yesterday - and close it already. - crz crztalk 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The extension seems fair because the RfA was left open for a significant amount of time past the original deadline, and during this time, several people participated, impacting the outcome. And it is a fact that when a RfA is overdue, but not officially extended, that can have a very real impact on people's decision to participate. In this case, it seems to be a necessary remedy, in light of the circumstances surrounding the end of this RfA.
But furthermore, RfAs runs until a Bureaucrat closes it. Unfortunately, there was nobody to close it sooner, and a close call became even closer — and it is a very close call. Particularly, it caught my eye that there had been no opposition since the 24th, and then on the 27th, several new ones rolled in, most of them after the original deadline, dropping the support consensus to 78%; as well as that the number of supporters in the last day also picked up again. This makes it a very close call, and since activity picked up during the last day (and in fact, past the original closing), it should be helpful to allow the community extra time to develop consensus. Redux 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me. I'll go and add my !vote now. Thanks. Carcharoth 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I support it. In fact, I wish RfAs that were in the "margin of discretion" were extended more often than they are, in the interest of gaining a better idea of community consensus. If there's no traffic for days, sure it makes sense to close it, but it's a discussion not a horse race. :) -- nae'blis 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hour extension incorrectly implemented

Um, the proposed 24-hour extension "as of now" (ie. 03:40 28 November 2006) seems to have been incorrectly implemented by Redux. The extension should have been to around 03:40 on 29 November, not the 28 November. See this edit here (which granted a 1 minute extension, not a 24 hour extension). This is particularly unfortunate because the original reason for the extension was partially to avoid the "the deadline's passed, I won't vote" effect. I only noticed this when looking at the summary at WP:BN. Possibly another 24-hour extension from when this is corrected might be needed, though that could be incredibly messy. I also note that Redux said he won't be around tommorow, so I'm going to leave a note at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard as well. Carcharoth 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As it's clearly a mistake and the crat's intention is known, surely someone else can just correct the date? --Tango 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought about doing that, but at the time it still wasn't clear which way the RfA would swing (it looks clearer now). If I'd spotted the mistake a few minutes after it happened, I would have corrected it, but this was a few hours after the event. Also any actions that could impact on a close RfA (even if the action is technically correct) tend to get examined with a microscope. I left a notice at WP:AN and WP:BN, and seeing as no admin or bureaucrat responded if seems no-one else was WP:BOLD enough either. If I could have done this differently, I'd appreciate any advice. At the moment, as I've been accused of incivility and lack of good faith on the RfA page, I'm going to keep out of it (other than to correct a minor misunderstanding). I would appreciate some indication from others as to whether I went too far with my comments on the RfA, where I drew attention to what I thought was inappropriate behaviour by crz. Carcharoth 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for bringing it up. Sorry about the mixup; in my time zone, it was still the 27th when I edited the RfA... Redux 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As Carcharoth requested, I'll clarify that it would have been perfectly fine for anyone to fix the date slip. As Tango mentioned, it was a clear, honest mistake (caused by the time zone thing), and the actual intention was clear to see (to grant a 24-hour extension from the time of my post). Redux 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Your doing a great job Redux, crats can use discretion and make mistakes. HighInBC 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear from my initial post (which was only pointing out the mistake and saying that it was unfortunate in context, not judging the action), I agree. Next time I spot something like this, I'll correct it. The other reason (in addition to the ones mentioned above) that I didn't correct the mistake was because I had read about this during the recent Doug Bell RFA. :-) Carcharoth 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Calling what Doug did there vandalism is a blatent misuse of the term vandalism. It did not look like a bad faith edit that set off the whole thing hehe. HighInBC 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the obsession with %%?

Hold on a second here, what's with the obsession over a couple of percentage points? This is an exercise to determine consensus, not snout counting. There is not (and should not be) a firm number to apply to determine passing requests, otherwise we might as well remove any fantasy that this is not a vote. It should not matter if supports are at 78% or 80%, there should be enough data for a 'crat to close it just fine as is. The only reason I bring this up is that the above discussion seems to place an irresponsible emphasis (well intentioned as it may be) on refined numbers with clearly implied thresholds that should not exist. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the concern is that it is very near the point where historically failure is close. Of course it is not a vote, but it is a close race. I agree that the numbers need not be overemphisized. HighInBC 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Rough thresholds should exist - but the problem is that the perceived difference in the voting within the 12 hours after scheduled end - 81% to 78% - is too silly for words. It's within margin of error, within margin of sanity. The two or three extra votes did not change anything in the picture, did not deliver any powerful new arguments, no new diffs, no new nothing. I don't care if crats close it adversely to my nominee - that's fine - but I continue to protest against the senseless extension. Please do not penalize Kafziel for my opinion! Thanks. - crz crztalk 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The extension makes perfect sense to me. People were voting, and other people were not voting becuase it was past due. This creates a disparity, the solution is to officially extend the deadline and remove the abiguity. HighInBC 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
HighInBC is right. The extension should be purely because it was not closed on time and people continued voting and discussing. It might help if there was a clear statement from the bureaucrats on what happens when a close RfA is not closed on time. Carcharoth 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a "clean the slate" RfA. By this, I mean that a fair number of users have identified an issue that concerns them (civility in this case). If this RfA fails and the candidate addresses these concerns over the next few months, the next RfA will pass overwhelmingly. Although Misplaced Pages:Consensus != Consensus, it does seem that the way to achieve general agreement here is to close the current RfA as "no consensus", address the issues brought up by opposers over the next 2-3 months, and then start another RfA. SuperMachine 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So go oppose it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with crat decisionmaking. - crz crztalk 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, I did oppose it (weakly). I was pointing out that the opposition in the RfA is based on recent behavior that some considered to be uncivil or combative. If these concerns were addressed over the next few months, I believe there would be overwhelming support in the future. If the idea is to achieve some sort of general agreement that Kafziel should be an admin, this would be the way. I do realize that RfA operates more on the basis of achieving a certain threshold of support (which Kafziel may or may not have reached). SuperMachine 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Supermachine, what does your comment have to do with the Bureaucratic closing process of an RfA? Also, how does closing an 80% supported RfA "achieve general agreement"? It seems to give the 20% opposers an inordinate amount of weight beyond that already imbued by the process. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
My comment was merely a suggestion on how a general agreement might be reached. It wasn't directed specifically at bureaucrats, I was basically just "throwing it out there". Seems there's a lot of tension surrounding this RfA, so maybe it's best for me to just stay out of this. SuperMachine 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The opposes would only have undue weight if it was closed as failed, but if it does not succeed with such high numbers it will likely be no consensus, which would be accurate. HighInBC 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the RfA was extended because the %age changed by a few points, rather that it was changing quite quickly. The idea was that in 24 hours, it could change by a few more points, and that would take it below the point where it can reasonably succeed. --Tango 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the focus on % is to some extent driven by the nice pretty colours seen on the summary at WP:BN. I like those colours, but if they act as red rags to bulls, attracting people to RfAs for the wrong reason, then the colours may need to go. Bureaucrats and others can see the numbers without needed colour prompts. Carcharoth 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, everyone. Since the extension I granted has somewhat divided the opinions, I thought it would be best if someone else closed this RfA — I thought I wasn't even going to be here, but as it turned out, I am, but won't close it. I've managed to get a hold of Warofdreams, and I've asked him to take care of this. He should be closing the RfA as soon as it expires (again). I hope this is satisfactory to all. Redux 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this so well. HighInBC 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The crats blew it

I am in mourning over the ludicrous treatment bestowed upon Kafziel. RfAs deteriorate. Every one that has non-trivial opposition does. My second one did. So does every other one. It's an empirical fact: given enough time, all RfAs with non-trivial opposition will slowly descend in %age support. Voters are naturally attracted to borderline RfAs, and tend to give a lot more weight to the oppose section, with snowballing effect - as the oppose section grows longer, the more formidable it looks, the more the temptation to take the position of righteousness and simultaneously sink someone. Everyone knows this. So do the crats. If they don't they should resign.

RfAs have pre-announced time limits for a reason. An extension is called for when radically new evidence comes out in the last few hours of an RfA and an opportunity to change one's view needs to be afforded. In this case, the bureaucrats simply screwed up by not showing up for thirteen hours. When Redux finally logged in, he found a "situation" - me asking why the RfA wasn't being closed promptly. Instead of minimizing the damage by closing the RfA right then and there, he punished the candidate by giving fickle voters another 24 hours to consider the RfA. The level of support predictably deteriorated - as it always does - and the candidate lost out. No new evidence was presented, no new opinion was expressed.

Like I said: RfAs have pre-announced time limits for a reason. Time limits give everyone some certainty of expectation, and minimize opportunistic opposing. The bureaucrats blew it: not by closing the RfA the wrong way, but by unfairly dragging it along with predictable consequences. They owe Kafziel an apology. - crz crztalk 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I disagree that RfAs are always on a down spiral. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita are two such cases. Sam was 9-11 and then went 59-8 to end at 68-19 and scrape past. Generally they do, but in the case of non-famous users, people are likely to go around digging for some faults and find some non-standard pattern and use it to oppose. It's mostly only later when it is pointed out that they in fact are doind better than some landslide RfAs, that things turn around. As for the comments about "fickle", it appears that the electorate is currently in an optimistic mood and has been promoting rather liberally, whereas a few months before, when there were many candidates who usually would pass 98%+ only passed at maybe 85% because there were a few large-scale conflicts which made people's trust threshold go up. So I didn't think that this was a time when candidates got battered excessively. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
They don't. They have the right to do that; we've trusted them with the right when we've voted for them in their RFBs. "Fickle voters"? Please don't make me lose respect for you. Take a break for a while... I think you're becoming too emotionally attached to the situation. – Chacor 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The WP:B page says Wait at least seven days. It was stated no crats were available at the time, and the reasoning of the extention seems valid. Kafziel lost due to lack of consensus. Did the delay adversly affect him? Yes. Is the the crats fault? I don't think so. HighInBC 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with HighIn here. Delays do occur. While I think it is true that leaving contentious RfAs open longer will probably make them more likely to go to no consensus than anything else, it is hard to see how having what amounts to a larger sample size of users could be intrisically a bad thing. Furthermore, I don't think anyone owes Kafziel an apology. If Kafziel would have strongly benefitted the project having admin tools a few months earlier than Kaf will get, that hurts the project not Kaf. In any event, I am confident that if Kaf runs again in two months Kaf will become an admin and most likely get to be within the WP:100. JoshuaZ 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel quite certain that had this not come at the conclusion of a month where we had quite a few candidates with easy 90%+ finishes, this probably would not have ended this way. The close call I'm sure would not have been as close during a normal period. Regardless, the twenty-four hour extension, in my opinion, was unnecessary, and the absence of the bureaucrats during the thirteen-hour period only reinforces that (isn't that an extension already?). Redux's explanation – Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline). – appeared to be a series of reasons (close call, fairness, etc.) that did not fit the conclusion (the extension). Nevertheless, I do not think an apology is necessary here, not only because apologies made at request don't really mean much, but also because Kafziel stated in the RfA that he was okay with the 24/37-hour extension. Also, I must say Crzrussian's desire to get this RfA through is quite astounding; the repetitive notification of the bureaucrats (although not really wrong), this comment, and the rushed RfB are proof of that. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have some pride issues I need to work on. - crz crztalk 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe Redux was concerned that a few oppose votes had gone in since the deadline, and another user has said he did not vote support because he was not sure if it was kosher after the deadline. HighInBC 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian, once again, the "situation" was not that you were calling attention to a RfA that had expired over 12 hours earlier. The "situation" was that there was a close-call RfA that had expired half a day earlier. That you were calling attention to it is a service to the community, and to the Bureaucrats. Now, used to be that !votes, votes, participations, or anything that was cast past closing time was automatically discarded by the closing Bureaucrat — in fact, if you can find cases like this back in Cecropia's time, you will find that he used to seggregate those as cast after expiration —, but things have changed. Community feeling now is that the RfA runs normally, even if past the original deadline, until a Bureaucrat closes it, in the spirit of it being a consensus-building exercise, rather than a vote. That means that, by the time I came around yesterday, consensus was within discretion. You'll get no argument from me that it was less than ideal that no Bureaucrat managed to drop by for the better part of that day, but that happens, although thankfully, it's unusual. But that was the hand we were dealt in this RfA, and that is what I had to work with.
Now to clarify why I felt that the extension was necessary: As I said before, when a RfA expires but goes unclosed for a substantial amount of time, that affects, or can affect, people's disposition to participate, especially those who are not regulars on RfA. I decided on the extension, which is a well-known resource to be used in close calls, such as this one had become, as a means to compensate for the time during which uncertainty, caused by the fact that the RfA was overdue for a significant amount of time, but yet remained open without any official extension, could have affected definitively the outcome — as indicated by the shift in consensus that took place during that time, noticing that there is no way of measuring what would or could have happened if all users had been positive that it was still ok, and in fact constructive, for them to participate. A lot of people tend to think "ok, this one is already in the books" when they see an expired deadline at the top of a RfA. The goal was that, given the circumstances, the candidate would have a fair and honest chance of being reviewed by anyone and everyone who would be willing to weigh in. I undestand that it is very easy to read something into this; in fact, I've seen more than one case where, after an extension was granted, users interpreted the measure the exact opposite way you did, and decided to oppose, or even changed their !vote to "oppose", because they had felt that the extension was meant to, or would have the effect of, "ensure the candidate's promotion". Of course, that was not the case.
And in the end, the extension itself had barely any impact on the outcome when the final result is compared to the state of affairs in place when I came by 24 hours ago. There was more opposition, but there was also more support, and although the support consensus did drop further, it wasn't significant enough for it to have been the decisive element in the final outcome of this RfA. Redux 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your exhaustive post. I understand all of it, except for "the shift in consensus" which you observed. It was three percentage points, 81% to 78%, if I am not mistaken. That completely falls through the margin of error cracks here as to carry no meaning. - crz crztalk 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
But notice that: 1) The RfA was always closer to the minimal support necessary when it was approaching its original deadline; 2) It went from just above the minimal support necessary to the margin of discretion exactly during the (many) hours when the RfA had already expired in terms of the deadline set, but remained active nonetheless. This situation introduced an element of uncertainty and unfairness (to both the candidate and the community) that I hoped to correct by "giving back" (figuratively) the time during which no one really knew when exactly the RfA would be closed, and thus anyone could, and many would, hesitate to participate. I couldn't very well say "closed, too bad if you were still thinking about whether or not you should weigh in". In this context, whether I promoted the candidate or failed the RfA, it wouldn't have been completely fair. I'm sure it's very easy to see how anyone could say: "what do you mean failed? If I knew that I could support 11 hours past the deadline, I would have, and the candidate might have succeeded", and a similar argument could be used by those who would have meant to oppose had the candidate been promoted then. It's the fire and the frying pan, if you think about it. It was a very long delay, during which much was uncertain and consensus shifted visibly. I concluded then that an extension would compensate for this, at least to a certain extent, and help lessen the problem.
Noticing, of course, that the RfA was, in the end, a tough call, and it was failed at 77%, meaning: any Bureaucrat could have (although not necessarily would have) failed the RfA at 78%, which was where it was 24 hours ago. Redux 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. - crz crztalk 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-Crats Closing Requests?

Given the above, wouldn't it be sensible to allow non-'Crats (maybe limit it to just admins but I can't see a reason why) to 'close' (i.e. add the relevant templates) an RfA? We could create some new templates and backgrounds to indicate a 'closed and pending decision' RfA. It would thus still need a Bureaucrat to decide whether it suceeds or fails, but this would avoid situations such as the above occuring? If the Bureaucrat wanted to re-open the nomination to allow for a greater consensus to develop, he/she could do that, announcing an extended discussion period of x hours/days.

I don't see any obvious problem with such a proposal - anyone trying to abuse it would be spotted pretty quickly, its pretty obvious when a week is up (and I guess we could exclude nominator(s)/nominee from closing their own debate). --Robdurbar 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't like it. As mentioned above, nowadays crats no longer discount votes in after the deadline. I suppose for obvious ones (unanimous or near-unanimous support), but definitely not for those hovering near 73 or 78%. – Chacor 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It might be easier and lead to less policy-creep if we simply changed the closing time wording on the RfA header to something like "Ending after 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)". This wording would inform participants that it will run at least until a certain date and time. If it takes a few hours for a bureaucrat to show up, no big deal. SuperMachine 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Kafziel 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, there's really no good reason for non-crats (or especially non-admins) to close requests—at least, none that would outweigh the potential problems. If an RfA's tally stands at a point where the outcome (success or failure) is clear enough for a non-crat to make the call, then if it gets left open for an extra few hours – or even an extra day – it shouldn't materially affect the outcome. If the RfA is close, then we don't want a non-crat going near the decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Closing at a specified time encourages vote counting and percentages over consensus. What if the templates are placed on an RfA by an admin before consensus can be adequately determined by the bureaucrat? A decision that seems clear to one person might not seem so simple to another. It's better to have an RfA run long than to resort to counting votes. Kafziel 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Here, here! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a solution looking for a problem. This whole thing is blown out of proportion. We limit this action to crats for a reason, and a little but of impatience is no reason to change that. Lets not forget that a crat may want it to be left open in a close call, wheras someone else might want it closed at the moment of expiring if it is just above 80% and looks like it may fall(not refering to anyone speficic). This is the crats discretion, and they have not violated that discretion. HighInBC 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no problem here. It doesn't matter if discussions carry on for more than a week. If the %ages are likely to significantly change after the week is up, then obviously consensus hasn't been determined yet and the RfA should stay open. If the %ages aren't likely to change, then it makes no difference. Either way, the RfA shouldn't be closed as soon as the week is up. I like the suggestion of changing the header to "Ending after", in fact, we could take it even further and leave the timing entirely up the the crats - once they think consensus has been determined, they close the RfA, regardless of how long it's been open. This would require us to trust the crats, which seems to be unpopular with some people, of course. The only significant issue is making sure the RfA has been open long enough for people to see it, but I don't think we need to determine a set length of time for that, that crats can decide. --Tango 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a wording change might be beneficial, though I'm not sure "Ending after" is the clearest option, and I certainly think an open-ended RFA could be fraught with peril. But the only situation non-crats should be closing RFAs is when the candidate has withdrawn/botched it so bad it's unreadable, in my opinion. -- nae'blis 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey lookit that! Back in October a few people discussed changing "Ending" to "Due to end" on the template talk page, then forgot to implement it. :P -- nae'blis 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold - crz crztalk 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentioned open-ended RfAs up above. This reminded me of an idea I had about how to modify the RfA process to deal with issues of desysopping, if that was ever needed, and enabling the community to indicate whether consensus on a particular admin has changed. The basic idea involves leaving the RfA page open indefinitely, so people can change their votes if a particular admin starts to cause problems. Those who hadn't participated in the original RfA would be able to register their oppose or support in a different section. This would give an idea as to whether a particular admin retains the community's consensus over time, or has lost the trust of the community. One problem though is that anyone who gets upset by an admin would be able to 'retaliate', so I'm not actually sure how this would work in practice. If bad-faith oppose votes were dealt with, it might work. Carcharoth 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No canvassing

From what I understand, canvassing has been forbidden on Misplaced Pages since about May 2006. Shouldn't there be some link to any guideline or other page clarifying this? 87.78.182.246 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template for candidates user pages

Would it help to have a template that all candidates put on their user (and user talk) page saying "This user is currently requesting adminship, please comment here."? It might increase the chances of people that actually know the user finding out about the RfA without the user having to go around telling people, which is frowned upon. --Tango 14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one, {{Rfa-notice}}, but it seems to be used sporadically. Perhaps posting it should be formalized as part of the nomination process? Accurizer 15:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Some people don't like to advertise such things, I don't think it needs to be formalized. Putting a notice on your userpage will most likely get every anon who's article you voted against on an AfD finding the place. I personally prefered the opinions of those who knew what RfA was. HighInBC 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, some people who frequent RFA have a tendency to oppose candidates who self-promote their nomination. Thus, this template may backfire. (Radiant) 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There used to be a userbox (I thought), but damned if I could find it when I was running. So I opted for the rfa-notice template above, which was a little more garish but got the job done in a neutral fashion. I figure the nomination discussion on the user's talk page (for non-self-noms) doesn't hurt either. -- nae'blis 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Bad-faith votes could be discounted, couldn't they? In any event, if community consensus frowns upon promoting a nom, I think the template (and userbox if there is one) should be deleted, so that they are not used innocently by a candidate who is unfamiliar with the consensus. If there's no consensus yet perhaps we should try to reach one. Accurizer 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Clarify: By bad faith votes I was referring to what HighInBC was talking about. Accurizer 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I for one read over 50 RfA's and came to the conclusion myself that I should not post anywhere that I am running. Not because it is forbidden, but that people who did so have a historically less likely chance of success. Just like people who respond to each of their opposes(something I did though). HighInBC 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes those bad faith votes... Yes they can be ignored but it is very disruptive and sometimes hard to notice. HighInBC 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rfa-notice template is exactly what I had in mind. I'm suggesting making it compulsory, so it's not self-promotion, so it shouldn't cause anyone to oppose (and if it does, the crat will discount it - you can't oppose someone for following the rules). Just as when you ask for planning permission you have to put up a notice near where the building will be so people know about it and can comment before the permission is granted, there should be some way for people to find out about RfAs without having to regularly check the RfA page. If someone knows a good reason not to grant adminship to a candidate, then anything which helps that information reach the RfA is a good thing. --Tango 15:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Compulsory, so you can't be opposed because of it? I like that idea! --ais523 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (to Accurizer) Yes, but they aren't bad faith votes per se; some voters genuinely believe that this is a kind of vote spamming, which of course is t3h 3vil.
  • (to HighInBC) In my experience, responding to votes can backfire but so can not doing so. The important point is how one responds to votes; lengthy diatribes that boil down to "how dare that user vote against me" tend, for obvious reasons, not to work.
  • (to Tango) there doesn't appear to be a good reason for making it compulsory; m:instruction creep comes to mind. And note that you cannot by default filter against certain reasons; if it becomes known that oppose-votes under a certain reason are stricken, this will only encourage people to not give their reason but oppose anyway. (Radiant) 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    The point is that such opposes wouldn't be made in the first place once it was acknowledged that the template was compulsory (I don't think anyone would want to oppose someone for following a compulsory step in the nomination); in this case, making something compulsory would give candidates a 'safe' method of publicising the RfA. --ais523 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a lot to be said for a regular crowd at RfA running the rule over candidates. That is more objective than voting by those who know the user well, as they may be unable to keep the proper perpective (either way). Ideally, you would have a mix of both (those who don't know the candidate and those who do). Carcharoth 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)