This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image:Qxz-ad16.gif

I fully expect to see a surge in the number of nominations. Not – Qxz 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... good one! Depending on the outcome of some other discussions, you may have to add "And are you willing to stand for re-confirmation by these arbitrary standards on a regular basis?" :) Kafziel ^Talk 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

O rly? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, good stuff. - Anas ^Talk? 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Hilarious! WjBscribe 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Priceless! Now a vital part of my user page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Superb!! -- Avi 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That just about sums it up! The Rambling Man 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Genius. - grubber 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Superb. -- Nick ^t 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I encourage everybody who thinks the above message hits home consider whether they, in fact, are some of the people who engage in the behavior being mocked. Just throwing that out there. Picaroon 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect everyone who's every been involved in RFA to have been guilty, at least once, of one the sins mentioned above. We are, all of us, inperfect. The Rambling Man 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to say inperfect [sic]. ;) Bubba hotep 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I meant that. cough, leaves stage left The Rambling Man 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That almost had me laughing ;). Especially when it said "Great!" :D. Yuser31415 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

*snerk* - I so didn't need to see this right now :-) - Alison^☺ 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Only thing I have to say is that people say we have too few admins anyways. Is this really going to help? Still, it's too cool not to copy and put on my userpage. Oh well, nice job making it. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't just add that... you can add ((User:Qxz/ad.css)) to get all of them... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but most of them are just plain, boring advertisements for WikiProjects and stuff. This is the only one that seems to have its own small fan club going... :) – Qxz 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I love that advert. I'm going to post it on my user page, as my first, last, and only userbox. ;-) --Kim Bruning 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my God, that is friggin' hilarious!!! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you all kidding? This gif ad is hardly noticeable at the least! Pftt...LOL that advert does lay it on quite think! :P¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes me giddy with desire... a desire to steer clear of the morass. Widespread distribution of this may destroy Wikipedia I fear. --Pig^man_dialogue 05:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The delicious self-mockery! I love it! I also resemble some parts far more than I would like to. --tjstrf talk 05:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wonderful! You are a genius! --Meno25 08:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• LOL. Very good. (If you haven't seen it, you might enjoy my stab at RFA humour. Bucketsofg 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I hadn't seen it before, and I loved it, although perhaps it's just as well that I am seeing it after rather than before my RfA. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - both because it is great humor and maybe because it is (apparently) so true. The only one that seems to be missing is "What do you do (plan to do?) with all your spare time?" --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Great job. I am putting it on my user page to stop me if ever, in a moment of weakness, I even think about becoming an admin. -- DS1953 ^talk 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I add that darn closing date?? --Plainnym 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You must have messed up your nom page a bit :) I suggest copying it from another page, and adjusting it to fit your nom. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your tally has disappeared, along with the neutral section. I would suggest repairing this as soon as possible, or else I suspect your application will be removed via WP:SNOW. The Rambling Man 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see that you had posted here, but I have already made the necessary corrections to fix up your RfA template. Nishkid64 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting as anon... Does anyone thing it's a bad idea to post an RfA on April 1st? 128.32.112.233 08:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not particularly, I'd say. >Radiant< 08:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• The classic serious (?) April 1 RfA is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 33⅓. Kusma (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators#No_big_deal. This is a trap for newbies, who think it's a greenlight to them running. Can we add a disclaimer that not everyone votes that way, and many RfA participants do want to see activities across namespaces? Xiner (talk, email) 14:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Admin tools are no big deal" does not equate to "give people we have no reason to trust with them admin tools". I have no objection to a disclaimer, but it shouldn't imply that some people are ignoring that, which they aren't. Treating adminship like a big deal is more like "Well, we have enough that the wiki won't die, so we can't promote any more! If someone's only criteria are centered around them trusting the person with admin tools, then whether or not some of their criteria are stupid, it's not because they treat it as a big deal. -Amarkov moo! 14:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You've a point there. Is it alright then to say that while it is no big deal, you should have earned the community's trust before applying? Xiner (talk, email) 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It already says "Administrators are expected to respect and be familiar with Wikipedia policy because they are known and trusted members of the community" in the lead. It's not like the info is hidden away in the small print right now. As well as at Wikipedia:Administrators, the same point appears in WP:RFA and WP:GRFA. No amount of copy-editing can make people read these before applying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid beating a dead horse here, so please bear with me. Maybe by the time they get to that passage, they need another reminder? It can't hurt to re-emphasize the point. Xiner (talk, email) 23:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it can't hurt. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wan to becom an adm. how do i get to that point?--Mr.Taka 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to be snide, but I would recommend a spellchecker followed by a number of good faith edits on articles. In time, you will get there if that your true desire. Ronbo76 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang around for a year. Write some articles and help resolve some disputes. Improve your spelling like Ronbo76 suggests. Then maybe someone will nominate you. What's the rush? You've only been editing for one day. A Train ^{take the} 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dont think wikipedia has a spell checker. You should aim to work here 3 months and clock up 3000 edits, many in the main space, where of course typos should be avoided, SqueakBox 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Though you should really be aiming for 12 months and 100,000 edits, just to be on the safe side – Qxz 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Earn the respect of the community by contributing something valuable. Help out in mundane chores. Be civil and try and resolve disputes amicably. Know the basic policies on deletion, attribution, licencing and notability. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ok!--Mr.Taka 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

O:-)--Kim Bruning 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I love this picture. It is funny yet describes very accurately what RfA is about. People who think it is distracting (there were a couple) don't have a good sense of humor I think.  :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You think that's distracting? You want to see what I made for WikiProject Spam?

Now that's distracting – Qxz 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a good number of edits to have before being considered for adminship? Please reply on my talk page. Randomfrenchie 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You should probably have at least 2000 edits, but without a trustworthy track record and knowledge of how Wikipedia works it doesn't matter if you have 20,000 edits. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting point regarding "canvassing" at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelBillington 2, referring to the practice of posting RFA notices, like MichaelBillington, Orderinchaos78, Riana dzasta, and so on, apparently since late 2005. I have to admit feeling less than enthusiastic about the idea of announcing RFAs on project pages. Any comments? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

People used to advertise RfAs all the time, on their userpages, signatures etc and no one thought it was a problem. It's just another excuse to oppose a good candidate. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The only time I have a problem is when the candidate is canvassing specific users on their talk pages. Posting a notice on your user page, or at Wikiprojects with which you are involved, is in my mind a Good Thing — those bring in people with which the candidate has actually interacted, which can lead to either a positive or negative opinion. I certainly would them to have a voice in addition to the usual cadre of RfA !voters, who usually have to base their opinion on a light perusal of the user's contributions, where it's easy to miss big problems. I'm tired and sick, so it's entirely possible this rant is incoherent, but so be it. You're 2 cents richer for it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvasing for anything is a nono, but to do it for your RfA is a great way to get opposes. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems perfectly coherent and rant-free from here. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but it does more for me than Majorly's memories of the Good Old Days did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I do have an issue when people post announcements on noticeboards, since far too many things like that have this odd group mentality. I wish it were "I know this person, so I can give a better judgement", but it's more like "I belong to the same group, so I'm expected to support". -Amarkov moo! 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that the candidate that have been pointed out to have canvassed have passed with flying colors or seriously look like that same thing will happen when the RfA closes. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue about canvassing brought up here is missing the target while MichaelBillington's RfA was announced at WikiProject Australia this was done by another respected editor not by Micheal, as such he wasnt canvassing for votes. Additionally the announcement didn't ask for votes, is just has a list of linked User names and the RFA under a section Request for Adminship. Gnangarra 03:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it matters whether or not votes are asked for, but you are right that it's immaterial in this case, because someone else did it anyway. -Amarkov moo! 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--- moving back, leaving individuals discussion out there.

I do wonder how highlighting an RfA on a portal/wikiproject can be unacceptable as the notification is where the editor is known given that if the editor has any past issues the editors who have had a lot of contact are more likely to know about these. Where as editors that are monitoring the RfA to garnish "experience" look for the less indicative edit count, edit summary usage, AfD edits or even(heaven forbid) how many FA has this person contributed to. As I see it, if I was hiring an employee I'd want a reference from past employers and work colleagues rather than from someone who happen to be in my store at the same time as this person applied for the job. Gnangarra 04:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gnangarra on all of the above and bbatsell on most - it actually keeps the system honest - esp on a project the sheer size of WP Australia. There are people who may well get through as their general patterns of behaviour are not understood or known beyond a small range of people who generally don't read the RfA section. Talk page spam is in a totally different league as it's often intended to influence. I see it as a question of pressure. If someone feels pressured to vote a particular way, then it is a Bad Thing. Merely having it on a neutral list of links and announcements such as the one we're discussing means those who really don't care, don't have the time, don't want to participate etc don't have to vote, and those who want to place a contrasting vote can do so without any fear of censure. Orderinchaos78 10:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm relatively new to the rfa process. what i see so far reminds me of bismark's "sausages and laws" quote. for example, can someone explain how "i don't like the fact that the nominee responded to other people's votes" is a reasonable rationale for an oppose vote? it's a discussion, right? as long as the nominee was civil and polite, how is this against "wikinorms", whatever that is? again, emphasizing that it's done civilly, is this really something we want to discourage? --barneca (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the response to oppose votes exposes how the person deals with opposing views, this can lead others to oppose. I responded to my oppose vote on my RfA and it did not cause anyone else to oppose, because I believe I responded well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying to oppose votes is an important part of the process, as it allows you to learn from the RfA for ask for feedback. Flipping out at all your opposers and telling them they're talking nonsense, however, is unacceptable. --Deskana (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And there are some cases where you really should just quietly accept the criticism. For instance, if someone opposes because of this incident X, where you incivilly supported an opinion, you should not reply with a correction as to what position you were representing. There are some people who will complain about any responses at all by the nominee, but that's stupid. -Amarkov moo! 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, a major factor, if applicable, in supporting/opposing a candidate is how the candidate responds to oppose votes. The candidate needs to know when to respond, how to respond, and who to respond to. Responding to oppose votes is an art that must be crafted well, and also a science that is arguably unexpectedly delicate to perfect. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, you are, of course, correct. An important part that I unfortunatly omitted is knowing when just to accept the oppose quitely. --Deskana (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, it is not a discussion about the opposer's philosophical opinions about what generally constitutes a good administrator, only a discussion about the particular candidate's fitness. So, candidate responses to oppose votes that address factual issues or ask for advice have not been considered cause for opposing, but responses that challenge the reasoning behind the opposer's opinions are frowned upon.

Liked: A response to an oppose based on personal attacks or some peculiar actions by the candidate that says something like "That's not what happened, this is what I really meant when I said that" or "This was the context and full explanation of that action" or "That was an isolated incident", etc.

Liked: A response to an oppose based on some deficiency in answers to the questions, etc. along the lines of "How could I make improvements", "Could you explain what you mean more specifically".

I can't think of any examples for generally disliked yet civil sorts of responses, but usually they are not so civil or are somewhat confrontational. —Centrx→talk • 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, responding to oppose votes is also a way to show how fluent you are in the English language (an often-overlooked requirement). Responding to oppose votes requires careful crafting and choice of words to project exactly what you wish to express. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, responding to oppose votes is a case of whether or not the candidate can respond obeying WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL while at the same time, providing their thoughts or comment on the vote. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to oppose votes - how and whether one does it - may give some indication as to how they will behave in a contested debate in which they are involved as an admin later on if approved. I think that's why it would be important. Orderinchaos78 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to offer congratulations to those who have nominated the current group of candidates. It looks like 11 of the 12 candidates who were nominated by someone else (and whose candidacies are open as of when this is posted) are going to become admins, a nice percentage, and a nice number. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let's not ennumerate our domestic gallinaceous birds before they've hatched! :) Fingers and toes crossed - Alison^☺ 01:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets be fair though. Most RfAs are either obvious passes or obvious fails, the obvious fails being removed quickly, so it makes sense that the vast majority of currently listed RfAs will be passes. --Deskana (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no doubt, but seeing as one of them is my own I kinda don't want to pre-empt anything. - Alison^☺ 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dare say you're a safe pass! --Deskana (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Alison, unless about 30 people appear out of nowhere and decide to swamp your RfA with opposes, I don't think it's in any danger :) – Riana ^ঋ 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a secret troll cabal to show up :) - Alison^☺ 05:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We have them under control. Viridae^Talk 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• There are and have been periods where it appears we have a sudden increase in good candidates, and everyone gets happy about how RfA is running. Reality; these are spikes in the data, while the overall trend is ever decreasing passage rates, and ever increasing standards. See Image:SuccessRateRfA-2006.png and Image:AverageEditCountatRfA-2006.png. --Durin 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  True, however, based purely on anecdotal evidence, it does seem that the spikes are getting more frequent. Or at least, they are getting mentioned here more often. --Tango 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  Anecdotal. There's no non-anecdotal evidence to suggest standards are going down and passing rates are going up. --Durin 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  I agree that standards are going up. The observed results might be because the candidates that people are nominating are getting better (this would tend to be caused by higher standards, and increase the nom-by-other success rate). --ais523 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  Although it is possible that Durin's stats will start to show an upward trend, there have been noticeably fewer RfAs this month than last. I guess the "we need more admins" message has died down a little and fewer people are looking for candidates as actively, which is a shame. WjBscribe 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this possible, I heard that RfA was broken and that it was a gauntlet that nobody could pass. Hmm, I guess all that was exaggerated, it seems to be working to me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The bugs in RfA are still there, it's just that the conditions that cause them to show themselves aren't coming up at the moment. --ais523 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps people have been paying attention to the rants, and have been acting more rationally? Even so, just because candidates pass doesn't mean that they're the *right* candidates. :-/ --Kim Bruning 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

11 of the 12 candidates who were nominated by someone else (and whose candidacies are open as of when this is posted) are going to become admins ... bah. I'm going to get Ben to ask all the admins who opposed his RFA to do his template maintenance from now on. (and I'm only half joking ...) Neil (not Proto ►) 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems strange. What exactly happened on 10th September 2006? Simply south 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This happened. There was another blip in mid-February. There were other blips in January and February. Given that low edit count and failure tend to run together, failed requests from editors with significant edit counts mess up the nice lines on the graphs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that chart. That's a large average edit count required for the average admin candidate to be promoted. The average in December was 9000, and rising. I'm not even 1/3 the way there. --Iamunknown 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry. There's nothing wrong with RfA. <cough> --Durin 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • An average of 9,000 edits just seems...a bit much when the contributor wants to be an admin, will use admin tools, and isn't likely to wreak havoc upon Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's also possible (and IMO more likely) that edit counts are going up in general. Note that the successful trendline is climbing faster than the unsuccessful one, which seems to indicate that other factors (AWB, scripts, etc) may be more important than sheer edit count. Good thing I already passed with 'only' 7k edits! -- nae'blis 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Edit counts of veteran contributors are, intuitively, going up. So are edit counts of non-veteran contributors. Some veteran contributors are already administrators. Those who are not and are not controversial will likely become administrators with no problem. This graph may indicate, however, that new users with lower edit counts that would like to become administrators in order to help the project in ways that they cannot as non-administrators are not becoming administrators. That is IMO a legitimate concern. --Iamunknown 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The graph is fairly meaningless for determining whether that is the case. Because it is an average—and the reason why the blip occurred—is that you only need one candidate with 30,000 edits to discount several candidates with 5,000 edits. The graph does not indicate what you think it does. —Centrx→talk • 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The lines are also misleading, in addition to the methodology. —Centrx→talk • 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a more appropriate methodology you're familiar with? It might be revealing to apply it. --Iamunknown 22:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the median rather than the mean would bypass the problem of skewing the data by a few very high (or low) values. Raymond Arritt 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, the median of the last 20 successful RfAs was about 7300 whereas the average was about 9200. The average is so much higher because of outliers with 16,000 edits. Both of these numbers, but the average much moreso, also obscure the fact that 1/5 of the RfAs had below 4000. —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As a actual example, I passed at the end of February this year. According to the graph the average edit count for passes would be about 11000, but I had about half that, 5500 for all you maths challenged ;) which would put me in at about the average for failures. It does show that edit counts are rising however, which is concerning if we want more admins. It does however show that edit count isn't the limiting factor on all RfA's, people do care about other things. James086^Talk 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What you'd want to measure is the relationship, if any, between edit count and RFA success rate. The last time anyone did that, in August 2006, the data appeared to show that edit count had little impact on outcome at levels above 3000 edits. The curve may flatten out at a different number of edits now than it did in August, but it's a reasonable assumption that edit count is only significant at RFA when it's perceived as low. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the statistics that Durin compiled a month ago or so said that after 4,000 edits, getting mroe edits has no effect. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• We probably should track the median rather than the average. >Radiant< 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Or nominate AntiVandalBot, just to see what it does to the graph – Qxz 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The median can have just as many problems as the average. There's no one "perfect" way to look at this data. --Durin 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The best way to look at the data is to look directly at it, or to have numerous different metrics on it. Anyway, the median is still better than the average. I don't see what many problems the median would supposedly have, if a large enough sample size is used. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a moving average? Would smooth out the graph a little, at least. More than 20 RfAs per data point would stop one outlier making such a bit difference. --Tango 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would only smooth it some. Spikes would still exist. What's more indicative is the general trend. --Durin 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The trend of unsuccessful nominations is constant. The trend of successful ones will probably increase indefinitely simply because, across the wiki, the number of edits that have occurred increases faster than the number of active users increases. Anyway, it's not even clear from that one-year graph that the successful trend is increasing over the long term: it's quite possible that users with higher edit counts apply in September-December. The average for the last 20 RfAs (now) is even lower than the average during that whole time, let alone what the trend line would make it look like. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• As I've said before, there's plenty of ways to look at this data. The naysayers that insist nothing is wrong with RfA will find holes in it. The people who say there's something wrong will find supporting evidence in it. It's statistics. --Durin 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

An average is a plainly wrong way of looking at it. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• So say you. Others disagree. Whatever method we use, there will be "problems". --Durin 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So do you have any reason why an average would be better or why an average would more accurately indicate the usual edit counts of RfA candidates? —Centrx→talk • 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well statistically speaking, average or mean is the better indicator of the central tendency when the data follows the normal distribution. For most other types of distribution, median is used as the central indicator. In this case, I dont know whether the data followed a normal distribution but there are tools that can easily tell us that if we feed the data into them. The data however is not just defined by the central tendency but also by the spread which for normal distribution is defined by the standard deviation and for non normal data is usually defined by the span — Lost^(talk) 10:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The data does not follow a normal distribution, partly because edit counts are bounded below at 0 edits yet have no upper bound. —Centrx→talk • 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to play with this, the raw data is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination data/All RfA nominations. --Durin 13:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting table. Thanks for the link. I'm thinking that a column with numbers might be useful, plus having the data in CSV format so it can be exported into spreadsheets and manipulated more easily. Is it possible to have links to or explanations of the history of RfA - how it was set up and what came before it? I know people often focus on edit counts, and looking at the high end of that, I see 22 people nominated with total edit counts over 20,000 and of those, 13 succeeded. Looking just at mainspace edits give a different story, with 5 out of only 7. The months active column is also interesting. The record is 64 months (from May 2001!) I'm sure someone has worked out the mean and median "months active" of successful and unsuccessful candidates before. What are those figures? The table doesn't seem complete though. Some of the end times and closing bureaucrats are missing. Is it possible to distinguish between unknown stuff and merely missing stuff? Carcharoth 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• semi-de-indent With apologies, I'm not going to make the effort to fix it. If something is missing, it's largely because I didn't put the data in there. The effort required to make this table in the first place was stunningly massive. I spent more than a year collecting the data by hand. It's painful to collect. I've requested a bot to do the work to collect the data. I'm simply not going to do it, or any graphs from it, any more. I'm a) tired of doing it and b) tired of being attacked for it and c) tired of being attacked for making charts/tables from it. If a bot is created, then people can go insult the bot (or creator). If others make charts from it, then they can bear the brunt of the insults. I'm no longer up to it. And no, I'm not necessarily speaking of the above comments, but in regards to the sum total of a long history of comments directed at me regarding the collection of this data and creation of charts from it. --Durin 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I appreciated the work you did, and I suspect others did as well. A bot would be best. I've commented over at the talk page for that page as well. Collecting the data by hand must have been very painful. Commiserations and thanks for producing that data. Carcharoth 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to upload the graphs yet, because they are very rough, but I've just plotted a moving average of edit counts for successful RfAs in the past year (actually from a year ago to 2 months ago - the table Durin linked to isn't quite up to date) in groups of 20, along with the average plus and minus the standard deviation for the group. The average is clearly increasing substantially (from 5000 to 10000 over the 10 month period). However, when you look at the standard deviations, the first thing you spot is that the 2 trendlines at spreading out a lot (more than can be accounted for simply by the overall increase in edit counts), so it seems a wider variety of people are getting through RfA. Also, the trendline for one SD below the average is actually decreasing. I'm not a statistician, so I'm not sure I'm interpreting this right, but I think that means we are actually letting people pass with lower edit counts, it's just the people we're passing with high edit counts are outweighing them. I might tidy up the graphs and upload them later. I also need to do a similar graph for the failed RfAs. If anyone has a better interpretation of the results I've outlined, please speak up. --Tango 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The graph is useful for seeing the trends, but the data can't tell us whether or not RfA is broken, no matter what method you use in plotting it. I believe that the most important data for answering that question would be backlog trends. If we're promoting enough admins to keep up with their tasks, then we should be fine, no matter what our statistics for RfAs look like. The only other issue to consider would be how many are later found to have abused their privileges, to see if we are promoting the wrong kinds of people.Sxeptomaniac 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Those are not the only methods. There's plenty of others. Do admins feel like they are doing too much admin work, more than they would like? Could be reflected in the number of admin actions per admin over time. We did a graph on that a while back showing a doubling in some time period. Another way; is vandalism in the form of bad image uploads, bad article creations being kept in check? Almost impossible to get a handle on, as this can only be quantified by how many such images and articles *aren't* being detected by people and then dealt with by admins. There's tons of ways of looking at this. No one set of information is going to be able to raise the red flag that RfA is broken by itself. --Durin 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• You're right. My use of "only" was particularly bad wording on my part. I figured you'd get my point though, which is that looking at the apparently increasing requirements for passing RfA won't tell us if there's truly a problem or not. If there is an increased workload per admin, it does suggest that we may not be enough being promoted, though there are still other questions we would want to ask regarding why that may be. Sxeptomaniac 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For some masochistic reason, I decided to see what was lurking in the subpages of RfA. There is actually a good reason for this - as some of the useful subpages at RfA can get lost in the forest of RfA subpage nominations. But I feel faint at the number of malformed RfAs I've found mouldering away in there. If anyone is interested, they can look at User:Carcharoth/RfA data and User:Carcharoth/RfA data/Unsorted RfA pages. It's not as bad as it looks, as a lot of those links are in fact redirects, and a fair few are RfAs in progress or recently closed. I didn't fully cross-check, but some of the pages listed on that latter page are already at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nomination data/All RfA nominations (which wasn't my source, see the pages for which pages I actually used as my source). Confusingly, some RfA subpages are historical records of older RfAs, created after the switch to the subpage system, so working out precisely what is going on is a bit more difficult than it looks. At the moment, I'm browsing the list randomly, and if I come across any RfAs that don't seem to be recorded in the archive sections, I'll add them here. If anyone has any ideas for systematically dealing with the list I've created, please say something (I'm stuck on how to eliminate the redirects). Oh, and creating an authorative list of the "admin subpages" would be nice as well. Carcharoth 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time we routinely delete malformed RfAs, many which lurk as subpages from SPAs. There's no benefit whatsoever in keeping them, especially as no one but the nominator would have seen it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I found a page that's a bit strange. What happened here - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dino? Oh, I see, the page history says promoted, but it never got put on any lists (use 'what links here' to check). No, I apologise, it is on a list, but the redirect was on the list, not the page. Carcharoth 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There also needs to be a set standard of style: e.g Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John doe, as opposed to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/john doe. Then there's numbering. Do we use (2nd nomination), (2), (2nd), 2, (two), - 2? Which is right? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember CSCWEM's RFA names? :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Using 'what links here' has really helped, as most of the non-malformed pages on my list are on other lists already. And seeing what links to these obscure RfAs leads to interesting pages like this one. Oh, and I agree about the need for a uniform style, but it's not that important. It would be nice though if a list of new RfA subpages created could be generated somehow, and then people could be told that they had done something wrong, and things could be, well, tidier. :-) Carcharoth 01:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some are just typos, and some are still around, and I knew there would be a classic in there somewhere! :-) Carcharoth 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: There is a conversation on User_talk:BradPatrick#Your_Resignation as to if Brad should go through RFA after his resignation is final. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is if anyone thinks it is necessary. Whether someone is trusted or not does not change after a resignation. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

<pointy>If he runs, I'm opposing him for wasting the community's time with an unnecessary RfA.</pointy> --tjstrf talk 03:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt he would pass it. However, I see where Xaosflux is going (after reading his post at meta:Requests for permissions): if the user hasn't had a formal RfA, he should pass through one. But I also agree with tjstrf: would we ask Jimbo to pass through a RfA if he ever leaves this project? -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone has been an administrator for a long time without any problems resulting, there is no reason they should not continue to be an administrator. Conceivably, if someone were even accidentally made an administrator and then was active and helpful for a year with no one noticing, it should not be removed. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; I think this is one of the more accurate applications of the "Adminship is no big deal" quote. -- Renesis (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be silly for Brad to have to undertake an RFA just for RFA's sake. If he was trusted enough for WP:OFFICE, common sense should tell us he can be trusted outside of it.--cj | talk 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above posts. I think we can safely bypass process in this case. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is one of the few valid applications of that policy, given the history and circumstances. Daniel Bryant 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's not actually a rule keeping him from becoming an admin; he stated in his resignation that he wanted to go through the normal channels for regaining adminship in the projects he had adminship in. I think it's his choice, though it's beyond me why anyone would go through RfA if they didn't have to. --Rory096 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this issue needs to be discussed any further. Process does not blindly equal legitimacy. El_C 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno ... Brad Beattie and I became admins within a couple of hours of each other in January, but since then it's been weeks since we had a good Brad Cabal RfA. Newyorkbrad 06:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, too many Brads. I can only keep a grand total of two inside my head at any time. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense! You can never have too many Brads! --tjstrf talk 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but trust at the office is not trust in the community. Nothing against Brad Patrick, but he was not accepted in his role in the community as much as his role in the community was thrust upon him - if he wants to continue as an administrator on the project, he should have to go through the proper channels to demonstrate that he has the requisite level of trust. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• He's already got the buttons and (so far as I know) nobody's remotely suggesting he's misused them. Sending him through RFA seems like process for process's sake. Friday (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Does he have the trust? No, it's not process for process's sake, it's trying to judge as to whether someone is worthy of the tools. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a little while, I agree that anyone who has used the admin tools responsibly and to the benefit of the project for such a period of time should be allowed to keep them regardless of they how they got them, without further RfA. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth trying to create a policy amendment here to permit former Foundation staff leaving/retiring/resigning in non controversial circumstances to retain sysop rights here ? -- Nick ^t 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep.--cj | talk 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because there's no reason they should retain those rights automatically. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? RFA tests to see if someone is trustworthy enough to get the admin bit set. Current RFA doesn't do a really good job of it anymore (the wrong things are tests)... but still. The other way to test if someone can deal with extra rights is to just give them to him or her, and see what happens (this is the OmegaWiki approach in a nutshell). I think Brad Patrick passes on the merits of the latter method. If you can show me any bad admin decisions I've missed, I'll change my mind. And I think that that's enough of that now. --Kim Bruning 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea about how to proceed when someone declines a nomination? Do we have to delete it or archive it? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If its not accepted I would think deletion is the way forward. Otherwise the first accepted nomination has to be RFA:Joe Bloggs 2 --Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If the candidate hasn't actually accepted the nom on the request form it would probably best be G7 deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The page shouldn't even be created imo. No point unless they accept. Ask them to accept on their talk page or via email or something. It could make someone unnecessarily uncomfortable having to decline it (could hurt the nominator's feelings). Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Actually the nominee declined and hasn't answered questions. I've just deleted it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to have a record of turned down nominations. (I'm more likely to support people who know what they're getting into ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be quite difficult; even if the RfA's deleted, you can tell it was turned down from its deletion log, but most declined attempts to nom won't have even created in the first place (they'll have been turned down via email or User talk: page), so they'll be hard to find (impossible in the case of email). (At least compiling a record of turned-down selfnoms should be easy!) --ais523 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential nominations discussed on talk pages or e-mail don't really count as actual nominations, in my view, which is why I've called them potential nominations. The only 'official' record is when things get to the stage where an RfA subpage is created and transcluded. Having said that, it would be nice if people would disclose at the start of their RfA if they've been approached before about running for adminship, but it's probably not essential (though it seems de rigeur to disclose previous RfAs if this is not immediately obvious - eg. username change). Maybe it could be one of the less controversial standard questions: "Have you considered or been approached in the past about running for adminship?" Answers ranging from "yes, I've been approached many times but declined until now as I felt I wasn't ready" to "yes, but I couldn't be bothered to do anything until now" and "I really can't remember and I don't archive my talk page" or "sadly not" or even "I waited and waited for someone to nominate me and eventually decided to nominate myself" could all reveal various things about the candidate, in the nice way that RfA can do... :-) Carcharoth 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you'e supposed to delete declined noms? What about ones where the first one was declined a few months back and they've alreayd went through a second rfa?--Wizardman 17:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they should be deleted, just not created. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to become an administator. I watched it all and seen it all and I thought I could help out. LAcfm 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you made some actual edits. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The link on your talk page is a fair place to start, but just clear up a misconception in that message, one doesn't have a right or earn the rights from just ...a substantial amounts of experience, discipline, a good track record.... There are no rights. As well as reading WP:ADMIN I suggest reading through alot of the RFA's that failed, and see if you meet any of the criteria for why they failed, such as number of edit, expertise in certain areas, etc. ^Khukri 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a minimum age to be an admin? Should there be? Say, 18 years old? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.189.211 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no minimum age. Making one would likely be instruction creep. There have been good administrators who were young. Age is clearly irrelevant. --Deskana (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been discussed many times here and elsewhere and always with the same consensus result. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's maturity, not age, which evinces itself through their contributions...see the archives for discussion ad nauseum. alphachimp

I agree, plus I don't won't to wait 6 years for RFA :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

(ec) I cannot see the rationale for such an arbitrary ruling. We've had very young admins that were great and some *ahem* "grown-ups" who were not. - Alison^☺ 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understood your comment correctly (which I'm sure I did), I disagree (not on your position on the subject of age, for I do agree with that, but rather whom you meant by "grown-up"). · AO ^Talk 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That term is awfully subjective, isn't it? - Alison^☺ 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see the anon's point to a point and the others too. That being said, judging maturity via the Internet...now THAT'S subjective.Rlevse 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This again? I'll just link to what I said last time. Wikipedia talk:Administrators accountability#"Minors" is a red herring. --tjstrf talk 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

An admin is required to demonstrate adequate maturity for the office by his/her edits and answers to questions at RfA. Chronological age is not relevant. I thought we had settled this?--Anthony.bradbury 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you actually vote for an 8-year old admin? I think it's ludicrous to say age is totally irrelavant.Rlevse 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if their edits reflected a need for the tools and also respect for the tools, it wouldnt be a problem Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I like to see that actually happen, like proof is in the pudding.Rlevse 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Obviously though, anyone under 18 by your logic shouldn't be an admin Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, I might vote for a teenager, but it wouldn't be very often.Rlevse 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would hold an 8 year old to the same standards as everyone else I support: a history of positive interaction and behaviour which displays an understanding of policy. The bottom line is that age and maturity often correlate, but are not dependent on one another except when comparing the same person at different ages, so age in itself is not reason to assume anything about their abilities. --tjstrf talk 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT-to all you saying "we've had this talk before" -- not everyone has the time to read every edit to the entire wikipedia.Rlevse 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• You'll never become a bureaucrat with that sort of attitude. :P Or have they changed the requirements so that you no longer have to read every single archive of this page and the mailing list? --tjstrf talk 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps not, but now that you know the conversations have occurred and been linked, you should be set, yes? If you'd like to begin another conversation, a request is that you become familiar with the pre-existing conversations to save time. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• CommentIf you look at actual voting, a lot of people seem to share Rlevse's concerns, he's just more blunt about it ;P. Sumoeagle179 23:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Saying that users cannot become admins unless they are 18 or older is (to me) like saying that someone cannot edit Wikipedia unless they have an account. Also, if a minimum age was introduced, there were be a load of admins who would have to have their adminship status revoked, not because they abused the tools; but simply because they are not old enough. Acalamari 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Might as well put a maximum age in, to prevent potential senility! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Shall I have to give up tools immediately because I'm under 18? Maturity is not denoted by age, but by behavior. We have teenagers that are more mature than some adults. And this invites the problem of people lying about their ages to get around people picky about others less than their age. This will be like reliving pre-26th Amendment times all over again. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no way to verify age, so this rule would be pointless. Anyone could lie, mention WP:AGF, and then just do the RfA anyway. -- The Hybrid 01:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• So what would we do with assume good faith. Age here is as relevant as education, race or sex when it comes to getting the mop. The only criteria should be trust and you establish that by your actions over time. Gnangarra 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that one's age should be irrelevant entirely. I just thought that I should point out how simple it is to get around policies that would require verification, but don't have it. Peace, -- The Hybrid 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that age should have no effect. I demand the same thing from a child and from an adult in admins. However, I also think age is quite relevent. A three-year old is less likely to contribute the same as a twenty-year old. There are likely more twenty-year old admins than three-year old ones, but that doesn't mean we should judge an admin by his or her age. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me that there is a problem with young admins causing a problem, then I will think about this. Until then it is a solution looking for a problem. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I don't think we can reasonably create a rule (nor do I think we need the instruction creep), I have seen questionable judgement more often from the admins I know to be kids than from those known to be adults. I'm not so much talking about bad behavior as I am about making questionable calls regarding consensus, or "per nom" voting, or other demonstations of a lack of a experience in how to communicate, evaluate and interact. The thing is that RfA tends to mostly be a process of vetting people who aren't going to misuse the tools and not so much focused on selecting people for their ability to mediate, weigh arguments, and communicate decisions. These are qualities that largely depend on experience and a life perspective beyond that of a teenager. My biggest issue with the young admins comes down to a concern that they don't understand, recognize or even acknowledge their limitations because they don't have the perspective to understand them. Is this a big problem? Mostly, no, but on occassion, yes. Does this mean that all older admins have all these qualities? No, but there is, in my experience, a correlation between age and the qualities I mention above. I wouldn't be for a rule regarding an age limit, but I'm far less likely to support someone who I know to be young, and I think with good reason. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The thing is that RfA tends to mostly be a process of vetting people who aren't going to misuse the tools and not so much focused on selecting people for their ability to mediate, weigh arguments, and communicate decisions." The issue that you mentioned requires a reformation within those who vote in RfAs; not those who file them. -- The Hybrid 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I'm not suggesting a new rule. I'm simply making a case for my position that age is relevant. Adminship is handed out based on demonstration of responsibility, and I think that responsibility is not so dependent on age. My issue is that many of the duties of an admin rely on judgment, communication skills and other qualities that are dependent, to a degree, on age and maturity. It isn't an issue of creating admins that go rogue (in fact, I would wager that older admins are at least as likely to be desysopped by ArbCom as young admins), it's just that I see evidence of young admins stepping in to make decisions where they are not well qualified or suited. I think that age gives a better perspective to know your limitations. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There are enough exceptions to what you are saying to cast doubt upon it. It is better to judge a candidate based upon there actual experience in disputes, responses to criticisms, as well as looking for instances of getting involved where it would have been better to stay out. Basically, it is better to judge them based upon whether or not they act young, rather than whether or not they are young. -- The Hybrid 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And what Doug is saying is that he has seen instances suggesting that younger administrators in some cases are more likely to "act young" that older administrators. --Iamunknown 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

          Assuming that someone is going to mess up because others that share one common trait with them have, rather than judging them based upon what they have done, and how they have done it seems unfair, in violation of WP:AGF, and counter-productive overall. -- The Hybrid 02:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

          You are reading more into what I'm saying than I have said. I'm simply attempting to counter the preponderance of "age is meaningless" comments here, which I find to be naive. I'm not saying that this is a hard-and-fast determiner of suitability, simply that age is one of many useful factors to weigh when evaluating an RfA nominee. I find that on many occasions, behavior I found puzzling later became clear when I found out the age of the person I was interacting with. This applies to both admin and non-admins, but the correlation is strong enough that age is a relevant factor for consideration. It's not the most relevant factor, but to dismiss it as a meaningless data point doesn't strike me as a truly honest opinion. (That comment is not directed at anyone in particular, but rather at the sentiment I've seen expressed here.) —Doug Bell ^talk 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

          (edit conflict) I fear that this discussion is fouling up the air and thus will refrain from commenting any further except to say: I never suggested that those who "act young" are "[messing] up" or, as a corollary, are performing some wrong; to do so would suggest that I am imposing ethical standards on others' actions where I am simply not and is misrepresenting my views. --Iamunknown 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

          I wasn't saying that you accused them of messing up. I was just using smaller words because I don't particularly enjoy typing in itself. I apologize for the misunderstanding. While I disagree that age is a useful factor in determining someone's ability to be an admin, I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. Regards, -- The Hybrid 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Age has nothing to do with maturity levels, as long as the editor can perform the duties and is accepted and trusted in the community as an administrator, they should be able to be one no matter the age. People also can lie about their age, does this mean we need to provide our SS number and birth certificate to run for RFA? I would never agree to that as I don't think many of you would just to edit an encyclopedia with some extra tools. This could get out of hand if it was made policy that the user must be a certain age. Whether or not to support or oppose should be done on a case to case basis on the editor's actions on Wikipedia, not their age. It would also be an infringement on privacy acts that you don't have to give your age on the internet, especially if you are underage. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely with DarthGriz. Also, who's going to go through all 3.7 million+ Wikipedians, asking them to reveal their ages, in the off chance that they'll become admins? No one would; it would be a long, boring, and ultimately meaningless task; and by the time you've completed going through all the users, another 3.7 million or more would have joined. Another thing, if a rule like this was introduced, and there was an age limit, who would have the will to de-sysop extremely valuable but too-young admins such as Persian Poet Gal or (as I recently found out) Majorly, simply because they're too young? Again, no one would; Persian Poet Gal and Majorly are damn good admins; and de-sysopping them both for their age would do more more harm than good to Wikipedia. Acalamari 02:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ha, Majorly nominated me (I'm 16). I agree to a certain extent with Doug Bell that age might have an effect, but I think the rare instances where age would be relevant are negligible compared to the times when it's not. Perhaps age combined with a history of bad decisions would be worthy of an oppose but then wouldn't it warrant an oppose for a candidate of any age? James086^{Talk | Email} 10:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Utterly pointless. This is entirely impossible to enforce. If there is an age requirement for adminship, then people will start lying about their ages. People regularly lie about their ages online when they percieve arbitrary restrictions. -Amarkov moo! 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think User:Ilyanep has proved that we should evaluate people on their contributions to the project and not on arbitrary factors like age, sex, race, education, etc. Sarah 05:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  That's completely anecdotal, just as it would be if I used a contra example of a young admin that went bad as an argument for using age as a factor. Or I could find an example of a good admin that started as a vandal here (and there are some) as an example of why past behavior as a vandal shouldn't be considered in an RfA, but that wouldn't mean that taking that into consideration in the context of nominee's entire wikihistory is a flawed criteria. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• If Physicq210, who is an excellent admin, would be ineligible under this (and I imagine others would be as well), it's a terrible idea. We should be evaluating an RfA candidate on his or her abilities and contributions, not on the basis of age. If we were discussing excluding candidates on the basis of race or gender, there would be a furor, and rightfully so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Pjysicq210, Nishkid64, Majorly, Arjun01, and still more wouldn't be admins. That would be great! · AO ^Talk 13:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays there are easy answers to such questions. Want no anons, contributors with a CV, and admins over 25 (did they have to have a B.S. degree?) Then move to Citizendium! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah! That means we don't have to explain things all over again next time this comes up! :-) · AO ^Talk 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This sounds like a perennial issue, in particular we see this coming up on every ArbCom election (which you may want to read up if you're interested on this general issue). And for me, Age != Maturity - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. As Doug indicates, the ability to judge and interact is dependent on maturity. However, that does not mean it depends on age. There is a causation relationship between the first two, while there is a much more fuzzy argument of correlation between them. Besides, even if we wanted to make such a restriction, it is unenforceable. I guess we could ask for credit card numbers, but let's see how far anyone goes with that idea... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I would be more than willing to accept credit card numbers. Uh, for the good of the community, of course... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • For the "good of the community?" ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems possible to sabotage an RFA by 'false flag'-type canvassing. I came to think of this while reviewing this case [1], and while I don't think that 'false flag' applies for that case, the use of 'canvass notices' by Nikosilver to a vast number of the "Oppose" votes got me thinking. A person who wants a certain outcome for an admin request could further this outcome by canvassing for the other possible outcome. After this, a co-conspirator can disqualify those votes on account of the canvassing. This could work if the person's past contribs do not make obvious which side he would support in the first place. What safeguards exist to prevent this sabotage from occurring? The Behnam 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the scenario is so fanciful it'd never happen? --Deskana (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You would dismiss a possible loophole just by assuring yourself that it will never be exploited? I think it is better to attack the loophole itself rather than dismiss it based upon optimistic speculation. The Behnam 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're worrying too much. Seriously. Nothing like that would work. --Deskana (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:BEANS. You make the potential problem far more likely to occur by mentioning or outlawing it when it isn't already happening. --tjstrf talk 03:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I actually don't know if it has happened before. You see, it wouldn't be easily detectable. I just came here to see if I missed some obvious safeguard or to figure out how to prevent the sabotage from occurring. The Behnam 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This co-conspirator has to be a bureaucrat, because nobody else can disqualify votes for canvassing. A bureaucrat who would completely disqualify votes from the people who would have voted anyway on the grounds that they were canvassed for is a stupid bureaucrat. A stupid bureaucrat did not pass RfB. Problem dead. -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. The Behnam 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The page says: At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion:

I would suggest to reconsider the text and exclude any language that suggests that admins are in one way or another "better" or "higher" than ordinary editors. Admins have absolutely no upper hand compared to ordinary editors. What is more the policy about admins expressly says that they cannot use their powers in topics they are involved in editing. They only have power to deal with violations. A person is not "promoted" to be a policeman. It is enough that the word "admin" itself bears an aura of superiurity, so that suspicions are circulating that many seek adminship as kind of recognition in this huge RPG of wikipedia. IMO any efforts to demote the perception of "superiority" of admins will only to the better end, Thank you. Mukadderat 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• People do pursue adminship as a badge of recognition. They're wrong for doing so, but they do it anyways. *shrug* --Durin 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• We have to say "!promoted" now to go with "!vote"? Strikes me as rather silly and overly politically correct, personally. --tjstrf talk 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Promote is the wrong word to use, however you should perhaps come up with a suggestion as to what word should be used. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

...consensus for status modification... - very 80's and clunky, but I like it! The Rambling Man 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the ! before promotion is a bit elitist- it'd mean people having to read pages and pages of talk page archives to try and figure out what it means. Note that nowhere on the main RfA header is the word "!vote" mentioned (excluding RfAs of course). --Deskana (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

!I !think !we !should !avoid !the !use !of !any !word !that !is !not !preceded !by !an !exclamation !mark !since !anything !else !might !be !perceived !as !not !politically !correct. !Kusma (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree - where I work, ! means not, very contrary. The Rambling Man 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

! is an unfortunate and either insider or sarcastic term that has become mainstream in discussions and it would be disappointing to see it spread any further. MLA 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here are a couple of suggestions; but bear in mind they are only suggestions: "Adminified/Adminification" (it states that a user became an administrator, it gives no indication of promotion); or better still, why not just "sysopped"? Acalamari 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Along those same lines, it could simply be …there is a consensus for granting sysop permissions.'↔NMajdan•talk 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just "consensus for adminship"? —Doug Bell ^talk 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's not get wholeheartedly dragged down into a political correctness argument. Call a spade a spade and get on with it. While we're at it, let's check how all the candidates who said they'd deal with the various backlogs actually did?! Or reword Q1. The Rambling Man 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's perfect. Acalamari 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So what's the politically correct way of writing it in the edit summary? Currently it's "no consensus to promote xyz" or "xyz promoted". Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You have now been forced to complete all the horrendous wikipedia tasks for eternity - works for me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So, how about "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for granting the additional responsibilities."? I think that sounds better, at least. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

/me likes it! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too; Majorly brought up a good point with the edit summary. Acalamari 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like the "responsibilities" language. This is a volunteer project. Granting adminship gives you abilities, not responsibilities. What's wrong with "consensus for adminship"? We don't need to make this a verb phrase. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The "responsibilities" phrase is too wordy. "Promoted", "consensus for adminship", and "granted adminship" are all fine with me.Rlevse 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoted isn't good because it gives the idea admins are above other editors. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins have more rights than other editors and bcats have more rights than admins, than alone is a hierarchy, so the term promoted applies. Rlevse 10:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing this in, community consensus is required for admin approval - in many ways this shows that the candidate is promoted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer promotion. It's an advancement in position, because the user has more tools and responsibilities, which has been sparked by an advancement in the level of trust the community grants the user. It might not be a rank situation, but it is still a change, and not for the worse. By going too crazy with this "not a big deal" concept, we are overcompensating, and making ourselves look somewhat comical in the eyes of a couple of my friends, who may speak for a larger group. This leads back to that "janitor" nonsense. You see, you don't exactly want a volunteer person to be called a "janitor"; most janitors are in desperate situations and take the job that nobody wants. Our goal should be to make adminship look appealing, not repulsive. Becuase it's not that repulsive; it's just a little tedious. Otherwise, Wikipedia will drown in a cesspool of high school vandalism and CSD backlogs. Even volunteers need incentive or at least some sort of praise. Moreover, I don't know about everyone else, but I hold people who I trust higher than those I don't trust. If we are determining whether we can trust these users with tools, then we are clearly placing them above the rest in regard to trust. After all, non-admins are do not have the tools because of potential abuse or ignorance. — Deckiller 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people need to read Wikipedia:Administrators. If becoming that is not a promotion, I don't know what is. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After all, according to our own article on promotion (rank): "Promotion : means an improvement in pay, prestige, position and responsibilities of an employee within his/her organisation" ... "Promotion may be an employee's reward for good performance i.e. positive appraisal. Before a company promotes an employee to a particular position it ensures that the person is trained to handle the added resposibilities. This is marked by job enrichment and various training activities." Sure, it's not a 100 percent match (obviously), and the areas that admins are "promoted" in have hardly any significance in article editing, but I believe the logic is sound. Anyway, that's my two cents. Hope you all don't hate me for it :) — Deckiller 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's another one: "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for granting administrator abilities." Thoughts? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

...conveying administrator status. MLA 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But "conveying" does not have the same meaning as "granting". The extra rights are being granted, not conveyed. "Convey" means to "move from one place to another" or "imply a specific meaning". That's not what is happening here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of a softer form of bestow ie passing administrator status onto the candidate. MLA 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "sysopping the candidate"? Xiner (talk, email) 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it should be a single word and based on a negative word, like executed or punished. So my suggestions are adminecuted or adminished ;-). I'd love to post on someone's page Congratulations on your adminecution! NoSeptember 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• How about leaving it like it is? This seems like too Much Ado About Nothing... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. Nitpicking about the word "promotion" is unnecessary per my above reasons. — Deckiller 00:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree as well. Nothing wrong with "promotion". —Doug Bell ^talk 01:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed that "promotion" is not a problematic term. Adminship is a promotion to a higher level of responsibility, based on the community's trust that the admin will not abuse tools and responsibilities that not everyone can be trusted with. From what I've seen so far, we have very little problem of people being unwilling to disagree with an admin. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I say keep "promote". If someone reads too much into the word, it's their own damn fault. As has been pointed out, "promote" is actually a fairly accurate term for the bestowing of additional responsibilities and a declaration of community trust (hah, on second thought, let's replace "promote" with that!). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm fine with keeping it as is. I offered some possibilities because people seemed interested in discussing it. Maybe we should change it, though, to "Enjoy the chains of hell." Has a nice ring to it, don't you think? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So the first question in RFA says "1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.". Most candidates seem to take this as "How many backlog wikilinks can I add to my application?". And months later the backlogs still persist. So why do we bother reminding applicants that such backlogs exist? I suggest this invitation be removed from Q1 and that RFA candidates work out these things for themselves. Radical (!), sure, but I'd be interested to hear opinions. The Rambling Man 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Let's not use a leading question; it's more useful to let the nominee form their answer on their own. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, on my Rfa, I didn't even look at the admin backlogs, I simply stated what I knew I would work on from my previous work. By showing a link to the backlogs, it gives candidates a free ticket to state an area that is in great need of admin attention. Any perspective admin candidate should already have clear idea's of how they would use the tools Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I can't even get to my other campaign promises on account of CAT:ASD, but at least I was honest... -- nae'blis 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think reducing it to "What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?" would be good enough. Then they have to list things without any hints. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The crafty types will base their RfA statements on the RfA statements of previous popular admins anyway, so it's not like they don't have enough hints now. I support the rewording. --tjstrf talk 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I updated it accordingly. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I dissent. Regardless of whether the candidate actually steps into the backlogs that he promises, we need to advertise these backlogs as much as possible (especially to new admins who may be looking for stuff they can help out with) because they won't get cleared otherwise. >Radiant< 10:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to include in a message to successful candidates once their RfA has closed? This would likely be more effective. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a much better idea. The Rambling Man 17:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, if it's a serious enough issue we could start giving out three month probational adminships initially and look for evidence that they've helped as they said they would. --Gmaxwell 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The whole question is rather pointless. There is no requirement that an administrator ever use their administrator abilities. The idea is whether or not they are trusted to have them. If yes, they should get them. It should be handed out liberally. An admin that uses their functions twice a year is every bit as valuable as an admin that uses them 10,000 times a year. Both have their respective roles in Wikipedia, and we need both types. --Durin 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I disagree with the general point of your statement. The purpose of RfA is to evaluate the suitability of granting admin privileges. There are two primary things that need to be determined: does it benefit the project; can the user be trusted. The answer to Q1 is useful in assessing both of these criteria. The answer here also assists in assessing the user's knowledge of process and policy as it relates to exercising admin privileges. Certainly there is no requirement that they follow through and do those things, but as an aid in assessing both intent and knowledge, this question has a rather valid point. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If an admin uses their functions twice a year, it benefits the project. If they are trusted to use them, then they should get them. The primary question is whether or not they can be trusted to use them appropriate, not some arbitrary measure of whether their usage would be 'enough'. Where would you like to draw the line? 100 uses per year? 1000? 10000? The line is trust, not usage. The answer here can better be addressed not by the answer, but by actually taking the time to review their edits to various pages and see how they handled policy in practice, not what they say on their RfA. Over and over and over again we keep creating false barriers to adminship. Edit counts. Time of service. How often you're going to use them. Distribution of edits. Number of edits to X namespace. All of these are utterly meaningless. --Durin 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If a user says they're interested in blocking vandals, then I can evaluate their past vandal fighting activity. If a user wants to close AfD's, then I can evaluate their participation in the AfD process. The point is, we say all the time that an admin doesn't have to be knowledgable about all aspects of Wikipedia, because frankly almost nobody is, but certainly we expect an admin to be knowledgeable about some aspect of Wikipedia. The answer to this question helps determine what areas they need to be knowledgeable in and trusted to exercise proper judgement. Honestly, I don't see why you would have a problem with a question that is so centrally suited to the point of the RfA, which is to assess how the user will use the additional abilities. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And what if a nominee isn't interested in routinely using admin rights but instead having them on the off occasion when it would be useful to have them? The culture here at RfA right now is that he'd have zero chance of passing; "You don't need the tools". It's a stupid argument. It's not an exclusive club open only to fanatics who delete a thousand images a day. Where do you draw the line? --Durin 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • If that's the nominee's interest in adminship, then they should state it. There have been trusted users that have said they don't intend to use the tools much that have succeeded. I guess I still don't follow your point—you seem to be saying that a user's intention for admin abilities shouldn't be a factor in an RfA. If so, I guess we'll just have to disagree. If your argument is that you don't like how some people evaluate RfA nominees, then I strongly disagree that the solution is to withhold or hide information. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Anyone I've ever seen state that they will use the tools primarily to make their editing life easier has been shot down, usually for that reason. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hex 2 is just one example. -- nae'blis 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would have to say that if we are going to give the tools to anyone who may eventually have a use for them, why do we even have RfA? I have always thought the purpose of RfA was to see if a user had the trust of the community, the need for the tools, and knowledge of the areas the user wants to help in. Without some sort of requirement besides simply having the trust of the community, RfA is just a series of support votes for a candidate. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • From inception, RfA had been solely about trust. It's only been of late that RfA contributors have demanded demonstration of "need". I find it interesting that I speak these things and people find them odd and unusual. How things are is not how they were, or ever intended to be. --Durin 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How about something along the same lines but more open like "How do you plan to use your new tools if they are granted?". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know some tiny logos which would certainly give this page a better appearance; they are 3: one for supports, others for opposes, and the last for neutrals. They are used in Wikia when voting new requests and are in the public domain. So, what do you say? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I say let's not drive this even further into voting than it already is. -Amarkov moo! 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

... and I say, let's shoot anyone who suggests we vote on it. Who's with me, say "Aye!" (bang). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no developer, but I have a feeling every time one of those buttons are used, bandwidth is pointlessly used up. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Brion said somewhere that community usage of logos is slim compared to "real" image usage, that is, usage in mainspace. That doesn't mean the icons are any less awful, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Each image only gets downloaded once, plus the page markup to display them at each location. Overall, negligible. —Doug Bell 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense if votes were interspersed, but we already have the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections separated... so buttons would be pointless. -- Renesis (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but personally speaking, having a better appearance shouldn't be the primary concern here. But there you go, I think Amarkov hit it on the head. The Rambling Man 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not a good idea. We're trying to get away from the idea of voting here, and adding pretty little symbols to brighten up the page is not going to help. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sort of out off topic, but... Are we trying to get out of voting here? Then, how will administrators flourish? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't vote, we discuss. It's confusing it's still in the form of a vote. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the qick reply... Now, getting back to topic, I think that these little bright symbols will really help users who glimpse the page for some seconds to get an idea of how the voting is going; if you see lots of greens, then it is going for support, if you see lots of reds, then it is going for oppose, and if you see lots of greys, then it is oing for neutral. And anyways, with inserting them, what have we got to lose? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 23:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) No, I think that we're trying to avoid making it a showpiece event. It's supposed to be a community consensus, not a vote. The Rambling Man 23:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is actually becoming something of a perennial proposal on WP:RfA. Briefly, the consensus is that the icons are not necessary here because a) the votes are separated into categories already; b) one man's 'pretty' is another man's 'visually cluttered'; c) it sucks up bandwidth (from a non-profit charitable organization) for no good reason; and d) it means that an already-large page will be even larger and more time-consuming to download and render for our editors who still use dial-up connections or slower computers.

The icons are used in a few other places – like on Commons – where text-only votes may encounter difficulties due to language barriers and the like.

If someone wants to dig out the last couple of archives of this page where RfA icons were suggested, the links would be appreciated. (Icons have also been suggested for AfD, where they met a similar response for similar reasons.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that knowing the current status of an RfA at a glance would be a misfeature. I would much rather force people to pause, and look, and think for a bit before they jump into an RfA. Besides, the votes are already sorted into numbered lists with a tally at the top of each nomination; how difficult is it to get a sense of the course of an RfA now? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then could they be used in other discussions (such as the one of changing the name of Book of Mormon article to The Book of Mormon, for giving a random example) or could users who wish to use them use them and the others who don´t like them not use them? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perennial proposal, right? --Kim Bruning 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, how are they useful? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by perrenial proposal, Kim Bruning? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that this "reform proposal" is constantly brought up and constantly shelved or shot down by the community. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN#Administrative and WP:VPE. -- Gogo Dodo 02:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• We can spend all the prose we want claiming this is not a vote, but it basically is. The 'crats are given numerical guidelines to follow and they very rarely step outside them. It 'is' a numbers game, albeit one with some room for discretion. Johntex\^talk 03:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The only rfa I am familiar with where the bureaucrat truly stepped out of the general numerical cutoff was Carnildo 3. Its a wonder no-one uses the "discussion" section considering that it is right there in front of everyone's face. Maybe we should start a trend. :-D --Iamunknown 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The last discussions on this I know of were here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 58#Voting icons and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 75#Voting Templates. —Doug Bell 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing stopping individual users from using the icons if they want. But they seem farily pointless given we allready divide the !votes into three lists- what extra information do they give? They're used on Commons for RfAs because all !votes are mixed together in one chronological list so the icons make consensus easier to see but we have no need of them here. That said if you think the icons make your comment look pretty and that's something want to do... WjBscribe 05:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to beautify Wikipedia namespace pages. -- ReyBrujo 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• IMO, we also don't need to simplify rfa to an up-down vote with flying colours. :-P --Iamunknown 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, how about this: the ones who wanna use them use them, and the ones who don´t dont´t; as simple as that... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's how it is already my friend ;) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the current way things happen is perfectly acceptable. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We've decided before that the current way is acceptable. --Deskana (ya rly) 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I use icons that are confusing in nature? Like a banana for oppose, or a bird for support... maybe a rock for neutral. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Image:Abusive admin star.svg would be good for supports. --Deskana (ya rly) 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

<beans>Or you could set up a new section called "Bannana". You might get away with it tomorrow (depending on time zones).</beans> James086^{Talk | Email} 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How about rock, paper and scissors icons? Then we could all argue about which !votes are better than others. ChazBeckett 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer for it to remain discussion only without the votey-votey icons. Also I'd request you to change your sig., frankly it's frakking hideous, I couldn't figure out what the "@" was till I highlighted it and I couldn't even read the last bit.. till I looked in the edit window. Matthew 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My solution's to add them to my own view only by script, saving slightly on bandwidth and preventing cluttering the view from other people. They shouldn't be in most discussions by default, though, because they simply perpetuate a voting-style mentality. --ais523 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• How is that done, ais523? Will I, and all who want to, be able to see them too?♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you install the script I linked (follow the instructions at WikiProject User script's script repository), you'll be able to see the symbols (but nobody else will unless they install the scripts too). It does AfDs, FACs, and other things where people write Support-like comments in bold, too. Bear in mind that you should only install a script if you trust its origin. --ais523 16:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the script! It works great! Know I understand why the strong oppose... If a user wants to see the logos, then he uses this script... Sorry for the inconveniance; I withdraw from this discussion... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*[[Image:Green support icon 15x15 pixels.png]]'''Support'''~~~~

*[[Image:Neutralvote.png]]'''Neutral'''~~~~

*[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg]]'''Oppose'''~~~~

((Support))

((Neutral))

((Oppose))

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a good idea. It's unnecessary considering the votes are already in sections. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tomas, from looking your Wikipedia space contributions, it appears that you've never participated in an RfA. Not a single one. That doesn't mean you can't offer opinions on the process, but I'm interested in why you're so keen on changing RfA when you have zero experience with it. ChazBeckett 15:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I just thought of a way to improve this...
  • Uh, yeah, that's kinda curious. Well, whenever you do actually start participating in RfAs, feel free to use the icons. However, insisting everyone else to do so as well is silly at best, and obnoxiously pushy at worst. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not insisting that all use them, but that those who want do so... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Er, actually, please don't start using the icons. It's cruel and unusual punishment for our editors who want to participate in RfA but who connect by modem, or who have slower/older browsers/computers; taking an already-long page and adding hundreds of images to download or render will effectively disenfranchise a small but dedicated group of editors. (There are also some editors who use wireless devices and pay by the megabyte for bandwidth; be kind to them, too.) See also Wikipedia:Signatures#Images for our policy on a related issue, with similar reasoning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Do they really slow down the internet forsome users? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

        No, the performance thing is a red herring. Each small image will be downloaded once and typically stored in the browser's cache. After that, it's just the small amount of markup for referencing the image. Completely negligible. —Doug Bell 16:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

        • There is negligible performance issue with the images themselves. There is a performance issue with the wikimarkup for the images; lots of ((support)) templates would eat into the template limits on the RfA mainpage (although it's only using up about 10% of the limit at the moment), and substing the templates would mean more information would have to be sent for the edit screen. This isn't very much, but it still has to be taken into account. --ais523 16:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The performance thing isn't a red herring from the editors' standpoint. Not everyone is running a fully-updated browser on a fast Pentium machine. There are still a lot of computers out there that are five or six (or more!) years old, particularly in underfunded public libraries and schools, and in the third world. Rendering a very long page (even one without lots of images) can be time-consuming for an older machine. It gets dramatically worse if there are also hundreds of little images—even if most are identical. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, can I create the templates as said in the table? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion? Why would we need templates? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't suggest creating a template that was TfD'd twice, speedied several times, and is currently salted. --ais523 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why was it deleted? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You are being ignorant of comments, this type of template is not needed, it's not a vote, it's note a gallery, they're of little value, few people support the usage of them. It was deleted because the community has decided they are of no benefit to the encyclopaedia. Period. Matthew 16:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The full deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose. Rather than (continuing to) rehash the discussion here, it would probably best to just refer to that page. All of these points are covered in exhaustive detail. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:Majorly/OrphanBot if you need some kind of puerile amusement today. ;) --BigDT 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We are having way too many April Fools' jokes on here. Can an administrator protect the page? (Oh and because it's 0000 April 2, 2007 in Grennwich doesn't mean it's the same time in Australia for example.) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It'd be between 0800 and 1000 2nd April depending on where you are, Gnangarra 04:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but I thought that the greatest time offset was UTC+14 which would be at 18:58 on 1-Apr right about now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How about just blocking the people who continue disrupting for 24 hours? Naconkantari 03:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Deskana (ya rly) 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, I was just reverted but I was only the 2nd one to post a joke (I think). It doesn't seem like too many, and mine was removed after less than a minute. I really didn't mean any harm and intended no disruption, but I am sorry if I offended anyone. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No way, I came here hoping to see some jokes! :) --WikiSlasher 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Geez, people don't have sense of humor. I am guessing it is because some want to say "I took RFA seriously, even on April 1" in their RfB ;-) -- ReyBrujo 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, people without sense of humor, here is another to rollback ;-) -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As much as I'm serious about Wikipedia, being offended on April Fool's is rather, uh, amusing :] AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh to the whole deal. The jokes have currently died down / died (i.e. been deleted); I'm sure we'll survive even if they pick up again. ^_^ --Iamunknown 05:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are we having Mathbot go through and add links to the edit summary stats and talk page? Why not just use a template? -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because usernames have to be html-encoded before being passed out as a parameter in a http link. For example, a link to the edit summary usage of (aeropagitica) has to have the form

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=%28aeropagitica%29&lang=en

(notice how the parentheses were replaced by %28 and %29). I don't think any template can do such encoding. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Magic word ((urlencode)) does, though. -Amarkov moo! 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn, you edit conflicted me. --Iamunknown 03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:P -Amarkov moo! 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. One could easily then modify the RfA template to include the link to the edit summary usage. Then, after the RfA template is subst'ed in an RfA, one should somehow tell the bot to not edit that page anymore, as the link is in already. That can be be accomplished by putting that link between the following tags: <!-- begin editcount box--> and <!-- end edit count box --> (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 for an example). So the above comments need to go in the RfA template too.

In short, what you suggest is possible and easy to implement by modifying ((RfA)) and no modifications to the bot itself. Whether this is worth it, that's another matter. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It causes fewer edits, which has some minimal value. And it takes me the five seconds to modify the template, which I want to do anyway, so no harm done. -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh, you beat me to it again. :-P --Iamunknown 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Caught you! ;-)

The other reason is that Mathbot adding the stats is an end-run around certain people in the first place? As long as the bot does it, people can't really stop it by policy, or make a clear reasoning why it shouldn't do that. But I can sure put my foot down the minute anyone touches something onwiki, like ((RfA)). No, I don't think we're going to actually endorse anything like editcountitis on an actual RFA template, thanks. :-P --Kim Bruning 08:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a prominent like to an editors contributions alongside any link to edit count and edit summary usage, I know it already exists on the page further up, but by grouping edit count and edit summary quite close to the actual !voting area, perhaps we're encouraging comments based on these two (less than 100% useful) criteria. -- Nick ^t 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny when candidates turn on the edit summary preference during their RfA. Sorry, but people who don't take it seriously before an RfA aren't likely to permanently change their behavior afterwards. Xiner (talk, email) 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a relatively new feature, a lot of people haven't visited their Preferences since they joined. -- nae'blis 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been around as long as I can remember. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems very unlikely, since it's newer than me. There's been scripts around to do the job, but I believe the actual Preferences option came about in 2006 sometime. -- nae'blis 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Chances are, though, they didn't use edit summaries because they don't consider it important. Thus they will encounter reminders with the preferenced switched on, and sooner or later get sick of it and turn it off. That's my conjecture, at least. Xiner (talk, email) 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathbot is the new Rambot? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(First, let's face it, they're votes, not !votes.)

Now, I don't like it when people ask either side to explain their votes in an RfA, because the tradition has been to not badger the voters. And even though voters are advised not to question opponents who don't want to share their rationale, I think it'd be unfair to ask those who support for their reasoning as well. Since it takes an active decision to support or oppose, both camps should be treated equally, it seems.

However, denying adminship maintains the status quo, while supporting it may cause a significant change in an editor's contributions to the project. If we're to ask anyone to explain their votes, shouldn't it be logical to ask the proponents first? Xiner (talk, email) 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood that making a support !vote with little or no explanation is essentially endorsing the nomination, meaning that it isn't absolutely necessary to explain your support. Opposing a nomination implies one disagrees with the nom and it seems to me it's a common courtesy to explain why so that the candidate can improve on his/her work. Heimstern Läufer 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, where does it say not to question opponents, so I can kill it? There's some conventional wisdom that it can be poor for the candidate to question their opponents, but the entire thing is supposed to be a dialogue to develop consensus, not a polling booth. Otherwise we should just go to secret balloting and be done with it. Few enough people return to RFA to answer concerns posed to their support/oppose remarks as it is. -- nae'blis 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "please explain why you !voted 'Oppose' without citing a reason"-type question with a "what the fuck is wrong with you?"-type question; one is acceptable, while the other is not (uh, I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which). Solution looking for a problem, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EVula, almost always it seems. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Please explain your vote" can be seen as a valuable thing for someone who has opposed an RfA but not explained the oppose vote. An unexplained "oppose" vote is going to (hopefully) be discounted heavily by a bureaucrat; an explained vote not only has more weight, but very well could convince other editors to join in the opposition. In short, it's not "badgering", it's trying to help others who want to figure out if the "oppose" is for good reasons or just spite or something arbitrary. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; I think it's best to explain why you oppose someone becoming an admin. If someone just puts in "oppose", and doesn't say why, the candidate won't know why that user doesn't want them as an administrator, and won't be able to work on improving themselves. Acalamari 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's said that some people may want to avoid confrontation or pile-ons by not including a reason. Maybe someone more familiar with the pages can find that section. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...from what I've seen more confrontation is generated when someone doesn't put a reason for oppose in. Acalamari 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want to go into a confrontation, it's better to not vote than to oppose someone's adminship. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How's this recent explanation? [2]. --Kim Bruning 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC) At one point during wikimania, I stood up in public and told everyone I would support anyone who chose to question people's stated opinions on rfa or afd or etc. It's a core part of reaching consensus. There is no such thing as badgering, imho. For as long as I've been here, has been a long standing tradition that you must be prepared to explain any edit you make to wikipedia. (which includes posts to WP:RFA)

Ah, I really like that ratio thing - it explains a lot. 1 Oppose = 3 Supports (25% of total). Xiner (talk, email) 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

4 if you manage to convince them to switch to support entirely. :-)

I should probably keep track of people who accuse others of "badgering", or who refuse to answer questions about their position. (Or at least tell them off more often.) This is a structured discussion, where we attempt to reach a negotiated consensus. A "rough" consensus, for sure, else we'd never get anywhere, but still, consensus. (hence the <20% oppose requirement, rather than 0% opposes required)

Right now, many people are putting forth patently silly opinions, and not enough people are challenging them. This is extremely destructive to the process, since this means that both people as individuals -and the community as a collective- are no longer able to learn from their mistakes, or from past experience of others.

So my recommendation is: Go challenge an opinion today! In fact, it would be a good idea to routinely challenge people, even when their opinions seem sound, as an extra check and balance just to be sure, and to make sure people stay sharp.

Hmmm, at this moment in time, it may help to introduce a rule that says that if an opinion is challenged, and there is no reply to the challenge before the ending date, then that opinion is struck. Especially in the short term, this might improve RFA considerably.

--Kim Bruning 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you Kim. Unhelpful opposition comments like No way, is this a joke are insulting and rude, and even worse when the candidate asks what the problem is the oppose is turned to Strong oppose per badgering (a horrible word I would never use myself). People who oppose must be prepared to explain themselves (I always am) and should change to neutral or support if their concerns have been responded to with good reasoning. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't so far to say that opposers "should change to neutral or support if their concerns have been responded to with good reasoning". Two people may have perfectly good reasoning and still disagree. Or what one person sees as good reasoning, the other person may see as specious or insufficient to sway their opinion. --Kyoko 01:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the current discussion on a RfA proposal. Xiner (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)