Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Worm That Turned 9 0 0 100 Open 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 23 hours no report

We need to get more people to !vote in RFAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

And even when you add the template to a userpage, you run the risk of attracting some undesired (i.e., trolls, etc.) people to the user's RfA. —Animum (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't give you the names of people who have echoed that sentiment--- as it might betray their trust. But,the lick of evidence is H20's RfA and a year of watching the RfA process. And the fact that you can't argue that an early oppose has a disproportionate ability to bias an RfA than a later one. If you wish to believe that the RfA process works, that is your prerogative.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Koji, you might want to read some of the opposes/neutrals in the RfA's currently in place. There are people who are making comments to the effect that they hate to oppose (EG they support all the time) or that they are voting neutral instead of oppose because there are so many supports and their impression must be wrong/incomplete.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, "popular vote" = "vote of the common citizens". Compare/contrast with "electoral vote". Al Gore won the former in 2000, lost the latter. Was this a public school that taught you otherwise? ; ) --Badger Drink (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I hope you are not being serious. Crat discretion can only go so far, when it flagrantly rebels against a clear consensus that the community has taken, we have a rogue on our hands. bibliomaniac15 05:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you are even asking that... of course I was being sarcastic!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I expected as much from you. Other times, I've not been so sure whether people were being serious or if they were being sarcastic. I need to get me one of these (see winner). bibliomaniac15 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I don't want to rehash the case, but let's just agree that it took something extremely unusual and unexpected, and that that particular RfA was different from all others. My point, however, is that I do believe that there were people who wanted to oppose, but chose not to because they didn't see that their oppose would matter, until something unique occurred. This is, IMHO, an indicator of one of the problems with RfA's.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the general tone of the OP, which is more contributors is good. I also agree with Baloonman that the additional scrutiny of more contributors doesn't necessarily mean a more accurate result. I also agree that bringing more people here is difficult and we don't want people doing so on a whimsy or by compunction and perhaps making flighty ill-thought-through !votes. All in all, Pedro seems to sum up my position: it's not ideal, but it does the trick reasonably well. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Republic vs. Democracy

Many governments have found that republics scale more easily than direct democracies; any merit in considering the idea, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Luna, I respectfully, but vehemently, disagree, if I understand you correctly. Scale notwithstanding, it is more true that once people relinquish certain rights, it is near impossible to re-obtain them. If we disenfranchise any class of currently acceptable editor from RfA, even if they are to be represented, that class will likely eventually disappear from RfA with all the power held in the hands of the representatives. -- Avi (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just brainstorming. :) Scaling issues may eventually force changes, but heck if I know what they'll be. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to noindex all RfA pages

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Search engines are automatically blocked from RfAs, RFCs and RFArbs through robots.txt

I would like to seek opinions on whether to use {{NOINDEX}} on all RfA pages. This could be achieved through one edit - adding {{#ifeq: {{BASEPAGENAME}} | Requests for adminship | {{NOINDEX}} | }} to {{user}} will result in all RfA's and their talk pages being noindexed.

Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the potential benefit? Is RFA pages being searchable in Google really a problem? –xeno (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

{{user}} is used on a lot of pages other than RFA, maybe just bot-add it to all RFA pages? MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic: The fact that many Wikimedians have used their real names and then been accused of various stuff is a problem, in my opinion.

MBisanz: Please read my proposed code, it would only affect RfA pages. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You know very well I can't read code to save my life, in that case it sounds alright. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know a couple of good standing Wikipedians that have been affected in real life by google indexing. If there's a simple way to remove it, then I fully support it - there's very few reasons why someone should be affected in RL by their actions on WP. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be much easier to just edit the robots.txt file to exclude all pages in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ range, that is what is done with AFD pages. - Icewedge (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's editable only by our system administrators. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. I have often wanted to find things on wikipedia (in the wikipedia namespace) and found google a far superior tool than anything else. Adding no-index to anything that might conceivably hurt someone is over kill. If there is a RfA which had someone real name AND there were negative things said, AND the user doesn't want it to show up in google, then we can deal with it. For example he can simply blank the page with the message "blanked for privacy reason; feel free to review the history". (Bot don't index the history). Jon513 (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"conceivably hurt someone"? There's evidence that pages have hurt people, and it strikes me as irresponsible to wait for a page to hurt someone before doing something about it. That would be like waiting for the subject to complain before we could remove BLP violations. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no reason to wait for someone to get hurt to take action. Making searches more convenient for someone isn't a good enough reason to risk real life consequences. RxS (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about users just not publish their personal information at RFA? - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The warning about not registering with ones real name was only added recently. Many probably don't realise how poisonous RfA can be, and the effect that having your real name in a page title is. Daniel (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include the NOINDEX only if the nominee wants it included? Reyk _YO! 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they could use {{NOINDEX}} themselves. Advantages are no collateral damage; disadvantages are that people need to find out about this solution themselves and understand what it does, and then add it themselves. Daniel (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So why not include a warning about the potential dangers in the RfA documentation? Reyk _YO! 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because i) warnings are futile (see the part about not passing if you have less than X edits? never seems to work) and ii) the problem is slowly being fixed, and noting it like that would serve as an invitation for such behaviour, while this is a fix for the past. Daniel (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. I say do it. SQL^{Query me!} 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I say just NOINDEX the RfA at the user's request. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Avraham and Daniel. 1) No casual reader or job employer needs to stumble across something metapedian like an RfA; 2) It can be a real privacy issue; 3) Humans are more important than finding some archived discussion in the bowels of the project-space. That being said, we probably should ask the sysadmins to no-index all RfAs by means of robots.txt if this proposal should pass. —Animum (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not get the request correctly here. Why just RFA? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - is there any reason for any non-content pages to be indexable by search engines? George The Dragon (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's been a discussion at the mailing list a few times. You might want to try taking it to WP:VPP. Here isn't the place for it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan P, and we should apply it to RfA. I disagree with using it for all non-content pages, as it's sometimes extremely useful to be able to search all kinds of project pages for (eg) user interaction. Besides, discussing the broader issue is inappropriate here. Let's decide whether we want the specific instance of RfA pages excluded. If there's consensus, take the broader issue elsewhere (probably VP) leaving a link here. If there's not, I doubt there'd be consensus on the broader issue anyway, but it still might be worth posting at VP. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All non-content pages, and just as soon as we can get a better internal search engine. — CharlotteWebb 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the template, it will get all RFAs post-2006. But the pre-2005/6 RFAs didn't use this template, would it be a good idea to use a bot/AWB here? MBisanz ^talk 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking more on this, could we create a secondary template {{RFA NOINDEX}} so we could control the RFA-space with 1 template, even if we need to add it to some pages on its own? MBisanz ^talk 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If there truly is a consensus and a need to do this, why not take up Icewedge's suggestion above? If the devs need to do it, then a bugzilla can be submitted. –xeno (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• People should really not need to be warned that using their real name on the Internet could lead to unintended consequences. –xeno (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the placement. RfA is a strictly internal process to the project and I can think of no good reason why it needs to be indexed by external search engines. It may be obvious, but I see no reason to discourage people from using their real names if they are making an informed decision by having been warned about the potential consequences. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I concur that we should add noindex. We should err on the side of protecting people. While google-searching wiki is useful, its usefulness is not sufficient enough to allow the potential side effects of having people's livelihood, privacy, or peace of mind adversely effected. -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well said, Avraham. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• While I agree with the sentiment, I don't see how this is really that effective. Someone's real name can be exposed anywhere, not just an RfA; mine is certainly floating around, but it didn't even get mentioned in my RfA (or, for that matter, subsequent RfBs). This strikes me as a problem looking for a solution solution looking for a problem; the problem, however, is so seeped in emotion that everyone is jumping to agree with it. I just don't see how it's applicable; if an RfA candidate doesn't want their real name used in their RfA, then gee, perhaps they shouldn't mention it...
  As an aside, I do wonder how many "outed" admins had their identities tracked down specifically because of their RfA. That would be the true determination of how helpful this would be. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I get your point, but I'm a little perplexed by your edit summary. I fail to see how taking precautions (and with very few drawbacks) to prevent harm to one's indentity is paranoid. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I consider several on-wiki things, such as fear of being exposed and WP:FEED, to be grounded in paranoia. Is the threat of real-life exposure real? Yes. Is it a threat that can affect our administrators? Yes. Is it something that is habitually happening in the RfA realm? No. Seeing problems in areas where there aren't any isn't particularly helpful, and I would consider it paranoia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I see. You might have a point there. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • EVula, did you happen to mean "a solution looking for a problem"? I'm going to assume you did, as that would make your argument much more clear. Useight (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Er, yeah. Sorry, I wrote that just as I was heading out the door for work; fixed. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • EVula, I believe the absolute number of individuals "outed due to RfA" is irrelevant; one is too many. This is a proactive measure whose benefit outweighs its cost. What do we lose? The ability to google RfA's to find a particular statement or statements? Where would that be more valuable than even the small chance of hurting someone, their career, their privacy, their family, or their good name? -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If they used their real name as their Wikipedia username, then didn't they out themselves? Those who have used their real name are (or should be) well-aware of the potential consequences. The Internet is no private affair. –xeno (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Xeno, so they have made an error; why should we be involved in compounding it for little expected return? -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
        • So manually noindex any RFA for real-name'ish users. –xeno (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • When talking about limiting a function that lots of people can take advantage of, I'd say that the actual benefit of a course of action is very relevant. Your statement just makes me feel that much better about saying that this entire matter is seeped in emotion. I don't want anyone's life ruined either (well... maybe a couple), but I'm also unconvinced that removing RfAs from Google's index will protect our identities. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Ladies, Gents you are utterly missing the fundamental point, which is that Google and Wikipedia are not actually related. If Google want to index us they can - tags or no tags. Google's bots ignore no_follow tags because Google (as a public company designed to make profit) choose to at the moment. If they decide otherwise then we can't control it (well we can, but not through measures in line with our goal). End of discussion. We don't control thrid parties. Simple. Gee...... let's archive this. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 19:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break

My question fails to be answered. What makes the RFA pages so special for noninclusion? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading it as a problem for accounts using a living person's real name, as an RFA on those accounts might include what amounts to specific criticism of a living person, which could be problematic for that living person. If my name is Bill Formattest, and my rfa included criticisms of my editing on the pedophilia article, for example, a potential employer might dig that up on a google search for my real name - which would cause harm to me (and, incidentally, might have a chilling effect on the editing of controversial subjects). I'm unclear as to why courtesy blanking would be insufficient for this purpose, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd reverse Nichalp's question. What makes them so special for inclusion? WP is only indexed so heavily by Google because of reasons outside of WP's control (perception of WP relevance to a search engine query). Internal workings are not relevant to our audience (the readership). Google, as a third party, can index or not index as they prefer. Assuming that WP editors are of the opinion we'd prefer they don't index our internal workings then we include the tags. Given that our internal debates are nothing to do with our audience (again, the readership) then we may as well "request" Google not to index. Zero benefit to the actual goal of Wikipedia (writing an encyclopedia) is served by Google indexing non ENC pages. If we can prevent it then that's good. If we can't then so what. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 19:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree, Pedro. As we all know, the Wikipedia search engine is currently abysmal. Items of trivial interest appear on Wikipedia's search page, but a search at site:en.wikipedia.org at Google yields superior results. It would certainly be of relevance to us, the people serving to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I fail to see what a nonindex can do that a courtesy blank can't. A scenario like Ultraexactzz's Bill Formattest is certainly plausible, but a nonindex still renders the scandalous RFA fully visible and open to exploitation. I also disagree with your statement that our internal workings are not relevant to our audience. Whether it be an FA star or a Wikiproject template, our inner workings, debates, and decisions are ultimately linked to the encyclopedia. Our readership has a right to know what happens "behind the scenes," because it will almost always affect what goes on the encyclopedia and what does not. bibliomaniac15 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 - please see my above (in the main thread). The fundamental point is that we do not control Google. They index what they want, and no_index tags are at their discretion not ours as to having any value. This thread is irrelevant as we cannot dictate what a commerical company does. Their current policy can change and I doubt very much that ours will change as rapidly as theirs, and indeed our policy is totally irrelevant to what Google wish to do unless we bury the whole site. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Further - regarding Our readership has a right to know.. - Yes you're right. However they key thing is, of course, that they don't actaully care. They want WP to be a resource. I couldn't give a damn if my dictionary is printed on recycled paper, made in China and bound in Taiwan. Nor do I care about the name of the editor who wrote the definition of the word "Cheese". I just want it spelt right. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well said! Agreed. Most readers don't care, they are using Wikipedia as a point of reference.Lazulilasher (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was the paranoid one. To me, No Indexing all RfA's is impractical and a solution for a problem that, frankly, isn't big enough to deserve something of this scale. How many RfA's come through, per month, that reveal personal information/hold intense negative commentary about an editor to the point where a no-index is needed? Barely any. Come on, man. If an RfA gets out of hand, noindex it. Why do it widespread?--KojiDude ^(C) 01:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, Koji (who, like me, chooses to hide their real identiy), the answer is one.) AS in one user. There is no negative to adding NOINDEX, but there is the potential positive for adding NOINDEX to rfa. The fact that a situation hasn't happened yet (even if it has, I could dig backwards if requested) doesn't mean we shouldn't be proactive. If it protects even one, then it is worth it. Support this, mostly per Pedro's sound logic. Keeper ǀ 76 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For once, Keeper is absolutely right. Like it or not, we do attract nutjobs – as some of you will be aware, at least one person has gone to jail for stalking someone they took a dislike to on-wiki – and if doing this does no harm and potentially stops a single stalker, I can't see what the fuss is. – iridescent

Damn you, Keeper, and your clever convincing-ness. I cave.--KojiDude ^(C) 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As regards the "it will involve work" bit, that's the least of the problems; it wouldn't even take coding, just a matter of minutes to knock up an AWB bot to do them in one go. – iridescent 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Whaddya mean "for once" Iridescent???? Give me a diff where I ain't right!!! (oh god, please don't reply to this.... The diffs where I'm completely inept, if not just insanely wrong, far outweigh my momentary lapse into genius...Keeper ǀ 76 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The negative is that you are reducing the usefulness of google. Prodego ^talk 01:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not, and should not, be concerned about the "usefulness" of google. Keeper ǀ 76 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not worried about google's usefulness, I am worried about my ability to search for things on wikipedia with google. site:en.wikipedia style. Prodego ^talk 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

With all the ways Succesful and Unsuccesful RfA's are organized here on Wikipedia, it'd be pretty easy to find a particular RfA if you wanted to. I think common sense would say to use Wikipedia as a primary reference point when looking for an RfA.--KojiDude ^(C) 01:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why only the RFA pages is a problem. The comments above are only talking about google, but aren't there several other sites that archive wikipedia on the regular basis? I tried to search for my id on google, and interestingly enough, a search result threw an old user page (four year old page, one of my earliest) of mine on it. While Google might religiously follow robots.txt, there is no compulsion for other sites that mirror wikipedia to do so. So, its not just the RFA pages that might be caught up, but also user/user talk, wikipedia, and portal namespaces that are archived. The second point I wish to mention is that to request for adminship, a person must have a minimum 3-6 months experience (that is the unofficial limit at present). I'm sure by that time he/she would be aware of the issues that might occur by using their real name on wikipedia. If privacy concerns are still an issue, try WP:CHU; we do not deny those requests. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see why we should do this, except in special cases. Wikipedia's internal workings are not secret. I use Google to search Wikipedia all the time, including internal pages. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have any major objection to this, really. My search method for RFAs is usually to type in "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Username" or Special:PrefixIndex the user's name, so google doesn't bother me much. I'm under the impression, however, that we courtesy blank things very specifically to prevent search engines from snagging some of the more heated drama on the site, and I am unclear how this method would be different from that. HEY, could we add this code to the courtesy blanking template and take care of everything at once? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that practically no change can come to this project because any proactive proposal for anything will be rejected as "no consensus" over trivial things. The proposal is about RFA pages. Why not other pages? Who cares. The proposal is about RFA pages, and maybe other pages can be discussed later, and elsewhere. If you want to search for someone's RFA, it's an extremely easy page to find. If you need google to find an RFA, there are bigger issues you need to be dealing with. This proposal is a good one because people do use their real names. Sometimes in their user names, other times it is just mentioned in the process. Then consider the monumental stupidity some people show in RFAs with their baseless accusations, character attacks and other such related hate spewage. There is no reason whatsoever that these pages should be indexed by google. If you can't find the page without google, like I said above, you have bigger issues. And as far as other engines indexing it: one problem at a time. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the point is that people need Google to find a specific RFA. People may want to use Google to search for content in an-RFA-of-which-they-don't-know-the-name. Probably due to the abysmal internal search engine employed here. –xeno (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a fragment of a name, a text search (CTRL-F on most browsers) on the Successful and Unsuccessful RFA lists would work well. As these are sorted by date, finding that one RFA 3 months ago would be simple as well. For an RFA where someone made a really good argument, I'd recommend checking their contributions in the Wikipedia space, also with text search. Not saying google isn't superior to these, but they are alternatives that would work with this function enabled. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Second section break

I just can't believe that this simple topic and simple request has two section breaks. Good grief. Keeper ǀ 76 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Keeper76, and welcome to WT:RFA! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. – iridescent 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

heh.  :-)_ (that little line below my symbolic mouth is me very much wishing I had a cigarette right now...) Keeper ǀ 76 18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have been considering adding a question for RfAs, particularly for those who don't use identifiable names, along the lines of: Admins sometimes become the subjects of off-wiki harassment - are you willing to have your identity revealed and discussed? Folks that are signing up for adminship need to have reasonably thick skins. Having the contents of their RfA appear in Google is nothing compared to what they may face if their RfA succeeds. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Having "reasonably thick skins" is fine. What does that have to do with having "reasonable privacy expectations?" If I signed up with my real name, that's my own fault really, but that doesn't mean we just say "too bad for you, you're an admin now, and should have thicker skin." Keeper ǀ 76 18:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've seen almost that exact phrase written on ANI in response to complaints abot off-wiki harassment. Rather than offering admins-to-be a scant shred of covering to protect their privacy, we should do more to warn them that they are signing up for potential harassment and that "noindex" can't be counted on to protect them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's any present admins who are adminning under their real name they can go ahead and tag their RFA with noindex if they so please. In fact, if anyone can recall someone who's stood for RFA under their real name, and contentious issues have been raised, tag away. I still don't understand why we should take away someone's ability to effectively search Wikipedia (yes, even the meta parts) because of some hypothetical problem. –xeno (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Third section break

Um, RFA's have been blocked from search engines since September 2007, as it said in the Signpost. This Google search demonstrates that quite nicely. Graham87 04:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Now this is what I call inefficiency! - Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just tried to search for an RfA, only for my search to end fruitlessly. A whole thread with three section breaks all for this. Wow. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Had this been channeled into article writing we could have like 5 DYK's or something..... - Icewedge (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as penance for this I am going to go write a DYK right now, I suggest 4 other people go do the same ;) - Icewedge (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah. I'm going to go and get my GA promoted to FA now. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lol. Well, this is just the way we roll here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pure class.... :) Pedro :  Chat  07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MyNameIsKyle

MyNameIsKyle has made a haphazard attempt to draw up an RfA. I would fix it for him, but is there any point? You'll see what I mean by looking at the way he manages his talkpage, his blocklog compared to the amount of time he's been here and his edits in general. Lradrama 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the candidate wished to withdraw. lifebaka++ 17:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my impression as well, that is why I did so for him. SoWhy ^{review me!} 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, good work. :) Lradrama 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope that was okay for you all, usually admins do it but I wanted to prevent as much opposes as possible and so wanted to close it as fast as possible. It's no use if a new user gets to read 50 opposes before it's withdrawn/closed. :-) SoWhy ^{review me!} 17:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Any user can SNOW-close an RfA, but be careful! Always good to ask the candidate first if they wish to withdraw. Enigma ^message 17:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It would definately have ended up with a stream of opposes, so yes, you did the right thing. Lradrama 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt...

Okay, we've all seen some of the prima facie opposes of Mr. Kurt Weber here. Some of us have made a parody of his opposes (myself included); some have gotten angry at Kurt; some believe his reasoning is beyond belief; well, fellow Wikipedians, don't get worked up because of one user's opinion (which he is entitled to)! I sure hope I don't get a spanking because of this, but here is my multi-purpose "I'm-so-angry-because-something-or-someone-on-Wikipedia-is-so-unfair" remedy that you can use for pretty much anything, not just RfAs:

1. Close the window that is making you angry, immediately
2. Open a new window
3. Go to Conservapedia and read five articles and their respective talk pages

This, for some reason, cools me down. I seem to just forget about my problems, and when I remember, I say, "Who cares?" I hope this helps in whatever haphazard situation you may come across. Also, no disrespect towards Kmweber here; it's just some people get worked up over his reasoning so to me it was something people could relate to. Cheers - CL — 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As said, Kurt is entitled to his own opinion. Supporting just to counter the oppose really hurts the process (although all the Admin-Hopefuls seem to be good. Kurt supports or opposes based on what he feels helps the project, in his own belief. Everyone has their own opinions.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. If I ever felt the need to support to counter an oppose, I could see where that just doesn't work. But this doesn't just apply to Kurt, I guess it's just whenever you need to take a deep breath, right? CL — 07:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I actually have to hand it to you; that really works. I have to say, one look at "Homosexuality" is good for an lol or two. I wonder if this works for off-wiki problems, too? Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC).

Why does this subject need to be belabored time and time again - no offense to the creator of this thread, especially if they are unaware as to how many times this has been discussed, but Kurt's oppose rationales are divisive and create dissent, nothing's going to change that. However, if somebody needs to make themselves counter-angry by reading something as contentious as Conservapedia, then maybe they should think twice about participating in RfA at that moment. You shouldn't be angry while doing so. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom's got a good point. If you're in such a pissed off mood that Kurt pushes your buttons to this extent, participating in RfA at all isn't a good idea.--KojiDude ^(C) 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Kurt's opposes do no harm, and quite possibly help more than they hinder. Candidates should thank him for opposing with such ridiculous reasons - they cause sympathy supports. Plus the fact that he doesn't dig up any "real dirt" on the candidate rarely causes anyone to oppose if they weren't going to already. Alright, enough beans for today. –xeno (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Should I nominate myself?

I am thinking about nominating myself, but I would be happy to get a few comments from RfA regulars first so I don't waste everybodys time. I have been editing for years with no problems, and I think I know Wikipedia quite well now. I don't think many would recognize my name though, as I haven't socialized much and I never edited very intensively, just a few hundred edits per month at most (1835 total, 962 in mainspace [1]). It seems Wikipedia needs more admins and I think I could help. Especially with images (IfDs, images with various deletion tags, etc.) as I have worked quite a lot with correcting wrong copyright tags, non-free use rationales, moving to Commons and such. I'm not much of a vandal hunter, but I think I am quite good at keeping my head cool and could help in disputes. I don't make enemies often. On the minus side, I haven't written large parts of many articles. I mostly make smaller changes. Could Wikipedia use and admin like me, even if I don't edit every day? Thank you for any comments. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best place to ask for something like this... but I will tell you that only 1800+ edits is definitely not enough edits. I would suggest 4000+ edits with a good amount of quality edits in them. A few WP:DYKs/WP:GAs/WP:FAs would be nice also, along with some participation in adminly areas (WP:XFD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, ect). I would most likely oppose if you were to have an RfA now... but I don't think this is the right place to ask questions like that. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you feel the need to make threads like this, then no, you shouldn't nominate yourself. naerii 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold on just one second Naerii - why does this show he shouldn't nominate himself? This seems like a perfectly legitimate request for a pre-RfA screening, especially when he's got a relatively low edit count compared to most successful candidates. I'm not sure why you're attempting to hold this against him. Apoc2400 - See Friday below for some good thoughts about running. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a large amount of edits by some standards, but your editing history goes back a few years, so this is a plus. I think most reasonable editors don't put too much stock in edit counts anyway, as long as there's enough for people to judge your contributions. The only real way to answer your question would be to go ahead and nominate yourself (or have someone do it.) In my view, anyone who's been around and reasonably active for a few years without causing trouble is probably a good candidate. Generally, if someone is a kook or troublemaker, it becomes apparent before years have gone by. Post-edit conflict response: I don't see anything wrong with asking this question. And, if you're going to ask this question, I can't think of a better place for it than right here. So, I don't agree with the above objections. Friday (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't see a lot of "using TW" in your edit summaries, so go ahead and multiply that number by 10 if anyone asks about edit count. This will put you on approximately even ground with the button mash kiddies. Friday (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• (e/c) Indeed it would be a plus, and Apoc being here for a long amount of time with no trouble or harm with fine edits would help him... and I may have a change of heart and support. Regarding nominating yourself (or someone nominating you), it's solely up to you, but I say go for it if you think your ready. Your the best person to judge weather your ready for adminship or not. -- RyRy (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that making blanket statements against Twinkle users (Twinkle, n. a tool that makes common Wikipedia edits more efficient) is just about as insightful as using edit counts as a basis to support/oppose. Tan ǀ 39 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

TW can hurt when you have too much and nothing else, it doesn't increase a low count.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that is exactly the mentality that needs to go. You've seen it; a user has 4000 non-Twinkle mainspace edits and passes, while a user who has 5000 non-twinkle mainspace edits and 10,000 additional Twinkle edits will fail as a "robot". The edits should be judged on their own merit and not on the tool used to perform them. Being "anti-Twinkle" is just another way of spreading editcountitis. Tan ǀ 39 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notice the key word, can not will. Using twinkle CAN hurt, if you over rely upon it and don't use your own discretion and edit on your own. Using it doesn't mean that it will hurt---I praised your use of it during your RfA/coaching. I have zero problem saying that using TWINKLE can hurt, because it can.... just as over using/participating in many areas.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In all honestly, I don't think you would have much of a chance of passing. While you have been making edits for a long time, there are only a handful of months where you've made more than 100 edits... and if you look at the past 7 months (excluding July) you have made a total of 150 edits. This is not nearly enough to demonstrate a firm understanding of policies or to give us a sense of who/what you are.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You would be an ever greater asset to Wikipedia with admin tools. You will not pass RFA at this time. The irony hangs heavy. Pedro :  Chat  20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Apoc would be a good administrator, indeed. S/he wouldn't pass if s/he were to add an RfA now... but I would support when this user has more experience with general editing with more activity. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr, so RyRy, basically you belive this editor would be fine with the tools, but you won't support at the moment, but may in the future with more activity? Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I should have said "Apoc would be a good administrator in the future probably". I would probably support in the future, but not now... -- RyRy (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you caught the irony :) Sorry to be poking at your expense, and it's not directed at you RyRy at all - I respect you sound opinion here - but the general "I'll vote for you in three months" concept seems a little odd to me. If they can do the job now get them in and edit count / tenure be damned. If you think they can't then oppose or neutral; But never go down the line of "yeah, you'll be fine, but I need another x'000 edits to back me up". It doesn't help Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

well the problem then isn't the sentament, but rather the wording of the comment. I won't tell somebody that I will vote for them in 3 months... because if I don't have enough data today to make an educated decision, then I don't have enough data today to commit to something 3 months down the road. People who say, "come back in 3 months and I'll support" should really be saying, "come back in 3 months and I will review you then." Apoc may be a great admin, he just doesn't meet the expectations of the community to get the tools. If he wants them, then he needs to be more active and come back in 4 or 5 months.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Point, Pedro, of course, no one should base their vote solely on edit count. But most times the vote is to be interpreted as "I need to see more of you to know if my impression is correct" and that's fine I think. If you think we need more admins, Pedro, you should go and nominate a few dozen people. There are 1159 people currently willing to be nominated ;-) SoWhy ^{review me!} 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, one does ones best. And Balloonman, I agree - I'm playing devil's advocate in a sense. Apoc is clearly on the right road, but equally an RFA would fail under the current criteria the community has come to expect. Yet we delude ourselves by opposing changes to the RFA header to discourage editors with < 2k/3k edits or 3month/4month tenure (whatever). Simple facts are that we shoot ourselves in the foot often at RFA and in the porcess make silly statements implying future support. I'm not saying the "standards" of the community are wrong. I'm saying the way we communicte them are. As an example the whole reason WP:NOTNOW exists is from a prior debate to try not to discourage potential admins by throwing WP:SNOW at them. Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I will consider it again when I have more time to dedicate to Wikipedia. It's not like there is any lack of things to do without admin tools anyway. Cheers! --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)