Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 25

Older talk

• Archive 1: June-August 2003
• Archive 2: August-December 2003
• Archive 3: Discussion in December 2003 about time people should wait before making request and a note
• Archive 4: Some January 2004 discussion
• Archive 5: Discussion on January 8, 2004 about distributing the task of making other admins
• Archive 6: (Greenmountainboy's claim about being attacked on this page (January 8-9, 2004))
• Archive 7: Complaint against tannin (January 24-25, 2004)
• Archive 8: Abuse of de-sysop area (January 30-31, 2004)
• Archive 9: Discussion on January 31, 2004 about how to deal with misuse of admin privileges
• Archive 10: Recent discussion archived in advance (February 2004)
• Archive 11: Policy on Anons and this page (February 9, 2004)
• Archive 12: Discussion on 19-25 February, 2004 about who can vote and how bureaucrats should be appointed
• Archive 13: Discussion of what consensus is needed for a request (February-March 2004)
• Archive 14: Polls on making all admins bureaucrats, and on possible minimum requirements for adminship (February-March 2004)
• Archive 15: Discussion of nominators, self-nominations, and nominating procedures (March 2004)
• Archive 16: Possible minimum requirements for voting, discussion and poll about bureaucrats exercising individual judgment in determining consensus (March-April 2004)
• Archive 17: TOC tallies, relative merits of a firm 80% threshold compared to "bureaucrat" judgement, creeping upwards of requirements for support of adminship, possible periodic renewal of adminship, issues regarding specific nominations (March 4-May 20 2004. No discussion May 20-June 1)
• Archive 18: Questions about adminship, Lst27, JediMaster16, this page needs an image...
• Archive 19: Discussion and poll about early removal of nominations, possible timelags between re-nominations (July 2004)
• Archive 20: Sockpuppets and qualifications for voting (August 2004)
• Archive 21: Edit counting, subpages, boilerplate questions and more (September 2004)
• Archive 22: Promotions to bureaucrat (October 2004)
• Archive 23: Adminiship standards; de-admining inactive admins; limit on concurrent nominations (October/November 2004)
• Archive 24: Candidate acceptance of nominatopm; change in mediawiki users; number of bureaucrats (November-December 2004)

Pages that reflect RfA

These are edit links to pages that need to be changed as people are added or removed from RfA. Cecropia does an excellent job updating the first four, and I started doing the other two. If anyone sees a good way to integrate this list into the actual page, I think it would be an improvement. If you know of any other pages that belong in this list, please add them.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship - As put up for promotion or promoted
• Wikipedia:Recently created admins - As promoted
• Wikipedia:List of administrators - As promoted, demoted, or declined
• Wikipedia:Adminship candidacies not promoted - As denied or declined, or promoted after having been denied
• Wikipedia:Nooks and corners of Wikipedia that should be frequented - At any change on WP:RFA
• Wikipedia:Goings-on - As promoted

HTH. --Ben Brockert 07:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Link dates?

When I self-nominated, I linked the date of my voting deadline, so that the Wiki software would reformat it to the user's preferences, as is common elsewhere in the 'pedia. I am considering doing the same to everyone else's nominations, and changing the instructions. Does anyone have an objection to that? --Ben Brockert 07:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with that. Just don't bite anyone's head of if they forget to. :) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Good idea. Andre (talk) 20:18, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Notice revert

Netaholic left the summary "rv banner message. as discussed before, its poor form, and too much like an endorsement". For one, I have seen no such discussion here in the last two months at least. Can you point to one, Netaholic that supports that view conclusively? For another, the notice simply asked to spend some time looking at this one cae because there wasn't enough votes to determine consensus. That is certainly not an endorsement. A revert on that basis is a little hasty and just makes the whole process look bad. How about discussing before reverting? There was no imminient danger that could not have waited until a few other editors chimed in to agree or disagree with your position. - Taxman 17:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't discuss it earlier, but I would go along with Netaholic's position that to place a banner specifically for one person could be considered an endorsement of some sort. Either one asks people to consider *all* nominees, or none. Given that we would expect anyone visiting the page to review all nominees then, qed, one needs no banner. Abstentions are a valid form of expressing an opinion imho. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 17:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An expressed opinion of abstention is signing in the neutral category, rather than not signing at all. Not signing is more likely to be apathy or indecision. Assuming that page visitors review all nominees is incorrect, from what I've seen. The banner should be put back. --Ben Brockert 18:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I put the banner back. As anyone knows who follows RfA, I rarely comment on candidacies one way or the other, and if I do, I will either do it straightforwardly or at the end of the nomination for close candidacies. Geni had six votes total when I posted the banner, and, as Taxman noted, the notice asks editors to consider the nomination. Last I looked, there are seven more votes, five positive and two negative.

It's a bureaucrat's job, IMO, to encourage the community to express consensus, rather than make him/her promote/remove on speculation. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to VampWillow, the notice does not ask to consider one candidate above the others. The banner clearly states that there are fewer than 24 hours to go, so requires special attention. I've done this in the past and will in the future. If it would make everyone feel better, I'll change the banner to mention "support" and "oppose", but I think it stands on its own. I'd rather let voters just look at what the banner points to, and decide.

In response to User:Cecropia I've just read your comments on the link noted below. You listed notices .. important current matters, such as:

• • Early removal of a nomination (but just for 24 hours so editors know why the nomination disappeared.
  • Important notices concerning a particular nomination, such as time extension (removed when the extention ends).
  • Notice of a poll significantly affecting policy

The current example would not appear to meet any of those conditions. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 19:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This notice is placed for the purpose of avoiding an extension, which is what I would have done if there were insufficient votes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is by no means a reasonable conclusion to draw. There are no written grounds for which a candidacy can be extended, except where "consensus is unclear" (i.e. too close to call). Lack of votes is a clear indication that community consensus is effectively "we don't know this person well enough to say"... especially since Geni was a self-nomination. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I could agree with that general sentiment, but at a time of low interest on the board, it is better to encourage community involvement. The burst of votes in this last day, pro and con, demonstrates this. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If "there are too few votes to determine consensus", that means that, in the end, you do not promote. Adminship is an affirmative action, and the candidate should be well known. Certainly people are visiting this page and voting for other candidates, so if Geni (or anyone else) is not getting votes, then that means that few people are aware of that person and they are not ready yet. To advertise (that's what it is) by using a banner is falsely promoting that person above all others. I doubt Cecropia sees this as such, but it is unfair to other candidates who are well known in the community. This sort of thing has come up before -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Please do not preach to me the standards for promotion, Netoholic, and as the expression goes in a court of equity, you do not "come in with clean hands." You are opposed to this candidate and are now appear to be trying to manipulate the process. As it is, the banner has provoked interest and it appears the candidacy will fail, but it if it does it will fail on the basis of the expressed interest of the voters as opposed to a bureaucratic decision, or your decision. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how others would interpret your words above, but ad hominem-style attacks do not help this discussion. I would have removed such a notice even if were promoting my own candidacy. You seem proud that your notice got attention and that it appears this candidate will fail... how do you think User:Geni feels about that? Surely they would have rather you not put up a banner that resulted in that outcome. My point is, putting the banner is interference in a process, and noone can say whether that interference is good, or bad. In the future, I'd suggest avoiding getting involved. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I did not describe you personally, I described your demonstrated behavior. The nomination may or may not fail. How Geni feels about that is immaterial to the integrity of the process. Are you now arguing that the notice wrongfully constituted a disendorsement after you complained that it seemed like an endorsement?

I see your point that a banner may seem like interference in the process, but I simply disagree. When there are a lot of candidates people watch the board fairly closely and noone is ignord. When there are few a candidacy may not be noticed. This is about determining consensus. The notice was straightforward and impartial. It didn't even say "insuffient to promote," it said "insufficient to determine consensus." As a bureaucrat I have an interest in finding out what the community wants rather than what I think the community wants if that latter result is easily avoided. IMO, a little prodding is better than a formal extension, which would have been the laternative. For your part, you were the first opponent of the nomination, not in a position to promote or remove, and then fight a notice asking for community input. Now which situation is interference in the process?

-- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Banner

Previously this page did not use banners noting that voting time on a candidate was near the end. One has since been used; this is a change in practice, and from the above discussion, there seems some difference of opinion over it. So what do people think: Should we do this in the future? Never? Always? Sometimes, and if so, under what specific circumstances? -- Infrogmation 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infrogmation, it has been used before, but only in cases like this, where there was insufficint community involvement for consensus. However, I will post a poll (thought we could avoid that, but hey, most people like to vote). Give me a few minutes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Banners noting expiring nominations

I placed the banner below in order to encourage voters to consider the nomination of a candidate who had only six votes total, insufficient to determine consensus. Netoholic took exception and removed the banner twice. I removed the banner myself when I saw that there were more than a dozen votes, so it had served its purpose. I'm showing the banner here so we can see exactly what it said, and whether anyone considers that this is not neutral. A banner like it would have been posted anyway in the event the nomination would have to be extended. You may also want to read the discussions above. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please take a little time to consider [[Candidate]]'s nomination.
With less than 24 hours to go, there are too few votes to determine consensus.

Short-time banners may be posted by bureaucrats

As the ones charged with determining consensus, bureaucrats should post banners like the above if they feel consensus is not being reached within approximately 24 hours of the end of the nomination.

1. Taxman 21:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) Though not one voting in the relevant election.
2. gadfium (talk) 22:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Acegikmo1 22:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Fine, and if the banner doesn't help they can extend the time. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 22:46, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
5. I think this is just part of the job of determining consensus, and hence something bureaucrats are well within their rights to do. Shane King 22:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Short-time banners may be posted by anyone

Same as above, but may be posted by anyone within 24 hours of the end of the nomination, and the wording must not advocate for or against the candidate.

1. Andre (talk) 21:41, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
2. Michael Ward 22:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. So long as the person does not vote on the relevant nomination, and remains disinterested in the matter. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No short-time banners

Don't have a banner until the nomination is finished, and the bureaucrats will determine what to do from that point (promote/reject/extend).

1. support - if not enough people comment/vote on the matter at hand then it is *after* the usual time allotment that options may need to be considered, not during. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 21:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment

• My own opinion is that it's better to nudge voters a little to complete the nomination in its alloted time, rather than have extensions. I can't be too much in sympathy with the idea that voter's lack of awareness should be protected rather than their interest promoted. If they are visiting RfA they are already interested in the process, but may not realize a particular nomination is about to expire. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I would suggest that most of us are quite capable of noting expiry dates and the difference between them and the current date. What would be the next consideration; whether it should be an exact 24 hours, the next day by users' local time, some other figure? --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 21:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I believe the heart of the issue is determining whether consensus is absent as a nomination is coming to a close, not another rockbound rule. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit issue

Just added a vote to PMC's request for adminship. It shows in the subpage but isnt showing on the main page. Can anyone shed light on this? Thanks. FT2 21:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

1. Purge the page with the link near the top. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Figured it was a cache issue, didnt know how. Thanks :) FT2 22:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)