Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 138

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.

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

→

Archive 145

I think reducing the number of days an RfA is active from 168 to 96 hours would greatly reduce the time a candidate has to spend undergoing the stress of the RfA, while still allowing for plenty of time for a full and fair discussion of the merits of the candidate, as well as allowing for a quicker up or down discussion. In my limited experience, it takes perhaps 15-20 minutes to fully vet a candidate, so that shouldn't be a problem. In discussing this proposal, I would ask that anyone participating offer their rationale. I am also creating an "Alternate proposal" section for those who might have a related, but slightly different idea. S. Dean Jameson 15:26, July 5, 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't think this is such a good idea. 7 days ensures that we can get a full spectrum analysis; for example, there may be those who only edit on the weekends. A 4 day period would allow someone to begin on Monday, and completely skip that segment of editors. –xenocidic (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not certain I understand this concern. If someone is truly concerned about vetting candidates, could they not at least check in at the RfA page on, say, a Wednesday or Thursday, and take a few minutes to vet any Monday/Tuesday candidates? And if they couldn't/wouldn't do so, what is the net-negative of losing the contributions of what must be an extremely low number of potential vetters? S. Dean Jameson 15:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Still opposed to disenfranchising these individuals. –xenocidic (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• If they can't take the stress of a 7 day RfA they can't take the stress of being a good admin. —Giggy 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I understand this point even less. What does the "stress" of a 7-day RfA have to do with pressing the delete button at CSD, the block button at AIV, or the page protect button at RPP? S. Dean Jameson 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Surely you don't seriously think that's what I refer to when I say "the stress of being a good admin"? —Giggy 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  When it's boiled down, the 3 things I mentioned above are the core of being a good admin, are they not? S. Dean Jameson 15:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  No, they're not. They're the crux of basic adminship chores. Anyone can do them. (Sorry to use you as an example but) You've been around for a month and a half and you could do them. We need "good" admins to resolve disputes, deal with subtle POV pushing, and ensure high article quality. Not just anyone can do that. —Giggy 15:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In my view, narrowing the time window when people can grill a potential candidate from 168 hours to 96 hours doesn't materially affect the ability to assess the candidate's demeanor and ability to perform both the "basic tasks" and the "down and dirty" aspects that you point out. How does the extra 72 hours materially affect that? S. Dean Jameson 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Totally oppose anything less than 7 days. Those of us who have jobs aren't necessarily going to be in a position (or in any condition) to check RFA on work days. If I had my way I'd make the AfD period seven days, too. – ırıdescent 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm with Iridescent and Xenocidic on this one. Its unfair to editors who only edit on specific days. — _Maggot^Syn 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) I don't mean to 'pile-on' here, but I see this as somewhat a solution seeking a problem. Yes, RfA is stressful, but there are more reasons for keeping the length at 7 days (unfair to full-time workers, allows things to be brought to light if not immediately obvious) than there are for shortening it to 4 days. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Not "piling on" at all. I should have anticipated that there would be heavy pushback from experienced editors to any changes in the RfA process. I don't see the big detriment to moving the time frame back from 168 hours to 96 hours, but to each their own. I'll definitely think two or three times before proposing any more changes to the RfA process, though! :) S. Dean Jameson 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a bigger issue here. Not only is there no reason to drop the length to 4 days and plenty of reason to keep it at 7 (or even more), the comment that 15-20 minutes is enough time to vet a candidate is worrisome. That is not enough time to thoroughly vet a candidate. That's not to say that those who can't spend more than that much time looking over a candidate should not vote, but they should not consider or attempt to convey that they have a good grasp of the candidate's true qualifications for adminship. Also, speaking on CSD, AIV and RFPP being the foundation of adminship; those may be some of the areas with the most traffic, but they're also the areas of least controversy. They're good examples of the respective administrative policies, but certainly not good examples of what adminship is about overall. LaraLove|Talk 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I take about 15-20 minutes to make certain that the editor-in-question hasn't demonstrated any tendencies that would seem to indicate they would misuse the more volatile tools like the block and delete buttons (~10 minutes or so), and to make certain they at least have a basic knowledge of Wikipedia space. Let's not forget that being an administrator isn't a big deal at all. S. Dean Jameson 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  That's an outdated and inaccurate essay. Adminship on en-wiki is a big deal, and anyone that says otherwise is in denial or doesn't have a grasp on things. There's too much potential for abuse and no easy way to deal with such abuse on this project, thus adminship is a big deal. And the fact that RFA has become so strict is evidence that I'm not alone in this opinion. LaraLove|Talk 17:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Amen Lara. If WP:DEAL were true, this talkpage wouldn't be 142k long. – ırıdescent 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • No, it's not. It's a section of official WP policy, and has been iterated by Jimbo himself. The fact that RfA has become so strict is a symptom, not a solution, in my opinion. S. Dean Jameson 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Jimbo said that in 2003, when we had perhaps 10,000 users; we now have 47,654,919. I don't want to be rude, but as I've said on your talkpage, please read that essay before you cite it, as there's a lengthy explanation as to why that quote's no longer relevant other than in the technical sense of admins having no specific privilege when it comes to editing. – ırıdescent 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Very good point. Here's a quote from Jimbo from this month, so even he agrees. LaraLove|Talk 17:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  The diff you post doesn't indicate support from Jimmy for adminship becoming a big deal. I don't want to argue about this, though, as we seem to simply have irreconcilable differences as to what makes a good potential administrator, and what standards editors requesting (or being nominated for) the extra tools should be held. I do appreciate your and Irridescent's taking the time to discuss it with me, though. We all learn from each other, I think, which is one of the points of this project. S. Dean Jameson 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

S. Dean Jameson, we don't care too much about whether the candidate can push the buttons. Anyone can do that. What we do care about is whether the candidate knows when to do so, knows the consequences of doing so, and is able to deal with said consequences. It's not the button-pushing part that's stressful. It's dealing with the fanatical editor squawking at your face at every turn because you deleted his pet article that's stressful. It's dealing with the mob mentality of a horde of editors clamoring for your blood because you blocked one of their friends thats stressful. And these things don't start and end instantaneously. They drag on for hours, days, weeks, even months and years. So if editors can't handle a mere trifle of RfA compared to the stress of adminship, something that has a real impact on the encyclopedia and the outside world (i.e. the news media), then they shouldn't be admins. —Kurykh 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• RfAs are open for 7 days to make sure that all editors have a chance to chime in. We all have different schedules, and the one week window gives those with busy offline lives a chance to be involved. I am just realizing that this is what 2Pac meant with his mysterious 7 Day Theory. That mystery's been bugging me for years. Kingturtle (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposals

• Sort-of-proposal for WP:100 RfAs. If it was my choice (which it isn't) I'd prefer it that WP:100 RfAs should be closed automatically when they hit 100, unless their opposition fields more than 5% of the discussion (i.e 100 supports, 5 opposes). If there is 5% it should carry on until the 7 days period is over. If it does hit 100 and their is little to no opposition I see no reason why it should be carried on, considering that most supports after 100 are pile-on's. Rudget (logs) 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I could definitely support a proposal like this, even with only a 10% oppose standard. There seems to be no possibility that an RfA that hits WP:100 with 10% or less opposition will fail. S. Dean Jameson 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I could see this, with some sort of proviso that it be kept open a minimum period of time to prevent obvious vote stacking getting a dubiously qualified candidate pushed through before the possibly substantial opposition appears. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  That would be a part of the 'proposal'. Rudget (logs) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, with the same rationale in which we shouldn't reduce the days (in the above section). Some RfA's receive a lot of attention, and could get 100 !votes in less than a full day. It would reduce the RfA from 7 days, to 1. Either way, leave this up to the crats. — _Maggot^Syn 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, but if a candidate is so well-known by the community to reach 100 in that space of time, they would also have received more than than 5 opposes too. Rudget (logs) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Got a diff? Often enough, evidence is presented after a long and careful examination. One day is not enough time. — _Maggot^Syn 16:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I haven't. Just a note that I'd oppose a shortening of the timeframe also. Rudget (logs) 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I also disagree. It's not that unusual for an RFA to be sailing towards a pass/fail, and then someone comes along with some new bit of information they've uncovered which makes a bunch of people change their minds. I've sure one of the contributors in the thread above can think of a couple of obvious examples. – ırıdescent 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To bring up that "obvious example", at this point, an RFA was at 100/8/2, which is in that 5-10% range mentioned above. But this RFA didn't end successfully because of more things being brought to light. I oppose cutting RFA times down just because some arbitrary threshold was met. Useight (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That RfA is Exhibit A for the need for reform of the process. That an outstanding content contributor like that gets shouted down by some (not all) VERY weak opposes is exactly why the process needs reform. Amazing. S. Dean Jameson 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's responses like yours that are exhibit A to me that there is a need for reform in the process. Beam 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you really just now learning this? How long do we need to put this editor in the spotlight as a (bad) example for RFA reform? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Keep - there's a reason I didn't link or name it. If you want one going the other way, this looked like it was headed for a surefire WP:SNOW fail and ended up passing at 128-10. – ırıdescent 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And there's a reason why I linked it. There's no need to beat around the bush. Everyone should've been familiar with it, but apparently wasn't when they brought up the idea of the "100 supports without significant opposition = automatic successful". Am I cold-hearted and unfeeling for bringing up this direct evidence rather than merely alluding to it? Some might think so. But I'm just using transparency rather than "there was this one RFA". And I'm not using the editor as an example, rather the RFA itself. Useight (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm certainly glad that user passed. Risker certainly seems like the kind of content-oriented admin that we need more of, and one who has a good head on her shoulders to boot, given her responses to the opposes that were lodged. S. Dean Jameson 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 2) It's not all about content. Adminship involves a lot more than you seem to realize. I agree that it is an example of why RFA needs reform—which is why a study is being conducted on RFA right now with possible reform as the goal—and that RFA was weighed down by quite a few shamefully weak opposes, but there were certainly legitimate concerns raised. Adminship is about trust. Trust that one won't abuse the tools or reveal sensitive information. It's not just about one's contributions alone. LaraLove|Talk 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's "all about content", as I indicated in my "neutral" on the quickly withdrawn "Cubs Fan" RfA. He's a good editor, but had very few wikispace contribs. I think that mainspace contributions should weigh as much as wikispace contributions, though. BTW, where can I find the study you mentioned? I think I dismissed it awhile back from the notices at the top of my watchlist. S. Dean Jameson 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RREV. LaraLove|Talk 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Lara. I've watchlisted it, and may comment soon. S. Dean Jameson 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, although, S Dean, you do realize you're about a week or two behind? Many (I think close to 200) editors have already given their opinions at WP:RREV/Q. Never too late though, I suppose. Keep reading, and know that your opinion is equally as valuable as anyone else's. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keeper. If I don't get to it in time, I guess I'll just continue to check in at this page from time to time, and offer my humble opinion. S. Dean Jameson 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the in-laws at the moment after spending a fair amount of time out of town on business, or I'd have chimed in on this one sooner. Yes, there's a lot of thought about the whole RfA process, from selecting and recommending candidates to contemplate an RfA, all the way through to post-adminship mechanisms. We've had roughly 200 responses through to about 15 questions, which is a phenomenal response rate. Currently, I'm going through those responses and putting a report together on all these responses. It's hoped that this report will be deep and comprehensive enough to be a starting point for any potential reform proposals, if it is felt that they are required. Hope this helps. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I'll wait until you have compiled and sorted the responses, then I may chime in with some thoughts. Thanks for doing this. S. Dean Jameson 18:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Any statisticians around to provide graphs on the number of support/oppose over time (in particular, for controversial RfAs) should prove very useful to why the time for RfAs to run should not be shortened. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• The information you are asking about is basically embedded in this figure I made last year showing how the probability of RFA success evolved as a function of support precentage and time. At the time I made this, if someone had 95+% support after 2 days they had over a 95% chance of passing at the end of 7 days. Of course on the flip side of the coin, there is one example where the person had ~98% support out to 5.5 days and still managed to fail by the seventh day. Dragons flight (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really feel comfortable because what if those 5 Opposes are really good reasoned opposes and the supports are bullshit "I Helped you get that article into Featured" or "We're friends" or "IRC buddy" votes that don't represent the consensus of the community. Beam 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, this doesn't happen often (but what do I know, I've only been active at RfA since May), but is a legitimate concern nonetheless. All things considered, I don't think this is a good idea, we should just let the RfA run for the full duration, regardless of support-to-oppose ratio. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I really hope you don't expect 100 separate people all to make terrible supports, Beamathan. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It could happen due to ignorance. Beam 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, because "I Helped you get that article into Featured" or "We're friends" is a complete bullshit point of view. Naerii 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that's what it was. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Taking up the mop. Apologies if this has been mentioned here or elsewhere before. Please note, the authors of that paper might be wrong, so don't immediately jump one way or the other. Maybe just try to extract something useful and add it to the current debates? Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure - their take seems to be overly formulaic toward administrator candidates. Granted, someone would have to be either blind or patently ignorant to try and claim that there are not some truths to the statement that metrics like edit counts and summaries have a clear influence, much to the chagrin of some editors (including myself, who prefer to see a greater emphasis placed on the quality of contributions rather than quantity). But the truth of the matter is that it's far easier to simply look at an edit count as a judge of an editor's relative activity level. As far as the notion of a bot to identify potential RfA candidates - I am somewhat skeptical. Again, a bot is only able to identify raw statistics which are a largely useless measure in determining a candidate's suitability to the task. While I could see some measure of utility in providing a list of "potentials" that interested nominators could comb through for ideas, I doubt it would be any more efficient than the current scenario. For what its worth, I did find it interesting that an increased participation in deletion discussions had an apparently negative effect on success rate. That seems counterintuitive and I cannot explain it. Shereth 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In my experience of RfAs, some users pay quite close attention to a user's arguments on AfD, and readily oppose on the basis of a couple of AfD argument diffs that they disagree with. I could certainly say that, beyond a certain minimum number of AfD edits required to demonstrate you know what you're doing there, further AfD !votes are more likely to attract opposition from people that disagree with you, rather than additional support. I'm not really saying this method of opposing is good or bad, but I can see a reason why that pattern might be there. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The last thing we need is a cookie cutter to find admins - because the next step after that is a flock of cookie cutter admins. We need a diverse field of admins, some who have prowess in article writing, others who have prowess in policy, some who have prowess in mediation.

Also by creating this cookie cutter, the changing nature of community opinion will be tamed. What the community looks for now will be different than what the community looks for in 2009 - but the cookie cutter admin hunter won't change, and we'll get the same old same old all the time. Let the river flow.

No offense to the authors, but what's with this idea that "people are more likely to contribute to a collective good when they know that they are uniquely qualified for the task, or that the likelihood of success is good." Is that backed up with scientific studies? I certainly didn't come here and stay here because I feel I am uniquely qualified. My motives are about helping out and about my own compulsive behaviors and my love of history and knowledge.

No offense again, but this cookie cutter idea reminds me of the old Soviet Union. Test them young and put them on their single path. Check with central planning. Kingturtle (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't all that rather to miss the point? The study was retrospective, looking at those factors which appeared to influence which way people voted. So perhaps the Soviet process you describe is already happening, just less systematically than would be efficient? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fireaxe888's RfA has been deleted by Deskana since it has "no chance of succeeding at this time." I thought all RfAs were supposed to get archived - even ones which get snowed on?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Davis (talk • contribs)

It's hardly imperative that we keep records of every single misguided request that passes through this page, is it? --Deskana (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One SNOW RfA going un-archived isn't a huge deal. The guy requested it be deleted, anyway.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not imperative to keep them, but it should not have been deleted. Everyone, please don't delete failed RFAs. The standard procedure is to keep them, and this is occasionally useful. Friday (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While we are at it, here is a list of all the uncategorized RFAs User:MBisanz/RFAlist2 most are malformed mistake RFAs that can be deleted, others are redirects that should go in a yet uncreated tracking category, and then of course, old uncategorized closes. Feel free to help. MBisanz ^talk 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The list does contain roughly half of all current admins, so do exercise caution in deleting names you don't recognize. — CharlotteWebb 23:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of them need categorization, anything that looks like its been voted on or closed should not be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good-faith nomination, acceptance and transclusion. Candidate did not answer any questions though, and I assume that was not her intent. I've messaged her twice over it, yet to get a response. She may have gone off-line. Of course, technically she doesn't have to answer questions and this can just run. Someone suggested in discussion that it be pulled until questions answered... should a crat do this? Or should it just stay as is? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was Bold and removed it for the meantime and left a note on the candidate's talk page suggesting that they answer the questions before resubmitting. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that makes the most sense... although there was already votes, and the questions are technically optional. Plus, the candidate themself transcluded it... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that - but the worst that happens now is the candidate just resubmits it without the questions and the voting recommences. I suppose it's their prerogative. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I also left a note on her talk page asking her to indicate whether she intended to leave the questions unanswered. Just in case. Useight (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No reason to remove it. The questions are optional and as was pointed out the candidate placed there themselves. Absolutely no reason not to leave it be. RxS (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

True, they are optional questions, but it is usually in the candidate's best interest to answer them, even if the answers will be minimal. I think the withdrawal helps the candidate more than it hurts them. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If they transcluded it, it can be taken as an indication of intention. As you can see by her contributions and her talk page history, she hasn't edit since you left that message. I'm not sure she understands the consequence of running an RfA without answered questions, but that's really her call to make. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I find it disturbing that somone not answering the questions is grounds for de-transcluding their RfA, like some kind of punishment. They're optional for a reason, and you're a bit out of place trying to force a non-exsistent rule upon the canidate. What happened to WP:AGF? This is so outrageuos I'm using big words--I hate using big words. They're too hard to spell and make me sound fancy. KojiDude is not pleased!--Koji†Dude ^(C) 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, and I see where you're coming from on this. I think that perhaps if a person chooses to not answer the optional questions, then the questions should be removed instead of leaving them there unanswered, to make the point more explicit? Or, something else could be done to make it obvious that it was intentional. Gary King (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• They accepted the nomination, transcluded it 12 minutes later, and then added an RFA notice to their userpage. I take that as evidence of a deliberate not answering of the questions and the RFA should be left up. –xenocidic (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The candidate says otherwise and was going to withdraw the RFA. Gary King (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And it's up to candidate to fix her mistakes, not our job to try and read her mind as to what she might or might not do in the future. RxS (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Gary King (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it may or may not be in their best interests to answer them right away, but we're not RFA gatekeepers and it's not up to us to make those calls for other editors. Please put it back until the candidate expresses an opinion. RxS (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a horse of a different colour! –xenocidic (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would now reccommend her waiting a few weeks at this point. Not sure how/why she would put up the RfA notice, hadnt noticed that piece of info Xeno, good catch. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about reading people's minds or a punitive measure. A candidate who does not answer the questions is likely to receive a pile on of negativity. As such, it was done for the benefit of the applicant. Everything on Wikipedia can be undone in a blink of an eye. It's not like the RfA was deleted. Malformed RfAs are removed all the time, and they are made in good faith as well. I saw nothing wrong with leaving a note on the user's talk page, which they then took the time to explicate their error. The RfA gets retranscluded and all is well. People need to really stop getting so riled up over non-issues. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have retranscluded per discussion here, questions are answered, and candidate gave the ok. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the ending time be updated to reflect the new transclusion time? –xenocidic (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here. D.M.N. (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had to oppose, D.M.N, I hope you understood the reasons I gave. Best wishes, Lradrama 11:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately my RFA seemed to be based on the actions of myself from over a year ago, with no real consideration of what has occured from July 2007 to July 2008. It clearly says: If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/D.M.N. before commenting. - it appears some jump to conclusions before thoroughly reviewing all the contributions I have made good or bad. D.M.N. (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that people didn't review all your contributions? You can't go around making assumptions like that. Drama like this is just proving everyone right who said you weren't mature enough. Yes, you've made some good edits but the community don't want you to be an administrator at the moment. The best thing to do would be to accept the community's decision with good grace and move on. Readro (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to live with the community consensus. If you're still interested in being an admin then keep working hard and try again. I'd suggest waiting 8 to 12 months. Give some time for the old feelings todissipate and for yourself to do well to Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question, what would have happened if 18 months ago, when he created the DMN account, if he had simply walked away from his old one and made no reference to it ever? People probably would have never realized who is was and he would have had a clean slate. While I haven't reviewed his edits, I have to ask would your advice still be to wait 8-12 months based upon his recent contributions or is based upon his past actions from 18 months ago?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat this up too much, but many of the oppose/neutral were based on much more recent activity, my own neutral included. I agree that 1.5 yr old diffs are problematic as reasons for opposition, but there were sufficient reasons (mainly some troubling posts to ANI from DMN) from within the last month to keep me from supporting, as well as others. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I'll say that for the editor, clearly it would be optimal for them to vanish and then start anew, if they have a major goal of passing an RfA, not if they have a goal of becoming a better editor and doing what they can to help the project. You are right in that he could do that, doesn't mean he should. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, if I did that, it would take one comment along the lines of "I think your Davnel03" and then I'd be blocked indef straight away. D.M.N. (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, take a look at Wikipedia:Sock#Clean_start_under_a_new_name. You can retire one account and get a fresh start with a clean slate. Useight (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Useight, that link says you should link your old account(s) to the new one. What purpose would that serve then? I think DMN has done the more honorable thing in being completely open about his past, his errors, his past account, and I am astonished that others are telling him (even in good faith), to "disappear and deceive the community later if you really want adminship". He put his transgressions in his opening statement of his RfA, and got blasted for them. Saying "Disappear" to a good editor doesn't sound like baloney to anyone else? DMN, keep on keepin on. You're a good editor, a valued member of the community, you just had a shitty RFA experience, and are among many many many great editors that have more than one unsuccessful RfA in their trackrecord. I hope you don't disappear, I hope you continue with your valuable contributions, as DMN. It is obvious that you've made errors, so what, who the hell hasn't. (let 'em cast the first stone). You should not have been opposed so vehemently for errors from over a year ago. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I am not saying he should disappear, but that the message that is being sent to somebody less honorable. It will take 2.5 years to clean your record if you do it above board, but 6 months if you lie about it. That is what has me concerned. Do we want to send that message?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, I'm not seeing in that section I linked where it says to link the old accounts to the new one. Also, I am not suggesting a course of action, I just provide information. Useight (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right Useight (You usually are:-), I went back and reread it. I misinterpretted When an account is discontinued, it is recommended that the old account be noted on its user page as being inactive as "noting it on your new page", not the old one. I didn't mean to imply that I thought you specifically (or Balloonman for that matter) were suggesting that DMN do this, it was more a general reaction to the idea of doing this. I'm sure its happened before, and will likely never be known to what extent, etc, but I don't think its the right move for DMN tis all. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 14:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it as a course of action... but I wanted to point out to people the potential disparity in being honest. You are being punished for actions taken 18 months ago, because you chose to keep your identity. Another might not be... as for being blocked right away. Dorftrottel (now Everyme) was once blocked and created a new identity in secret. It wasn't until he "proved" himself that he came forth with his full history. Now, if you did it, and an RfA passed without your history being known, then I would be at the front of the line with Arbcom saying "Desysop." But, I want people to think about what they are expecting.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Should this be closed, transcluded, or what? It's been "running" for a few weeks now, and the candidate has a link on their userpage advertising that they are currently running for adminship. I questioned Vinu about it earlier today on his talk, yet to get a response.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm...most certainly closed, or maybe even given the G2 treatment. It was scheduled to end two weeks ago. –xenocidic (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't believe it was ever transcluded. Only reason I even caught it is because I noticed the user adding an odd questions to a bunch of recent RfAs himself. Probably should just be closed as nothing occuring (not a failure) and a note should be left to Vinu about how to properly submit an RfA. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how we would do that. {{discussion top}} and bottom maybe? I think G2 is the best route here, if another admin agrees with me, make it so. –xenocidic (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a huge problem with that, unless the user really intended to run an actual RfA and was simply unfamiliar with how it works. If it was his intent, the votes could be removed and it could be officially transcluded... although I would definitely recommend against his running at this time or in the near future. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that would be another way to handle it but it would likely end in a WP:NOTNOW. –xenocidic (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Until it is actually transcluded, my opinion is to leave it be many people have RfA's sitting around that aren't transcluded and until it is, it isn't officially an RfA.... If he ever does actually transclude, then those premature votes could be delted. Now the note about his being at RfA, that's a different story.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the whole RFA message on his userpage is what tipped the scales for me. –xenocidic (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Vinu of this specific discussion, and asked him to comment here as soon as he comes online. Knowledge of his intent will probably be the easiest way to handle this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Should all the oppose !votes be removed, and the editor transclude it and lets see what happens. America69 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

All the votes would need to be removed and the end time updated to the time of transclusion. –xenocidic (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Appears to of been added to the mainpage. D.M.N. (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated the closing time. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

...and closed per NOTNOW by an univolved admin. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have confirmed the closure. This particular RFA cannot be listed again now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do some oppose an RfA after the stated time of closing? This recent example shows two such opposes immediately after the 06:05 UTC closing time of this RfA. I don't remember what the policy is for this, are they discounted by the closing 'crat, or are these opposes allowed to stand even though they are technically late? -MBK₀₀₄ 06:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC) _{Yes this example comes from a co-nom of mine.}

It's my understanding that there is no policy against casting an !vote if the RfA is still open. I can understand your view here though, but I don't think it was done purposefully. What would have been your reaction had the above been supports? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I were the closing 'crat, I would strike all !votes placed after the stated closing time in this instance because of the support percentage at the time. I make no difference of support or oppose. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Until its closed, editors can still participate. — _Maggot^Syn 07:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then that tells me (if true) that the stated closing times need to be enforced better than they are. This RfA is still ongoing more than an hour after stated close. Where are the 'crats? -MBK₀₀₄ 07:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. Its not the end of the (world) pedia. This happens every now and then. They might just be busy. Nothing to get alarmed about. — _Maggot^Syn 07:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A few things: First, this is run by VOLUNTEERS not paid employees. As such, things aren't always done timely. Second, the closing time, just like AfD's and everything else on Wikipedia is more of a guideline than an absolute requirement. RfA's are often closed a few hours early or (on rarer cases) an hour or two late. There is no absolute imperative that RfA's close exactly, to the minute, seven days after they were started.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always treated the closing time as a guideline, there generally aren't that many active crats and as long as the discussion gets closed at some point within a day or so of the scheduled ending I have no problem. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 08:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• For a crat's view on this, see User talk:Xenocidic/Archive 5#It wasn't that big of a deal.... –xenocidic (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Great. I make a big deal about nothing (accordingly I've hit myself with a trout. Even my own RfA ran over (duh). I realize that we are all volunteers, but I think there might be a disparity in the locations of the 'crats primarily in North America, Europe and Australia which may have caused this (minor) problem. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

are they discounted by the closing 'crat, or are these opposes allowed to stand even though they are technically late? ← obviously only the "closing 'crat" knows the answer to this question, but I would guess that in most cases neither the 'crat nor anybody else notices the timestamps until well after the fact. — CharlotteWebb 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The state closing time "Scheduled to end" is a guideline. An RfA remains open until it has been officially closed, which never happens at the precise scheduled moment.

I imagine this could get tricky in a close RfA. If after the stated closing time a few last minute oppositions came in and tipped the balance toward failure, one could certainly make a case that the RfA should have been closed before the last oppositions trickled in.

It shouldn't be difficult to create a bot that suspends RfAs (and RfBs) at the exact minute of the stated closing time - archiving the RfA and changing "Scheduled to end" to "Ended; pending Bureaucrat decision" or something like that. Kingturtle (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If a bunch of "last minute opposition" came in that was legitimate, I'd rather see them counted even if that means failure for the candidate, than to see a candidate pass on a technicality ("Whew! I almost failed, but those opposers missed the buzzer!".) No thanks. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 14:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Having cast one of the !votes in question, I have to say that I didn't even really look at the time it was due to finish. I saw that it had not yet been closed by a bureaucrat, and had my say. I don't really see why this is an issue, surely more good-faith opinions rather than less is a "good thing" in this circumstance? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Well, I've been working on this for a while, using tango's RFA libraries (yaknow, the same ones that make that table up at the top), and while it's not perfect, thought some here might find it useful. Here's where it is. What's it do? It analyzes the RFA's the queried user has edited (periodically! Not every load...), and, tries to ascertain how the queried user !voted in that RFA. It's not always perfect, and, things that can cause it to not parse correctly, are... Renames, funky sigs, etc. I'm going to do a separate one for RFB in a while, depending on how this one's received. Enjoy! :) (Oh, and, mind the red text, please :P) SQL^{Query me!} 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly useful...I like it! Acalamari 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you have released this before I spent all that time creating my RFA participation page?! =) –xenocidic (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it was stuck in "beta" stage for a long time while I was finishing up another tool :) SQL^{Query me!}

Nice tool, was interesting to see my voting record. It failed to parse a few that I couldn't see a reason for, but they all seem to have occurred during the same period when I had a particular signature, so I'm guessing that caused it. Although that sig was rather similar to my current one, so no idea what the difference is! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

SQL is a freekin genius. Although my "funky" sig (I presume) gave mostly "could not parse". I'll presume they were supports (they usually are :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed in r858, the problem was "User:Keeper76#Origins of My Username", filtered out the nonsense, enjoy the tool! :) SQL^{Query me!} 07:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Blushes* Thanks! :) SQL^{Query me!} 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice indeed. Particularly useful, and that caveat is the best I've seen in a while! Rudget (logs) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I like it, and it got pretty close to matching my page as I linked above. –xenocidic (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the RFA libraries are User:Tangotango's, not mine. We are different people! --Tango (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or are you? Rudget (logs) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry :) SQL^{Query me!} 19:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments. Great tool, thanks! --Kbdank71 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So when will it actually work? :P Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, around the time we get SUL... Hmm... Soonish? :P SQL^{Query me!} 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. I thought everyone knew about this already. I've been using this for almost 2 weeks ^_^ — _Maggot^Syn 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Heh, I think a few of the people I showed the beta to showed it to a few people who showed it to a few people :P SQL^{Query me!} 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, phooey. I guess the apostrophe (approximation of ʻ ) in my name breaks things. --Ali'i 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I think it's messing with the RFA library (tangotango's) detection :/ SQL^{Query me!} 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the majority of yours, it was an internal thing with how I was handling users with apostrophes in their names :) SQL^{Query me!} 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As with me. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yours, too, is fixed now. SQL^{Query me!} 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question - looking at mine, the vast majority did not parse, but I've never used a different sig. Are there other bugs other than sig-related? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

More than likely, out of the 130 or so I've participated in, only a few gave me errors. — _Maggot^Syn 20:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The ones that parsed correctly had the same sig as the ones that didn't...what would another bug be? I'm immensely curious to see just how many I supported (I'm pretty sure its above 90%, but still, curious. And extremely lazy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, I remember it being really, really finnicky about s/o/n sections too, particularly somehow when strikeouts occur... SQL^{Query me!} 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of them could just be comments formatted wrong. Also, I've noticed that this tool also catches RfA's that were never transcluded and subsequently never closed. — _Maggot^Syn 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could Strong and Weak votes maybe have some kind of effect on the counter?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the times I did "strong/weak" showed up all right on there. Also don't forget that RfAs where someone updated the tally or closed the RfA are also listed as unable to parse, and elaborate signatures will probably affect it too. Acalamari 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How about: Infinitely supper strong support oh and zOMG YOURNOTANADMMINALREADY?, no srly you're not?. Not that you've done that.... — _Maggot^Syn 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This tool is magnificent - I always wondered about my stats. Unfortunately, it couldn't parse about 20 or so for unknown reasons, but still cool. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work for my name, although it says I edited 4 rfas. Beam 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, DHMO's was courtesy blanked, and, the other one, yeah, true parse error [1], sorry :( Probably because you didn't sign the initial paragraph if I had to guess. If you decide to fix it let me know (preferably on my talk), and, I'll reload that one in the DB :) SQL^{Query me!} 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I never knew I voted neutral for people that have been very successful as a Wikipedian, or that I participated in so many RFA's. bibliomaniac15 21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Of the three it couldn't parse of mine, two were recent RFA's I supported, and the other I voted after it was snowed, so it got reverted.--Bedford ^Pray 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I noticed that it has at least one duplicate for me---I originally created happyme22's RfA with a lower case h, and it it is showing on my list... thus it is capturing RfA's that are never transcluded. Also, I'm assuming that the one's where it is reporting no vote/parsing are the one's that we edited but it couldnt' find our vote?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There were 60 "Did not comment / Could not parse" for me. It'd be nice if the tool segregated successful RFAs from unsuccessful ones that would make it more interesting. Useight (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else have a 50% oppose rate? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of parsable RFA's, it seems that a certain user here has a 94% oppose rate. bibliomaniac15 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

and 80% of those the exact same comment? oh wait, the bot doesn't go in that depth... –xenocidic (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And 15% of those are probably his latest bandwagon...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I've never opposed an RFA. Wow. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Chiding is not allowed! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hee. I guess I'm just too nice :) BTW, great tool SQL. It's so much fun playing around with these things. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

91.5% support rate. Yep, pretty much agree with that. To be really nit picky about this handy tool, it would be handy if the lists of RFA's also show on the same page whether the candidate passed or not. Garion96 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, I'll take a look at doing it... That *should* be pretty easy to parse out. SQL^{Query me!} 02:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kudos on the new tool SQL! R. Baley (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What are "views"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking same question :). Pretty neat, adding to my user page for future reference. Now to look up Kurt. :)<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I was troubleshooting something, didn't mean to leave that in on the last SVN update :) I'll get those stripped out... SQL^{Query me!} 14:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a neat tool. However, "Views" should be fixed for "Did not comment / Could not parse:" – it's converting a NULL value to an integer value. Gary King (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Did not comment/could not parse" is not accurate. It is not interpreting a null value as an integer... it is interpretting the lack of an !vote here. If you "Did not comment" then there would be no footprint/record of your being on the page. You may have made a comment in the RfA, but you didn't !vote. So the last section should be titled "Did not !vote/could not parse."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what I meant was the SQL value is NULL, and since it appears that a function is used to convert the value to an integer no matter what, it appears as a "4". This is standard SQL. Gary King (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what "views" are... and it appears to be rather meaningless. It is the number of times this tool has looked at that particular RfA. I picked an RfA at random from my list. It was at 94 "views." I then went to another user, checked the same RfA on his list. It was at 95 views. I went to a third person, that same RfA was now at 96 views. I then went back to my page, and it was at 97 views.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind... could you remove views... it is a meaningless stat that doesn't say anything.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That explanation indeed appears to be correct. Nice sleuthing! Gary King (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the number of views, whilst different for the support/neutral/oppose sections all appear to be the same for the Did Not comment section. I tried it out on my coach (Balloonman), and it appears that he has viewed my page 56 times, the same number of times he has viewed Xenocidics, Giggy's, and so on. I thought it too much of a coincidence, so I tried it out on Xenocidic. A different number, but still the same number appears accross the Did not comment section. At a guess, I would say it is doing the count once, and carrying it across the board. Otherwise, a fascinating bit of software. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't show up anymore for ya, unless you tack &debug=1 onto the end of the URL (Those are really only useful to me tho as the updater uses that number along with several other factors to decide when to update an RFA...), also good catch on the parse error section, thanks :) SQL^{Query me!} 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Neat tool! Unfortunately for me (probably due to the name change) the vast majority of my comments cannot be parsed. I suppose I will just have to keep doing this manually. Shereth 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I ran into similar, after I was renamed... I cheated, and went back and updated the links in my sig in a few places tho, then forced an update of those RFA's :P SQL^{Query me!} 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A neat tool indeed. I rarely vote on RFAs as my analysis shows, but some of the results were interesting. It found a vote for, and could also not parse, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbmurray, which I think is because I voted then updated the tally on my next edit. Some of the others are due to me changing username, some of the unparsable RFAs are me updating the tally, and some of them reflect a bit of work I did closing out old RFA's. [ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sample Vote on sub-page for User:Jimbo Wales was just a placeholder redirect I created to stop Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sample Vote on sub-page for User:Jimbo Wales from being speedily deleted as an orphaned talk page, and is a weird corner case. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Promotion guidelines isn't an RFA at all, and it also tries to parse Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards [the same way as well. Why does it give division by 0 errors at the end of my analysis? Maybe the tool should give the edit summary and/or diff for edits it had trouble parsing, so it's easier for people to figure out what it's doing. Graham87 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And it had an awful lot of trouble parsing Blankfaze's RFA votes, probably because he rarely said "support" or "oppose" in his votes. Perhaps it should check for a bold heading of "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral", followed by an ordered HTML list. That is usually a good indication of someone's vote. Graham87 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed blankfaze's, the issue was that it thought his username started with a lower case b (in the RFA lib), now nearly all of those parse. SQL^{Query me!} 05:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the division by zero bug in r837, blacklisted the non-rfa's you mentioned in r836 :) However, vote detection is based on tangotango's libraries, which actually don't care about individual edits, it looks over the RFA in whatever state it's in at the time it updates it, and, tries to parse out sigs. SQL^{Query me!} 05:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the section that a comment is placed is a better indication of the vote than a term found in a comment. Just check for first-level numbered points for votes. Gary King (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice tool, SQL. Before, it would not parse one RfA I supported Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanner-Christopher 2, and now it does. However, it lists as not parsed one RfA that I opposed and then reverted as it had closed while composing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/InDeBiz1 and one RfA I made a comment in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kumioko. So the total number of RfAs should be six, right?. 5 Support, 1 comment. Or is 7 correct? Should "Comment" have been bolded? Also, could the code theoretically be adapted to analyze AfDs, or is that too different? — Becksguy (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Nice tool. I might make a request though. I note the several of the "could not parse" were RfAs where I left questions in the "questions" section, but didn't get back to them in time to "vote".

Would it be possible to add a section which lists the RfAs which someone "officially" asked a question (that is by posting a section in the "questions" section of the RfA)? If so that would be great : ) - jc37 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually pretty hard to figure out :) If you have a patch to do it, I'll take a look at adding it however :) SQL^{Query me!} 02:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not certain how you currently parse out support/oppose/etc. But if it's by section, I thought that this "by section" might be possible. Even if not, looking for "...by Example" or "...from Example" should do it? - jc37 03:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The tool is not treating underscores and spaces as equivalent, even though they are in WP. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The tool would definitely be more useful if it cached requests. Gary King (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It actually does... It stores each RFA in a mysql database (table rfap on db u_sql on server sql-s3 at the toolserver), and, periodically (every 500 views for the most part, it takes into account if the RFA is < 10 days old, and, updates more frequently in that instance). It's somewhat slow since it grabs each user's edits to a subset of pages starting in "Requests_for_adminship/", on each load, and, pulls (and unserializes) the data from the db on each load. I've got about 3200 RFA's in the DB so far (not counting the ones I've deleted to "reset" as I fixed a few things and played with unparseables), so, it runs a little slow sometimes :/ SQL^{Query me!} 05:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed slow, even when I load RFA for one user then reload it. Gary King (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I suggest that votes from a user in their own RFAs not be counted ;) Gary King (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• My "could not parse" count is rising steadily, and my !vote count is staying the same. My sig isn't too complicated, so what could be causing that to happen? S. Dean Jameson 05:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking into that now, please stand by :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed the bug you described, in r840 (it was listing every RFA as a 'could not parse' regardless of wether or not it actually had parsed) SQL^{Query me!} 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Cool, but... it's still showing ones where I made a very clear, and quite succinct comment in either support or oppose as "could not parse" for some reason. The fix you applied helped it parse only one more of the could-not-parses. S. Dean Jameson 06:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm working on that now, found a couple more bugs to hammer on, try yours again, I manually deleted several, and, I don't think you have *any more* failure to parse ones :P SQL^{Query me!} 06:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

          Excellent! Thanks for your help. I would ask what you did to make it work, but I'm not too savvy on the tech side of things, so what would be the point? :) S. Dean Jameson 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• It seems like it would be a great tool, but sadly it does not parse any of mine :(. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also fixed! :) Some of yours had spaces, most had underscores in the username.... Checking for that now :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yay!! It did only parse half of mine though... ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, I had a </br> in my sig, so that could hvae done some of it. Also, I realized that it counts times that I updated the tally but never voiced a comment. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Now my oppose on Shalom's RfA is showing up as "could not parse." Not sure what I'm doing wrong that's causing all these problems I'm having with this cool tool. S. Dean Jameson 00:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No, they all look just fine to me. SQL^{Query me!} 12:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the snow closure of this RfA... it looks like it is going to fail, but I do believe that candidates have the right to keep honest RfA's that have a modicum of support open. Snow should only be used when there are virtually no supports... yet 1/3 of the votes are supports.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's what happened, as far as I can see. Closed by Jechochman, citing WP:SNOW: [2]. Undone by me with Balloonman's reasoning: [3]. My edit reverted as vandalism: [4]. —Giggy 05:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... seems it's since been re-opened. Again. —Giggy 05:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though it may look like it will fail, sometimes candidates want to keep RFAs open to garner more comments on things that they could work on for a future RFA. Gary King (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he admitted that objections means that it's not a snow case. Although, not sure why it was labeled vandalism. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was labeled as vandalism. I hit the rollback link, which is just beneath undo, the wrong button but the same result. If I thought there was vandalism or improper editing, I'd warn the user, which obviously was not the case here upon quick review. Upon re-reading WP:SNOW, I noted that any action that gets objected to should be undone, so I undid the close. The moral of the story is that snow actions are based on unanimity, so any good faith objection means the action needs to be undone. Shalom Yechiel has stated, subsequently, that he wishes the RFA to remain open until he can answer questions, and then he will withdraw when he's ready. That's fine with me. Sorry for any inconvenience here. Jehochman ^Talk 06:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The RFA was finally withdrawn by the candidate -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 07:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to make a note here. While 1/3 of the votes were supports, a few of them were "moral supports", and mathmatically speaking, this was just as likely to pass as just about all the rest of our snow closes. That being said, there was a certain value to this RfA remaining open a while longer. Considering WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW are IAR type closings, I hope that any individual understands why they are closing RfAs early, because it should not be purely because it won't pass. Early closings are done to benefit the candidate/community, i.e. opposition is numbered and concrete with very little being added to the dicussion, or there seems to be virtually no disagreement from the community as to why a candidate won't pass. These situations are where the RfA has very little upside in terms of further commentary, and downside in that it wastes the community's time and things may get nasty. Candidates like Shalom don't come along often, and while there was a strong opposition that was clearly going to restrict him from passing, there was still varied opposition and support coming along and a general discussion of how the community reacts to a "reformed" candidate. A close in this case, this early, before candidate withdrawal, I believe limited a certain level of healthy discussion and an IAR-type close was far from warranted.

I'm making this note here because we still have to realize that basically anyone can come in and SNOW close an RfA that simply won't be passing. Everyone needs to think of how such a close will benefit the community--and indeed in many cases they do--before closing it. If there is a modicum of chance that discussion will be limited, or an early close will hurt the community, than it should always be avoided. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said Gwynand, I hope all regulars here take the above to heart (me included). —Giggy 08:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Err ... WP:SNOW says nothing about unanimity. It says "this hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of success." Only three RfAs in the last 18 months have passed with less than 75%. It's not even that a candidacy with only 1/3 Support votes has a chance in hell of success; the odds of a candidacy with as many as 1/3 Oppose votes is in dire trouble.  RGTraynor  12:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about questions that are labelled as "Optional". If a question is marked as optional, the candidate has a right not to answer it. So if a candidate exercises such an option, I think it would be unfair for reviewers to oppose him/her. If an answer needs to be solicited, I would suggest that the question label be renamed as "Additional questions from...". This would help us bureaucrats make a less subjective call if such a situation arises. Thoughts on the proposal? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily oppose this, I can see the dichotomy issue.

Essentially, all questions after the first 3 are optional.

That said, editors are allowed to "vote" based on whatever criteria they prefer, which may include whether someone answered their particular questions.

So yes they're optional, but it's possible someone "may" hold the candidate accountable. - jc37 08:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I just suppose that, in answering optional questions, we can learn more about how the candidate thinks, and how he works on Wikipedia. And a choice whether or not to answer these questions shows which candidates possess effort and gumption, and those which, well, are the opposite. Lradrama 10:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your proposal changes; on what basis could or should questioners decide if an answer to their question "needs to be solicited"? It's entirely subjective. !Voters already have the ability, as I occassionally do, to make placeholder neutral or oppose !votes pending certain answers. Even if the questions are optional, it's entirely reasonable for a !voter to decide that they can't ascertain what they need to trust the candidate without a specific answer (or more than one) --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So why label it as optional? If someone needs more details on a candidate, why not ask directly, without the 'optional' tag? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

<-Do you mean on their user talk? If it's something that could elucidate the RfA, it's better there. If you mean, why do they describe it as optional, it's because the candidate is not compelled to answer it. There's a difference between:

• a couple of editors going N or O because they feel they need an answer to find out more

and

• masses of editors Opposing automatically because of not following "the rules" of RfA, which would be the implication of failing to answer compulsory elements.

I hope I'm making myself clear - I fear I'm not! --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If and when bureaucrats make RfA not a blatant vote, where no RfA which makes 75% fails (which none have in over a year) and almost no RfA which doesn't make 75% passes, then this will be a good issue to raise.  RGTraynor  12:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(ed conflict: in response to Dweller) Nope, I'm still not getting what you are trying to say. My stance is that the word "optional" should not be used. If the question is optional, and the candidate does not reply, then oppose !votes should not count. Choosing to abstain in such a scenario is a perfectly legal option. For example, if I choose not to reply to a purely optional question, that in no ways impedes my sysop aptitudes. For example, a situation may arise (and I have seen it in some RFAs 2 yrs back, where the question framed was so tricky that no matter how positive the answer was, the response was used to nail the candidate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they are "optional". There are certain things regarding RfAs that will technically inhibit one from passing. Like never transcluding it. If it was never transcluded, a crat can't promote the candidate because the RfA wasn't run per policy. Calling questions "optional" means the same thing, i.e., no crat will come in and give any weight to the fact that the questions were or weren't answered. If the consensus is there, the candidate will pass regardless. However, if I or anyone chooses not to support a candidate who has very relevant questions to their candidacy that they are choosing not to answer, I don't see how you then correlate with such votes being "thrown out" just because the candidate isn't mandated to answer them. The fact is, outside of bad-faith votes or single purpose accounts, just about all votes will be weighed equally. Opining on a candidate who chooses to ignore relevant questions that the community has posed to them is perfectly acceptable, at the same time, the questions are still technically optional. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your stance makes perfect sense, Dweller. Plainly the "optional" questions are nothing of the sort, since (a) people Oppose on the sole strength of them not being answered, and (b) those Oppose votes are always, always counted nonetheless. That's not close to being "optional;" that's mandatory.  RGTraynor  13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So, in a closely contested RFA, if the closing bureaucrats do not factor in those specific oppositions for such an event, and promotes the candidate... what happens? Would the bureaucrat be accused of being partisan? Additionally, would those who have !voted oppose consider their "inputs" as futile? This situation is a real possibility, so I am trying to gauge what the community thinks on the best way of handling such an event. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If a small, or even significant, portion of the community wants to oppose a candidate for not answering optional questions, then who is it for a bureaucrat to decide this isn't valid reasoning? Regardless, the questions should remain labeled as optional. I've seen candidates pass after choosing not to answer questions for certain reasons, and I've seen candidates fail who haven't answered questions. For example, I believe anyone could get away with not answering Filll's answer-2-of-my AGF Questions with virtually no backlash. On the other hand, if a candidate was previously blocked and then wont't answer questions about that, they will likely be opposed. The third scenario, which seems to be a very small minority, are editors who would prefer all questions be answered regardless of relevance, and will oppose if they are not. Candidates have the option to answer these questions and at the same time should understand that choosing not to answer various questions may have an effect on their candidacy. Doesn't make the questions not optional, and I've still yet to see any reasons any opposes we are discussing should be discounted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I once again want to register my support for getting rid of these stupid questions, and getting back to a simple discussion rather than a straight "support"/"oppose" vote. If a question needs to be asked within the discussion, then so be it, but these "optional" (read: mandatory) questions should fall by the wayside. Mahalo. :-) --Ali'i 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "optional" has never meant "without consequences". Just because you have an option does not mean you cannot be held accountable for which option you choose. Shereth 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions? The entire website is optional. No one can force you to type anything, anywhere you don't want to. Anyone can support or oppose you for any reason, including what you do or do not type at your RfA, and their vote is likely to count - unless the crats aren't telling us something. The word "optional" certainly doesn't add much to the RfA process, but neither does it give me conniptions whenever I see it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue of transparency, and I believe Nichalp is onto something. We all know that if you fail to answer these optional questions, it will look bad. Yet, there are some questions a candidate could be expected to answer additionally, for gauging, and yet others which would not make or break you. Optional should mean just that. It shouldn't hold as much weight as it does now in the process. Synergy 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• But optional means exactly what it should - no one has to answer them. The problem is that people are trying to equate "optional" with "inconsequential", which is not the case. If it is that much of a bother, then perhaps some consideration should be given to a statement to the effect of "Answering the optional questions is highly recommended, but suggesting that someone's opposition should be discounted/afforded less weight because it hinges on "optional" questions is ridiculous. Edit summaries are optional, but candidates get opposed for failing to use them. Participation in XfD discussions are optional, but candidates get opposed for not being involved. AIV reports are optional, but candidates get opposed for not making them. Shereth 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I still see the need to use both optional and additional. There a difference between the two, and yes some of the questions I've seen over the last few years are technically inconsequential to becoming an admin. Synergy 17:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh hay Shereth, that was the best bout of common sense I've seen on this talk page in a long while. I'd give you a barnstar if I knew how. Naerii 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Shereth 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, when it comes to asking the candidate questions, I feel that an editor should examine three areas. Firstly, do you trust the candidate? Secondly, do you think that the candidate works to further the goals of the project? Thirdly, do you think that the candidate serves the community at large through their help and support? If you have any doubt in these areas, you are well within your rights to ask (and insist on) an answer to a question that would clarify these areas for you. Anything else, in my opinion, should be considered optional, particularly templated or "cheat-sheet" style questions. It is, in my opinion, much more ideal to tailor questions to suit an individual candidate and their unique history in WP.

Having said all that, we are constantly reminded that editors are welcome to express their opinion in whatever form it takes, as long as the guidelines on civility are met. Whether or not that opinion is taken into account is the matter for the 'crats to decide, as with any other debate. The complication is that rather than an xfD, an rfA is a hybrid of both vote (we score percentages) and debate. Discounting an argument usually entailes discounting a vote, which is rarely done. I'm not sure what to reccomend in this case, although if there is consensus that certain question groups (and opposes based on their non-response) should be discounted, I would motion that it should be the 'crats who carry out that work. Sorry I can't be more forthcoming than that, but although I have my own opinions I'm mindful of others, and want to ensure that we build something we can all agree on as a solid way forward. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, and with a bit more of a logical cap on, you're effectively suggesting that editors split their questions into mandatory and optional ones. Trouble is (and I'll use my own post above as an example), what is optional to one person is mandatory to another. How do you regulate it? If you state that you can only oppose the non-answer of a question if it was mandatory, editors will make the majority of their questions mandatory. Should templated questions be forced as optional? Without clear-cut rules, it becomes very much a grey area that's open to interpretation. Will those who would normally oppose because their question remains unanswered just find a different reason to oppose in order to creep around the proposed rules? it's a tricky situation that doesn't lend itself to a framework or set of guidelines. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well. I had proposed the creation of an essay about a week ago to deal with these questions, but no one was interested. I'd still like to see something like Wikipedia:Optional questions created. Synergy 18:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've every opposed anyone because they didn't answer a question. All I know is that if I saw a question I didn't want to answer, I would explain why I wouldn't. I feel it's better than just leaving it blank and having others think that you are deliberately shunning them. bibliomaniac15 04:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)