User:Useight/RFA Subjects/When to vote

Slight modification? (Archive 32)

Could we modify the RFA process very slightly? I suggest that voting not be opened until the candidate accepts the nomination. This would have a couple of benefits:

1. If a candidate is nominated in bad faith our through poor judgement, it gives them an opportunity to bow out gracefully before getting hit with a bunch of 'oppose' votes.
2. It saves us from all the pointless "Neutral. Will support when candidate accepts nomination/answers questions." votes.
3. It means that candidates on short wiki-breaks won't end up missing their own RFAs.

I would suggest that nominations that aren't formally accepted (or declined) within a week or two(?) be removed from RFA as declined nominations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Ive been meaning to suggest something of the sort. →Journalist >>talk<< 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Martin 22:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with both proposals. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Insert "me too" comment here. android79 00:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but why not go one further and not allow nominations until the candidate has accepted the offer to be nominated on their talk page? That way we prevent the nominations-in-stasis from cluttering up RfAr, which is quite long enough as it is. --fvw* 00:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Extreme <insert least objectionable word> support, and maybe also don't start voting until questions are answered. ~~ N (t/c) 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Here's a step further in the process - don't create the candidate's RfA page until he/she accepts, don't post it on the main RfA page (or allow votes) until the questions are answered. That way, voters get a clean, complete RfA to look at in the first instance. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds good--no RfA pages at all until the candidate accepts on his talk page. --Blackcap | talk 05:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • yes, good proposal by BD2412. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I like all of the above suggestions and would support all of them. Would first support BD2412's proposal, if not then the orginal proposal is at least a step in the right direction. ∞Who?¿? 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Excellent suggestion. I agree with not posting the subpage on RfA until the questions are answered. And barring that, no nominations without consent of the nominee. I think it's poor form to nominate someone without asking him or her first. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm going to go ahead and be bold and implement the changes, since there has been no opposition and it seems general consensus is in favor of this. Just a slight change- I think the RfA subpage can be created by the nominator so that the nominator can write down his nomination; then, the candidate can accept and answer the questions on the subpage, then place it on the main RfA page. Sound good? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. FireFox 15:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too bold in removing incomplete nominations yet. Certainly, I would oppose removing nominations simply because they haven't answered the questions yet; based on the number of people who are willing to support with the questions unanswered it seems clear that they aren't all that important or urgent. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And just to make this clear, I oppose this change in general. The only change we need to make, I suppose, is to make clear that you shouldn't volunteer others for adminship without their okay. It's a bit sad that this rule actually needs to be written down, but looking over recent nominations it seems that a lot of nominators are not following it. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll see your boldness and raise you a nomination template ({{subst:RfA-nom}}):

Comment - (The above template was created and posted by BD2412) If the RfA/nominee page is not going to be listed on the RfA page until the nominee accepts and answers the questions, why is it necessary to have a 24 hour time limit? NoSeptember 16:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Quite right - time limit removed - still, I wouldn't want unanswered nomination pages hanging around too long. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why have a template? It's just impersonal, and it's not like it takes that long to write a message on someone's talk page saying, "Hey, I want to nominate you for adminship, sound good?" It looks nice and all, but I can't see the point of having it. --Blackcap | talk 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Because it sums up the relevant information quickly and succinctly, and can be changed as the policy changes. Besides, as I've indicated on the project page, it's optional. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't hurt, but you're not going to require this one, right? Titoxd 19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly wouldn't - it's just a tool to make it clear and easy. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I quite agree with Blackcap. Not everything must be templatized. — Dan | Talk 19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Really, you don't need templates for anything - for example, if you wanted to, you could send an article to AfD, with all the appropriate links, by manually typing out all of the necessary information (including the code to enclose it all in a nice peach-colored box at the top of the page). But the template contains all of the information, presumably has already been checked for correct spelling, syntax and information, and allows you to do the same job in a few keystrokes. Whether you use it is entirely up to you. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes after closing (Archive 32)

No idea what RFA is all about, but I've noticed that there is some ambiguity regarding whether bureacrats count votes after the end of a nomination or not. Should there be some consistency in this, or is it deliberately vague? --216.191.200.1 14:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In theory they should not be counted. However, the vast majority of requests are resolved one way or another by the end of the period so that it does not really matter about a few late votes. Requests are also usually closed within a couple of hours of the voting period ending, limiting the opportunity for extra votes. Lord Voldemort's request is an exception to the latter, it having offically closed almost a day ago, however, even with the extra votes, it will almost certainly be deemed as having resulted in no consensus being reached. Rje 18:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, a bureaucrat has to be online when the nom expires. Strictly speaking the votes shouldn't count, but votes during the last few hours are not very common. As far as I have seen in the past month, post expiry date voting does not influence the outcome, since the rfa position is already clear by the final day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Originally, there were no end times and there was greater emphasis on consensus than votes. I am of the opinion that, now that we have end times, we should disregard votes made after them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a mistake to disregard votes made after the deadline but before the nomination is closed; what is our motivation for invalidating a vote based on the time it was placed on the page? If the point of the adminship process is to gauge community consensus on whether someone should be promoted, it seems to me that the bureaucrat closing the discussion should take into account all the available information. The proposal you make seems to elevate the enforcement of rules for their own sake over the furtherance of what the whole process is intended to accomplish. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with extending vote times is threefold. First, the character of late votes is usually different than early votes. Late voters are more likely to oppose. I don't know why though I have some guesses. Second, it allows, at least in theory, a bureaucrat to wait until the vote totals reach an outcome desired by the bureaucrat. While I doubt that any of us would do that, there is no way for us to prove that we have not, so the possibility undermines the appearance of fairness and transparency. Third, having a fixed end time allows bureaucrats to discuss a close nomination amongst themselves without having to rehash the conversation every time a vote is added. I believe that 7 days is ample time for community input to be gathered, though we could certainly extend the time -- to 14 days or more -- if we thought that extra time would make for better decisions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, look what I did now. Well it sure seems that way. It doesn't really matter in my case, there were enough people opposing me before it ended. Although I strongly believe that if my RfA remained open ended, I would garner a lot more support, but that's beside the point. Having a time limit is a good idea (we wouldn't want these things hanging around forever, eh?), but since the rule is in place, I don't really think we should start deviating now. If it feels like to omuch instruction creep, should we start some sort of proposal to change it?

P.S. On hand, does anyone know if my RfA was the closest to passing, but did not? I could drudge through the unsuccessful candidacies, but thought it would be easier to ask first. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There have been much closer ones. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses here. I've read up more on what RFA is all about and now at least I know what people are talking about. --216.191.200.1 15:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Two-Day Discussion Period (Archive 39)

I've been mulling the whole RfA situation over, and I've got a proposal that I think will improve RfA while not drastically changing anything. Currently, over at Featured Picture Candidates, there is a two-day discussion period before voting can begin. RfA could emulate such a process. Currently, a RfA runs 7-days. On the vast majority of RfAs, there is little or no activity (i.e. votes or discussion) in the last one to two days. In addition, consensus is often reached way before then. Thus, we could introduce a two-day discussion only period, then a five-day voting period. For close cases, bureaucrats could always extend the voting. Having a two-day discussion period offers multiple advantages. First, it encourages users to carefully study the admin candidate, instead of promoting quick and rapid voting based on editcounts. In addition, it offers a candidate a chance to respond to questions and concerns before voting begins; that way, all voters could see the discussion before voting. Right now, there are many times where discussion regarding an important matter is occuring simultaneously with voting; many of the voters, thus, do not get a chance to see the discussion. Finally, the two-day discussion period would also let candidates evaluate their options — if several users indicate that they think the candidate isn't ready yet, the candidate could then withdraw, saving him/herself from a deluge or pile-up of oppose votes. There are virtually no drawbacks to having a discussion period; nothing can be lost, considering that votes can always be extended in the few cases where more time is needed. (An alternative would also to have a two-day discussion period followed by a seven day voting period.) Having this two-day discussion period will not only encourage discussion but hopefully improve the RfA process. This change is certainly not drastic and doesn't change any of the main ideas behind the current process, and can hopefully make RfA more efficient and make it on the whole a better process. Thoughts? Thanks a lot. --Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this proposal bears serious thought. But I worry that it would be too easy for voting to surreptitiously sneak in- perhaps we can say that only sourced concerns be allowed? Ie. no "I don't like this dude", but rather, "His civility worries me, see this diff:" --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• And once again, an idea for reform (maybe a great idea, maybe not)...without identifying the problem(s) RfA has and what this proposed reform will do to fix the current problem(s). I mean no castigation Flcelloguy; the idea might have merit. But, without knowing what the problem is that it is supposed to fix, how are we supposed to evaluate whether it would work or not? --Durin 02:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • But there doesn't need to be a problem — even though there is (I'll get to that in a second). Just because there are no apparent concerns does not mean we shouldn't strive to improve our processes and attempt to make them more efficient. (An analogy, for those who love analogies: a Model T got us from point A to point B. Did they stop developing and improving cars? A 1990 Honda car gets me from point A to point B. Does that mean that cars haven't improved from Henry Ford's time to 1990, and that they haven't improved from 1990 to 2005?) But we do have some concerns raised — the inefficiency of RfA, the inappropriate focus on certain matters, and the overall atmosphere and aura of RfA. I beleive that a two-day discussion period would not only improve the efficiency of RfA, but help to alleviate some of those concerns that users have brought up. In addition, there is little to be lost, as no major changes would be made to RfA process. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 03:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Improving the process is fine. I have no issue with that. But if you're going to improve something, at least you've got some idea of how something isn't as good as it could be. You raise inefficiency. Could you elaborate? I see RfAs posted, they stay up for 7 days, they come down. Where's the inefficiency? Whether there is inappopriate focus is highly...let me restate that...HIGHLY controversial. It is very unlikely that any consensus would be found on what is and is not appropriate to raise in an RfA. As for atmosphere and aura...as noted, a civility issue is an individual issue. People can and should be reminding users through their talk pages that they should remain civil. --Durin 14:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would support a 2 days of Discussion and then 7 days of voting. I don't like shorter voting periods because that makes campagigning much easier and more effective. Klonimus 01:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • (response to Durin): Yes, but I repeat: there doesn't need to be a problem for reform. Returning back to the transportation analogy, do you think that airplanes currently have a major problem? No; they're safe and effective (well, before gas prices went sky-high...). Does that mean that humans aren't trying to find new means of locomotion? No — after all, who could have imagined that humans could have flown back in the 17th or 16th centuries? Anyways, that's besides the point: the point is whether or not you believe that this change would help or hurt RfA and Wikipedia. I beleive that this proposal is extremely low-risk and has a great probability of helping Wikipedia; unlike other proposals, there are no major changes to RfA. In addition, there are many potential benefits. Thoughts? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor RfA (Archive 44)

An RfA on Ed Poor, who was desysoped by arbitrators just a week ago, has been going on for three days. Despite the comments from a number of users that the RfA shouldn't allow voting unless it is linked to from the main RfA, voting is occuring. Myself and another user now feel that this RfA should be stopped. Any comments from more experienced RfA hands?--Alabamaboy 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, put a note at the top indicating it's an inactive RFA, and if people persist in voting then protect it until people come to their senses. Raul654 21:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a note to that effect on the page. [[Sam Korn]] 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Email communication I had with Ed indicated to me that he was not planning on returning anyime soon. The RFA can probably be speedied.--MONGO 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination thoughts (Archive 49)

So, here's what I propose, and perhaps needs to be better worded on the various Front Matters in the general area. When I prepare a nomination, I prepare it in a subpage of my user space, and ask the nominee to accept the nomination there and answer the questions there. I usually let a few days pass between my agreement with the nominee to make the nomination and actually making the nomination, so that I can think about what I want to say in my nomination introduction and to allow the candidate time to compose their answers to the standard questions. I keep it very low key, I don't discuss or advertise the nomination with anyone else other than the nominee. Then, once the nomination is in order, I perform a Move function from my User space to the appropriate RfA subpage, adjust the ending date to be correct from that moment forward, then I next link in the subpage from RfA. No one is allowed to vote on the page before it's linked from RfA, not is it announced in any way prior to linking from RfA. Those are the procedures I follow, and those are the procedures I would reccomend for all nominations. I believe this will prevent any controversy of the nature surrounding CSCWEM's recent nomination. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a rule that we can remove an RfA from WP:RFA if it has not been accepted by the nominee. Why not just have the same rule for voting, that is, no votes allowed (except perhaps the nominator's vote) until the RFA is accepted and transcluded to WP:RFA. Then we can just revert anyone who votes early. NoSeptember ^talk 20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with NoSeptember here: no need to introduce too much instruction creep into the thing. Though I would make it the latter: no votes allowed until the nomination has been transcluded. Equally I think bureaucrats should reserve the rights to withdraw an RfA like the one we have just seen, or exclude the votes that were made before the community at large got a chance to see it. -- Francs2000 20:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In a way that RfA was the opposite of the DFA proposal: vote before discussion as opposed to discuss before voting ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 20:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NoSeptember here. The best way to resolve this is to disallow voting until the nomination has been accepted. It's very simple and it isn't prone to instruction creep. --Cyde Weys 21:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've got to be the dissenting voice here then, about reverting votes. I'd agree with the thought, in principle, but reverting votes may come across wrongly. Perhaps temporarily closing an unaccepted nomination from the time of nomination to the time of posting on WP:RFA (using a new template, the current template doesn't make it blindingly obvious an RFA is closed) might work? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:08 UTC (2006-03-27)

It's not really reverting votes if they're not valid votes in the first place. Just say, "Voting doesn't begin until the nomination is accepted." Anyone foolish enough to attempt to vote anyway gets what they deserve. --Cyde Weys 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We can be nice about it by leaving a friendly note on their talk page inviting them to vote again once the RfA gets properly started. Regular voters will learn the new rule very quickly. NoSeptember ^talk 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that some users were irritated about early voting, but what exactly is the reasoning behind a rule like this? That early voting unfairly influences voters? — TheKMan^talk 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that if someone had a negative experience with the user, all those early voters would never read about it before voting, because only supporters are likely to know about an RfA that hasn't been rolled out publicly yet. The same ideas that were behind the WP:DFA proposal. NoSeptember ^talk 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my mind, I think the idea is that as much as possible we want to give each candidate the same level of consideration. Every Administrator has to go through RfA, and as much as we can we want consistency between RfA's. Allowing votes to occur before the page is transcluded to RfA allows a certain inconsistency to creep in, as there is no set way of defining who is aware of the RfA and how people come to know about an unpublished RfA. Posting an RfA page to RfA is the official way of announcing an RfA, and the idea is that no RfA gets undue consideration before getting posted here....each and every RfA should be posted to RfA in the same state....nomination accepted, questions answered, and no prior votes made before the page is posted to RfA. That way each candidate is given the same announcement, their RfA is published in the same way, and theoretically is more fair. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense Ëvilphoenix, you've convinced me. Regarding your comments NoSeptember, couldn't someone make the same argument for votes made on the first day of RfAs? — TheKMan^talk 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they could make the same argument, but enemies have this habit of getting their votes and comments in early (after only about 10 support votes) so they don't miss many. NoSeptember ^talk 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable lag, votes after close, and related discussion (Archive 50)

The recent resignation of Cecropia and Francs2000 as bureacrats has changed the landscape at RFA. I have some observations and suggestions to make on this.

First of all, I will be checking RFA once or twice daily, and I expect that several other bureaucrats will be doing so as well. I have no doubt that people will be promoted as appropriate.

I would like to point out that some lag may be acceptable, however. I recall that my own promotion to admin did not occur until a day or two after the end of the 7-day discussion and voting period. With increased activity at RFA, I doubt that such delays will again become commonplace; the point is that a lag of some hours need not be seen as a problem.

In this light, I would like to discuss the related matters of votes after the end time of a nomination. I believe that the 7-day comment period is sufficient and that votes made after the end time should be disregarded for three reasons:

• for the sake of consistency of process
• so that bureaucrats may discuss the nomination amongst themselves without facing a constantly shifting vote tally
• to avoid the possible appearance that a bureaucrat is waiting for the vote to tip a certain way prior to closing the nomination

If there is a feeling that late votes carry valuable insight, I believe the better apprach would be to extend the 7 day comment period to 10 days rather than to permit late votes until a nomination is acted upon by a bureaucrat. Since most votes are cast in the first two days that a nomination is active, I don't believe that extending the period to 10 days is really necessary and only propose it as an alterative to counting late votes.

Finally I would like to encourage discussion amongst bureaucrats on close votes as a matter of course. Such discussion could head off possible errors in vote counting and would serve to limit the criticism of any one bureaucrat closing a particularly divisive nomination. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion in respect of bureaucrats discussing close votes. It's important to ask why the oppose votes are there. Often the oppose voters won't be shy about why they're voting that way. If the benchmark is 'consensus', then reasoning is important. - Richardcavell 12:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think discarding votes after the seven day period makes sense (especially if it'll give b'crats time to discuss a close nomination amongst themselves privately). I don't like the idea of extending debates though. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the period should be extended. Often late voters have the most information at their disposal, as opposed to those supporting/opposing before they know more about the situation. (Un)fortunately, most of these late votes tend to be opposes. DfA could help rectify this somewhat, but since people don't like it (despite the fact that it collates all pertinent information together before a single vote is cast), the next best thing we can do is extend the voting period. I personally vote late (if at all) on RfAs to maximise the information available to me. Johnleemk | Talk 12:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of disregarding legitimate, good faith comments on a technicality. (Isn't that how Freestylefrappe was promoted?) If the consensus (or lack thereof) is so borderline that a handful of votes can affect the outcome, this is precisely the type of situation in which maximum community input should be sought. Yes, extend the duration to ten days, and use those three extra days to discuss the comments that have been made thus far (rather than worrying about the "vote tally"). —David Levy 12:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of UninvitedCompany's points. 7 days is long enough for a consensus to form, the closing date and time is clearly stated at the top of each sub-page, and if a user places a vote outside this period it should be discounted, regardless of where it is placed. If there was something insightful to add, then it should have been done within the allotted period. Some delay in promotion (or otherwise) is inevitable. Whether it's half an hour or two days is immaterial. I disagree that there should be any extension of the 'voting' period, otherwise this could potentially continue ad-infinitum. Discussion of close nominations is to be welcomed and encouraged I would say. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The question should remain open until it is decided upon. If someone comes along and comments on the open question, there is little reason to discard their (presumably) considered opinion and effort in participation. A delay of a few hours does not seem to have caused problems in the past. As with AfD, the 7-day-rule is an alive-line rather than a dead-line and is simply the earliest moment at which the issue may be settled by a bureaucrat. Discussion among 'crats is fine, although I've only seen one or two cases in my (limited) time here where that has been genuinely necessary: generally, Cecropia's opinion of "if you don't know, don't act, and if you do know, act decisively" (not a quote) is a good one. If no 'crat is sure of promotion, then probably there should be no promotion. That said, spreading the blame is a good thing. Perhaps in such cases, the debate should be protected until a decision is reached. Or perhaps any bureaucrat should be able to explicitly refer the matter to the ocracy at large and in doing so freeze it by convention until they reach a collective decision. -Splash^talk 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Second opinions are usually a good idea. If an experienced 'crat is not sure, it is a good idea to back up the decision with one or more bonus opinions. --FloNight ^talk 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to discard votes which came after the voting period is over. I agree with Spash that one should not be so rigid about it, and that if desired to enforce the "exactly severn days limit" one should either protect the debate or put on top an explicit note sayng that it has been closed. Either that, or just accept the late votes, rather than for a bureaucrat coming later and simply crossing out those after the voting period is "officially" closed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think seven days is a particularly short time. And if we are to be rigid and unyielding about the 75% mark, I think subsequently being bendy and yielding about the deadline is a mixed message. We have to either allow bureaucrats apply their own good judgement and discression to both, or to neither. Proto||type 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We are bendy around 80% in the downward direction, not around 75%. People seem to slip-sliding away from the fact that the gold-standard of adminship promotion is 80%+. -Splash^talk 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This runs the risk of becoming an open ended process in the case of lags in closing. The question then becomes: how long is an acceptable lag? 1 hour, 2 hours, 12 hours, 1 day, 2 days, 5 days .... ? I think the analogy to AfD debates is less appropriate than an analogy to ArbCom elections. In the latter case, closing times are important and are enforced. I think the same should be true for RfA. At the risk of being labelled a "process wonk", the header on each sub page does state: vote here (///) ending 0.00, April X, 2006 (UTC). Everybody should follow that, voters and 'crats, otherwise something else needs to be hammered out and agreed. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem. "It risks" is possibly true, but the fact is that, at present, it isn't happening. So it boils down to a philosophical difference: should we ignore people who have taken the trouble to comment, or not? ArbCom cases close when they have sufficient votes, not at specific times. -Splash^talk 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to ArbCom Elections, not cases. And, yes, it is a matter of philosophical difference on the other issues, but time related from my perspective. :--) --Cactus.man ✍ 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I too disagree with discounting votes after a deadline. While I'm perfectly fine with a bcrat closing on time, any extra time is just more time to determine consensus (similar to an AfD being relisted for another 5 days to better determine consensus). Therefore, the votes after the deadline are completely valid and should be counted (though m:polls are evil anyway, so it's really just someone's input in the discussion after the deadline, but we all know that's not true ;-)). --24.46.201.42 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is a very real one. When there is a close vote, and there is an attempt on the part of bureaucrats to be deliberate and discuss, the discussion process (a) can take hours if done on-wiki, and (b) draws the attention of more voters so that (c) prior discussion amongst the bureaucrats is invalidated in light of the new votes. This is one of the reasons there has been, historically, relatively little discussion among bureaucrats of close and contentious RFAs. And as others have noted, RFAs that remain open after the de jure end time generally draw more opposition than support. If there is a genuine problem with people being heard, I think the discussion period should be extended to 8 days or 10 days. But I don't believe there is such a problem. I just think that the discussion of close RFAs on the mailing list, the wiki, and IRC tends to draw voters who would otherwise have no interest. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are making a very good point. I'm all for closing the "booth" so-to-speak at the time and day it is supposed to close and that is stated at the top of each RfA. 7 days is plenty of time for people to vote and even the ones who want to vote late so that they have more information can do so on the 7th day if they please. I think the appearance of impartiality and fairness of the process applied to each RfA is very important and therefore the circumstances should be as similar as possible for each RfA. To eliminate the dilemma of counting or discounting late votes, how about automatically protecting the pages at the time the vote is supposed to close? This could be done with code or by an admin (there are enough of them to make sure this would get done on time) and then there cannot be any late votes. --Mmounties (Talk) 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the occasional late vote, but if it were decided that this is a big problem, we should just create a new page (WP:RFA/Pending bureaucrat closing) and let anyone remove the subpage from WP:RFA and add it to the new page as soon as the time runs out. Seems unnecessary to me though. NoSeptember ^talk 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary. Until a bureaucrat actually closes an RfA, new comments should always be welcome. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And then we end up with admins like Freestylefrappe, who abuse their powers in precisely the manner that the ignored voters warned. It's far more important to protect the encyclopedia from unqualified sysops than it is to bureaucratically ensure "fairness of the process." If well-reasoned opposition (or support) surfaces before a decision to promote (or not promote) has been rendered, it should not be thrown out on a technicality. If this new information results in the request's failure, any serious, mature candidate should be willing to address the voters' concerns and re-apply when he/she is ready. Anyone who responds to such a setback by throwing in the towel probably shouldn't be an admin. —David Levy 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's important to the community that RfAs last "exactly" 7 days +/-ε (and there seems to be some indication that there is, following the CSCWEM too debacle), why not create {{Rfat}} that says:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that is temporarily under discussion. Please do not modify it; a final result will be posted shortly.

-- nae'blis _(talk) 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't quite have time to read through this entire discussion, but rest assured I have skimmed it. I like the idea of placing RfAs on hold so that crats can discuss it (rather than it being a race to promote in a sense). I also wanted to throw the idea out there that maybe we can find a way to modify the WP:DFA proposal to allow for this? — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am second to have some lag to allow crats to discuss the results of controversial RfAs. I do not think the discussion is needed if we have 50% oppose votes or if we have 100% support. I am not sure if it is a good idea to have the crats to discuss the results in open. Some things told about problem voters may look like a Personal Attack. Something told during that brief discussion may be untrue, etc. I would think that a closed IRC channel or E-mail exchange maybe a better way to handle the final discussion. I think the "final tally" should be calculated from the votes casted before the closing time. The closing bureaucrat[s] can take into account the later votes and the arguments in the borderline cases. I believe it is the common practice as it is now. abakharev 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a mailing list put in place. Anyone? — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "putting a mailing list in place"? I don't understand. --Mmounties (Talk) 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the Mailing lists? I'm thinking something like that (like wikiEn-l or probably more like the ArbCom only one) but for 'crats should be made. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing bureaucrats do needs to be private, so I don't see why we wouldn't just use the noticeboard. Angela. 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree absolutely. Have we forgot our discussion about conflict of interest above? Transparency of process is important. NoSeptember ^talk 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me to be problematic to have the request/discussion/voting period still effectively "open", and fully visible convention of BCs to discuss the same thing. Almost Goedelesque, in fact. I'd imagine it would be preferable to either on the one hand, declare an end to the RFA, and a start to a fully open BC discussion (which isn't to say when this must happen); or else to have the BC discussion in private, if the RFA in in effect continuing in parallel with it. Personally I'd prefer the former, but in the case of the latter, the BC discussion can always be made public after the fact. Alai 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time I tried to discuss a close RfB on the noticeboard, instead of being told politely about how it wasn't quite as close as I thought (apparantly now 90% is the norm), I was called someone who was biased, someone who was looking for reasons to discount oppose votes, etc. I was also told that an open forum is not the place to discuss such issues. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

While its good to discuss things in general, especially when a new bureaucrat comes on board, I don't think discussing specific cases is warranted. When the time comes on a close case, let the closing bureaucrat make the decision alone. Even a legitimate mistake about an admin or bureaucrat promotion won't be that harmful to Wikipedia. Can anyone point to a bad decision that harmed Wikipedia? NoSeptember ^talk 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Call me a PW (process wonk), it's ok, I don't mind, but I shy from judgement calls that could include some votes sometimes and not include votes that are late by the same amount other times... Unless there is a process to automatically extend the comment period (sort of how some auction sites prevent sniping by extending by an hour any auction "sniped" in the last 5 min) somehow, the fixed and firm deadline seems like it should stay fixed and firm, and that seems a good thing... Once the deadline is passed, perhaps an extra step of saying "voting is over but we are deliberating" might prevent overdeadline votes. That seems a thing that a bot could do??? Oh, and deliberations on how to decide ought to be done off wiki, just present the reasoning if desired. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• My two cents: opinions expressed after the nominal end of the comment period, but before a bureaucrat has determined whether a consensus to promote exists, should play a role in determining consensus. The point of this process is to obtain consensus for promotion, and discounting someone's opinion on a technicality seems inappropriate. This is, after all, not an election. If you want elections, make them elections. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• If it is felt that a single bureaucrat should not make a decision on a close RfA, then do something like the ArbCom vote to close a case (a net vote plurality of 4 ArbCom members to close). Personally, though, I say leave it the the individual bureaucrat. NoSeptember ^talk 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Acceptance Votes (Archive 55)

Frankly, I have a problem with the pre-acceptance votes. I'm sure we all remember what happened with Can't sleep, clown will eat me's second nomination. And on many occasions an RfA nominee accepts (with no bad intentions) after several support votes are already posted. This kind of thing comprimises the integrity of the RfA process, giving the nominee an unnecessary advantage, especially if there are a fellowship of editors who often look at the nominee's page (and most likely revere the candidate). Surely, these same editors can wait until the nominee accepts the nomination and then vote support. These pre-acceptance votes need to be disallowed so the process is a bit more fair and so the nominee will be discouraged from unnecessarily delaying the acceptance (or rejection) of a nomination. joturner 00:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, pre-acceptance votes should be either be struck out or removed when the page is linked to the main page. The RFA procedure should also be clarified to state that pre-acceptance votes are not allowed. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely (and edit-conflictedly) agree. Early voting, while almost always well-intentioned, always seems to have an "appearance of impropriety" about it. It looks caballistic even when it's not meant to be. It makes the most sense to have everything as public as possible, IMHO.--Deville (Talk) 00:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What if every candidate could do as Lar did? Kimchi.sg 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Every candidate can, if they want to. And let me tell you, it hurt a little tiny bit to see the RfA end with Brenny's support still struck, (he was pretty sick and not on the wiki at all, all week, so what can you do?)... but it was, in my view, the right thing to do (obviously I don't feel that way about multiple noms. I note that a current candidate even has a wannabe nom saying he didn't nom because of the possibility that it might attract opposes. That's just wrong, IMHO. People can oppose for any reason, or no reason at all, but that reason doesn't make my "top 10 most sensible reasons to oppose" list, sorry.) ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which leads to another question: Since it's a good thing, should we make it de rigueur? Maybe even allow other voters to strike out early votes? Kimchi.sg 02:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Better they not be stricken out, but rather, a small note placed underneath the vote, noting it, so the bureaucrat that closes it will be aware. Additionally, leaving a "you voted early, be aware..." note on the voters talk page would be a good faith effort to make. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't just adding "This vote is not open yet" to the RfA template and having the candidate remove this upon acceptance solve the problem already? Kusma (討論) 02:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically, but I would not be surprised to see people accidentally supporting or opposing before that was removed. WP:FPC used to have a "discussion period" of two days before people could support or oppose, but it was quite common for people to mistakenly support or oppose early anyway despite a warning tag. I don't think we should prohibit pre-acceptance votes, BUT we should encourage nominees to strike out pre-acceptance votes upon accepting. (Personally, I would oppose any candidate who did not do this already.) —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 02:39 UTC

Votes after "deadline" (Archive 56)

I'd like to remind people that votes after the deadline are still valid expressions of community sentiment up to the point a bcrat closes the nomination. To me at least, it's also fine to comment and point them out (though I don't see a big neeed for it) as long as you add a # before the comment so it doesn't mess up the numbering. So if you see any comments to this effect, just make sure to add the #. We could also decide as a community whether we want to avoid these types of comments too. Thanks all. - Taxman ^Talk 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the comments to be inserted, since there've been at least 1 (failed) RfA where post-deadline votes tipped the balance somewhat. (Peeks into WP:RFAF). Kimchi.sg 16:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

accepting and listing (Archive 66)

I think we need more coherent rules for accepting and listing RfAs. If it's done in a manner such that some people know about the nomination and not others (i.e. it's not listed on the main rfa page), and worse yet, people are allowed to vote during this time... it's really going to leave the people who didn't happen to know about the RfA feeling disenfranchised and the RfA will never seem totally legitimate to everyone.

So, how do we do this without instruction creep?

1. Votes are only valid after a candidate has accepted and the nomination is listed on the RfA page by the candidate or nominator
2. Early votes (votes before the both parts of step 1 were completed) can be crossed out and need to be re-affirmed by the voter

I don't think that's too much to ask, and it would really stop all of the various problems that crop up from time to time. --W.marsh 02:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The "how to" says the editor accepting the RfA must list the RfA - I think this makes good sense. Any votes prior to them listing it should be minimal. Thanks/wangi 02:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Usualy the prior votes are minimal, it's when they aren't that problems emerge... the goal here is to make the process uniform so there isn't "that one RfA..." every few weeks where irregular process leads to a bunch of annoyed people. --W.marsh 02:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, understand that. Perhaps just an addition to the guidelines saying another editor/admin shouldn't post the RfA if the editor themself has forgotten to - instead they should post a pointer on their talk page? Thanks/wangi 02:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That sounds good. I'd like to hear from a b'crat before adding any of this though. But I do think having it written down somewhere formal will be great just for avoiding this periodic confusion and frustration. --W.marsh 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That has always been my understanding of how it worked. That gives the nominee time to write answers to the questions. I am quite frankly appalled that someone—I won't mention any names—transcluded an RfA so that they could register the first !vote on it as an oppose. I think that it would be wise for a 'crat to strike all the !votes registered before it is added to the RfA main page by either the nominee (per the instructions) or the nominator. People should then come back and reaffirm what they said earlier if it is still applicable after the questions have been answered.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What folks have done is made up new rules for RFA (with several people saying maybe it wasn't such a good idea), painted themselves into a corner this way, and now they'd like to make even more rules to try to paint their way out of the corner again.

Rules are like drugs, you habituate and need more and more of them to get the same high... errr... level of organisation.

Perhaps we could back to immediately transcluding the RFA the moment you create it? Some of the old problems would come back, but the new problems will go away again.

Since the old problems were mere inconvenience, and the new problems are disenfranchisement, I suggest we go for the old problems ;-)

Kim Bruning 03:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It just seems like the old way presents a lot of problems we could easilly avoid with a simple, clear rule being written. It's only instruction creep if it makes things more confusing, and I think this makes it less confusing.

I know people are rule-phobic around here, but this "rule" would only kick in when a problem emerges. I.e. in most RfAs, where the candidate just quietly accepts after they see the nomination then lists it before any votes appear, nothing new needs to happen at all... we just would now clearly have a process so occasional hiccups don't cause drama every time they occur. Yeah it's a rule... but at this point on Wikipedia I think having a clear process is much preferable to a system of vague unwritten rules and learned behavior dictating how things operate.--W.marsh 03:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The "older way" is a simple, clear rule. Make the nomination and transclude it immediately. There's some minor niggles about it not looking all pretty and perfect from the get go, but so be it.
• The "newer way" involves several rules as well as a number of penalties for getting it wrong.

The latter is a larger burden on users than the former. Therefore, we probably want the former, for some strange reason ;-) . (unless you happen to like nomic ;-) )Kim Bruning 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The "older way" leads to confusion, as does the current way, as far as I can tell. What happens when someone doesn't accept quickly enough in the older way? Are early votes valid? Do we cross them out? It seems like we have to have the same drama every time it happens, which is pretty common. Rules are not automatically bad just because they're rules... my proposal would give us a process so we don't have confusion and hurt feelings every time something irregular happens. If that process does cause more problems than it fixes we can forget it, but I think it would be painless and not even encountered by 95% of RfAs. --W.marsh 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I had with the older way is that people, very inconsiderately, nominated others without getting their okay first. Social decency wasn't enough to prevent this from happening, so I'm hesitant to endorse going back to that system, especially given that in the current atmosphere of RFA such incidents would be more harmful. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I loved the way you could nominate people without getting their ok first. The people most suited to adminship are often those who least want it. Why the heck did we remove the ability to drag them to RFA kicking and screaming? Kim Bruning 10:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if people weren't in such a bloody hurry to vote get consensus things would go more smoothly. The nomination lasts a whole week! There will be enough time to make your voice heard! So just let the nominator and the nominee finish their pre-nom business in peace. RfA worked fine the "old way" for years and there was no need to go all instruction creepy on it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the case. People often seem too frantic when dealing with this. Michael 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

3 and 4 (Archive 73)

What happened to and with the discussion suggesting 3 days of questions and 4 of voting? (The comments above, seem to continue to reiterate the point that that proposal would be rather useful.) - jc37 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's been debated multiple times before, and there was never consensus to implement it. --Durin 00:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well it seemed to have a growing "fan base", and no consensus doesn't necessarily equal oppose...
• That aside, what would be lost if we enact it? Most RfA voting happens in the first 4 days of voting anyway, it provides a better way for editors to get to know the cantidate before expressing their opinion/voting. It doesn't extend RfA, and it gets the bureaicrats more involved. (I thought Rama's Arrow et al 's last several quantitative posts on the matter were rather well thought out.) Ignoring the question of whether the idea has consensus, for the moment, how, in your opinion, would this be detrimental to RfA? - jc37 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep is bad. Borisblue 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this instruction creep, we would be changing one process to a different process, not adding new rules/processes. I would support something like this, altough I think it should be 4/3 or 5/2. Grandmasterka 04:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't "instruction creep". It's merely identifying a facet of the RfA that already exists, and deals with the "overlap" that sometimes occurs (which can be detrimental to a cantidacy), and allow time for the cantidate to actually respond to questions, and answer "follow-up" responses. I prefer 3 of Q&A and 4 of voting, because: a.) most voting is done in about 4 days, or at least most RfAs are determined by then; and b.) the Q&A period should be shorter, since technically it can continue through the whole of the 7 days. 2 and 5 might not be bad, except if an RfA is a "slow-starter", and doesn't get going until the second day. 3 and 4 seem to deal with these issues fairly. - jc37 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Lots of ideas have been put forth on how to reform RfA. Not a one of them has completed analysis on how the reform idea addresses the shortcomings of RfA. This is in part because very few of them (I think 1 over the last year) have done work to determine what the shortcomings of RfA are. This idea is no different. Sounds nice. Might be nice. Who knows? I don't. Neither does anyone else right now, because this work has not been done. ...and I'll keep playing this tune over and over again until the work is done :-) --Durin 11:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First, a change doesn't have to address a named problem to be made (though I believe this one does). We see that all over Wikipedia. Be Bold is an direct example of that. However, As important as this process is (it potentially gives someone "something" for life), I think we should have at least a semi-thorough discussion about it. - jc37 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Second, I think this adresses several concerns. See the list above, for a quick breakdown. The main concern I see is the question of whether a nominee should have to answer a specific question, or whether not answering would seem to have a negative effect on the nomination's success. This is a current concern, even if no change is made to RfA. And honestly, making this change would help solve that problem as well. (By making an "official" Q&A period, the community is likely to get more involved in the Q&A phase, including looking over the questions that others may pose.) - jc37 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I just thought of another way to look at this: This change changes abosolutely nothing about RfA, except that you have to wait to vote until until the beginning of the fourth day. You still can comment, you still can pose questions, you can basically communicate. All this is suggesting is to defer the voting period a couple days in order to make discussion easier. In a society built on consensus by discussion, I would think that this would be considered an awesomely good thing. : ) - jc37 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help me to not feel so sheepish having to change my opinion when some new evidence comes forward of good work/extreme incivility/another RfA changing factor. It would help RfAs like this one, where all the opposes came near the end, by identifying possible issues before most of the participants have !voted. In short, all it would do would be to separate the voting factor from the discussion factor, which in my mind is a Good Thing™. I usually share the same cynicism as Durin, but I think this particular change would work, and wouldn't drastically change our current system. Grandmasterka 08:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have several people who feel this should be done, and a few who have concerns about reasons for such a change, and I suppose a couple who have concerns about change of any kind. What's the next step? - jc37 07:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Non-implementation. This has been discussed multiple times with no consensus emerging. --Durin 14:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting immediate implementation, I was asking what the next step is based on the current state of the discussion. Just because something has not developed consensus, doesn't mean that it's a bad idea, or doesn't need further discussion. As I mentioned above, it's a suggestion that fosters discussion and leans more closely to consensus building, so in the end, I think this is something that will be good for wikipedia. - jc37 11:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• As previously noted, the proposal fails to address what the problems with RfA are because nobody has done the appropriate homework to address the problems of RfA and the intended goals of RfA. This proposal may or may not be any good. Nobody knows because nobody has done that homework. Result; it's a shot in the dark. The system we have now works pretty well, enough that replacing it with a shot in the dark is probably more likely to cause harm than not. --Durin 13:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)