User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Self-nom vs. nominations

Two sections (Archive 1)

Shouldn't there be two sections for nominations? We have two types of nominations; self nominations and nominations made by others (both are followed by "seconds"). The reason I think it is a good idea to separate the two is that nominations made by others need to be accepted by the nominee before anything happens. No big deal though. --mav 00:35, 23 Jun 2003

That makes sense; having spent a lot of time on talkers and MUDs and the like, I know quite a few people who, having been nominated for adminnery, wished to not become one. Phil Bordelon 00:40 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is seconding a nomination for admins only, or can anyone do it? -- Jim Regan 00:44 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's actually a question worth answering and putting on the 'real' page of this. Phil Bordelon 00:45 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It has now been answered on the main page; anyone may agree or disagree with a nomination or request. Thanks, Eloquence. Phil Bordelon 00:57 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Self-nominations (Archive 15)

Do we really want to allow self-nominations? Lately I've been looking at this page and seeing self-nominations from clearly unqualified people (not implying that most of the self-nominations are such, but there's been several lately that were.) This bothers me because it puts others in a position of having to oppose and state why, and it could hurt the feelings of the user in question. This is especially true for newer users who don't completely understand how the site works.

Anyone who's qualified and wants to be an admin can easilly go to someone who knows them and ask them to submit a nomination. If a user can't think of anyone who'd do this for them, that's a pretty obvious sign that they shouldn't be an admin at this point. Isomorphic 23:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Perl 23:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just added myself to the list as a self-nomination. I am biased of course but if you look at my history you will see I have been here since at least 2002 (actually before that but 2002 is when I got the name) and have made many valuable contributions. However, I do not know anyone here who I would feel comfortable asking to nominate me. Therefore, I disagree with your statement that anyone who can not think of someone to nominate them is therefore obviously not fit for the position. Qaz 04:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion won't change anything in effect. The way things are now, UserX asks to be made an admin on this page, a variety of people object with reasons, and UserX doesn't get made an admin. In your system, UserX asks UserY to be nominated for adminship, and either UserY objects and gives a reason why (possibly prompting userX to go off and bother Users A, B, C and D with the same request), or they make the nomination on this page and then other people object with reasons why. How is that any better? --Camembert

People who ask too early, sometimes get it held against them when they are nominated. Perl 00:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the only really fair way then, it to have a strictly enforced minimum criteria before applying. You are not allowed to apply if you have been here less than X months, or have fewer than X edits. Any applications that do not meet such criteria are to be deleted on site. →Raul654 00:09, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

So long as people are fair and polite, and don't hold stupid grudges against other users, the current system is perfectly fair. If people are being rude or vindictive, I don't think there's a system that will stop them. --Camembert

I agree with Raul, and think the standard should be at least three months and 1,000 edits. That would prevent all those silly requests from people who are just here for 10 days, as well as the regular AlexPlank-clone requests. --Wik 00:23, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the 1000 edits. Spell checkers and formaters can easily rack up that much. I tend to write articles, and (as such) my count is not representive of how much I contribute, and I'm not the only one. I myself only had around 940 when I applied. So three months is fine by me, but I'd set the edit-count bar a bit lower (like 500-600). →Raul654 00:32, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

How many months had you been here when you applied? Perl 00:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I got here in August, 2003 and I applied in December -- 5 months. →Raul654 01:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you could have done the extra 60 edits before applying, no? 1,000 is not really much for three months - about 11 edits a day. Someone who is less active than that shouldn't need the adminship that much anyway, they can wait until they have 1,000 even if it may take five months. And anyone who fulfills the criteria can still be rejected, if it seems they artificially racked up 1,000 edits only to be able to apply for adminship. --Wik 01:48, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is - edit count is a bad indicator of who would make a good admin. IMO, the time someone has been here is a much better indicator. So make that 3 months (I would even say more like 4), and keep the edit count to a conservative 500-600. →Raul654 01:53, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. Three months is a long time. I would say one month, and maybe 250 edits. This is generally long enough to tell someone's general character. That's if we have a requirement at all. I think this could be accomplished via a disclaimer at the top of the page--something like "Although any user is welcome to apply, applications are viewed more favorably if they meet X standard". Meelar 01:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We already have a disclaimer: Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for some months and contributed to a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users.

It doesn't work. →Raul654 01:59, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, I stand by what I said. Fixing this could involve making said warning more prominent, or more specific--people are likelier to ignore things that are as vague as "some months" or "variety of articles". At any rate, I feel that 3 months is far too long--the added time will not help us catch future problems (what will show up in those months that doesn't show up earlier?) and will feel alienating to new users. If someone's ready at three months, they were probably ready at one. Meelar 02:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would also support a more strict minimum of 3 months and 1000 edits. This is not a popularity contest, admins are needed mostly to do clean up, and this need is not yet so great so as to have lower requirements. An admin that wasn't judged correctly due to the short time period and low number of edits on the on the other hand can cause a big disruption. Dori | Talk 02:06, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Q4: Converting self-nomination to regular nomination (Archive 19)

Should an editor otherwise eligible to nominate be entitled to convert a self-nomination to a regular nomination by endorsing or sponsoring the nomination, and then move the nomination to a regular spot?

Yes, at any time after the candidacy is posted

1. Why not? Neutrality 02:44, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
2. Cecropia | Talk 02:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Spectatrix 03:22, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
4. Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Yeah, sure, I don't see why not. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
6. Cribcage 04:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
7. Graham ☺ | Talk 09:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
8. What an excellent idea! ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
9. David Cannon 11:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC). Yes, I think this is fair enough.
10. Sam [Spade] 00:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
12. Of course... Timwi 14:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
13. Merovingian✍Talk 15:47, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only at the end of the self-nomination period

(what does this mean? - Acegikmo1) A: Allow a sponsored nomination when the self-nomination has run its 7 days unsuccessfully.

1. BCorr|Брайен 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No

1. Acegikmo1 13:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC). Some editors have different standards for self-nominations and nominations by other users. When a user is nominated by someone else, it is evidence that the user's work has been noticed and his or her trust has been earned by a member of the community. Allowing what is really a self-nomination to be "converted" makes this feature an afterthought and destroys an important distincion. If a user wants to endorse a self-nomination, that user can vote in support of it.
2. Ace said it well enough. - UtherSRG 14:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Indeed EddEdmondson 15:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Tεxτurε 18:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
6. RickK 21:24, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
7. At least certainly not without the self-nominator's permission. What if some controversial and disruptive user decided to sabotage a self-nomination by hijacking it and "converting" it into a "regular" nomination? --Michael Snow 22:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
8. Changed vote - agree with Michael Snow Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
9. Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) If it ain't broke...
10. +sj+ 17:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think all noms should be by others; in the rare case that someone is unknown and feels like nominating him/herself, this is a small but important aspect of the nomination.
11. Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agreed with Acegikmo1
12. [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 22:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) There is nothing to be ashamed of about self-nominators so no need to 'endorse' other than the standard voting we already have
13. Agree with VW every vote in favour is an endorsement. theresa knott 22:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
14. David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Status of self-nominations must not be reduced further.
15. Exploding Boy 15:07, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
16. Agree with most of the reasons above. anthony (see warning)
17. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
18. I see no need to class self-nominations as lower standard. Votes in support of a self-nomination are an endorsement of it. Angela 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Q5: Prior votes on a converted nomination (Archive 19)

If we allow self-nominations to be sponsored to become regular nominations, what do we do with the votes already cast?

Wipe all the votes to start fresh. Voters who already voted will have to recast them.

1. Acegikmo1 13:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. UtherSRG 14:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. BCorr|Брайен 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Hopefully this won't happen, though. anthony (see warning)

Retain the votes and count on the voters to change them, if they want

1. Neutrality 02:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
2. Spectatrix 03:23, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
3. Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Cribcage 04:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
6. Graham ☺ | Talk 09:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
7. ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
8. David Cannon 11:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC).
9. Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
10. Sam [Spade] 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
12. Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC). But see my vote on the previous question
13. Why would anyone want to change anyway? They either think they'd make a good admin or they don't. theresa knott 22:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
14. David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
15. Timwi 14:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
16. Vacuously true :). anthony (see warning)
17. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
18. Merovingian✍Talk 15:48, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
19. I oppose the endorsement idea, but it if happens, please don't let it become a way of allowing any user to just wipe out the previous votes. This could be misused by trolls to remove valid votes and waste people's time by making them vote again. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Q6: Remaining time on a converted nomination (Archive 19)

If we allow self-nominations to be sponsored to become regular nominations, what do we do with the time already spent?

Start the time all over again as a new nomination

1. Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Acegikmo1 13:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. UtherSRG 14:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. BCorr|Брайен 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) But see my vote on the two above
6. anthony (see warning)
7. Merovingian✍Talk 15:49, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Retain the same end time

1. Neutrality 02:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
2. Spectatrix 03:24, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
3. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Cribcage 04:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
6. David Cannon 11:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC).
7. Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
8. David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
9. GeneralPatton 21:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
10. Sam [Spade] 01:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
12. theresa knott 22:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
13. David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
14. Timwi 14:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
15. anthony (see warning)
16. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
17. If someone is going to be rejected, restarting the time limit just wastes the time of voters as they have to see the nomination stay on the page for longer. If the person is going to be supported, it will annoy them that they now have to wait longer before becoming an admin. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let the new nominator or the nominee decide one of the above

1. Graham ☺ | Talk 09:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. anthony (see warning)

self-nominate once; other comments on time lag (Archive 19)

I would propose that users only be allowed to self-nominate once. If they are not accepted, they can then await nomination by another user.

It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for us to ask the nominator to wait for a month before making further nominations after one fails. I believe that the business of nominating someone for adminship should be a more weighty one than it is presently, with a good deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the nominator, both during the vote and during a mentorship period afterwards. UninvitedCompany 01:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that if a self-nomination fails essentially because it was a self-nomination--i.e., "not enough work for a self-nomination" then one or both of two things should be allowed, notwithstanding other policy: (1) a sponsor should be able to put up the nomination again any time after the self-nomination fails, after that a one-month (or whatever) rule would apply and/or (2) during the course of voting on a self-nomination, anyone wishing to stand as a nominator or sponsor of the self-nomination should be able to declare so and move the nomination into the regular section. I haven't though out whether the votes should be wiped and the clock started again, but maybe we should consider that. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason to complicate the proposed month's wait between nominations. A month's wait won't lead to disaster - David Gerard 18:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree with David. I like to keep things simple. In fact I feel that having all these different possible time periods overly complicated - but that's just me. I like everything very easy to remember. theresa knott 18:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The poll still has time to run, but it looks like a consensus is shaping up to be a month except three months for another self-nomination. That's not too complicated, I think. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Letting people self-nominate only once will lead to people previously rejected going around dropping annoying hints all over unrelated talk pages that they want to be nominated. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Change in Nomination policy (Archive 19)

I know that this policy will probably get shot down for being too elitist, but I think it might go a long way to fixing the nomination problems. What if someone could only be nominated by an existing Administrator? When you think about it, if someone can be nominated by anyone else, there is no reason to try and self-nominate, when a sock puppet account could easily do the same thing. Ideas? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:35, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

It would be shot down as too elitist, I imagine. I think, though, that part of the point of having a nominator is that editors see who the nominator is, and this helps in itself to evaluate the nomination. If a sockpuppet does the nomination, that says a lot. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:55, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An alternative would be placing restrictions on the nominator (e.g. 500 edits and 3 months as a registered user). Acegikmo1 16:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To nominate? That seems fair. Maybe that should be the subject of another poll but let's wait for this poll to be over. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Acegikmo1 18:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

<aol> +sj+

I would support either of these proposals, because they would make the page much less contentious. Anyone who is likely to gain adminship should have no trouble convincing an admin to support them, so I doubt if there would be any actual change in who gets granted adminship. UninvitedCompany

I would not support only admins nominating. We would be accused of forming a cabal (I know we accused of that already but those accusations don't count because they are groundless) theresa knott 22:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think there has to be some kind of filtering system in place. I, too, would oppose denying non-admins the right to nominate, but I think admins should have the power of veto. I propose that anybody should be allowed to nominate anybody, but if five or more current admins object to a nomination, it should be nullified and the vote cancelled. I think an objection from five admins would never happen without a good reason; this provision would be an effective filter against such joke candidates as Plato and avoid the wasteful clutter we saw on the page yesterday. David Cannon 12:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's not impose that kind of filter... it's already allowed for anyone to remove a nomination that is obviously going to fail. Plato's nom could have been removed well before it was. However, I do think basic limitations on who can nominate others would be helpful, and would limite the abuse of having people who really want to be admins nominating everyone they work with, for in-kind support. +sj+ 17:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The idea of a certain number of opposing admins creating an automatic veto has two main problems. The first, and most important IMO, is that a few admins could overrule a majority of other admins who had voted in support. That is contrary to the consensus guidelines currently accepted. The second problem is using a hard-and-fast number, such as "five" in the example above. Five admins is what percentage of the total number today? Six months from now, five will be what percentage? With the rapid increase in the number of admins, any hard number becomes an ever-decreasing percentage of the total number of admins. SWAdair | Talk 04:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dont agree with this at all, why should we administrators have greater power in this reagard? If a nominee is not elegable he or she will not be voted for regardless of who nominated him. This would reduce clutter no doubt, however i think we can deal with that at the cost of getting more people to do maintenece tasks. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:09, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. I oppose my own proposal now. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:36, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I oppose this because people should be allowed to self-nominate. Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my proposal that any nomination by someone other than an admin would be treated as a self-nom. But never mind, i think the system is fine as it is. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:49, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

The poll above (Archive 19)

What is with this poll and all its new proposed rules? Haven't people been pointing out that "trolls love rules", and will figure out how to game them? It's pretty clear to me that the poll was prompted by attempts to use this page in a disruptive manner, not because we have serious problems with adminship nominations otherwise. Can't we simply say that obviously unqualified candidates, and those who obviously lack community support, may be removed before 7 days are up?

And what is with all this discussion that talks about self-nominations as not being "regular" nominations? This page is called Requests for a reason - it used to be quite routine for people to request their own adminship, and nominations were actually more rare. We shouldn't be treating self-nominators as second-class, just because it hasn't occurred to anyone else to nominate them yet. --Michael Snow 17:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Michael, I posted the poll, and the response seems to indicate it's useful. I'm not big on codifying every single thing, nor do I believe in adding layers of rules or bureaucracy. What I do want is some straightforward guidance from the community on what is tolerated and what is not. Trolls will always find a way of trolling, but there seems to be developing consensus for a time limit between potential trollings. The current situation where any user may remove a nomination is untenable because "obvious" means different things to different people.

As to self-nominations, many people do consider self-nominations "lesser." Many people do lean on their knowledge of the nominator to help them evaluate a candidate. This is just an opportunity for a respected (or hated, or unknown) to say "yes, I'm willing to put my name on this nomination as though I made the original nomination, and have the community evaluate that." In fact, perhaps it would be useful for any signed-in editor to feel free to co-sponsor (effectively show depth of support) for any nomination, to help the community evaluate potential sysops. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The idea of a nomination coming from several different users is an interesting one. It's also one I don't oppose at the moment. Still, I feel that self-nominations should remain just that. Can't users show depth of support by explaining why they voted in support of the candidate (or more superficially by saying "strong support")? Acegikmo1 17:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure, they could. I wouldn't discourage that one bit. But since a lot of people do consider self-nomination "lesser" (a lot say, "I would support, but for a self-nomination I want to see more...") this is an opportunity for someone to stand up and say "I should have nominated this person!" No reason we can't keep a note like "this was originally a self-nom now sponsored by..."

I don't want to lose sight of the fact that these are guidelines vis a vis self-noms and sponsored noms. We can all still vote anyway we please for any good or stupid reason, and we still have to demonstrate the same consensus for any nominee. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I better understand what you're proposing now. I don't oppose an ex post facto endorsement itself. However, I think self-nominations and nominations created by another user are quite distinct. They are different in their very genesis. Hence, allowing a nomination to change categories seems dubious to me. I would support allowing another user or users to endorse a self-nomination, but I think that allowing a nomination to simply change categories is a bit delusory.

I'm not sure what the appropriate solutiont o this would be. We could place (Endorsed) after the username heading in self-nominations, much in the way that articles on FAC are followed by (Contested) or (Uncontested). We could create a third category for endorsed self-nominations. But those choices seem rather political and unnecessary. If you have any ideas other than chaning the category of the nomination, please post them. But right now I think that simply allowing users to expound their reasons for supporting a self nomination is enough.

Acegikmo1 18:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If no consensus is reached on endorsing self-noms as regular nominations, I don't see any reason we couldn't look for support for your suggestion as a compromise. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have a better understanding of what the poll is for. Part of what bothers me is the way the questions are phrased - they presume in advance that a time lag is desirable, and give no option for people to actually oppose the time lag. Granted, there was some discussion before that, and a handful of people liked the idea, but you can't just assume there will be no opposition. If I oppose a time lag on principle, or even just oppose the idea of using rules to enforce a time lag, there is no way for me to vote in the poll (well, except for Question 7, I suppose). That makes the poll biased and seriously flawed.

I wouldn't mind simply adding to the guidelines a suggestion that if a nomination fails or is removed, people should consider waiting a reasonable period of time before renominating, to prevent pointless efforts. --Michael Snow 18:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, all the poll questions have Immediately as a first choice. I don't think anyone has chosen it. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I missed that because in a grammatical sense, Immediately is not responsive to the questions posed, and I was looking for an option more like oppose. I still think that the questions are structured in a way that presume the desirability of the lag, and at least if we required professional opinion survey techniques, they'd have to be thrown out. Anyway, I've rewritten the introduction on the page so that it advises people to wait before renewing a nomination that didn't succeed the first time around. --Michael Snow 21:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this really that big an issue? I mean, does it take that much time to just constantly oppose nominations of Plato? And to remove them once they get to 0/12/0 again? Snowspinner 23:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

If that were the only thing I did at Wikipedia it wouldn't be a big deal, but with the number of polls, votes, and various requests (requests for adminship, mediation, comment) -- and actually trying to edit articles and comment on talk pages in my spare time -- it really is a problem to have to weed through the frivolous and non-serious requests. -- BCorr|Брайен 15:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My 2/100s of a dollar is that we spend so much time in wrangling that some guidance is a good thing. It is not enough IMHO to use a general phrase like "remove if obviously unqualified." If we can't come to a consensus on a more straightforward rule, I would advise people to quietly vote against the obviously unqualified nomination, let them sit for the seven days, then they are removed. If we consider them trolling, extensive arguments on the RfA give the trolls exactly what they want. Calling for sanctions against them (which will not happen) are icing on the cake. It's like pulling a fire alarm and then watching all the pretty trucks racing to the scene to deal with nothing.

Since my above scenario is unlikely to happen, I'm looking for an agreed timeframe so that there is a time period between trollings. If we combine that with being more cool toward the trollings, maybe we can get some work done. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe that one of the reasons Quickpolls failed was because of the number of rules associated with the procedure. I don't want to see RfA turn into the same overly bureaucratic type of page. Adminship is meant to be no big deal, so shouldn't RfA be no big deal as well? Angela. 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:How to create policy perhaps as a kind of rebellion against this over-codification of the rules. I would be interested in comments. Pcb21| Pete 09:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nominees not accepting or rejecting (Archive 24)

We currently have four nominations, one overdue, who have neither accepted nor rejected their nominations. The RfA page states:

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

and the instructions for promotion say:

1. If [the nomination] is not a self-request, check the user has accepted the nomination

I believe seven days is sufficient time for a nominee to be aware of, and express an opinion on, his or her own nomination. I extended Jeronimo's nomination for a day to give the user time to respond. Beyond this please be aware nominees will not be promoted. This is a matter of the simple rules, but also a simple courtesy to the community for someone who will be entrusted with some extra responsibilities and the trust of the community.

Please, if you nominate someone, make sure they are aware they must accept or reject their nominations on the RfA page. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. The purpose of requiring nominees to accept nominations is to be sure that the nominee wants to be nominated. There is no purpose in insisting that nominees accept in a particular manner or timeframe. I don't believe that it is necessary to both get permission from a nominee first and the also have them accept here.

While nominees who are actively seeking adminship usually follow this page for a time and become familiar with its workings, many qualified editors who would serve the project well as administrators do not. The nominees to whom Cecropia refers are all in this later category. If this conflicts with written instructions, let's change the instructions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe a candidate for adminship, who is expected to be reasonably active on Wikipedia, is facing an undue burden by being asked to simply accept the nomination within the seven day period that other Wikipedians are voting on his/her nomination. Some would say noone should even vote until the person has accepted the nomination. IMO, UC is reinterpreting the simple rules that have governed this page at least for the year I've been here. If he wants to be inclusive, I have no argument with that, but in his zeal he appears to wish to rewrite the rules, which is the province of the community. Should we endorse UC's view that, if the nominator believes the candidate has pre-accepted the nomination, that is good enough for the community? And shouldn't the nominator make it clear that to the nominee the simple fact that they should accept the nomination on the RfA page and be prepared to answer questions from voters? As of yesterday, three or four of UC's recent nominations had not accepted or visited the RfA page. After I left them messages, all but one have accepted. Is this so difficult? Is adminship simply an honorific? What kind of admins can they be if they're not even available to the community during the voting?

Also see UC's and Cecropia's comments at Cecropia's talk page and UnivitedCompany's talk page

Endorse UnivitedCompany's View

1. I still feel that adminship isn't a big deal, despite Cecropia's and others' movement to the contrary. Now, I generally don't support users that I don't know if they haven't answered the admin questions and such. However, I don't feel that a formal acceptance is necessary - in the case of users that I am already familiar with, I already know whether to support or oppose. Andre (talk) 19:47, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. I agree w UC, if you need an acceptance, just wait until they accept or decline, or de-admin them when they complain of not wanting to be an admin. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. I agree with Cecropia that they should be able to take time out to accept a nomination, but there is something that does not sit well with me about giveing time frame limits. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 06:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

   Ingoolemo, please see my comment below.

   In response to the comment by Cecropia: yes I support an open-ended extension until the user accepts the nomination. Sorry for the confusion.
   But I do think that common sense should rule over timeout (you can't come along and accept nomination three months later and still get it). →Iñgólemo← (talk) 17:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

4. I don't believe someone should be suddenly made sysop without asking. After the seven days are up, if consensus is reached, a bureaucrat should leave comment on their talk page informing them they've been pre-approved for adminship whenever they feel like it. Cool Hand Luke 12:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. It seems to me as if the disputing parties are doing a hen of a feather-issue. If there are obvious signs of a user accepting nomination, I fail to see why the way this is expressed should be of any concern. There are other issues of the nomination process that in my humble opinion would deserve much more interest. /Tuomas 14:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Agree with the above. --Lst27 (talk) 02:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. I agree with the above as well. ugen64 17:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. Cribcage 04:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorse Cecropia's View

1. Geogre 19:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) I go even further, myself. I think there should be a quorum on votes. It seems to me insane that someone is active enough to be performing admin duties and yet not have noticed the nomination. I would even say that a failure to answer the questionnaire is a very, very bad sign. If we have no quorum, then we have the nominator's "yea" vote and perhaps 2-3 people who vote "pro" everyone who hasn't given an explicit offense, and then that person is an admin. That seems wrong, if our goal is to get people who will work to help the project.
2. While admins should not be expected to be everywhere at once, I am honestly surprised that there is even a debate over whether admin candidates should be expected to accept their nominations in order to be promoted. I see this as a necessary courtesy to the community, and as a promise that one will not abuse administrative abilities. --Slowking Man 00:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
3. You're supposed to ask before nominating them anyway, so I can't see how there can be a problem in coming over here to accept the nomination. I agree with the idea that the request runs for voting for seven days, if not accepted by the end of the request, it should be considered to have not been accepted and put to bed. Shane King 07:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
4. Agree with Shane King. 7 days is more than enough time to respond- especially when they're usually asked first. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 16:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Asking people to accept nominations isn't too much. In fact, I'd be in favor of making people accept before it's even put on the main page. No need to waste the time of others by letting a nomination go for a few days and then turning it down (be it because of not wanting admin status in the first place or choosing not to after getting negative feedback). CryptoDerk 03:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
6. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 17:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. If a user isn't interested in Wikipedia Housekeeping to be bothered to go to the RFA page and type I accept. ~~~~, I don't think they're interested enough to bother voting, let alone make them an admin. The alternative being developed below seems promising, as long as it's well enough documented that people see and follow it. Niteowlneils 02:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. You go to someone's talk page and ask them if they would like to be an admin. They say 'yes' or 'no'. If they say 'yes', you can place them on the adminship page. The nominee should also state on the RfA page they they have accepted. They should answer the boiler plate questions, (btw, either everyone nominee should answer the boiler plate questions, or no nominee should answer them, there should be a uniform system). The nominee should check on the RfA page to answer any questions that come up. Since all of us have lives outside of WP, the nominee can state that they may have pressing "offline" affairs to attend to that will make them somewhat unavailable during the week, which is OK, but please understand: the situation with Jeronimo was just a bit weird. Geogre had asked a question, and the nominee hadn't responded in any way. I don't understand way there is so much resistence to a little bit of propriety. I don't think it is too much to ask an admin nominee to take an interest in their own nomination. Being aware of how things work around here is kind of one of the things that an admin should know. func(talk) 04:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. What Func said. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 19:22, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Other Perspectives and Comments

1. I'm going to hold off on voting for the moment, but I am one of the users who frequents this page who believes that adminship is a bigger deal than it was in the beginning and than many people still believe it is. I respect both beaurocrats greatly, but personally I will not even consider the user if they do not have the courtesy to accept the nomination. It shows that they are possibly lacking in the community-minded element that I believe all admins should have. I know there is a lot of resistance to policy changes around here (probably because they are proposed so often), but if a policy is to change, I would lean strongly toward Cecropia's view. Skyler1534 17:58, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Since I became an admin, I can't think of a single person who did not accept their nomination explicitly on RfA. If someone can find some, I'd be curious. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Skyler in the sense that I think treating this as some kind of poll is premature, why not have some discussion to figure things out. I do think that some kind of positive acceptance of the nomination is needed, preferably on the RfA page (though I believe in the past some people have been made admins even though their statement of acceptance was made elsewhere, such as on their nominator's talk page). I'm not sure that granting permission to nominate qualifies as the same thing, because some people have preferred to watch their nominations for a little while to gauge the reaction before declaring whether they accept it. I would suggest that we err a little bit on the side of interpreting statements to be acceptance, because I've seen some rather cryptic "acceptances", and when in doubt, it's fine to ask the nominee for clarification. Once clarification is requested, give the nominee a reasonable amount of time, depending on what their activity level is, to respond, regardless of whether voting has theoretically closed already. --Michael Snow 18:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The issue I raised was chiefly regarding the propriety of his imposition of a 24-hour deadline on Jeronimo's nomination in particular. Please note that I did not nominate Jeronimo; Taxman did. My comments had arisen from that situation in particular and should be taken in that context. The requirement that prospective admins be asked for permission before being nominated has been widely ignored, and now that there has been greater observance of it there is understandably more confusion among nominees who now have to accept twice.

Also, I'm dismayed to see this issue come to a vote given that there has been so little discussion, and I feel that the banner on WP:RFA advertising the vote is of questionable appropriateness. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is it inappropriate to let the community know that there is a conflict of opinion between two bureaucrats, empowered to promote? This vote hasn't a specific deadline--there is the opportunity for plenty of discussion right here. UC's complaint on my "imposition" of a 24-hour deadline is a misunderstanding. Jeronimo's nomination has seven days without a response. If I were hard-nosed about it, I could simply have followed the guideline on the Bureaucrat page and removed the nomination for a failure to accept, but extended the deadline as a "heads-up" and informed Jeronimo of his need to accept, which he did, and he has been promoted. End of that story.

I am concerned that UC has such an activist philosophy of nominations, and thinks that if the existing policy disagrees with him, it should be ignored or changed. I engaged with him on issues of being an activist in proposing candidates and being a bureaucrat, because I think bureaucrats need to be viewed as being as impartial as possible, lest there be a perception of conflict of interest. I was satisfied with UC's response, but now I'm becoming concerned about an actual conflict of interest. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I'm a little concerned that you think UC's attitude is a problem. This project is only three years old. Policy is whatever we want it to be and anyone, especially our most trusted users, can suggest changes. Policy pages, just like the rest of the wiki, are editable for a reason. As to the subject, adminship isn't an "honorific", but it's not a job either. Some people make it sound like we have a limited number of admin positions available. If that were true, then we'd have to make sure that every candidate is going to make the best possible use of the sysop flag on their account. However, there's essentially zero cost in toggling the admin switch for someone. There's no reason to deny someone adminship unless there's a real possibility that it will be misused. Isomorphic 19:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isomorphic, some people feel one way, some other. I have not made a case that adminships should be limited, but as someone who does "push the button" I need to see what the standards are that enables the button to be pished or not. Up until now, it seems everyone has managed to accept their nominations on the RfA page, now we have a bunch that go for days without acknowledging the promotion or standing ready to answer voter questions, and UC complains that I'm even asking people to express their opinions on the subject. If there are no standards, then we don't don't even need a button pusher. The software can easily be written to admin people automatically. Absolutely, anyone can suggest changes, but UC is trying to impose them, and, IMO, effectively telling another "most trusted user" to bug off. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apologies. I should read pages more carefully before posting. I was supporting UC's 14:53 comment, not the later one. I don't think that it was inappropriate for you to ask for comments on it. Really though, I don't think any of this is a big deal. Isomorphic 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we go to the bother of stating a rule on the RfA page, aren't we obligated to follow it until such a time as that rule has been changed? That is the expectation of voters, certainly. Knowing that the wiki nature of policies means that they have been changed out from under the voters is a bit severe. It would be like signing the Declaration of Independence and then having Townshend rewrite the paper to be a dissolution of the Continental Congress above the signatures. Geogre 20:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a practical upshot of that to illustrate the point: I hate to vote "oppose" on RfA. I'm a nice guy, generally. If I see that the candidate hasn't accepted the nomination, I feel relieved that I don't have to vote "oppose." However, if people are going to be promoted without accepting, I really need to know that so that I can enter an "Oppose until the nomination is accepted" on every single new nom. Geogre 20:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that we make anyone an admin without their express consent. I just don't see a reason to make rules about how soon someone has to respond. A good candidate is a good candidate, even if they aren't paying attention to RFA or haven't been on in a few days. Isomorphic 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But this was about Jeronimo's nomination, where it went the full seven days without the user ever looking at it, standing ready to answer questions or otherwise engage the community. UC complained that I only gave J one extra day. actually, if he hadn't edited in the day, I would have give him another--but I don't believe in open-ended nominations. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, there is a reason to avoid the infinite admin world. This is purely practical and not at all philosophical. Right now, edit wars and personal disagreements between users are bad, and those between admins and users are bad, but such between admins are disasterous. There is no recourse in the last case except immediate ArbCom. If our ArbCom were moving with the speed of Robespierre and the finality of the Star Chamber and the wisdom of Solomon, then that would be ok, but the more we pile on the speedy delete, undelete, and blocking priviledges to untested folks, the more we run into an inevitable pile up and fracturing of the arbitration system. Geogre 20:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In short course, UC has begun making multiple nominations, followed by posting what amounts to "A-Lists" of people he has decided should be admins, but asking others to nominate them, and initially posted same right on the RfA page (but complains about the propriety of my simply posting a notice 'asking editors to express their opinions here. Then he begins soliciting admins whether they're interested or not, and now asserts that I'm wrong in expecting them to at least publicly accept these solicited nominations on the RfA page. Following his logic, and considering how good he tells me all his nominations are (and by and large, I acknowledge they are) will he next decide that as a bureaucrat (which he is) he would be justified in simply promoting those he considers suitable? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To Ingoolemo, we alrady have a time frame for nomination: seven days. In difficult nominations I have advocated, and have indeed extended nominations to help insure consensus, so I (or another b'crat) do not have to evaluate the nom unless it is necessary. Not everyone agrees with this. This is not a case of limiting nominations. Everyone has the full seven days to accept, though I think this is a disrespect to voters who might want to know more about the candidate. What this is about is giving an open-ended extension after the full seven days just because the candidate hasn't bothered to look at the page and accept or reject the nomination. Is that what you favor when you say you are bothered by time limits? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

an alternative

I have thought about this over the weekend and would like to observe that the present state of affairs is neither fish nor fowl. Usually, in a situation in the real world where nominations must be accepted, voting does not begin until the acceptance is made. Perhaps we would be best served by starting the 7-day voting period only when an acceptance is received. This would eliminate many of the corner cases that some perceive to be problematic, and would eliminate any need to ask permission before nominating, since no action on the nomination would take place before it is accepted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As stated in my vote from earlier today, I'm all for this. CryptoDerk 23:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oh. I guess this is ok. Andre (talk) 23:37, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with that, with the understanding that voting does not begin until acceptance is received, but that makes it incumbent on the nominator that they inform the nominee. Personally, I don't think that it is mandatory that the nominee be asked first (though it seems like a reasonable idea) but acceptance and availability to the community is. If we can agree, we could vote this as a change. How about if we place a category Pending Nominations before the Current Nominations. If accepted the nomination is moved to "Current" and the clock begins. If not accepted or rejected in xx days (would you leave it up forever?), it simply is removed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose of it, from my perspective. In my endorsement of your view above I mentioned that I'd be in favor of this because it wouldn't waste the time of the community. I'd be in favor of a pending nominations category only if people weren't allowed to comment or vote on pending nominations. CryptoDerk 00:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ermm... I though that's what I said, but I guess not. I agree with you, no comments or votes until the person accepts. If anyone does vote or comment, it would be removed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The combined suggestion of UninvitedCompany and Cecropia sounds like a reasonable way to do things. However, there would need to be some education of people that you don't vote on unaccepted nominations, and a way to discourage this effectively. Otherwise we may frequently see "votes" and comments being made early anyway. Might I suggest that after a reasonable transition period, we declare that premature votes mean that person's vote will be disregarded, even if they come back and vote properly afterwards? --Michael Snow 07:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Even if they come back and vote properly afterwards"? Sounds awful. But come on, you make it seem as if it will be very difficult to actually get people to accept that........ that they cannot vote yet on something that is marked "Don't vote yet"???? I don't think it'd be difficult at all. This is a terribly reasonable idea. Make it policy fast. (I like the particular implementation Cecropia discusses best) D. G. 10:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know it doesn't sound great, but unless the prohibition is very clearly marked (and it didn't sound like it), then I do very much expect that people wishing to disrupt particular nominations and/or the general process will "vote" prematurely. Maybe you prefer to cross that bridge when we come to it, but it's naive to think that those people don't exist. --Michael Snow 17:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So how about if the "Pending" looks like this?:

---

Pending Nominations

The following nominations are awaiting acceptance by the candidates. Do not vote or comment on these. Voting will begin when and if the candidate accepts.

User:UltimateTroll

UltimateTroll has worked hard to destroy Wikipedia and ruin the work of other users. Becoming an admin would help him immeasurably in his work. If he is elected he promises his first act will be to put an indefinite ban on Jimbo Wales. I know this nomination probably won't pass, but I just like nominating people. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Awaiting acceptance. Do not vote or comment

---

As John Hancock said, that should be big enough that old King George should be able to read it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, with clearly marked instructions like that it probably would be enough to satisfy my concerns. Though I must admit, I was considerably tempted to have a little fun by jumping the gun and "voting" on this example. --Michael Snow 07:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many decide whether to accept a nomination based on other users' reactions to it. I think notification before nomination is appropriate, but not acceptance. VeryVerily 11:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WOW. Surely pigs shall fly soon, for I agree with VeryVerily! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can always retract your acceptance. It happens all the time. Shane King 01:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Of course you can, but many modest or insecure users may be inclined to decline until they see how much enthusiasm their nomination inspires. VeryVerily 12:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I have a slight quibble with it. Sorry. I do agree with it in general, but I think it has been illustrative to see the lack of response in some of them. That's not to indict uc's nominations at all, but one qualification of an admin is being obsessed enough to be hitting Wikipedia often. Grantes, people take vacations and go out of town on business meetings, but I do think knowing that it has taken someone 8 days or thereabouts to answer the call is information that voters can use or not. Having a nomination fade away if not accepted may be too harsh, but it does have a purpose. Geogre 15:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would happily vote against any user who can't respond to a nomination by accepting it or rejecting it. I think the very minimum I need from an admin is responsiveness to wikipedia process, particularly when notified. Pedant 00:45, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I have edited the guidelines for self-nominations (Archive 25)

Yep. Please review my edit, here's the diff for your convenience, and please also read my argument in the discussion section for self-nominator Edward. Feel free to revert or improve the guidelines.--Bishonen | Talk 18:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to your changes; I think they refer to a shift in sentiment on self-noms. I think self-noms have both a plus and a minus relative to sponsored nominations: the plus is that they show a positive interest in the position, something which has not always been present in sponsored nominations; the minus is that voters don't have the advantage of seeing the nominee associated with another Wikipedian whom they may be familiar with, good or bad. But on balance I think self-noms should be considered on their merits as should sponsored noms. Just my personal 2c. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also have no objection to the changes, but... The diff you supplied is for a RfC page that appears totally irrelevant. Is that an accident? Or is there some connection I'm not seeing? Tuf-Kat 21:52, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding. No, you're not. I'm very sorry, that would have been quite a connection. Not that it's not an interesting and gruesome RfC, but I didn't at all mean to link to it, thanks very much for pointing it out. I've fixed it now, I hope. (Tested it.)--Bishonen | Talk 22:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tend to feel that the "many hundreds" bit may be outdated I have a hard time imagining a self nom getting through with under a thousand edits. Geni 23:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, be bold, change it to reflect current practice.--Bishonen | Talk 00:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As usual, I like Bishonen's work. And "many hundreds" is really not that bad of a way to say "quite a lot" here; saying a specific number like a thousand makes it sound too much like that's some magic threshold. --Michael Snow 00:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Selfnoms (Archive 26)

I see that the idea that self-noms should exceed the usual requirements for adminship has returned to the page, probably for reasons of brevity and reduction of instruction creep. Brevity is good, but still, I really disagree with the very absolute form it has now attained:

You may nominate yourself, but should exceed usual expectations before doing so.

(Diving into the History, there seems to have been a slippery slope via a suggestion that it's "advisable" for self-noms to exceed the usual expectations). I've edited the sentence to read:

You may nominate yourself. Some voters feel you should exceed usual expectations before doing so, but most voters can be presumed to consider all nominees on their own merits.

Please discuss here or edit ad libitum.--Bishonen | talk 14:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of that section anyway. It simply incourages poeple to descriminate against self noms.Geni 15:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Genius, Geni! I totally agree with your version. Much better. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• What he said. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Promotions for self-nominations should be judged the same way promotions for regular nominations work. Kingturtle 16:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The candidates will be "endorsed" by the supporting voters anyway, so uncertain editors will look out for trusted names in either camp. But I do think there should be some slight discouragement of selfnoms: If you're going to stand a chance, it should be simple enough to find a nominator, and afaik, asking someone to nominate you is not discouraged at all, and the practice of nomination is a nice tradition. dab (ᛏ) 16:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. For promotion purposes, self-noms are treated the same way. What I think the wording was originally` trying to convey was a message to self-noms that a number of voters had a bias against self-noms (I think it's less than it was a year ago) and they should be prepared for this. I think we should either spell this out in the wording (i.e., make clear that this is a voting issue, not a policy issue) or remove it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There's another reason to discourage self-noms, if only slightly. Most experienced Wikipedians won't nominate someone unless they are a good candidate. Many self-nominators, however, don't have a clear idea of what makes a successful nomination, and may be discouraged by the results of their self-nomination. Isomorphic 21:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Doing away with a separate section for self-nominations (Archive 28)

I would like to remove the self-nom section and instead have all nominations in one section. The separate section for self-noms dates to an era when self-noms were discouraged; most that were made were in bad faith. It was handy to keep them separate. This is no longer the case, and it would be helpful to me (and probably the other bureaucrats as well) to have the votes all in chronological order. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No objections from this paper-pushing bureacrat →Raul654 17:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me; since there is a statement by the nominator at the top of every one, it would always be clear which were self-inflicted. (If I were feeling cheekier I'd suggest keeping a separate section for sockpuppet nominations ... ) Antandrus (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it, but I'd like to see self-noms tagged in some way. It might be wikipedia:requests for adminship/Foo (self-nom). And we could see that it was one in the TOC. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 17:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I personally would rather do away with the other section, and have them all be self-noms. The immodesty required to post a self-nom when we have a non-self-nom section means the 'pedia often has to wait months beyond what we might otherwise do to have good editors become admins. If there was no "blessing" process, this would happen much less frequently. If the more respected position of Bureaucrat needs no "blessing", then Administry surely doesn't either. -Splash 18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Doing away with the segregation seems like an excellent idea. But I must say, I really, really like Splash's suggestion. A lot of people who would make good Admins don't want to self-nominate, and sometimes the system (meaning: other users) lets some excellent candidates slip through the cracks. And self-noms are still under the shadow of those times when they were discouraged. This can be easily observed: with just a few exceptions, self-noms usually draw a lot less participation from the community. When nominated by another user, a solid candidate can get 10, 12, 15 support votes in the first 24 hours of his/her RfA, whereas a self-nom, even if a solid candidate, can take days, maybe almost the entire week period, to get the same amount of support. It feels like people just don't want to "cross the border" into "self-nom land". But if self-nominating was to be the way to get Adminship, the problem would disappear. Plus, there'd be no need for the nominee to accept nomination. Regards, Redux 04:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support this. I self-nominated myself about a year ago and have always tried to support any self-nominaton with reasonable merit. I don't think there will be sufficient support to completely do away with the "regular" nomination process, but the segregation serves no purpose. — David Remahl 05:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No objections from the guy who complained himself into the seat a month after joining ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the argument that self-noms are preferable to other-noms. While I applaud the personality types that are willing to nominate themselves as worthy candidates, many of us aren't that good at promoting ourselves (and in fact loathe doing so). If being an admin required a self-nom, I might never have become one. The same is surely true of many others. Ultimately, since I want as many admins as are capable and reliable, I think other-noms are vital. I trust no one with power as much as I trust the ones who would never have sought power on their own. Jwrosenzweig 07:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If self-nom was the way to become an admin, I could still post a message to a promising user's page saying "hey, I think you should become an admin! place your nomination on RFA and I'll be first in line to support it!". — David Remahl 14:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As long as some admins are proposed by others while others self-nominate, it seems reasonable to me to do one of two things: (1) keep them separate, as now, this follows precedent; or (2) make all nominations "self-noms" instead of expecting candidates to proposed, then accept. Frankly UC, this seems to me to be another solution in search of a problem. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

My experience is that the manifestly unsuitable candidates are just as likely to come up through nomination from another user as through self-nomination, and that therefore there's little excuse for having two separate sections on the page. Perhaps a coloured note could be added somewhere to denote those nominated by others? David | Talk 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Simplifying the process - only self-nominations? (Archive 32)

Now that there have been changes in the RfA process, the guidelines given on the instruction page are heading dangerously towards m:instruction creep. Now, I know this has been discussed before, but how about allowing only self-nominations for RfA? It would simplify the process a great deal (and the instructions could be put back on the main page so that people would notice them more readily) and would show decent initiative on the part of the nominee. People who wanted others to be nominated could do that simply by suggesting it to them on their talk pages, and a lot of trouble and clutter would be saved. Anyone agree? - 143.167.21.177 19:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree; the person who would now nominate can be first or second vote. (In fact, we could make this like RfC's: if nobody will support the nomination within 48 hours, it's doomed, and should be decently removed.) Septentrionalis 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I refused to self-nom and I'd actually be in favor of prohibiting them. I am likely to evaluate an other-nom more favorably than a self-nom; the fact that the candidate found someone else to put his or her reputation on the line to make the nomination carries significant weight to me. Please don't take away this valuable aspect of our process. Kelly Martin 20:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly Martin - I'd feel uncomfortable lauding myself in an RfA intro.  BD2412 ^talk 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, I felt extremely weird self nominating (just an hour ago) but on the other hand I want to contribute in a different way and didn't want to wait for/ask somebody to nominate me... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with KM and BD. Why should you refuse to self-nom? You believe you are or are not up to the task, right? Self-importance is a negative but so is false modesty, and I think edits and behaviour speak for themselves regardless of where the nom came from. I don't think it should be limited to self-noms but I can't see a basis for their removal. Marskell 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think that a prohibition either way is not the way to go. There is nothing wrong with a self-nomination, but personally I hold it to higher scrutiny than a regular nomination. However, there's cases where a self-nomination is acceptable. I wouldn't self-nominate myself for the reasons BD2412 and Kelly Martin state, but I don't see why it should be disallowed either. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder should there be a required minimum number of edits for self-nominations to be valid? I might be mistaken, but I think most of the nominations of new users who haven't a chance of being accepted come from those users themselves. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yay, but even if this became something like semi-policy, then you'll have the problem of people trying to boost their edit counts; can't have it both ways, me thinks. I for one would opt for a minimum time around (say something like 6 months, or even 9 months), with fairly regular contributions, so one can be sure of people having grasped policy and being sure about their behaviour. Lectonar 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm strongly against the idea of only having self-noms - nomination by others is actually a far better method. I wouldn't go so far as to ban self-noms, but I'd far prefer it if they were actively discouraged. It is far easier for other members of the wiki community to assess whether a person is of admin material, based on their interactions with the wiki community, than it is for a person to judge themselves. Many of the best admins would probably never have become admins if they had not been approached by others prepared to nominate them and while I wouldn't name myself as "one of the best admins" I will add that I certainly wouldn't be an admin either if it was self-nom only). Allow self-noms, sure, but make it clear that (as Kelly and others have implied here) nomination by others is favoured and more likely to result in a successful vote. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

favoured? I tend to view non self noms a wimps who lack enthusiasm and as a result have an increased risk of adding to the ranks of paper admins. Not that this makes much difference since one of my creteria for voteing tend to be (although not always) that I have to have a clue who you are.Geni 10:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just wanna say that people that request their own adminiship are more likely to be active in maintanance tasks than people who have adminship bestowed upon them. I nominated myself 2 months ago and received overwhelming support, and the Wiki is better off because of it! ;) Coffee 12:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

On average, I suspect that history would not support you on this, and I speak as someone who became an admin via self-nom. Unfortunately, many self noms come from people who have not been around long enough to know what's involved or from people on a mission, like the recent User:GordonWatts request. Generally speaking, self noms constitute about 10–20% of all requests. I just did a quick, unscientific sample of 32 failed noms; 18 (56.25%) were self noms. This would indicate that self noms are more likely to come from candidates that the community finds unacceptable. Personally, I think this is a classic case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Besides, in a sense we just fixed it with the requirement that noms be accepted and questions answered before they get posted, so lets see how that works out.  BD2412 ^talk 13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The current system works fine as it is. Please don't prohibit self-nominations. I would never have become an admin if I hadn't nominated myself. And prohibiting nominating others is even more silly. There are a lot of people who never thought they'd have a remote chance at adminship until they were nominated, and once they were accepted as admins, they have done a lot of good work. — JIP | Talk 14:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Question (Archive 44)

Are self-nominations generally seen as less worthy than being nominated by someone else? --Revolución (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's exactly how the page discribes it. Some people view it unfavorably, some favorably. I don't know if there's a way to tell how many are in each camp, but it seems even, though either way, I think more people jsut don't care and evaluate the candidate anyway. Statistically self noms are less likely to succeed, but that's probably due to failure to self select properly. - Taxman ^Talk 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm much in favor of self-nominating, and give "extra points" to the candidates brave enough to take that road. Adminship is not a country club, and should not need a sponsor. But my impression, sadly, is that rather more voters disagree than agree with me. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Self noms tend to be really good candidates (i.e. you only nom yourself when you're really sure you can pass) or really bad (i.e. trolls and "newbies" who dont understand the procedure), but not much in between. Martin 14:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at RfAs from 27 June 2005 forward for editors with >2000 edits, 70.6% of self noms were successful. 84.1% of non-self noms were successful. I am 100% against the idea of not allowing self-noms. But, self-noms are less successful on the whole than non-self noms. --Durin 14:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal: Recommendations (Archive 44)

My proposal is rather simple and straightforward, yet could result in an overall improvement of the RfA process.

Basically, for an RfA to begin, the candidate would need to have recommendations from 3 admins. The recommendations would briefly describe why the candidate would make a good admin. With over 700 active admins, finding three to write a recommendation would prove to be trivial. This proposal would virtually eliminate the problem of woefully unqualified candidates nominating themselves and would also lead to borderline candidates getting additional feedback. Thoughts? Carbonite | Talk 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a funny proposal coming from a self-nom who didn't have a recommendation from a single administrator. I'll support it if you and any other admins pushing for this instruction-creep voluntarily start over and put yourself through the same process. --لæmäļ al diη 19:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer a few questions that may come up:

• Why eliminate self-noms?

There's nothing inherently wrong with self-nominating. In fact, my RfA was a self-nom. However, as the community gets larger, it's more important than ever for reasons to be provided about why a candidate should be made an admin. It's not uncommon to see an RfA become one or two reasons to support followed by an endless string of "Me too!". This proposal would ensure that there would be four users (candidate + 3 admins) making such statements before the RfA even began.

• Why could only admins provide the recommendations?

Admins have been entrusted by the community to make good judgement calls. With 700 admins, finding three to write a short recommendation for an RfA is fairly easy for anyone likely to pass. Obviously, there would be no new restrictions on who could participate in the RfA once it began.

• Why 3 admins?

Two seemed too low and four seemed too high. ;) It is rather arbitrary, but I think 3 is a low enough number to make the task of obtaining the recommendations pretty easy while still improving the integrity of the process.

I'm open to any other questions users may have. Carbonite | Talk 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good to me as at least an interim solution. It is not clear to me exactly what the long-term consequences of this approach might be, but my first thoughts are that this is a good proposal. I'd incorporate the suggestion that the "why" needs to be shown with diffs. Jkelly 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Even though three might be excessive, this looks like a very practical solution. The best thing is that the admin who puts forward the name has a reputation to lose by suggesting someone whose qualitites (s)he is not sure about and this itself will filter out a few. Tintin Talk 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Second thoughts. Is this an original suggestion ? It seems to me that someone would have suggested this sometime and it should have been shot down for some reason. Tintin Talk 18:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Offhand, I can't remember this exact proposal being made before. I thought it over for a while before adding it here and I haven't been able to think of any major drawbacks. It does make it harder for a candidate to begin an RfA, but I see that as a sign that the candidate is truly interested in the position. Carbonite | Talk 18:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to suggest that everybody do trials of the policies they are proposing. Simply vote oppose if the candidate can't get the endorsement of three admins, in this case.

Personally, I don't feel this proposal has much to offer. I'm not worried about the woefully inadequate self-noms. RFA is not an overworked process. Eliminating every single woefully inadequate nomination will not solve the problem of inadequate (but not woefully so) admins being approved do the the social-club-like nature of this process. And since the process works like a social club or popularity contest, it will be easy to find three like-minded newbie admins to approve you. All you have to do is just start voting support in every single nomination, or at least most of them. It won't be long before three of them are approved, and willing to support you as "thanks." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But with the current RfA process we won't know if three admins endorse a candidate until after the RfA has begun. One important difference is that my proposal is for three admins to provide recommendations, not just a support "vote". I consider a recommendation to be about a paragraph in length, providing links and diffs when appropriate. As for admins possibly returning favors, it's always a possibility, but people can still oppose the RfA if the candidate is unsuitable or the recommendations don't give any real reasons to support. This proposal is essentially about improving the RfA process, not trying to perfect it (I don't think that's possible). Carbonite | Talk 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Carbonite, can you do a practical test. Check the RfAs of a few admins who you consider 'bad', and see who nominated them. The results were not very encouraging when I tried it. Tintin Talk 18:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually did this a few days ago and without going into specifics, my experience was that the nominators in these RfAs were rarely admins themselves and some were users I've barely heard of. Overall, I think it's pretty hard to use anecdotal evidence to evaluate the merits since we're all going to have different views of whom the "bad" admins are. This proposal would raise the bar to three admins and encourage the recommendation to be as specific as possible. There wouldn't be additional work for bureaucrats and we'd also have the added advantage of eliminating the RfAs that easily fail, but end up hurting the feelings of the candidate (sometimes leading them to leave Wikipedia). Carbonite | Talk 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

a simplification of "another proposal"

Rather than saying "three admin recommendations before we start", wouldn't it be far simpler to say that a person can stand for rfa, but would only become an admin if at least three of those voting support were admins, and the ratio of admins voting support/oppose was above the standard criterion for adminship? This would make the rfa process "bicameral" like some parliamentary systems - 75% support from editors overall, and 75% from admins. I realise it reeks a little of elitism for the admins, but so does requiring three admin recommendations before even starting an rfa. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps even simpler, the person has to get 3 admins to mentor a nomination. Until 3 admins step forward, the nomination does not take effect. Anyone could still vote, but it wouldn't count without the 3 admin mentors. It should also be stated that along with being a mentor the 3 admins are putting their own reputation on the line for the candidate. Most self-noms would probably end up serching out admin mentors before posting at RfA, and that would probalby be a very good thing. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... no. There is a big difference between voting support and proposing a candidate. If you look at the people who vote in RfA, a large percent of those who vote for support are 'acquaintances' - they may have met the candidate a few times, or they may have just found that he appears to be a decent guy etc. On the other hand, the proposers are invariably people who know the candidate intimately, who have probably worked with him/her for a considerable period of time. Tintin Talk 08:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, on my rfa, the proposer was Durin, with whom I hardly interacted before the rfa. I felt that I measured up to his standards and asked him to consider nominate me; he did so after due diligence. However, the moot point is, "how many people would go to the length of formally stating their standards for nominating and then, performing due diligence on all the aspirants." --Gurubrahma 08:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, I didn't know my nominator at all, I certainly hadn't worked closely with him and there was very little discussion before the nomination. I don't really like the idea of people having to recruit admins for nominations. Maybe a page editors could add themselves to express interest in becoming an admin. Don't we have one of those? A category or something. Rx StrangeLove 19:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I actively recruit people whom I think will make good admins. I have high standards for whom I nominate (which are not the same as who I would vote support for). Several users now (with Gurubrahma being the first) have asked me to conduct reviews of them with respect to my standards for the possibility of a nomination. I don't see any problem with recruiting admins, or with having people ask to be nominated. --Durin 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Being able to suck up to existing admins should not be a requirement for adminship.Geni 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In truth, I'm inclined to agree with Geni above (although I probably wouldn't have said it in quite that way). I'm also concerned that this is generally unproductive bureaucreep, and that it is (or is liable to be interpreted as) an attempt to elevate the standing of administrators. Administrative privileges should not be used as a measuring stick to determine whether or not an editor can "make good judgment calls." There are plenty of editors who have no interest in taking on the role of sysop who are as mature, capable, and well-reasoned as any admin. While I'm not opposed, in principle, to requiring that admin candidates seek out a given number of recommendations, I see absolutely no reason to accept recommendations from current admins only. Let anyone provide them: in all likelihood, editors incapable of making reasonable judgment calls are probably not going to provide a particularly compelling recommendation. – Seancdaug 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. RfA tends to be a very darwinian process. I do not like the hostility that is often generated at WP:RFA, but the process does a fairly decent job of sorting out people who would make poor administrators. I also concur with Seancdaug, in that admins do not necessarily mean good judgement calls, and great editors who have no interest in being admins; we should not be stratifying users on Wikipedia in any respect. All of us...all of us...start with one edit. The qualities inherent in an individual that will make them great Wikipedians exist even before their first edit. We should not be treating newcomers any different than Jimbo, or holding them in any less respect. --Durin 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrat nominations (Archive 45)

Lately there has been some question about bureaucrats being nominated (as admins can be) though the tradition has been that they be self-noms. The bureaucrat voting instructions do refer to this: "The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only (emphasis added). This does not preclude outside nominations but does express that it has not traditionally been done this way. I think we need to have a more definitive expression of community sentiment to either affirm the community's belief in self-nomination for bureaucrats or else delete the language.

Question: Should candidates for bureaucrat be required to put themselves forward for the position as previously expected, rather than allowing others to nominate them?

Yes (Nominees should put themselves forward only)

1. Support With the important disclaimer that I am in no way criticizing or looking down upon those recently made bureaucrat on other's nominations, I do want to express an opinion on this for future bureaucrat nominations.

   Being a bureaucrat requires a commitment to certain things that are inherent in making or removing candidates for adminship or bureaucratship. An expectation of fairness is a given. Knowledge of the process is a given. However, having to deal with other users in a promote/non-promote situation calls for the willingness to do a few extra things, among them: (1) to be active in watching RfA and/or renames; (2) to be ready to make a decision that may anger any number of people, no matter which way it is decided; (3) to be willing to make that decision with neither sympathy nor rancor; and (4) to be ready to coherently explain that decision and stick by it. Because of these considerations, I feel that this is a case (compared to adminship) where self-nomination is not only not a negative, but should be required. Why? Because if an admin feels that he or she has gained the knowledge, skills, commitment and desire to do the things above, their first act of positive interaction with the community as a prospective bureaucrat should be to put themselves forward and express why they should be placed in the position.

   Therefore I feel that bureaucrat nominations should not be put forward by others, nor candidates solicited. If someone needs to be convinced to be a bureaucrat, they probably should wait until they feel confident in themselves that it is something that they want to and are capable of doing enthusiastically. Those who might have been inclined to nominate a bureaucrat can put their same reasoning and discussion into their Support vote for the candidate. -- Cecropia 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Support, but with no objections or criticisms towards the recent successful RfBs per Cecropia (they are qualified). Bureaucrats do a very specialised and limited subset of adminstration activities. It shouldn't be seen as being a promotion or reward for being a good admin, and the best judges of who would be a good RfB candidate should be that RfB candidate himself (or herself). I know I'd find it hard to turn down being nominated for "an honour", so I'd accept even if I didn't think about being a bureaucrat before being nominated. Therefore, I think the "original status quo" which limited RfBs to self-noms only is the way to go. This system worked when RfB was first created, and I believe there's nothing wrong with it. --Deathphoenix 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   (Tangetially note that Quadell's did not succeed. -Splash^talk 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

3. Support, because bureaucrats should be able to stand on their own two feet. They should be candidates who command near-universal support anyway and so a nomination should be unnecessary. There is not (or should not be) a need to rely on someone else's reputation to help get your RfB started. Of course, those who participate may influence the process; that's part of the deal. Cecropia's ever-insightful remarks are also compelling. It was my inclination in the two recent nominated RfBs to oppose on those grounds — I think the process is inherently less suited to its purpose when there is a nominator. -Splash^talk 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, a bureaucrat should speak for themselves. If they need to have someone else suggest them, I question their actually interest in holding the position.--nixie 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
5. This seems like the tradition, and I don't see any reason to break with it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong support - bureaucrats must be quite proactive, and self-nominating is a sure sign of such proactivity. BD2412 T 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, I prefer bureaucrats to nominate themselves, and they will know whether they have the capability or not. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, what BD2412 said. - ulayiti (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, bureaucrats should be able to judge themselves and not rely on other people's opinions. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No (Nominees or other admins can put up candidates for bureaucrat)

1. Strong Object Luckily, my nomination of User:Francs2000 found here is a testament against this. I hope others follow in this form! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 12:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Your understandable pride in accomplishment notwithstanding, I'm rather amazed by your response, and I feel it makes my point as to why bureaucrats should put themselves forward and firms my own feelings that this should be policy. Francs2000's nomination was successful, but now it is he, not you, who will have to perform the duties of the position. Bureaucrat is a high-profile job in having to deal with editors. Why do you feel he needed an agent to present him to the community? Why wouldn't it have been better for him to have presented himself? Why are you writing someone else's resume for this position instead of your own? -- Cecropia 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Object, I can't see why users shouldn't be able to nominate other users for bureaucracy. — JIP | Talk 21:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Because it's a responsibility potential bureaucrats should take upon themselves, when they think they are ready? -- Cecropia 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

3. The difference between accepting a nomination and self-nominating doesn't seem to be an important one. Cecropia writes that nomination constitutes "writing someone else's resume," but this ignores the fact that the main part of that resume is the exhaustive record of every edit the nominee has ever committed, which is submitted for the community to examine. Also, I don't see how self-nominating especially reflects confidence or enthusiasm for the job (why would it?). In short, no need for rules on this. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   The thread of the negative responses, including yours, suggests to me that I haven't made my point clearly enough. When a nomination clearly passes or clearly fails, you don't really need a human at all (begging the question that bureaucrats are human). The job could be done by a bot. But when a decision must be made, a bureaucrat needs to be able to effectively engage the community. That is why, when someone is looking for this position, they should put themselves forward to give us our first impression of their commitment and people skills. For this, you don't want resume writers or head hunters. If this were to become common I could see bureaucratship becoming the kind of beauty contents that some of our admin nominations have become. Bureaucratship is a very specific responsibility, not a rite of passage. reward for tenure or good editing, or proof of how much some of your friends admire you. -- Cecropia 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes indeed, about the beauty contest aspect. Bureaucratship is not a lollipop. -Splash^talk 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   But they are putting themselves forward, regardless of how they are nominated. By accepting the nomination, they put forward the entirety of their editing history for inspection, and also invite questions, etc. The difference between nominating yourself and accepting someone else's nomination doesn't at all reflect the nominee's ability to engage the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   In one way it does. It reflects on the desire to accomplish this particular job, which requires relatively few but dedicated Wikipedians. It's something I feel should come directly from the candidate, not suggested by another. To which I'll add the comment that my fear is that open nomination will encourage some nominators to make a hobby of looking for people to nominate. When the day comes when a few of a large body of bureaucrats begins making some bad or even prejudiced decisions, and/or we have a large body of "paper bureaucrats" who didn't want to turn down what seemed like an honor, we'll wonder how it happened. -- Cecropia 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   I don't see why the nomination issue really reflects on the desire to accomplish the job -- again, why would it? Christopher Parham (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   And to your second point -- I see no reason why they shouldn't do so. One can only hope they manage to dig up dozens of users who are trusted enough to pass an RfB, but if the percentages at the ArbCom elections are any indication, such people are few and far between. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

4. No. To be blunt, I feel that "bureaucrat" has become an elite status-based position and I'd like to see this attitude changed with a swarm of new nominations. All users capable of managing responsibilities should be granted them, as per the logic of Wiki. Being a Bureaucrat is currently a "big deal", and far as I can tell this is simply because there are so few of them. I also don't see why we need to have a different policy regarding bureaucrats than we do for admins. Sarge Baldy 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Object, as per JIP. As for Cecropia's response to that, bureaucratship is a daunting task and as such acceptance of nomination is not something anyone should take lightly. Nominees show that they can stand on their own two feet by accepting their nomination. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Honestly, what does it matter if someone is too modest to nominate themselves? They might just need a little encouragement, and engaging the community is actually having the guts to accept the nom and have it listed. All the time people speak of instruction creep, and stopping people from nominating people olny for BCrat seems to fall into this category. Am I mistaken? This is a wiki, if someone wants to nominate someone else, why should we stop them? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Object. An old internet wisdom states that the best candidates are those who don't want the job, and must be dragged into it kicking and screaming. Kim Bruning 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   I find it unlikely anyone would be made a bureaucrat against their will. For example, if I were nominated for bureaucracy, I would simply decline the nomination. — JIP | Talk 11:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   You have no idea what you just got yourself into, do you? ;-) So, around what time will you be (or have you been) eligable to be a bureaucrat, did you say? Kim Bruning 17:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

8. Object Kim is right, I just wish I could find the pithy quote I remember. I don't see why it matters, and the folks most apt to nominate themselves are not necessarily the most qualified, it's not a measure of leadership or wisdom. Rx StrangeLove 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Object. Instruction creep, and all of the "support" rationales would apply equally well to admins. ~~ N (t/c) 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, they would, and I personally would be inclined to so apply them. However, that doesn't make them somehow less applicable to bureaucrats. It's not creep, incidentally, since it's the way it's been forever, with a couple of very recent exceptions. -Splash^talk 13:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   Well, then that's exactly what it is. Just because people didn't do it in the past doesn't make it wrong to do now. You are asking to now make this policy. Hence, adding more small rules to an otherwise fine process. Following tradition and making things policy are two drastically different things. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

10. Object. A user will decline if they don't wish the position. Limiting it to self-noms keeps the modest away. Ral315 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
11. It should work either way. User wants to be bureaucrat, then please nominate yourself. Or you believe there is a really cool guy/gal, then please do nominate him/her. Of course, a smart person would first ask the nominee if he/she is interested, to not get a public embarrassment both for nominator and nominee. That is to say, why should it be different for bureaucrats than for admins? What matters is not how one gets nominated, rather how people vote :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Object'. Let them reject noms if they want. Francs2000 certainly made the right choice.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Object Ral315 says it best.  ALKIVAR™ 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Object as per Ral315. -- Kjkolb 13:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Object per all the above. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 05:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
16. In my opinion, a nomination by another person is often a point in favour of the nominee. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Other perspective

• It was established tradition that all bureaucrat candidates were self-nominated. It doesn't fundamentally have to be this way, so nominations by others have slipped through, and we can abandon the tradition if we're so inclined. On the other hand, there isn't a tremendous need for bureaucrats, so there's not that much reason to abandon the tradition (unless it is treated as a reward or status symbol, which it emphatically shouldn't be). --Michael Snow 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• I second Michael Snow here, sentence for sentence. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I feel a duty to make a comment as I was one of the two bureaucratship requests that directly relates to this question being raised, however I am diplomatically holding no official position for that very reason. -- Francs2000 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And you understand that this question has nothing whatsoever to do with your or the other nominee or your fitness as a bureaucrat? If you don't think that's true, please state it openly. -- Cecropia 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

    Yes that is my understanding. -- Francs2000 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• No vote, as both sides have good points, however I tend to lean toward 'no' because it's more instruction creep for which I see not much point. I just think it's sort of funny that we're arguing about bureaucracy... —Ilyanep (Talk)
  • I feel it's the opposite of instruction creep. We have an ambiguous but traditional qualification for adminship which has now be questioned (before this). Either we should enforce the sentiment of the wording or eliminate it. -- Cecropia 01:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Long comment. As a non-self-nom (others-nom?), I was honored at the suggestion that I might be qualified, and I studied carefully through the requirements and responsibilities before accepting the nomination. I read several other candidacies, and looked through the talk page history. Still, there are a few things I missed, which weren't explicit, and which required in-depth understanding of the RfA and RfB process. I didn't know that an others-nom was almost never done. I didn't know that most bureaucrats agreed not to discuss ongoing admin nominations at all, so I hadn't thought through question #4 carefully enough, and had to change my answer. And most importantly, I wasn't aware of the higher standard for consensus when promoting bureaucrat nominees. I suppose this indicates that I wasn't really ready, and my nomination failed. This is all despite the fact that I have been around for 3 years and had a good working relationship with several bureaucrats. But nothing beats experience in the actual RfA process.

If I had waited until I decided to self-nominate, I probably would have been around RfA and RfB long enough to catch onto these things. So I suppose that's an argument for self-noming. I would advise potential bureaucrats to be very involved with the RfA or RfB process for at least a month before applying - and you would know better than anyone else when you're ready. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. A bunch of caveats: Yes, the anonymous vandalism had something to do with my non-promotion as well, but that was not under my control. And thanks to all those who voted for me - I think I would have caught these things quickly enough, so please don't feel you were wrong to vote for me. But a little more experience couldn't have hurt. I still don't think bureaucrat nominees should necessarily vote in RfAs, but they should be very involved in the process, which usually implies voting.)

What's the big deal about self-noms? (Archive 60)

I don't understand. There are a significant number of votes that oppose one's RFA on the basis of a self-nom. Why should a user, who could do the community a lot of good as a sysop as soon as possible, have to wait for another user to discover them?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hunger for power is sometimes considered a bad thing. Other than that, a big part of Adminship (such as the power to block users) requires interaction with other users. If the Admin hasn't interacted with other users enough to be nominated by someone else, that's potentially a weakness. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It's not like it's hard to get a nomination. You can go on IRC and mention you'd like one, and I'm sure someone will nominate you unless you have a lot of blocks or under 1,000 edits or something. How is that so much better than a self-nom? It's actually worse IMO... it's like you want to be an admin so bad you'll fish around for a nomination just so you don't get oppose votes for a self-nom. I'd rather someone just be honest and nominate themself. Anyone who accepts a nomination obviously wants to be an admin anyway... so I don't see the power-hungry thing. --W.marsh 17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, there is nothing wrong in self-nominating oneself. The user's intentions could be positive to Wikipedia in nature. For example, these users show a considerable amount of initiative to help Wikipedia. of course, this is NOT always the case as there are sel-nominations who nominate themselves for no serious purpose whatsoever. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people, including myself, actually prefer self-noms. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that helps. I'm thinking of applying after I help get an article to FA status.....though I'm not sure how to go about that...... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting FA help? User:Linuxbeak helped me out with a few pointers when I asked him, it might be worth dropping a line. Also, try the IRC channel, plenty of helpful people there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would not worry about XFA votes. Someone who has never written a featured article, yet votes in many FAs giving solid justifications for his votes, should get (hopefully) a support vote even from them. The same goes for someone who spends his time tidying up articles, if not developing them, or someone who has expanded an article following the guidelines from a stub into a GA one. Spend a week checking the FA nominations, and you will be able to pick up four or five names of extremely intelligent people who know about the matter. -- ReyBrujo 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Drop me a line when you bring something to peer-review or FAC (or any other time for that matter) and I'll give it a thorough look. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: active involvement in the FA process is a criterion that some users adopt in deciding on whether to support or oppose a candidate, but it is not a prerequisite for Adminship. Other users have said that they, [obviously] on the opposite direction of those who place importance on involvement with Featured Articles, do not believe that being involved with at least one FA's rise to that status is essential for a solid candidate. If anyone wants to get involved with FAC, all the better. Absolutely go for it, we can always use more Featured Articles. But it is not a steppingstone for Adminship, and a candidate should not expect promotion especifically because s/he has been involved with FAC. Redux 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to go thru with all of the advice given here.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing - I just read their userpage and record more carefully to see that their statement is accurate, but I don't apply higher standars.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Morally I encourage people to self-nom once they're ready, but I find a lot of people who self-nom haven't assessed themselves according to the current RfA voting standards, so they aren't really "ready" yet, and hence more self-noms than other-noms get "thrashed". Per Blnguyen, no different standards here. Kimchi.sg 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Change in RfA procedure without comment (Archive 73)

Once again we've had a change in RfA procedure without any opportunity for comment here on WT:RFA. This one is somewhat minor, but it still should have been brought up here before the change was made. Chacor, who said this was the way things are supposed to be from now on? Why do we have to have this more exclusionary instruction creep? Strikes me as just another reason for people to yank RfAs off the main RfA page because someone didn't follow procedure exactly perfectly. We should have looser, easier to not screw up processes not ones that induce more "gotcha!" factors. --Durin 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posted: I think you misunderstood my change. Currently, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that only fully-completed nominations can be listed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a nominator would list a nomination for the nominee. My change was only meant to reflect that nominees should be the ones listing their own RFAs when they've completed answering the standard questions and accepted it, as is current practice, and not the nominators. – Chacor 14:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• RfA nominations can and are posted by nominators, rather than nominees. This is not really surprising; some nominees are not denizens of RfA and would rather not mess up putting the RfA up and instead rely on the people nominating them to do so. --Durin 14:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is probably a rarer occurrence compared to nominees listing their own RFAs. I quote,

  Finally, once the nomination has been accepted and the questions answered, the nominee should transclude it on the RfA page when they are ready for the RfA to begin. Alternatively, the candidate may ask the nominator to do so. This is done by following the "edit this page" link in the appropriate section below and adding the template provided at the bottom of this page (with the nominee's name substituted for USERNAME) to the RfA page. Ideally, the nominee should do this when they are satisfied with their answers to the questions.

  (emphasis mine, taken from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate). It does say "alternatively, the candidate may ask the nominator to do so", but recently, how many -- what percentage -- have realistically asked the nominators to list it? – Chacor 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me.. but does it make a great deal how an RfA is listed? If a nominator wishes to list it.. then thats upto them. User:MatthewFenton 14:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, and I don't see any reason why we should prevent nominators from listing a correctly completed RfA. --Durin 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Would compulsory self-nominations find more admins? (Archive 74)

Well, that's the question. If I look at the list of RfA candidates for instance, I can recognise about 70% of the names. However If I look up one of those "Wikipedians with high edit counts" I will not recognise as many people. So I get the impression, that people who are more "famous" will be more likely to run for RfA. I think that there are hundreds of suitable candidates out there that would meet my nomination criteria, but I do not know of, and I know that many people refuse to self-nominate because they reason, "If I am suitable, then someone else will notice me". However, I'm sure there are many above-par candidates who judging by the time they wait until becoming admin, eg Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melchoir, I'm wondering whether making self-noms the only option, would get the non-"famous" editors to run? Of course, people may then not run until someone encourages them, instead of the nomination. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that part of the system is broken. I think it would be better for you to contact people you think would make good admins and ask them if they'd like to be nominated. You might find that many of these people prefer to remain an editor—I was asked three times before I decided to accept and a compulsory self-nom might have kept me from nominating myself ever. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not broken - I'm talking about the obscure guys that nobody has heard of before - I have nominated some people like User:Deville and User:JPD who mostly had only one page's worth of talk archives and they passed 71-1 and 94-1. I know that I am one of the RfA junkies by User:Blnguyen/RfA, of course, but I'm sure there are similar guys who do not edit in the same obscure vein, with only occasional public appearances, and I think that they are not putting their hands up because nobody would nominate them. Like I said, I recognise the majority of names, so I feel that the non-famous users are a bit shy to self-nominate, and people aren't looking hard enough either. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it would directly aid in the success rate. One benefit might be that self-nominations are often more informative than poorly thought exterior nominations. On the flip side, candidates often give self-nominations that are skewed (usually towards self-belittlement rather than self-aggrandizement in my experience).

I would say that the best nominations are excellent external nominations, followed by good self-nominations, followed by normal and poor external nominations, and ending with poor self-nominations (like 2 week old editors who have no clue what they are doing). Getting rid of either external or self nominations would be detrimental. --tjstrf talk 08:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if someone would nominate me, and in the end gave up and did it myself, and it went fine. I think the solution is not to ban external noms, but to convince people that self-noms do work. Can someone draw up statistics of the success rates for self noms and external noms (ignoring people with under 1000 edits, say)? We could put a simple interpretation of the stats on the main RfA page. --Tango 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's probably more a cultural thing. I didn't say that the current system was worse, I was only getting people thinking. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think limiting it to self-noms would greatly reduce the number of good nominations. Consider this - at present, there are two ways of a person being nominated. Would removing one of those ways increase the number of nominations? Consider this also - the way that is being considered as a possibility for being removed is the way involving an external - and therefore more objective - person from acknowledging worth. You may not recognise the names of users with loads of edits, but others will - especially if those names belong to users with solid history of interaction with other editors. As to which types of nom are best, I think that Tjstrf has hit it just about bang on. If anything, I'd say if the methods or nomination were to be reduced at all, it is self-noms, not the external noms, that should go. No-one is less well able to judge a potential admin's worth than that person him- or herself. But I don't see that as being necessary either. The important thing is that those worth nominating get nominated, whether by themselves or by others. And reducing the means by which they may be nominated is not going to increase the number of nominations. (Oh, and FWIW, if there were only self-noms allowed, I for one would still not be an admin, so I'm fairly glad there are external noms). Grutness...wha? 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, I think a simpler explanation for the fact that RfA nominees are often the more well-known Wikipedians is simply the fact that one often becomes well-known here typically by commenting on policy proposals, RfA's, noticeboards, etc. in addition to one's mainspace editing, and people with an interest in those sorts of things are perhaps more likely to seek adminship. I agree that the best way to get good, but quiet, candidates to run is to ask them to consider it. If they say yes, it doesn't matter so much to me who writes up the nomination. Newyorkbrad 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is true of course - I am looking for people always - User:Blnguyen/RfA, but I don't see too many people outside of my area, or are "non-famous" who are at RfA. We need to get totally non-famous people to change their willingness to toss their hat in. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• It appears that the amount of criticism of the process is inversely proportional to the amount of candidates running. (Radiant) 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, I'm not criticising it. I'm wondering if compulsory self-noms would promote more "boldness" from "obscure" candidates. I am just trying to see how to get some more unsung editors to get an RfA. Some of the people I nominated didn't go earlier because they won't self-nom out of priniciple, and because they are not "famous" they sat there for a long time, and when I nominated them, they passed 80+ almost unopposed. I'm just saying we need to get onto the more obscure people somehow, and wondering how we could do this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some people who don't do self-nominations, not because they feel that will make them seem too eager, but because they honestly do not think they are ready for adminship until someone else thinks they are. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem. Some of the "obscure" people I nominated said that they weren't self-nomming out of principle, and after I nommed them, they passed 80+ almost unopposed. So I feel we need to encourage people to be bolder as I feel we are missing out on some potentially great admins. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I was fully planning on submitting my own RfA when I felt I was ready.. then someone came along and they felt that I was ready. Some people just need a slight push before going through with it; restricting RfA to just self-noms (which I think is what the first post is about; I'm still not 100% sure) is a bad, bad idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more than that, too. For instance, I won't feel honestly ready to be an admin until someone else takes the time to write up a nomination statement for me. If someone's not willing to take that time, I won't ever think I'm ready. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And of course, 'famous' and 'obscure' people are only different in the amount of noise, er, discussion they generate. We all only ever see a small part of the encyclopedia. Those active in policy or community pages will be seen by more people, but they are still only taking part in a very small part of the encyclopedia. Obscure people require slightly more investigation, but that is all. Carcharoth 11:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)