User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Templates

Templates for Adminiship (Archive 58)

Are these templates valid? I remember such things being deleted on TfD several times before:

70.51.9.190 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why they would be invalid they're perfectly acceptable and are quite informative in knowing who isn't an admin but wants to be one. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if someone needs to advertise their hope to be an admin, they're not ready. Either wait for someone to nominate you, ask someone to nominate you, or nominate yourself. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, perhaps {{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} would be inappropriate either, considering that no one has to accept nomination, and the RfA doesn't even gets listed unless the potential candidate accepts. In theory, no one needs to post that they "don't want to be an administrator" via a template. Redux 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think people who use the anti-administrator template due it less as an informative action that they don't want to be an admin and more of a sign of protest against adminship and the admin process itself... just from where I've seen that template used. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they do any harm, but they don't serve any real purpose. It's basically the same as asking someone to nominate you, which I don't like - you might as well nominate yourself and they can vote support, because it's the same thing. It's just an attempt to manipulate RfA since a lot of people are more critical of self-noms. --Tango 10:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess maybe some people who would like to be admins but don't feel they are ready would find the templates useful, but that's about it. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They might also be useful for someone who is often confused with an admin, would, as Johleemk says, like to be one someday, but is not for whatever reason, ready or able to stand for RfA. I can imagine that the 30th "You aren't an admin? Would you like to be?" message probably leads one to really appreciate such a template. For the most part, they aren't hurting anyone, they're not being forced on anyone, and nobody is required to look at them (for that matter, if someone *really* hates it, we can set a div id for it and clear it out via thier CSS). In most cases like this, it's better to just leave it alone, rather than stir people up by telling them what they can and can't have; I don't think any of us can really argue that it's hurting Wikipedia, and certainly not anywhere near as much as a revival/ratcheting up of the user template war would. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case revise the wording to "No, I am not an administrator yet. Yes, I would like to be one. Stop asking!" :P — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates (Archive 62)

I created a few templates we can use so we don't have to copy-and-paste the code for a successful and failed RFA ever agian.

You can add {{SuccessfulRFA}} for the top half of a successful RFA
You can add {{FailedRFA}} for the top half of a failed RFA
You can add {{RFA-discussion}} for the bottom half of all RFA's since they say the same thing

Enjoy! — The King of Kings 18:58 July 10 '06

Oh, and I was thinking about the creation of a category to place at the bottom of {{RFA-discussion}} so we can keep track of RFA's better. — The King of Kings 19:01 July 10 '06

Such templates already exist... look at the instructions to burocrats. --Tango 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To be precise: {{rfap}}, {{rfaf}} and {{rfab}}. --Tango 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:-( Oh well, how about a category to keep all the RFA's in one place, does that exist already? — The King of Kings 19:10 July 10 '06

Uh, how about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship followed by a forward slash and the the editor's username?! -Splash - tk 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey... cut him some slack Splash. Especially considering it's his first edit anniversary. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

stat template (Archive 68)

made a stat template {{RfA/Stat}} that I have added the the tacher request for a live example, please tell me if it's fine. _→AzaToth 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only is this confusing to read with all the brackets and whatnot, it's bad because it stresses percentages. This isn't a vote, and even if it were, the crats aren't stupid, they can figure it out- percentages aren't important to anybody but them. The old tally was preferable to this one (though no tally is all is even better). --Rory096 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Crats should be given room to decide a number of things (whether very new accounts should be discarded or not, the cutoff for a successful RFA, etc...). Not a vote. --Interiot 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Definite format of the RfA template (Archive 69)

The {{RfA}} template has been the site of a recent edit war. As of now, the Support/Oppose/Neutral/Comments fields are gone, yet there is a tally (0/0/0), and that does not make sense.

I believe an honest discussion on whether the support/oppose/neutral fields should be in, and if the votes should be numbered, did not take yet place, rather, people were revert warring. So, is the current format what the community prefers? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted edits which appearently violated WP:PPol#Editing protected pages, may everyone please follow WP:PPol#Editing protected pages for future edits to that page? Many thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be so much easier if people like you would simply stop protecting the wrong version. Dragons flight 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am open to revert to an much earlier version, before all these have started. Btw, not protecting the wrong version would allow the edit war to continue, which I believed would be very undesireable for this important template. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I think I was little bit tired and misunderstood Dragons flight's comment, just ignore my last bit --WinHunter ^(talk) 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:PPol#Editing protected pages: "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.", I am inclined to revert to this version dated 16:04, 10 September 2006 by Voice of All as a temporary remedy until concensus emerge as of how to edit the {{RfA}} template. Any comments? --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Winhunter and I have had a long discussion about this on our talk pages, if anyone wants to see how he arrived at that version. It is not an easy task to narrow it down. Agent 86 00:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

new section appearing... (Archive 72)

We now have two candidate sections - both "Current nominations for adminship" and "vote". "Vote" seemed to appear here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=81935424 , and that's clearly not goign to encourage discussion, but I didn't want to tamper with the RfA page to change it back... Inner Earth 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it "tampering". In fact, I removed it[1] (before seeing your post here). The "vote" header[2] was added to the candidate's nomination and not the RfA template itself. Agent 86 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Template for candidates user pages (Archive 75)

Would it help to have a template that all candidates put on their user (and user talk) page saying "This user is currently requesting adminship, please comment here."? It might increase the chances of people that actually know the user finding out about the RfA without the user having to go around telling people, which is frowned upon. --Tango 14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one, {{Rfa-notice}}, but it seems to be used sporadically. Perhaps posting it should be formalized as part of the nomination process? Accurizer 15:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people don't like to advertise such things, I don't think it needs to be formalized. Putting a notice on your userpage will most likely get every anon who's article you voted against on an AfD finding the place. I personally prefered the opinions of those who knew what RfA was. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, some people who frequent RFA have a tendency to oppose candidates who self-promote their nomination. Thus, this template may backfire. (Radiant) 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a userbox (I thought), but damned if I could find it when I was running. So I opted for the rfa-notice template above, which was a little more garish but got the job done in a neutral fashion. I figure the nomination discussion on the user's talk page (for non-self-noms) doesn't hurt either. -- nae'blis 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I found it. - jc37 14:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad-faith votes could be discounted, couldn't they? In any event, if community consensus frowns upon promoting a nom, I think the template (and userbox if there is one) should be deleted, so that they are not used innocently by a candidate who is unfamiliar with the consensus. If there's no consensus yet perhaps we should try to reach one. Accurizer 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarify: By bad faith votes I was referring to what HighInBC was talking about. Accurizer 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I for one read over 50 RfA's and came to the conclusion myself that I should not post anywhere that I am running. Not because it is forbidden, but that people who did so have a historically less likely chance of success. Just like people who respond to each of their opposes(something I did though). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes those bad faith votes... Yes they can be ignored but it is very disruptive and sometimes hard to notice. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rfa-notice template is exactly what I had in mind. I'm suggesting making it compulsory, so it's not self-promotion, so it shouldn't cause anyone to oppose (and if it does, the crat will discount it - you can't oppose someone for following the rules). Just as when you ask for planning permission you have to put up a notice near where the building will be so people know about it and can comment before the permission is granted, there should be some way for people to find out about RfAs without having to regularly check the RfA page. If someone knows a good reason not to grant adminship to a candidate, then anything which helps that information reach the RfA is a good thing. --Tango 15:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Compulsory, so you can't be opposed because of it? I like that idea! --ais523 15:58, 29 November 2006 (U T C)

(to Accurizer) Yes, but they aren't bad faith votes per se; some voters genuinely believe that this is a kind of vote spamming, which of course is t3h 3vil.
(to HighInBC) In my experience, responding to votes can backfire but so can not doing so. The important point is how one responds to votes; lengthy diatribes that boil down to "how dare that user vote against me" tend, for obvious reasons, not to work.
(to Tango) there doesn't appear to be a good reason for making it compulsory; m:instruction creep comes to mind. And note that you cannot by default filter against certain reasons; if it becomes known that oppose-votes under a certain reason are stricken, this will only encourage people to not give their reason but oppose anyway. (Radiant) 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is that such opposes wouldn't be made in the first place once it was acknowledged that the template was compulsory (I don't think anyone would want to oppose someone for following a compulsory step in the nomination); in this case, making something compulsory would give candidates a 'safe' method of publicising the RfA. --ais523 16:03, 29 November 2006 (U T C)
But what could happen is that those who don't like "advertising of RfAs" would oppose RfAs that are flooded by support votes with no particular reasoning, or votes overtly revealing a bias towards the candidate. Of course they would have to provide a real reason, and would dig around for a reason to oppose, and might well find one, or be more likely to oppose on minor matters. It only takes a small groundswell of opinion opposing at an RfA to see it go down in flames. Carcharoth 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a lot to be said for a regular crowd at RfA running the rule over candidates. That is more objective than voting by those who know the user well, as they may be unable to keep the proper perpective (either way). Ideally, you would have a mix of both (those who don't know the candidate and those who do). Carcharoth 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To Radiant: By bad faith I didn't mean those who vote in the negative for perceived ballot box stuffing, I was referring to a user voting against a candidate because the candidate *voted* against them in XfD (as raised by HighInBC), legitimately warned them for vandalism, etc. Accurizer 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A policy should prevent a problem. Which problem would compulsary notices solve? Why should the freedom to have or not have this notice be removed? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I still like the custom template I had on my user page. And this really is a solution in search of a problem. As far as I know no-one has ever opposed because of a userpage notice. Grand master ka 08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can think of one time (maybe.) Grand master ka 09:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is kinda closed, but how about one just like {{administrator}}:

<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:20px; top:10px; height:10px; width:300px;"></div> <div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:10px; top:10px;" class="metadata" id="administrator">{{click|link=Wikipedia:RfA|image=Admin mop question.png|width=20px|height=20px|title=This user is undergoing a Request for adminship.}}</div> [[:Category:Wikipedians currently undergoing an RfA|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Which creates the above. Cbrown1023 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you move this into your user space and link to it or something please? _JD^talk 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do it for you. It's now at User:Cbrown1023/RfA. _JD^talk 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Templates (Archive 75)

Any good reason not to use voting icons as seen in Commons:Category:Polling templates? It would seem logical to use them here, as well as on WP:AfD. Any opinions? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They don't add anything but images to RFA, which is already sorted, so it's easy to count !votes. Perhaps at AfD, but then what's the advantage of clogging the servers with image downloads? If anything, making it easier to count !votes there facilitates people regarding it as a numbers game instead of a discussion.--Kchase T 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This came up about a year ago, if I remember correctly. Per Kchase02's comments, there's no advantage to the extra server load of the images, and the !votes are already sorted so counting isn't an issue. On the client side, rendering a long page like RfA can be trouble enough for people with older browsers and slower computers without throwing hundreds of extra little images at them. Images are also used on Commons because some participants may not share a common language; this isn't a problem for decisions that are confined to the English Wikipedia. Further, we want to encourage and emphasize discussion and reasoning; there is a concern that templates and pictures would tend to instead encourage knee-jerk and rubber-stamp responses. I don't mean to come down hard on you, but I will note that on the few occasions in the last couple of years where voting icons have appeared, the community response has been somewhere along the lines of kill-it-with-fire. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I love killing these templates with fire. Kusma (討論) 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We routinely do kill them with fire (well, with the deletion button, at any rate) under the "recreation of previously deleted material" criterion. Basically, they falsely imply that our processes are adjudicated through vote counting. (Radiant) 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's actually kind of a silly objection. Even older browsers and slower computers only have to download the image once. The rendering time it takes to draw all those images is negligible. By far, the biggest portion of any voting discussion is the text. Especially in places like WP:RFA. The only problem I'd see with it (other than aesthetically) is users "improvising" and us seeing giant schlongs as "support" icons. Other than that, there'd only be three images for a browser to download -- support, oppose, and neutral. And perhaps comment. ... aa:talk 08:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Last time this came up on TfD, I wrote a script so that a user could see the symbols without them having to be in the wikimarkup: User:ais523/votesymbols.js. It puts images on XfDs, RfAs, FACs, impromptu straw polls, etc.. (It still has a few false positives.) See Image:Votesymbols.js-enhanced SfD.png for a demonstration of what it looks like, and for copyright info on the images (which aren't clickable-linked like images normally are). --ais523 09:18, 30 November 2006 (U T C)

I'm not really excessively proficient with kompyuterz, so tell me if I'm wrong about this. But TenOfAllTrade's comment: On the client side, rendering a long page like RfA can be trouble enough for people with older browsers and slower computers without throwing hundreds of extra little images at them. So if there's a symbol each for support, neutral and oppose, doesn't the browser just download 3 images, and replicate the rest? It doesn't actually download each image X number of times, does it? riana_dzasta 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it only downloads each image once. But the server still has to deal with large numbers of templates, and it has to link each image, and the page takes longer to download due to the extra HTML; the edit screen also becomes more unreadable. This is why a client-side solution like mine is better for older computers (as long as they understand JavaScript) and for the servers. --ais523 09:44, 30 November 2006 (U T C)

Right, makes sense. I also wonder how a sensitive RfA candidate would react to this. Not a good idea, overall, Imdanumber1, sorry :) riana_dzasta 09:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Requiring Javascript seems like a bad idea to me. I work in the software industry, and I can tell you that many companies, especially in the insurance industry at least, have conservative policies regarding Web security that sometimes prohibit Javascript (and always prohibit ActiveX and Java is somewhere in between). I think taking the leap to requiring Javascript, even on project space pages, is something to not be done lightly. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We aren't requiring JavaScript for RfA; the script merely exists so that people who want symbols can add them themselves. The alternative would be to have the symbols there, wasting server time, and use custom CSS to turn them off; this method would mean that they would be on by default, giving the impression of a vote (which TfD has generally agreed to be a bad thing, even if RfA is a vote). --ais523 09:55, 30 November 2006 (U T C)

The symbols are misleading.

An extreme example might be 50 '+' symbols with comments like "Nice guy, never had trouble" , and one '-' with the comment "stalked me to my house and shot me 5 times with a 9mm. Here's a link to the police report."

Hmmm, so a quick glance tells me this person should be promoted... but a closer reading of the comments suggests maybe this person shouldn't really be on wikipedia at all ;-)

More common/realistic examples might include chronic incivility, a clear demonstration that the candidate does not understand wikipedia's guidelines, etc...

To make a long story short, it's not a vote, and putting up vote-symbols makes it all very misleading.

Kim Bruning 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) in case you're wondering, the canonical example of such a comment on AFD was always "*delete, copyvio." Kim Bruning

I don't think we need the icons, either, but I don't see how a strong of fifty pluses and a minus would be any more misleading that fifty "support"s and one "oppose." Although on your facts, I guess it would be a "strong oppose." Newyorkbrad 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're misleading, which is a very good reason why they should be opt-in rather than opt-out; people viewing the symbols should be aware that they aren't any more definitive than bolded support or oppose, or the heading under which the comment is entered. --ais523 16:44, 30 November 2006 (U T C)

What exactly is the benefit of having misleading symbols on an RfA? SuperMachine 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Purely cosmetic, just like the bolding of support and oppose (just as cosmetic, and just as misleading). Some people like the way it looks... --ais523 16:54, 30 November 2006 (U T C)

I can think of few things that would make RFA worse than it already is than dinky little images. Is there a dinky symbol for "nuke from orbit" - better, "strong nuke from orbit". -- ALoan (Talk) 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out the list of indicator symbols near the top of WP:RfCU for a collection of symbols that could theoretically be used. (N.B.: Not advocating it!). Newyorkbrad 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the fish, but I would go for

if it was a bit less unclear; and

is not much better. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the images are used at Commons, so they should be used here, too. Let's have a vote. Support if they should be added, Oppose if they shoudn't.

Support. I don't see anything wrong with using them. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. No, no, and thrice no. Why should we do the same things here as they do on commons? We discuss things, the consensus above is pretty clear so far, and Polls are evil. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Even the supporters of these things admit that they're "misleading" and "purely cosmetic". So the benefit is zero and the cost (server load, annoyance, etc..) is obviously non-zero? A vote isn't going to change that. SuperMachine 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. No vote needed. Kafziel ^Talk 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose use. Template used for irony. --Deskana talk 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

These things are like cockroaches - they just refuse to lie down and die. Template:Support has been to WP:TFD at least twice and speedied a few times too; Template:Su; Template:SS; and various other similar ones. Perhaps I am being antidiluvian, but what is wrong with using discussing things in reasonably plain text? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

- i am ok with a simple Support or Oppose - (note, image size increased to enhance irony. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Well, the images are used at Commons, so they should be used here, too"--sorry, this makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Why shouldn't it go the other way--we've long opposed them here, so maybe Commons should figure we're on to something. In any case, the real difference of course is that commons is multilingual, so it makes some sense. This will never happen here so there's no point in having a poll about it. Chick Bowen 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason that Commons uses the images is simply so that people who don't speak a language a vote/!vote is in can tell what recommendation it's making. --ais523 08:43, 1 December 2006 (U T C)
Well, the images aren't being used on Meta, so they shouldn't be used here either. So there :) (Radiant) 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Mild Oppose I mostly oppose this not due to believing that it violates principle, preference, or policy but for the sake of Wikipedia's 56k users. I can't imagine how annoying it would be for them to wait endlessly as the RfA page loads 50-100+ support/oppose/neutral vote images for each admin candidate.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Once they load the first support image, all of the others down the page will appear at the same time (provided they are the same image). A computer won't download the same image 100 times for 1 webpage. If they visit the page, they will download 3 images, support, neutral and oppose (if we only use 3) and then those 3 images will be all down the page. Check the discussion above. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for the reason of server load. The server lag is bad already, with tools like edit counters. Why add to it with some pretty pictures for a system that works fine with text? James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - I don't understnad is how come does Meta have vote templates, but we don't. It doesn't make any sense. Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because here we're supposed to speak English. In both Meta and Commons, that cannot be taken for granted, so they resort to voting templates. Also, the discussions there are "true votes", unlike here, where we're trying to reach consensus. Tito xd^(?!?) 08:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose We musn't let the Metapedians have their way! Gizza^Chat ^© 08:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see why metapedians like me would be particularly in support of the templates; more to the point is that metapedians would be those most likely to participate in RfAs altogether (I'd expect to find a lot more metapedians than exopedians) on WT:RFA, and they'd be more likely than exopedians to worry about server load anyway (because exopedians are more interested in writing articles). --ais523 09:37, 4 December 2006 (U T C)

Strong oppose. I am personally against the use of these little pestering images. Let's just stick with votes that can be read in a text-based browser, hmmm? (Oh, and by the way, aren't polls supposed to be evil? :) Yuser31415 19:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons I expressed in the second comment in this section.--Kchase T 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to template text (Archive 76)

Initial discussion

The boiler plate RfA text the introduces the standard questions reads:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

Since we're always pointing out that this isn't a vote, how about we change the language to something like:

Dear applicant, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for evaluation:

—Doug Bell ^talk 16:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I currently like the way it stands. I think applicant sounds too much like I am applying for a job, or appling to grad school or an internship. That is not what being an administator is. According to wiktionary, candidate means

~~A person who is running in an election or who is applying to a position for a job.~~
A participant in an examination.

I see RFA as kind of an examiniation of somebodys intentions, experience and capabilities should they be promoted. (I do think the term promoted is improperly used but that is a conversation for another day). I think in this case, the 2nd defintion fits the process perfectly and overall, I think candidate is a well chosen word and should stay. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Voters → Evaluation is fine, but Candidate should stay. -- Renesis (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I will agree with the changing Voters → Evaluation, I missed that change when looking at it the first time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with changing "voters" but not "candidate". --Durin 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're tinkering with wording, may I suggest "standard" rather than "generic"? Or even dropping the adjective entirely; "few questions" might be fine. (One reason for suggesting "standard questions" is that perhaps we can go to a section for "Standard questions" and a section for "Additional questions".) John Broughton | Talk 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with getting rid of "generic". Either suggested alternative is fine with me. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we just drop the qualifier entirely? Clarifying the sentence further: Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide some guidance for evaluating your request: - jc37 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also approve Jc37's wording, seems to best state what the process will involve without envoking it too much as a vote.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Me three on Jc37's wording. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with getting rid of "generic" and switching "voters" to something less... well, !vote-based. Candidate seems fine, though. -- nae'blis 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem replacing generic with standard. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, with have consensus, except on one word - I've put a new subsection heading in, below, to separate that discussion from this one. To recapitulate, we're at:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide some guidance for evaluating your request:

And if consensus wishes to retain the word voter(s), then simply:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide voters some guidance for evaluating your request:

We can substitute just about any noun clause for "voters", such as "your fellow Wikipedians":

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide your fellow Wikipedians some guidance for evaluating your request:

I'm fairly neutral on what the actual noun clause should be. - jc37 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion got a bit split. I added a suggestion below: Dear fellow Wikipedian. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. The evaluation process is now open. Please spend some time and answer the following basic questions. These will give editors evaluating your request a starting point to [understand / learn about] your views, interests, contributions, and understandings of Wikipedia.

This seems to cover most of the points raised, and also is more direct about what is being asked for, and why, in a friendly manner. See below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"voters" - in, out, or other?

Not that it matters but I continue to oppose changing "vote/voters" to more confusing and awkward terms for the sake of political correctness. --W.marsh 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Why do you feel "voters" is the best option, though? In real-life settings I've used "participants" and "members of the group" for consensus discussion, though that's a bit of a misnomer here. -- nae'blis 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Because RfA is very vote-like and what we do when we comment corresponds very closely to any definition of voting. Expunging any use of the word "vote" does more to confuse new users than it does to make RfA not vote-like, despite popular opinion. --W.marsh 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's face the truth: without any codified standards or process to becoming an admin, an RfA is a popularity contest and Support or Oppose is a vote. We might as well drop all pretenses about voting being bad and be honest about the current process. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, why not just drop the last five words? If a candidate thinks he/she has the option of not answering the generic/standard questions, then he/she is virtually by definition unqualified to become an admin, due to lack of understanding of the process, as I'm sure one of the first evaluators/voters/commentators/whatever will be sure to say. We could even consider it a little test. John Broughton | Talk 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree they may be unqualified, but I do not think it would be proper to make it, "a test", I think we want the instructions to be clear as possible and removing the last 5 words would not help with that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The answers aren't so much "guidance", they're a starting point and some standard basic questions, for others to get insight into the would-be administrator's understanding and hopes, especially for those people who would like to participate and express a view but don't know them yet.

Maybe a better wording is: Dear fellow Wikipedian. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. The evaluation process is now open. Please spend some time and answer the following basic questions. These will give editors evaluating your request a starting point to [understand / learn about] your views, interests, contributions, and understandings of Wikipedia.

(I'm sure the language could be improved a bit, that's what collaboration's for.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The flow of this discussion is almost impossible to follow, so I'm not sure where to reply, but I disagree with making the intro statement longer. It doesn't offer anything else, and it was simple and to the point before. We only needed some minor changes, and I think the original proposal of changing "voters" to "evaluation" is enough. I also dislike the phrase "spend some time and answer" as opposed to "take the time to answer". The second one is less colloquial and makes more sense. -- Renesis (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

("Take your time" can sound a bit like "you are being judged on this"; "spend your time" doesn't have quite that flavor. Its a minor difference though. That's why, anyhow.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I didn't realize the purpose in the change. I can see what you mean if it did say "Take your time", but with "Please take the time..." it doesn't seem to have that connotation to me (it just seems like a simple request). But that's just me. Either way, I think we need to back up and not inflate this introduction unnecessarily. -- Renesis (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed RFA template question (Archive 77)

Should we change it to the pinkish-color as used on {{indef}}?? A suggestion to consider, I think that the pinkish colour is a bit too garish for what is a formal process, while the brick colour is neutral! --SunStar Net^talk 01:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)