Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 165

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167→Archive 170

A proposal in regards to RFA comments

A time machine needed to go back the "Dark era".

All I've seen and heard brings me to make a proposal: all negative comments at an RFA that don't explicitly discuss how an admin will use their tools will be removed as a personal attack. Stronger attacks will also give the complaining user a 12 hour block and will be thereon forbidden to edit the RFA. This idea is somewhat radical, but I think agreeable. Superfluous complaints like editcount or a dispute that happened way back before Methusala was born will all be removed and its poster will be given the standard template NPA warning. All those complaints do is mask personal unfounded misgivings, much like the types of deletion comments on WP:ATA. Thoughts?--Ipatrol (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A block for expressing your opinion? I disagree. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh wonderful. Not all negative comments are intended as attacks, and how a prospective admin will use his tools is not the only thing to worry about at RfA. This is a bloody stupid idea, to be quite frank. because being frank has done me such wonders so far. Ironholds (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it has worked out quite well for me... Frank  |  talk  04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll bite, what is the other thing to worry about? What kind of shoes they wear? — CharlotteWebb 16:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts Ipatrol are to wonder whether you've discussed this idea with your parents, and whether they allowed you to stay up late and post this rubbish. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec re to malleus)That outta earn you a flame or six. Two points for Malleus. Score: Malleus 2. Hoards of raging-hormone Wikipedians about to attack on Malleus' talkpage: 3.7 mil. The result? Priceless. Keeper | 76 02:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Malleus: around IRC Ipatrol is fairly well known for silly policy proposals, including but not limited to releasing Huggle under GDFL to prevent its abuse for profit by "corporate wikis" and bringing ArbCom up on charges for imposing sanctions on Steve-Crossin without a standard RFARB, and to do so via an RfC. Yes, thats right; impose sanctions on a body that was doing something it has always been allowed to do, and do so via a completely unenforceable medium. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Ipatrol is also known for this monumental wave of trolling. — CharlotteWebb 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec X2) Awesome, then can we start removing some of the support !votes that don't explicitly discuss how well a nominee will use the tools as NPOV? or the nom and co-nom !votes as COI? (I think my head just essplodeded...) - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
d(^_^)b We're not living in the Middle Ages, aren't we? --Caspian blue 02:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, my thoughts are to wonder why you bother posting in these threads if you have nothing constructive to add. Your contemptuous attitude is extremely tiresome. GlassCobra 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What an appallingly contemptuous response to a good-faith suggestion. I hope I won't sound outmoded if I point out that as Wikipedians, when we disagree we are obliged to do it civilly, or else not to say anything. — Dan | talk 03:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I would actually side with Ipatrol on this one for a few circumstances. The matter is not always one of expressing one's opinion. Justification of "expressing one's opinion" cannot override assumption of good faith. For example, we allowed Kurt Weber to accuse other editors of being power-hungry over the flimsiest of evidence for far too long. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The evidence was only flimsy to those who chose to ignore it. The notion that putting oneself forwards for a position of power is proof that one ought not to be given that power is not an idea invented by Kurt Weber. For anyone seriously interested in the social psychology—nobody here, obviously, but still—I would recommend looking at how certain native American tribes chose their chiefs. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If Kurt had a more transcendant reason to accuse people of power hunger, he certainly did not show it. His flippant attitude made it highly disrespectful. bibliomaniac15 03:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
... in your opinion. Not in mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, Malleus, sometimes you remind me of Wilson. Wilson perhaps never used as strong of language and was probably less opinionated, but still, I often see parallelism between you and he. Just thought I'd mention that, as I assume nobody else has. Useight (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
And I guess being on Wikipedia is kinda similar to having your face hidden behind a fence... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Fences have holes. —Dark talk 09:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the proposal at the top, and rephrasing it in line with comments above "all negative comments at an RFA that don't explicitly discuss how an admin will use their tools or authority will be removed as a personal attack." Has some initial appeal, though I think the proposed punishments were overly harsh. The difficulty is that its easy to make an insensitive oppose that does mention acting as an admin, and sometimes necessary to make a negative comment that doesn't mention how an admin will use the tools or power. For example Oppose - User page used to include a userbox indicating that they are a Millwall fan, no way should we ever let anyone who sings "no-one likes us - we don't care" have access to the ban hammer or the ability to delete other teams pages. would under this proposal still be a legit oppose as it pretty explicitly mentions use of the tools; But Oppose, only 6 undeleted edits that weren't to user space since your vandalism block of 30 months ago is insufficient to properly assess you, please come back in a few months after doing some of the things on your ToDo page would clearly be a negative comment that dragged up ancient stuff and made no attempt to discuss use of the tools. IMHO the latter example that this proposal would have struck would be more legit than the former one that explicitly mentioned the tools. (Both examples are purely hypothetical and not intended as a comment on any current RFA candidate). ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I like that rephrasing, what I mean by "stronger" attacks are things like "Admin canidate X is a noob, why are we even discussing him/her?" or "That user is a complete idiot! Any 'crat who promotes this user shold be banned." Those comments would get the harsher punishment of block and ban from the RFA they posted on. Mnay RFAs already have to be blanked for becoming filled with personal attacks, this idea is to nip it in the bud early. Now how do you like this rephrasing?--Ipatrol (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes more sense, but I don't see how it matters. Statements like the ones you have mentioned normally result in people informally going "woah, that was over the line" anyway, and a 'crat would discount the comment. Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
OK here's a genuine one from the last 6 months that wasn't struck: "Oppose'. So basically, we have here a candidate who only has the time to perform two tasks, and whose religious convictions prevent him from performing one of the two. Splendid. The candidate's perspective on the deletion process is best described as "completely out to lunch". The dump I took this morning was, I assure you, a sincere contribution. Unfortunately, it was still crap." That vote is one example that leads me to agree with Ipatrol's diagnosis of there being a civility problem at RFA. However I disagree as to the prescription. My preferred solution would be to end RFA's de-facto exemption from the NPA rules and ideally to turn it back from a vote to a !vote. This could be done by crats to asking voters to review comments that are liable to be discounted and when that fails strike incivil and other invalid votes during the RFA, rather than exclude them at the end. This might require more crats, but maybe that would be a good thing. ϢereSpielChequers 16:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with that idea. How about this, a ban from a user's RFA will only result if they make disruptive comments. NPA should wholly apply to RFA and attack commnets will be treated no different than comments on the nominee's talk page in respect to NPA and CIVIL. Just like admins with an XFD, 'crats will be encouraged to review all the coments and discount nonconstructive ones. Ultimately except for cases of obvious dissaproval, the decision weather to promote will rest on the specific merits of the stated arguements for and against. We should delete silly vote counters like the one currently at the top of this page. The flip side is that the question of this discretion will likly become an issue at RFB. However, I don't think more b'crats would be needed to enforce this proposal. If we want we could make some kind of beuracrat made clerk position to keep RFAs neat and civil, but I don't think that it would likely be nessecary unless a massive administrative problem forms, which I don't think is likly. Do you like the general idea? any comments or amendments?--Ipatrol (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And how would we agree what constitutes "disruptive"? There was already some difficulty settling that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That debate above shows exactly how rediculous the exemptions we give to RFAs are. RFAs should be treated no differently from XFDs, no personal attacks, no pointmaking, no broad meta-arguements. That is simple, if we would just let it be simple. That, and the above comment?
If we want we could make some kind of beuracrat made clerk position to keep RFAs neat and civil - That'll cause nothing but more politics... —Dark talk 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment a nonsense proposal. Any comments that are off someone's concept of "topic" earn you a block. Hah! We're writing an encyclopedia here, unless someone has forgotten that? See Chilling effect for more explication of why the proposal is nonsense, now let's get back to that encyclopedia we're writing... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we go with WereSpielChequers' last proposal as a compromise? Simple idea, reinstate NPA at RFAs and make all RFA votes !votes. Comments?--Ipatrol (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Very silly idea, as there will be no way then to pick out the inappropriate votes. Seriously, there is no "major" problem with the system as it is now. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say that while there are problems at RfA the system does sort of work, and at the end of the day attempting to change it at this junction is moot. With things as they are you will never get the consensus to make any kind of change; trust me, I know that :P. I think we have to wait for the thing to get fubared before anything is worth even considering. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing Ironholds' RfA?

Resolved
 – closed by Bureaucrat Warofdreams (talk · contribs)

Wasn't the Ironholds RfA scheduled to end 01:12 on 23 March? It is still open, more than nine hours past the closing point. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a crat, but I placed it on hold, modifying the template language, until a crat can look at it. If I was overly bold in doing so, I apologize.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That is fair enough. Realistically the crat only has to spend two seconds on it, but I appreciate the effort in preventing anyone else commenting. Thanks. Ironholds (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just waiting for a passing 'crat, as it's fairly clear there is no consensus at this time. 2 years ago it wasn't uncommon to see RFA's many hours past their due time - fortunately additions to the number of active crats make this situation far rarer. Pedro :  Chat  10:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No I don't think that was too bold at all - but I'd drop a note at WP:BN Pedro :  Chat  10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've done that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for your help :). Evidently this section is popular; I got ECed three times last time I tried to post a message. Ironholds (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it is one of the most talked talkpage on Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
40,000 revisions –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I prefer 11,000 Clicks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs)
Obviously, everyone like a bit of drama with their morning coffee. Oh, just me then. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There are 164 archives of this page; evidently it's not just you. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dramaboard has moar if you need a stronger dosage. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

lists

Resolved
 – Link found

I noticed we have "Unsuccessful RfAs (Chronological)" - don't we have the "successful RFAs" listed in that manner? I saw the A-Z list, but just wondered about the newest to oldest admins. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, right here. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologize for my blind stupidity, I thought the last time I looked that the successful RFAs were listed alphabetically. Thanks JC, I'll try to be more ahhhh .... fastidious? ... no that's not quite right either. I'll try to pay attention to detail a little better/more. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 18:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. It's easy to miss that in the sea of links. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

An Idea

So, here's an idea about RfA (and I'd like to pre-empt one possible response by saying I don't think this duplicates admin coaching at all). What if there was a place for people to put out "RfA feelers" and just see how a potential RfA would likely turn out. I suggest this for several reasons. First of all, for reasons I don't understand there's a stigma involved with a failed RfA, so good editors may be unwilling to accept a nomination (or self-nom) if they don't feel confident. Second, there's a more or less irrational rule that says you have to wait 3 months between RfAs, so a candidate who might pass if he waited one more month, might fail and then the community would be denied his/her services for 2 months. Thus, I think there should be a forum for "RfA feelers". What do you think? Just a voice in the wind (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it really so important as to justify another talking shop? Anyone looking at a selection of recent RfAs ought to be able to fairly easily assess their own chances. Is anyone likely to come out of the woodwork claiming that you're "uncivil"? Have you hung around the various XfDs without getting into too much hot water? Have you upset any high profile administrators? Can you point to a history of article building? Success at RfA is just about doing whatever it is that leads to success at RfA this month, and not doing whatever it is that leads to failure until you've been awarded the Golden Mop. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editor review might be of interest. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well of course editor review opens with the statement: "If you are here because your goal is to become an administrator, you should direct yourself to Wikipedia:Admin coaching", so I don't really know how relevant it is. And as for Malleus, were it only so simple. What about an editor who got involved in a nasty edit war 8 months ago and got a 24 hour 3RR block, but has since show exemplary behavior? What about an editor who has frequent month-long gaps in his editing? Sure, we all know that an editor with 12,000 edits, a year on the project, and participation in 1000 AfDs will pass, but there's a big gray area, and it would be nice if you could navigate it with some help. Just a voice in the wind (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The only sure-fire way to find out whether you'd pass or not is to go for it. If it tanks just be humble and address the issues brought up by your opposers; keep your head down for three months and try again. Nobody will hold the earlier failure against you, they'll just think that you learned from it. It's not rocket science. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
A good point. By the way, I'm not actually considering an RfA for myself at this moment., but you make a good point nothing's better at figuring out if you'd pass than an RfA itself. Just a voice in the wind (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd also recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship which will give you some pointers as to what you need to have done here, and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list which will give you some of what you need to know, first. ϢereSpielChequers 14:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Watching RfBs

Does anyone know of a convenient way to check the list of both RfAs and RfBs currently running at any given time? I notice that in the table at the top of this talk page, Anonymous Dissident's is listed in among the RfAs, but is actually an RfB, and I don't see any indication that it's an RfB. Is there any way to get a display that includes both but marks the RfBs as such? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's one that separates them... Ceranthor 20:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:RFA and scroll down ......... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
User:SQL/RfX Report used to. I'll go ping ST47 about it. Xclamation point 21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess you decided to up and run your own :) User:X!/RfX Report -- Avi (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You could always watchlist the main RFA page and you'll see all the nominations being transcluded. But you're probably already doing that. Useight (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be far too simple. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I propose that we change the redirect at WP:DRAMA to this talk page. Why? See the above. I mean, come on people. Bah. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just do a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia instead while you're at it. bibliomaniac15 04:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree with Ottava. Too much drama here. Steve Crossin Talk/24 08:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'd support WP:DRAMA as being a dab: This page, AN, AN/I, WQA, MOS talk, Fiction (notability), Date linking proposal, the majority of XfD discussions, and dozens of RFC pages, and .. well, I could go on - but I won't. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for a dab page. Simply use an alternate term for each destination page. As an example, I humbly present WP:BUNFIGHT. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List of April Fool's Day RfX's

If you're interested, please see the following untranscluded requests, and add any new ones that pop up. If you're not interested, you may return to the extremely productive discussions normally found on this page, already in progress. Floquenbeam :  Chat  02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hagger. Don't push it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/fuzzyhair2

This RfA was not created properly as the transcluded version is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fuzzyhair2. Should the page be deleted? GT5162 (我的对话页) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've done it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, should his RfA be closed per WP:NOTNOW since he has less than 100 edits? GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Already closed. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Abolish RfA thread

Moved to User:IMatthew/April Fools Day. No need to remove this thread, just a notice to all who seems lost in it's deletion. iMatthew :  Chat  20:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should replace RfA with Request for deity. Here is the first challenger: Wikipedia:Request for Deity/PeterSymonds. Synergy 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Seeing how I can't find a consensus anywhere to delete April Fools Day noms, I thought I'd start a discussion. Joke RfAs do not hurt the Encyclopedia (after all, they aren't in the namespace and you have to go looking for them), and are a good way to get a few laughs and relieve some tension. Additionally, since they are obviously jokes, they are easily distinguishable from the regular noms that everyone is so worried about getting lost in the shuffle. I think, since there is no visible consensus against them, they shouldn't be deleted. Comments? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding (and it is just that) was that joke RFA's are sub-paged somewhere so as not to clutter the real RFA's and that generally they are deleted on April the 2nd (with the exception that I believe Kurt's was sub-paged for posterity). Whilst you could MFD the lot of them this falls under the "leniency to good users" rule that applys to a lot of other things - provided that they are not in either the mainspace or the project space. We do need to balance a good laugh with not disrupting Wikipedia. In-jokes are fine - but remember that they are just that. Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Naturally. I would NEVER attempt to disrupt the Mainspace. I don't see anything disruptive about this, though; especially since, as you point out, they will all be removed in less than 24 hours. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The jokes are fine as long as they are kept well away and it is clearly indicated. I think having it in a separate subpage is the best idea, as others already are (such as Useights's signature thingy). I don't think the jokes ones should be directly added here. Ottava Rima's RfA (serious one) was reverted thinking it was a joke. We don't want anymore embarrassing incidents like that with people mixing up things. And it would be really nice if people discussed things before they revert. Every time I refreshed my watchlist in the past few minutes, I see someone or other reverting this page giving some damned reason that again gets reverted soon after. I mean, seriously what's with you people? You guys are experienced editors who know our policies and guidelines well, so why did you guys feel the need for a revert war without discussing in the first place? Chamal :  Chat  14:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, you're definitely right about that last point. I should have tried opening a discussion earlier in this process. Everyone has my apologies for not starting a discussion sooner. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It can be hard to distinguish between the intentional jokes, the unintentional ones and the serious noms with realistic prospects. Those with no sense of humour will oppose the joke noms anyway, even if they don't get the joke. So removing presumed joke noms looks like a bad idea - as Chamal's post shows(14:23, 1 April 2009). --Philcha (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    Distinguishing them is easy, and Chamal's post is probably a bad example to bring up since Ottava's RfA clearly stated that it was not a joke; the removal was due to someone misreading it, not a lapse of judgement over whether or not it was a joke. Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete or don't delete based on policy and debate. No need to draw a bright line regarding deletion. I think it goes without saying they should not be in the archive of actual RfAs. Chillum 14:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the joke was flogged to death. Maybe next year make a special page for joke RfA's? I don't think we need a formal policy, we handled things fine without one this year.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Comedy is hard, even for professional comedians. Letting off steam without breaking anything is hard. Having things go all to hell one day a year isn't excessive, I think. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

SPAs

Following the call from Wikipedia Review and other message boards, there are quite a few SPAs that have appeared in my RfA. What do we do with those? Simply link to their contributions and hope a Crat pays attention? Something else? The normal canvassed opposition thing, but when they have to resort to such obvious SPAs is kinda sad. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be helpful if you listed, here, at least the more obvious SPAs, so that other editors can get a better sense of who you are referring to, and a better sense of the number of such editors appearing in your RfA. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The two blatantly obvious ones are - this and this. There are others that aren't so obvious. Its great when people claim to have contact with me before and never have, and are just repeating things from message boards. You can easily do a check to see how many people have actually voted in RfAs and then look at their contribs. It has to be expected when groups like Wikipedia Review hate an individual. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There are currently 79 "oppose" opinions; you've identified two accounts that certainly seem of questionable stature, though we do not forbid SPAs from expressing opinions in RfAs. Unless you can identify and list many, many other accounts that are questionable (and, briefly, why), the issue of whether a bureaucrat will pay attention to SPAs in your RfA is irrelevant, since the percentage of "oppose" opinions is so high. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
Um, this is a discussion about general reactions. I could care less to be honest. I want to see what the community thinks as the appropriate response to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think a tag saying that this user "has few or no other contributions except to this RfA" is generally added and the crat is free to ignore the SPA. Malinaccier (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The two editors linked to, above, have (respectively) 15 prior edits, going back to July 2008, and 9 prior edits, going back to December 2007. So that tag might not apply, depending on how one defines "few". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about a general situation, but these tags should probably be applied in a case-by-case basis at the discretion of whoever notices the amount of edits. Malinaccier (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Are we allowed to start asking questions before the nomination is accepted? Thanks. GT5162 (我的对话页) 18:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would wait at least until it is accepted, and I would most likely wait until the nomination had been transcluded to the main RfA page. Malinaccier (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will wait. Is this a rule, or is it just recommended? (The RfA that I was going to ask a question to is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi 4). GT5162 (我的对话页) 19:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There's really no rule, but I think it would be a little rude to ask before then. It is similar to voting before transclusion whereas it is not specifically forbidden, but it is just not done. Malinaccier (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. The reason why I asked is because there are comments that say "<!-- Please do not submit !votes before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice if the RfA has been transcluded. -->" around the "support", "oppose" and "neutral" sections, but not around the "Questions for the candidate" section. GT5162 (我的对话页) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that's because editors (at least in the past) have seem to think it's a minor coup to "beat the nom[inator]" in expressing a "support" opinion, and that irks some nominators. By contrast, I think it's fairly uncommon to add additional questions before a nomination becomes official. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

<- That and asking a question on an unaccepted RfA is fairly pointless I'm sure you'll agree.  GARDEN  21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RfBs

I am pleased to see some RfB nominations taking place, and that they are succeeding. I encourage you all to find more strong candidates and offer them up. It would be quite helpful to Wikipedia to have more Bureaucrats around. Kingturtle (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently, there was a guy who did WP:ER and got a strong reaction of "Run for cratship!", even though he didn't bring it up. (I believe he's not interested at this time.) I suggested that, when he's getting that kind of reaction, he might want to run 9 months after mopship instead of the traditional 12, on the theory that it wouldn't be a bad-faith run in any sense, and on the theory that the worst that could happen is that he fails, and gets information that would help him pass in 3 months. Alternatively, we could just watch WP:ER, and when admins run, try to give them the best feedback we can regarding cratship, so that they don't have to run to find out what they need to do. Either approach would work, but I'm not sure how to bring the subject up at WP:ER ... a little help? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think ER is an excellent way to look receive feedback before RfB, and/or to look for potential candidates. As well, I echo Kingturtle's thoughts; it's a sure sign of progress when two consecutive candidates succeeded/are succeeding. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Touch wood. Cyclonenim :  Chat  20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd nominate that guy Dan talks about tomorrow if he accepted it.
As for Dan's question: Many admins (like me) start ERs where they request specific reviewing of their admin actions. So do other users requesting specific help regarding potential AFDs. So why not start an ER asking that you want to be evaluated for cratship? Or you could ask a couple of admins and crats to evaluate you instead, many users ask admins to evaluate them for RFA, it's basically the same. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Since we haven't gotten a response here to the 9 months suggestion, and since one voter asked for 18 months recently, I guess I'll recommend at ER that people wait at least 12 months after mopship before trying RfB, unless/until I hear differently. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: that voter that wanted 18 months can be flexible. Other than that, I haven't heard 18 months recently, so I'm not going to discourage people running for RfB at WP:ER if they've got 12 months of mopship, they're well-liked, and they've done a lot of hard work, including some cratty stuff. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, RfBs should be judged individually. Obviously the "perfect" candidate shouldn't have to wait 12 months; on the flip side, very few people automatically become suited for the job once their 1-year admin anniversary passes. So yes, I agree that 6 or 9 months is a reasonable amount of time in special circumstances. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
9 months is certainly enough in many cases, but I have doubts about 6 months. I can see many people having concerns with experience after only half a year as an admin. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, and I'd personally like for some people to pass RfB after 9 months, but I would be hesitant to recommend it at WP:ER, knowing that they will draw some opposing fire. If they want to do it on their own, and I like them as a candidate, I'll make the argument when they get to RfB, but until/unless I see some people pass at 9 months, I won't recommend it at WP:ER. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
WJBscribe passed at 9 months, though that was over a year ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "more people". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Require 24-hour waiting period before voting

(In one of the previous 40,000 revisions, this has likely been discussed, so feel free to point me to a past discussion if there is one.)

The thought occurred to me that it would be nice if people didn't vote in the first 24 hours of an RFA and instead used the time to ask and get answers to questions. I think it would force people to read the questions more carefully and it would allow pertinent and relevant questions to be asked and answered before people made judgments about the candidate.

Sure, people could still show up on day 2 and vote however the hell they pleased, but having a one-day question session seems pretty reasonable to me. It puts more emphasis on the consensus aspect and less on the vote aspect. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would put less stress on the candidates and give more background on the editor, not just their edit count. -download | sign! 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This has been tried before with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2. Icewedge (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This had indeed been discussed before, but I didn't see it in WP:PEREN, so I guess it hasn't been discussed a whole lot. I've been going through the WT:RFA archives, so I'll find it eventually, but I believe one of the main concerns was that there would be a plethora of questions asked, perhaps causing undue stress on the candidate. Useight (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems that people want something to do on the RfA, and if they can't vote, they ask a question instead. That's why Ironholds had roughly 40 questions to answer. Xclamation point 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. My sense is it wasn't pleasant for Ironholds; I've asked him to come share. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In the past we've talked about different time frames. (Anywhere from 2-4 days.) Personally I favour two days waiting, but if we can even get 24 hours before the pile-ons begin, I think that would be a plus. - jc37 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
24 hours discussion time would be absolutely wonderful. I don't really have much to say, but I figured I would just leave this here. — neuro(talk)(review) 03:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As the only person who can talk with personal authority on the subject; that experimental RfA was hell on earth. A 24 hour waiting time wouldn't help anything; people aren't obliged to bring up all their issues, so you get opposes like the first one at my RfA that sink the whole thing. In theory it would be nice, in practice it would fail. Its like communism but only one person died last time around :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if Ironholds says it isn't worth it, I'm inclined to agree simply because of his guinea-piggery. — neuro(talk)(review) 10:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Any arbitrary waiting period is not helpful at all. Those who want to make informed !votes, will ask questions first or check through contributions carefully. The rest will just be annoyed that they cannot !vote immediately and will !vote like they would have anyway on day 2. That's why we have crats for to close those requests: To sort out through the mess and evaluate consensus based on strengths of arguments, not on numbers. If users want to make premature !votes, let them do it. They should know that "great guy"-support !votes will not count as much as those which really address the candidate's track record. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In my four and a half months following WT:RfA, since my promotion, I've yet to see an attempt to channel well intentioned and nondisruptive behavior be successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this w<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/adminlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/botlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/Dates.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/monobook/parse.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>on't happen for numerous reasons, but I'd rather see things go the opposite direction, like they do on some of the non-en wikis: No discussion. Just a straight up or down vote. Less stressful, places onus on participants to do their own research. The current discussion format seems to disproportionately generate "me too" snowball opposes (which, in fairness, are often justified) and LOL supports. The educational value of the discussion could just as easily be generated through pre-RFA editor review processes for prospective candidates. And I think more candidates would be willing to go through this. Townlake (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer the discussion-like format over a straight vote. While it's not perfect, it allows for a more clear consensus to develop. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In fairness to the concept Ironholds was trying to advance, I think that the Ironholds experiment may have had a different result (or at least a different reaction) if it had not been an experiment. That is to say, a borderline admin candidate tried a strong concept out as an experiment. A better way to test the theory would probably be to apply it as a uniform standard to all RfA's for a period of time. For example, if all RfA's during May do not let voting begin for 48 hours, then this would prevent people from seeing alterior motives in the candidate's decision to use a different RfA format. At the end of the month, we'd have some passed RfA's and some failed RfA's, and this would give us some data points to make a more informed analysis of the idea. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy whether we run the experiment or not. I can think of some things that could go wrong, but there's no point in being negative. But don't pledge to do it for every candidate in May, that's too much harm done if it goes wrong; do it for 2 or 3 candidates, preferably well-liked candidates who have little to lose ... maybe some strong but possibly premature RfA or RfB candidates; if it's too soon to pass, they'd have nothing to lose, and they could get some good feedback. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Once you've committed yourself to running for adminship you generaly don't want a further dely in finding out which way the thing is likely to go.Geni 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

People seem to really dislike this. And with our one experiment to date, it didn't solve on of the 'key' problems associated w/ immediate voting: a large diff filled early oppose that garners a number of "me too" votes. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't like this idea, since it seems to be backhandedly encouraging the asking of 25+ questions, which is the last thing we need at RfA. Wizardman 20:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a 24 hour discussion on the RfA talk page prior to the voting. It would make it all less votey. I don't mean a Q&A session like Wizard man and I fear, but an actual discussion. This is probably one of the few RfA reforms I can get behind. Chillum 20:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What does "Strong Oppose" signify?

Just asking because I'm mildly curious. One not infrequently sees opposers switching from Oppose to Strong Oppose. Is there some convention that strong opposition carries more weight than straightforward opposition, or is it simply done for dramatic effect? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. Prodego talk 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Prodego. This essay, about AFDs, is a good one which can also apply to RFA. I rarely even say support or oppose as well - if it's in the oppose section, why the hell would it be a support? :) Majorly talk 22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite a good point, actually. I've also fallen out of the habit of writing Support or Oppose (I still do occasionally, however) as I don't see the point. Maybe it's just how we're used to seeing an RfA? I personally (here we go) see a "Strong" oppose as a little hard on the candidate, but that's likely just me an' mah wafer thin skin.  GARDEN  22:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree as well, it's mostly for dramatic effect. It does allow some distinction though, because if someone opposed already, they can use it to signal that due to new information, their previous !vote is not correct anymore. SoWhy 22:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If the user switched from support to oppose, perhaps, but if they are still opposed, no need to add pointless adjectives. Majorly talk 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
What if someone opposed for bad CSD work, something that is improvable but later it turns out the candidate was actually a sock-puppeteer and regularly harassed users? I think in that case it might be useful to show that there was a change of reasoning behind the !vote. It's the same with "weak oppose" when something you opposed for turns out to be a misunderstanding and you want to make it clear that you are not as convinced that the candidate would be a bad choice as you were before. Regards SoWhy 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
@ Majorly - that essay is brilliant. We need an RfA version... :D  GARDEN  22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sofixit. Majorly talk 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point Majorly, and one that I think Pedro made quite powerfully a little while ago. I'd resolved never to begin an oppose with Oppose at RfA ever again, but I slipped back into the old unthinking habit. Thanks for the reminder. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I always see it as "Whatever you do don't ignore this oppose when closing this RfA!!!" :) I've done it myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Or, Malleus, if this is one of the ones you're curious about, switching from oppose to strong oppose can mean "I opposed a little bit back then, but now I noticed something new that makes me twice as concerned as before." The substance isn't in whether it says "oppose" or "strong oppose," but in the rationale given below there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Rjanag makes a valid point here. People can use OPPOSE to have different meanings or express how strongly they feel about a particular candidate. A year or so ago I wrote out how I vote and tried to explain my rationale behind different !votes. But it basically boiled down to this: If I see a weak oppose, I read it as "I'm opposing, but if they pass I won't lose any sleep." A normal oppose as, "I'm opposing, but I don't necessarily think they will break wikipedia." And a strong oppose as "OMG if this person passes there is something seriously wrong." Now that being siad, how they vote weak/ /strong doesn't ultimately matter as much as the strength of argument/rationale. If I see "Strong Oppose, too many admins already" that doesn't weight as much as a normal oppose with a legit concern.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I use "Strong" when I'm really passionate about my response. I use it very rarely (7 times out of 294 RFAs, and, by the way, 5 of the seven were strong supports) because I do want a "Strong" from me to mean something extra. Useight (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
But do you believe that it does, or that it should? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Useight (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I have problems in reconciling this idea of "how strongly you feel" with the idea of consensus. You're one person; why does it matter how strongly you feel? If I feel strongly the other way do I cancel out your feelings? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
So, since each of us is only one person, then every "support" and "oppose" at an RfA should be exactly equal? That sounds an awful lot like voting. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Your commenr sounds a lot like you didn't understand all of the words that I used, or what each of them meant collectively when put together in a sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Then feel free to enlighten me. But please, no big words; I have a hard time with them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to enlighten yourself. Start by reading through what's been said, slowly, and with your thinking head on. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if I've ever used "strong" or "weak" as a qualifier to an RfA (or indeed AfD) opinion, I just never really felt it made any difference to how my vote was interpreted. A normal oppose with a cogent reason is always going to be respected more than "Strong oppose because baby penguins are brown". That said, I see no problem with adding qualifiers if you think it clarifies your opinion; it's personal taste. ~ mazca t|c 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...personally, in XfDs at least, I find "weak" votes to make a lot more difference than "strong" votes..."weak" usually seems to imply "this is a tricky gray area and I sort of have an opinion but I recognize there are issues", whereas "strong" rarely says anything that a regular opinion wouldn't. (In XfDs I know I have used "speedy ____" from time to time, but I don't recall having used "strong".) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right about AfD's - my reading of a lot of close-run ones reaches the same conclusion. A "weak keep" is distinct from a "keep", but a "strong keep" makes little difference. That said, an RfA that actually sprung to mind on this topic was Tadakuni's - it was closed as successful (quite correctly, in my view) by EVula at the lower end of the normal "pass threshold", based primarily on the fact that many of the opposes were "weak" in that they weren't entirely comfortable with the candidate but had no strong objections. But upon review of it, you'll note that there are absolutely no opposes marked as "weak oppose"! It would seem that oppose weakness is also well-expressed simply by providing a meaningful justification. ~ mazca t|c 00:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I also note that Ottava's RfA seems to have rather more "strong opposes" than usual - however, it also seems to have rather more opposes that simply are rather vitriolic. Evidently some people consider a strong objection best expressed by a "strong oppose", others prefer to express it in terms of direct justification. And some prefer to just foam at the mouth. ;) ~ mazca t|c 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but it was really the switching from Oppose to Strong Oppose that triggered my question. Having registered an oppose, strong or not, what additional weight is, or should be, given to adding adjectives? Does Very Srong Oppose trump Strong Oppose for instance? Is a Very Strong Support wortb two Strong Opposes? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the next level after Strong Oppose is Vorpal Oppose +5. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder what the level below Weak Oppose is then? Oh, I'm such a ditherer, I can't make my mind up? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot. That's what the neutral section's for. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No no no, a Vorpal blade is the equivalent of a +5 magic sword. Only a +5 magic weapon is capable of harming the almighty Jabberwocky!!! :P But yeah, Rjanag, you took the paper pushing comment the wrong way. Paper pushing means people who do busy work - organizing, categories, etc. Its a standard term for a mid-level bureaucrat - you move one paper to another area in organization. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with nearly everything above. In fact, I propose we eliminate the practice of using bold !votes. The weight a comment is given does not depend on the bold font, but rather the comment itself. Moreover, using support or oppose is redundant, as we can already see which section you've placed your comment in. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite. Bolding is useful at venues like FAC or AfD for instance, where the discussion is threaded, but not here. Let the bureaucrats decide on the strength of argument, not on the number or typesetting of the adjectives. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters how one words "support" considering it just means "I trust this editor with the tools" and oppose simply needs a rationale as to why not. The bolded support/oppose wording is fairly arbitrary, so the inclusion of them makes no real difference. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Then why the all too frequent and dramatic "switching to strong oppose"? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh, yeah I'd say that's just for dramatic effect, and because they are more opposed to it than before. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Does it matter that they're more opposed to it than before? To whom does it matter? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it really matters at all; it's just added for dramatic effect, as you and others have been saying. And also, outside of borderline cases, I really doubt it makes much of a difference to the closing 'crat. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
An excellent idea: I stopped using bolded supports/opposes a long time ago. The boldings are pointless. Plus, saying "strong oppose" doesn't make an oppose any stronger than a regular oppose ("strong oppose - user doesn't like cake" is irrelevant); an oppose with a good rationale will carry far more weight than a "strong oppose" for a clearly nonsense reason. Acalamari 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Just throwing out my $0.02, "Strong oppose" simply means "I honestly feel promoting this candidate to adminship is a very bad idea". It doesn't usually make any huge difference, but the strength of an opposition is sometimes taken into consideration by closing bureaucrats, especially in difficult cases. For instance, an adminship candidacy at 71% support with most of the opposes saying "weak oppose" or "regretful oppose", or otherwise suggesting that the opposer still seems to trust the candidate, has a much better chance of passing than a request with the same support percentage, but with several "strong opposes". Master&Expert (Talk) 01:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • So let me be clear about your argument, how many Strong Supports does it take to cancel out one Very Strong Oppose? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think it works like that, per se. There is no exact magical number of strong supports that counteract strong opposes. Strong support barely even means anything; it's just a "w00t!" in the support section (I do it because it is a form of praise to the RfA candidate). "Strong oppose" also barely means anything, similar to the strong support but in the opposite direction; it's pretty much a slightly less colloquial "no way". When a bureaucrat reviews a clear-cut RfA consensus, those sorts of vitriolic opposes are rarely taken into consideration. But when they review close tallies, they look through the supports, opposes, and even the neutrals (which usually have very little effect on the end result) and try to gauge whether or not the community has trust in the RfA candidate. Specifically, they look at the opposing arguments and think about how they relate to the trustworthiness of an admin. "Strong support" could indicate that the commentor has seen the candidate around and has had a positive impression, which suggests that they have good reason for trusting the editor. Likewise, "strong oppose" suggests that either they have seen the candidate around and do not feel they would be an effective administrator at all, or they haven't encountered the candidate before but are very convinced after seeing something they disagree with and it left a bad taste in their mouth. But of course, the weight of the argument in the opposing section, particularly how it relates to the trustworthiness of a potential admin, is the most important deciding factor. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I can't help but feel that you've entirely missed the point, but I thank you for your insights nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I believe your point was that "Strong oppose" is just an oppose with the word "strong" added on, and "changing to strong oppose" is just a dramatized oppose vote. And I have to say, for the most part, I agree with that. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • An opinion I've long held is that bolding does nothing, really – except improve readability. While we have the numbering, I think one will find that without the bolding, the structure of the discussion changes, and individual comments become less clear. That may sound strange, but perhaps it'd have to be seen in practice to know for sure. As to "strength" of opposition, I think that an indented comment of "Changing to strong oppose" can be useful, because it can alert readers or participants to new evidence or pertinent changes in the RfA. Of course, that kind of alerting can be done in other ways, and one doesn't need to "up" their oppose to present new information; but that seems to be how it is often done by the opposition, and that makes its current usage potentially... enlightening. After all, such new information is likely to go unnoticed if merely injected into the original comment of an opposer. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose is just an oppose with decoration. Chillum 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed completely. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Then what do you believe is the intention behind the all too frequent dramatic declarations of "switching to strong oppose", after the oppose has already been registered? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The intention is to add decoration. Chillum 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps they do it "because they can", maybe? Nothing stops them from doing it, so "because they can" seems like a good explanation. Acalamari 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but something must persuade them to do it, or else they wouldn't. I think it's becoming clear from the discussion above that at least some believe that qualifying an oppose with an adjective of your choice has some bearing on the outcome of an RfA. So I look forward to the new fashion for Supreme and Ultimate Support, from the Dark Lord of the Underworld'. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Support. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
(out) I know this discussion isn't only (or even mostly) about my switch to "strong oppose", but since mine does seem to at least be part of what prompted the discussion.... how about we all stop wasting so much effort worrying about the "decorations" and "frills" of how people choose to word their bolded whatever, and instead focus on the actual rationales people give, which is what matters anyway. In mine, for example, I spent 1 second typing out the word "strong", and much much longer writing out a rationale for why one of the nominee's comments concerned me greatly. So I find it pretty silly that so many people have been up in arms for hours now over whether people write "strong oppose" or just "oppose," when that is meaningless anyway and what counts is the rationale. People can write hoopy frood oppose ;ariga;hig for all I care, as long as they put thought into giving good rationales. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's precisely the point. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Although this "issue" is of little interest to me, it does seem that Malleus is more curious about it than "up in arms". Dean B (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a drama page. Anyone "up in arms" is of no importance. Why? Because its all drama. So just sit back and enjoy. If anything actually -happened- here, then that would be surprising. I don't think any proposals, claims, etc, have ever really amounted to anything. I'm not willing to place money on that, but from my experience there might be a dust up and then people all move onto the next dramatic moment. I guess that's what makes this place more fun than ANI - squabbles without blocks and bans as repercussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The adjectives don't bear on calculation of percentages and so forth -- an oppose is an oppose is an oppose, for those purposes. But of course the adjectives are only irrelevant if you think calculation of percentages of individual support versus oppose votes is all that's going on at RFA. In actual fact, (1) no voter makes up his mind on a strictly individual basis, and (2) no bureaucrat makes the final decision on the basis of percentages alone. I suspect that voters often word their remarks in such a way as they think is likely to draw the attention of other voters, and encourage them to agree and vote in the same way -- so, adjectives like "strong" can have rhetorical effect. And they might even make some small contribution to the final bureaucrat decision in borderline RFAs in which one side or another is noticably vehement. So they're far from irrelevant, and anything but "stupid and worthless," as they were called in the ill-informed essay cited above. — Dan | talk 05:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My thought was that the "scale" (as it were) went from Strong Support > Support > Weak Support > Neutral > Weak Oppose > Oppose > Strong Oppose. D.M.N. (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That'd be the invisible scale. Also, weak support is basically the same thing as Oppose, just a nicer way of saying it.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I always thought "Weak Oppose" was the nice way of saying Oppose. Imho "Weak Support" is the same as "I don't think you should be an admin but maybe you will surprise me and actually do a good job". ;-) SoWhy 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In whose mind do these scales exist? Are they real scales, in the sense that they're actually used to grade votes? Where's the consistency in ranking votes if votes aren't counted? Is a weak support really counted as an oppose? The system is crazy. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A precise answer to these questions may be found in my comment directly above. — Dan | talk 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I always assume that weighting one's vote simply means said voter is a teenager. Thusly, I add to my watchlist that voter's potential future RfA's so that I can oppose them for lacking an adult brain, which is one of the requisite items on my RfA criteria (along with tested ninja skills, at least one WOW character above level 40, and a penchant for good beer). Hiberniantears (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone is just choosing to bold different words. What do "weak oppose", "weak support" or "reluctant support" mean...apart from the obvious interpretation? I stand by my point that data shows crat discretion is very limited and the vast majority of RfAs pass or fail by the numbers. Given that, the actual impact of a change in wording after the # is close to zero. So worries about a scale, balancing, and all that are fairly misguided. But we like to think that RfA isn't a vote, so people are motivated to make their comments with some flourish. Sometimes they are making a rhetorical statement, hoping to convince other editors to change their votes. Here arguably content in the oppose maters more than the bolded prefix. I don't imagine that this is a sign that the "system is crazy". Protonk (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Which of these comments do yout think is stronger?

  • "I do not trust Jim wiht he tools just yet, though I would support in two or three months when he has more experience"
  • "I very strongly object to John becoming an admin. He has been utterly incivil here here and here, and once suggested that a user be blocked for creating an article with no references here."

Obviously the second one. Assuming the bolded prefixes are just summaries of the comment (Albeit unnecessary; people are supposed to read the comments), "weak oppose" would be a good description of the former, while "strong oppose" would be a good summary of the latter. That's why they are used. It makes perfect sense to use them so long as we used bolded summaries of the comment.--Pattont/c 21:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fundamental mistake to detach the information from its source. Which of these comments do you think is stronger?
--Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean to tell me that people make judgments based on their opinion of the speaker, not simply the strength of the speaker's argument? I'm shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on in this institution. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that all comments should be giving different weights? Of course they shouldn't. They should be weighted differently depending on their conntent, and some comments that have been completely refuted can be ignored completely.--Pattont/c 12:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sugesting nothing. I was simply asking about the decorations so many seem to hang on their vote, and the effects they envisage by dramatically changing them. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
So am I the only person who genuinely uses weak oppose and weak support when I want to signal that I'm sufficiently divided that I want my comment to count for less if the RfA ends up in the crat decision (75-80% or whatever it is now) range? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope; I've used weak that way, and will continue to do so. ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this has already been answered very well a couple of times, but here's my attempt. "Strong Oppose" may mean simply that the contributor feels very strongly about opposing the RfA, but more probably it means that they wish to have more influence on the RfA's outcome than simply saying "oppose" would. The most likely mechanism by which they can expect to achieve this greater influence is by attracting the attention of other contributors to their arguments and thereby persuading some to change their own "vote". Less likely to be influential (and less likely to be a motive, I suspect) is persuading the closing bureaucrat to weight their opinion more highly than that of a simple "oppose".
I think that about covers it. I don't think you can extrapolate an interpretation of "weak" from the above, though. I've always read "weak" as implying that the writer was unsure after careful consideration, and often that implies that their other comments are worth reading. I don't know what the 'crats make of such things. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The bold terms are the TLDR version of the !vote itself.
I don't see how the question could generate all that discussion; it strikes me as one of the simpler concepts on Wikipedia. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing trend

WP:LOGACTIONS lists the most active admins by each type of activity. I noticed a disturbing trend that for many of the actions, the most active or second most active admin for each type of action is either desysopped or long-term retired. This is a bit disturbing because on an active project, I would expect to see a continuing pushing of the bar with new admins surpassing the activity of retired users. Looking at Wikipedia:LOGACTIONS#Blocks, three of the four most active blockers have been retired for over 6 months and the fourth is the open proxy bot. Any thoughts on this trend? MBisanz talk 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:LOGACTIONS#Blocks, Curps and Nakon are also both inflated by running adminbots. Dragons flight (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well expanding it to the top 15, 6 of them are inactive and 1 is a bot, which oddly mirrors the current trend of 915 active admins out of 1635 total rather closely. MBisanz talk 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it simply means that the desysopped admin were excessively using the certain tool and at a rate that was damaging whereas good admin use the tool only when necessary? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is "disturbing" at all. It shows that a) We aren't blocking as many users as we used to, and/or b) The workload is more spread out among more people, so that fewer burn out. This is all good really. Majorly talk 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's good we're spreading vandal-fighting out as it has been seen time and again that users who spend their whole time fighting vandalism are often faster to burn out or retire. It is disturbing that these vandal-fighters are leaving, however, and perhaps something more should be done to prevent this. Malinaccier (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in with my 2-cents, but perhaps the trend is simply human nature. I think it's entirely possible that admins, just like any other editors, can often fall into a rut. People do what they are comfortable with, so if an admin has become comfortable with "blocking" or "Page Protection", then that's where they will most likely gravitate to. Repetition can breed two things though, either a feeling of disgust (say for vandals), or a feeling of boredom. In the case of the former, it could lead to an overly-aggressive style of action that could get one called on the carpet. (so to speak). In the case of the later, rather than rotate to a different area (XfD, Mediation, content building, etc.), they rotate to a different area in real life. I'd hazard a guess that maybe some admins are "growing out of Wikipedia". I don't say that in a bad way, but if an editor becomes involved during their school years, they are familiar with research, documentation etc., and over the course of a year or two, become administrators. They tend to be a natural fit for a community like Wikipedia. Once they graduate, begin new jobs, start families, and build new lives - perhaps the tedious nature of research and documentation isn't as appealing as it once was. I would think that some of our best editors and administrators were heavily involved through the growth years (2004 - 2007), and in that respect, I wouldn't be surprised that their numbers could remain at the top of certain lists. That's not to say we won't continue growing, but the bulk of getting up to speed has been accomplished to some extent. New people, places, and events will continue to meet the notability guidelines - but the previous history that's readily verifiable by our WP:N standards, has largely been established. But ... I can see I'm getting off topic, so .. Thanks for letting me have a say here. Best to all. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 13:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: some of those admins with the higher counts are ones that I think we have a fair amount of problems with. Editors with extremely high counts in different areas tend to start to "trust their own judgment" and bend the rules more than others. I know that several of those names on the deletion lists were ones that I looked at with the most concern.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not surprising; super-active = will burn out. Stars work the same way - the brighter they are, the shorter their lifespan. WilyD 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And in case anyone missed it, it does seem like we've lost our most active administrator. So you can add that to the "disturbing trend". Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also very encouraging to see that the former admin. is requesting feedback from the community. I would like to view that as a comforting thought in positive light. — Ched :  ?  22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In case anybody forgot, most active admin <> best admins... in fact, I suspect the opposite is often true. This trend is only concerning if we are caught up in the idea of editcountitis.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: This is not a commentary on any specific admin, but rather a generalization. As a general rule, I would rather have 10 admins use the tools 800 times, than one admin use the tools 1,000.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter

Based on discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_for_User:DougsTech, perhaps we should consider a change to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter. Specifically, in the "Expressing Opinions" section, add a sentence that says:

Contributors to the discussion who oppose a candidate because the contributor feels there are too many administrators may be subject to a ban from Requests for Adminship discussions

Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fairly stupid to limit it to that. How about "Contributors to the discussion who persistently vote with an off-topic template rationale that is routinely ignored by bureaucrats may be subject to a ban from Requests for Adminship discussions." Majorly talk 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • RFA is to evaluate the candidate's suitability to hold admin rights, and nothing else. Voting on the general situation is abuse of the process. If there are too many admins, we should stop all RFAs, agreed through a discussion on RFA talk. Voting on each and every single RFA opposing over this apparently "no need for more" is very disruptive, as RFA is not for soapboxing a general opinion. Rather, as I said, RFAs are for discussing the candidate at hand. Anything else goes elsewhere. Majorly talk 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Voting based on a belief there are too many administrators is a perfectly valid response and action when one feels there are too many administrators. It is his opinion. I think he recognizes that it is a minority opinion. Nevertheless, it is his opinion. It is a perfectly valid course of action that when one feels there are too many administrators, one should work to prevent additional administrators from being made. You are welcome to dislike his methods, just as he is welcome to his opinions. RfA is for expressing opinions. If you do not approve, I humbly submit you're in the wrong place. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Then you misunderstand what RFAs are for then. It is utterly pointless to "work to prevent additional administrators from being made" when the bureaucrats totally ignore his remarks. RFA is for expressing opinions about the candidate and not about the general situation. I'm sorry you believe otherwise. Majorly talk 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I certainly am a certified idiot. So perhaps you can suggest ways of illustrating how one should contribute to RfA to prevent themselves from being topic banned? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
So is each crat required to list what opposes they've ignored upon closing each RfA? There has to be a definition of "routinely" and there's no other way to know... ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not how policy is changed. If you wish to change policy (in this case, our blocking policy), please take the appropriate steps as described in WP:POLICY. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm, RfA front matter is not policy. Also, topic bans aren't encoded anywhere in policy either. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If RfA front matter alledges that voting a specific way can get you an enforcable topic ban, then you're talking about an extension to WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK (see Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban "Topic bans may be implemented by a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Enforcing_bans "Blocks may be implemented as a technical measure to enforce a ban. Such blocks are based around the particulars of the ban in question.") Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It has just occurred to me that this thread is probably here in an attempt to make a point, based on the thread starter's comments in the discussion, so I'd suggest others not comment here. Nothing needs changing on the front matter page. Majorly talk 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • No Majorly, it isn't. Please read WP:AGF. This proposal is serious. I find it alarming that you would attack DougsTech, and then me. I think you need to recuse yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I find it alarming you are allowing a troll to continue disrupting the RFA process, but I don't like to complain. Majorly talk 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Actions are trolling. Please don't call people trolls. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointless change. We didn't change it with Kurt Webber. We didn't change the RFB template a year or so ago when some editor opposed all RFB's based on "long standing reasons" - without the courtesy to explain what they reasons were. This seems (to me) to be trying to deal with the symptom and not the problem behind it. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Pedro. If agreement can be reached as to what the underlying problem really is - for example, arguments which are quite unrelated to the candidate - then perhaps we can agree on a form of words that will strike a good balance between preventing disruption or misunderstandings, and avoiding instruction creep. As it is, I don't think we're there. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
My guess would be the wording in the "Expressing Opinions" section. Something that could reflect on the continual incoming and outgoing of administrators. A note that opinions should reflect on the individual candidates, rather than the process of electing administrators (if that's the proper term), or viewpoints of Wikipedia as a whole. Posts wishing to address those items could be pointed to this talk page and the village pump links. — Ched :  ?  20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Radical suggestion: how about we not knee-jerk every time someone gets our collective panties in a wad. Sound like a good idea? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

@EVula. I'm requesting some clarification. First, I fully admit that I don't always observe the proper format listed in WP:INDENT, and it's my perception that not all editors do. I'll attempt to correct my shortcomings, but I must admit that I can have difficulty in following long threads with a large number of editors. In that respect, I ask, does a full outdent represent a reply to the original thread post?, does it represent a reply to the last full outdent?, or does it represent a reply to the editor immediately preceding the post? Specifically: which is the radical suggestion? what is the knee-jerk? and what is the collective wad? In proof-reading this before I press enter, it seems like a snarky reply - but I'm not sure how to re-word it to sound better at this point. I don't mean it to be snippy, cute, or sarcastic - I'm just not sure how to reply to "Sound like a good idea?" (or even if I should). — Ched :  ?  06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's a new point.  GARDEN  13:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The "radical suggestion" comes from the fact that everyone seems to be reacting rather dramatically (in my opinion) to something which doesn't merit much reaction: a single editor having an opinion that is decidedly in the minority. I can honestly tell you that I, as a bureaucrat, don't put any stock in his argument, primarily because the community has made their opinion on the matter quite known; with that in mind, I can't help but wonder why we would need to do anything when there's literally almost zero impact to his comments. We don't need to change our instructions to address a single editor. (as far as outdenting goes, I wasn't addressing you specifically, just more addressing the entire thread as a whole) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with Majorly, if we are changing that page there's little benefit to focusing on one specific example of off-topic comments. I suggest something along the lines of "Please focus on reasons why the candidate in question should or should not become an admin; off topic comments are liable to be removed." Whilst we are discussing that page we currently have a contradiction as to whether new editors are welcome to !vote, I vaguely remember coming across this when I first looked at RFA 18 months ago, at the time I concluded that there was an unwritten rule as to how experienced an editor needed to be before !voting on RFAs and I left RFA for a very long time. I suggest setting a low but clear threshold such as 100 edits or auto confirmed accounts, that won't exclude anyone except those who've created an account to vote in a current RFA, but it would make it clear to new editors when they are welcome to !vote at RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 07:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem with a single editor; let's deal with that editor. We don't need instruction creep. Adding text to deal with every possible problem distracts the reader from what is most important. Let's try for conciseness rather than covering every possible problem. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Part of my purpose in bringing this discussion is attempting to identify exactly what the community feels is problematic behavior on RfAs, and if we can identify that to codify it somewhere. There is a relation to DougsTech. I don't condone his edit warring behavior, but that should be dealt with via usual means rather than topic banning. If there's a reason to topic ban, we should be able to see it in this thread, dealing with the abstract topic. Looking through diffs over the last few days, DougsTech is far from the only person engaging in behavior of voting with little relation to the candidate. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_165&oldid=1252068710"