Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 204

Archive 200

←

Archive 202

Archive 203

Archive 204

Archive 205

Archive 206

→

Archive 210

Armbrust Closure

The user has 47000 edits and has been closed under WP:NOTNOW here in a non admin closure within hours of it being put.Clearly WP:NOTNOW does not to editors with substantial edits and it does not apply here.It should have been withdrawn only with the candidate's consent and been given more time.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it and left a note on Porchcrop's page. S/he has been doing a lot of this sort of thing lately. Reminds me of a long-departed user whose name I frustratingly cannot remember. → ROUX ₪ 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a checkuser could jog your memory... :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No.. if I'm right about who it is, they haven't edited in quite a long time and so a CU wouldn't have anything to compare to. Ugh, I wish I could remember the name. In some ways I am reminded of User:Andy Bjornovich, though the obsessions aren't the same. (Then again, everyone changes). The one I am really reminded of was a guy who kept trying to create these Byzantine organizational structures; I seem to recall he tried to put together some sort of 'Wikipedia CSI' for finding evidence for ArbCom cases? And there was something else, a whole raft of pages in his userspace devoted to some strange governmental thing on Wikipedia. It's possible I am conflating two users. → ROUX ₪ 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

u so crazeh.  f o x  11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrible use of WP:NOTNOW and yet another example of people who link to essays they've either never read, or if they have, then have utterly failed to understand. Pedro :  Chat  19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Akilandy, 26 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

This was just a copypaste of the RFA main page. What do you want changed?--Chaser (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin

May I candidate for adminship? --Ftsw (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, dear Ftsw! :) I'm sorry, but I don't think so - your first edit was only today. Administrators should be regular Wikipedia contributors for at least several months, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. Perhaps you can try to be an admin when you've gained more time and experience here in the future. Kindly, → Clementina [ Scribble ] 08:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read all Wikipedia rules and policies, I´m now familiar with it. --Ftsw (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All of them? There's thousands! Have a look at the current candidates: years worth of experience, thousands of edits - yet two of them are not going to become admins. What have you done on Wikipedia that they have not? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably reverting another user's good-faith revert of their own addition as "vandalism" on their 14th edit. Not to mention socking/meating... Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Check it with Wikipedia tools, I'm not this user. --Ftsw (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Its blatantly obvious that you are the same person as User talk:93.82.8.84--Jac16888^Talk 10:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How so? It is not true. Please check the appopriate Wikipedia tools for this and then come back. --Ftsw (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) That user seems to be working in concert with you, on multiple articles.[1] This edit all by itself introduced inaccuracies to an article that needed careful review. As noted above, read some of the current requests for adminship to learn what it is all about. Your every action here will be scrutinized, you need a very solid body of constructive work to gain other editors' confidence. It's not enough to say you know the policies, people need to be able to see that you know them and apply them regularly and consistently. Franamax (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Question, why did you give yourself a welcome, User talk:Ftsw? Welcoming new users is my job :). If all of you start giving yourselves welcomes, what will I do when Articles for Creation is clear of submissions? --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They probably welcomed themself because none of their many other accounts got welcomed either. Really AQ, you should be quicker off the draw. You may have just driven a valuable disruptive editor away from the project. How can we hope to attract new disruptive editors when we treat the established disruptive contributors this way? :) Franamax (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Eagles247

Another well deserved landslide victory. And one that demonstrates once again how silly this new trend in pile-on 'optional' questions really is..--Kudpung (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh. As silly RfA trends go, this one is at the harmless end. I'm just grateful we've just about rid ourselves of the absurd "automated edits" opposes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Useight (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

22 total questions. That's.... astounding. Netalarm^talk 03:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)::Agreed Mitch, but silly questions in more close run RfAs can greatly influence the acting !voting. I wonder if the 'crats ever look to see who is behind them. I would be inclined to warn some of them for disruptive editing ;) --Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno I found the questions kinda fun to answer.. but I was already pretty much in the clear on my rfa by around the 7th or 8th question so I wasn't really stressin' about it ;) -- œ^™ 13:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I liked the amount of questions I was asked. I only got bored on the last two or three days when there were no questions to answer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Only 22 questions, that's it? Pshaw. Back in the day, we had to walk uphil, both ways, in the snow, with broken glass embedded in pur feet for traction… . As an aside, has anyone had 30+ questions on one RfX? (This one had 29). -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

41 was the highest I could think of, but there may have been worse out there. ϢereSpielChequers 19:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's actually 45, and that's plain criminal . -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That is damned ridiculous. Although about half the questions were from socks. Ironholds always had such attention-grabbing RFAs, remember this fiasco when we tried to overhaul the process and he volunteered to be the guinea pig? 48 questions too, that probably is a record, but was mostly a result of the experimental new process that we never even tried a second time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DHMO's had 30 (though it is courtesy blanked). :pepper 22:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that among the posers of the pile-on 'optional' questions are in fact admins who never had to walk across broken glass or burning embers, and who might not even pass an RfA by today's standards (we've seen some who have failed recently in their re-runs). With the major issue being one of a lack of candidates coming forward for the torture, I'll say again that it's not the bar that needs lowering - it's a compete rethink on who and how should be privileged enough to comment (!vote) and pose silly pile-on questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"This seems to be a really generic RFA."

...What kind of ridiculous, bullshit reason is this to vote? If you have nothing more in mind, why waste the bits it takes to type that in, send it through the Intarweb, and make it come out on my computer screen? Anyone who has looked at RFA twice knows that anything that sets a candidate apart will attract "Oppose" votes like shit attracts flies. This person, apparently lacking any compelling reason to say "NO!" managed to find it in the goodness of his or her golden heart to write "I don't give a shit" instead, with this as his justification.

I wish I could say with sincerity that this sort of behavior indicates a severe misunderstanding of the nature of adminship on Wikipedia, but I honestly don't think it does. Instead, it accurately represents the most widespread understanding of adminship--one not well-supported by written policy, but one that has been de facto policy for as long as I've been here.

"There is nothing wrong with this candidate, and I see no opportunity to crush his dreams. I will therefore scribble my name in section three so that he can know I had the opportunity to vote for him and refused."

This kind of rampant idiocy is why I keep coming back, of course. Once I'm out of webcomic updates, this site is the only game in town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• That was a neutral vote I believe, not an oppose. I believe the point was that the writer didn't see a compelling reason to support or oppose. Myself I ususlly just don't say anything when that's the case, but I'm not sure why it's outrage worthy. Again it was a neutral, not an oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I caught that, as I think is quite clear from my original post. It's outrage-worthy because this attitude is widespread and problematic and it sets a damned if you do, damned if you don't tone for RFA. It's also outrage-worthy because it's just stupid, but I don't know how much weight people give that sentiment around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I just don't give weight to neutrals anyway because they're neutral. So I find it hard to get worked up about it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I sort of understand the nature of the objection -- I gave a pretty fuzzy and generic response to the question that the editor asked. I don't think my responses have been very generic in other respects, but it's human nature to give special importance to the response to one's own question. In any case, the personal attacks by the IP here are totally inappropriate. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I don't vote in that situation, but I'd asked a question, so I felt it was at least polite to make an explicit neutral to show that I hadn't forgotten the RfA and did care about the answer. (Of course, the 'crats can feel free to discount it on the basis that it's potentially a spurious or weak reason, but it's not as if discounting a neutral does anything anyway.) --ais523 08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't used neutral very often, but if I asked a question, I owe a response. If I couldn't choose support or oppose, I'd go with neutral, and as Looie notes, it is understandable that one would give special weight to one's own question, that's partially just human nature, but it could also be that you are genuinely conflicted, and ask a specific question to help get you off the fence. If the answer is fuzzy or generic, that answer may help cement your fence-sitting position.--SPhilbrickT 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the 'optional' questions feature was designed specifically for those sitting on the fence to help them make their minds up. Golly, if all the 150 - 200 or so participants did it before casting their !votes we would be well past the already ludicrous number of 20 or so largely time wasting questions often - but not always - posed by newbies who don't even understand the process, and admins who never had to run across the broken glass and red-hot ploughshares themselves.--Kudpung (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that we are communicating. I didn't claim that the optional question was designed for fence-sitters; I don't know the origin, but I have seen it used by participants who appeared to be on the fence, so it is a use, not necessarily the only use. I am quite unconcerned that we would get 150-200 such questions; that point seems premised on the assumption that virtually all participants are fence-sitters. Seems so obviously wrong, I assume I misunderstood your point. --SPhilbrickT 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you were claiming that the optional question was designed for fence-sitters; I wasn't for a moment suggesting that all !voters are fence-sitters either. I was just pointing out a hypothetical worst case scenario! I certainly admit however, that there are indeed some close running RfA where it is exremely difficult to know how to vote, and where an intelligent extra question or two might help. Nevertheless, in the light of the new trend for pile-on questions, often thrown in where the outcome is already obviously clear, I'm not so sure that all those questions have much to with enriching the candidate's experience, or with a wish to greatly influence the course of the debate, and I greatly respect any candidate who is confident enough to ignore them.--Kudpung (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I have a better understanding of your point. And as someone who is thinking of throwing my hat into the ring next month, I'm certainly in favor of a movement to cut down on the number of optional questions, or at least encourage candidates to ignore a lot :)--SPhilbrickT 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Counting

Not that it is terribly important (I'm trying to dodge work) but why does the Vejvančický table say 62/1/3 when it looks more like 65/0/3?--SPhilbrickT 19:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the bot died. –xeno^talk 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was really wondering where the oppose came from, but I've figured it out.--SPhilbrickT 19:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, a missing empty hash mark was what tripped up the bot. –xeno^talk 13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I deleted the bogus oppose, I accept full responsibility for this matter. Keepscases (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Will forgive you, just this once. –xeno^talk 20:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BAG Recruitment

We are running a fairly large backlog at WP:BRFA and could really use some new blood on WP:BAG. Anyone who thinks they have the skills to review bots should really consider submitting themselves at WT:BAG! MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Cricket, cricket MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, MBisanz, I'd do it, but I'm almost certain I don't have near the skillset. Apologies. Saebvn (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

... or just comment on some of the open BRfAs to try and keep 'em breathing ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

...Well, I could comment a lot... Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to join, but as I don't know anything about writing bots, I wouldn't even vote for myself. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Per fetchcomms. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, per Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot_Approvals_Group BAG members are expected to be programmers and have experience with bots. However, I would encourage users to take a read through our bot policy (it's quite useful to know anyway, just for general stuff, I find :D) and then comment at a few BRfAs with that knowledge. Of course, no one is particularly obliged to, 'sept maybe BAG ;). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't someone create a bot to write those BRfA comments? (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think those aren't bots writing the comments on BRfA right now? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Shhh... don't blow their cover! Netalarm^talk 21:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's that time again!

It's time for the thread everybody's been waiting for... The "Oh noes, no RfA's!" thread! The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this really an "Oh noes, no RfA's" thread? It looks more to me like an "Oh noes, no 'Oh noes, no RfA's' threads" thread. —Soap— 20:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps The Thing is teetering on the edge of the 15m board, wondering whether to dive in again? If so, I think we should be told. - Pointillist (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The last 3 times I did that, I hit the bottom of the pool square on the nose. Hopefully I've, erm, practiced enough to actually return to the surface intact. ;) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever had a "Oh noes, not another 'Oh noes, no 'Oh noes, no RfAs thread'" thread, as opposed the numerous "Oh noes, not another 'Oh noes, no RFAs' thread'" threads. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone I asked to nominate about 15 users declined with the exception of 3 (2 passed one didn't), it's that no one wants the responsibility of adminship. Secret ^account 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Secret. Of the 12 who declined how many didn't want the responsibility and how many were deterred by the RFA process? In my experience it is usually the latter that concerns people. ϢereSpielChequers 00:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For me it's usually the former as I look for article writers and people with a particular skill, not just vandal fighters. Some say they like not being an admin, other said they were pondering, others thinks they too inexperienced. I think a couple like was because they were deferred by the process, including one who I offered to nominated today User:Elen of the Roads. Secret ^account 00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that I'd pass if I ran, but it is entirely the process that keeps me from trying. --Onorem♠Dil 03:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Any specific part of the process? The asinine number of optional questions that inevitably get asked? The nastiness of the debates in the oppose section? Townlake (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing entirely specific, but your second and third questions are definitely part of the reason to avoid it all for me. It almost seems like it's to a partisan political point where people are looking for something to argue about during the "election" process. Who cares if someone can do one thing right if they can't satisfy the other faction? --Onorem♠Dil 03:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It was mainly that I know there will be a stack of opposes because I haven't got 100 articles to FA status. These days, why should someone who wants to do that also want the grief of being an admin. Far better to pick someone who doesn't mind playing whackamole, or picking the teeth out of US copyright, or who isn't afraid to say "no - you shut up, you shut up and you shut up." Oh, and I'm sure someone will pick up that on practically my second edit I managed to create a category twice (different capitalisation) and argue that this makes me incompetent.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that with 7000 contributions and over two years activity, no-one would mind what you did on your second edit. Small mistakes are easily forgiven. (At least, I hope that's the case, or I'm screwed.) And with article expansion and improvement on your side even without much initial creation, most of us would probably make an exception to that particular condition as well. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I take incompetence on one's second edit as a good sign. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You can lose the game even before your first edit; IIRC I have seen an oppose in an RFA motivated by a long gap between the candidate's account creation and their first edit. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not an admin already??? In all honesty, I thought you were... if you ran, you'd definitely get my support because you act like an admin. (And being an admin isn't about the buttons, but rather the attitude---and I'm talking about the positive implications of the admin attitude, not the negative one's that garner scorn from some people.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

B-man I share your dismay. I thought there was something wrong with my popups. Can't say for sure, but yeah I would be leaning to support for Elen of the Roads, I just assumed... :) Franamax (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason few wish to put themselves in for the mop at this point is simply the quickly deteriorating reputation of RFA itself. I won't generalize, but this is the primary reason I haven't even considered adminship. All of this drama and BS over a process made out to be no big deal by Mr. Wales himself; why would one go through all of this when this is merely a voluntary position? I commend anyone willing to go through an RFA here and still have other issues to worry about (e.g. real life). Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh but you see, adminship is a big deal. As the project grows and takes a larger role in the internet, adminship will only become a bigger deal. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to RFA, not adminship itself. Of course adminship is a role that should be taken seriously, but the process of getting to that point is unnecessarily abrasive. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• In fact, more than 80% of what is discussed in any given RfA is BS. People can learn on the job; 'nuff said. The only tool that is truly dangerous (in the hands of an experienced editor) is the Block button, which is precisely why it should be unbundled from all other tools. • Ling.Nut 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd agree that more attention should go on the block button than usually does, though I think that incorrect deletion decisions are probably more common, and I suspect we lose more editors and especially newbies from deletion errors than from blocking errors. I can't remember the last time we had a candidate at RFA criticised for poor AIV reports, hopefully that means that most candidates are getting that right, but of course it could mean that no-one is actually reviewing candidates in that regard..... I and some others usually look through candidate's deletion tagging to check that they aren't likely to make excessive mistakes in that regard, does anyone focus their review of the candidate on their AIV tagging? As for unbundling blocking, I'm not convinced. If you can block you need to be able to unblock, you also need access to deleted edits, sometimes you can decide to block someone purely on their undeleted edits, but other times you need access to deleted edits. Also it would seem odd to me to have someone who was trusted to block someone for creating attack pages but not to delete those attack pages. ϢereSpielChequers 05:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with your statement about "seems odd...", which is why I envisioned the block/unblock ability to be a final stage, or a supplement to all others. Everyone who can unblock/block can do all other admin things, but not everyone needs to be able to block/unblock in order to delete etc. My rationale, again, is that RfAs are way, way, way, way too overblown and self-important (and brutal and unnecessary), and in fact the whole RfA process should be done away with for all abilities except block/unblock. That's the main one that is subject to abuse (rather than stupid misuse), and so it is the main one that requires trust of the whole community (read:RfA). Other abilities could be granted step by step by a mentor who has earned that community trust through RfA. If someone gets the ability to delete and goes on a rampage, that ability is rmvd, and the granting admin loses community respect. If the granting admin loses that respect repeatedly, he/she is in for a desysop. etc. Do you see... I'm saying that RfA is all in one brutal blow, encouraging folks to be vanilla editors and check in the boxes in order to pass the gauntlet. The process should be spread out over time and granted by individual rather than community, except for those abilities most subject to genuine abuse. • Ling.Nut 09:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• There are several problems here, some of them practical, others almost philosophical. WP:ADMINSTATS shows that well over a million blocks have been administered by admins, and the vast majority of admins have done some blocking, so there is a real risk that some sort of upbundling so that only "superadmins" (maybe crats) can block would not supply us with sufficient blockers, especially as most blocks are done as a matter of urgency and if delayed will mean more vandalism has to be cleaned up.

Also the proportion of correct blocks is incredibly high, and most are so uncontentious that many are now done by bot. So in most cases this is just a chore that we need to efficiently handle by spreading the load as widely as possible, and in such a way that there are always people available who can administer blocks.

Of course we all know that in reality there are a few vested contributors who occasionally get blocked and blocking them is almost guaranteed to set the Dwamah boards ablaze. I don't know how many such contentious blocks have taken place in the history of the pedia, I'd guesstimate it as hundreds, possibly into the low thousands but I'd be stunned if it was more than a significant fraction of a percent of all the blocks that have taken place. RFA is a very poor way of identifying who would or wouldn't make contentious blocks of vested contributors and whether they'd make the right judgement calls, because usually all you have to judge is the candidate's AIV reports and their responses to questions in an open book exam. I think that a practical solution would be to split the block function so that all current admins could block IP's and non-autoconfirmed and have a smaller group of editors who can block autoconfirmed users, with perhaps an increase in the threshold for autoconfirmed. In other words you upbundle blocking and unblocking of autoconfirmed accounts to the crats or create a smaller usergroup who could do such blocks. I doubt if I'd support such a proposal - but I think it would be workable. If your concern is that vested contributors are too easily unblocked then this would have the advantage that if such blocks still happened they would probably stick for longer as there would be few editors with the ability to do contentious unblocks. ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes, not an 'Oh noes, no 'Oh noes, no RfAs thread' thread'!

this stopped being funny a long time ago, and there are two open RFAs now anyway

Oh noes! Airplaneman ✈ 21:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Look, if it makes things easier here at WT:RFA, I could stand for a reconfirmation RFA. But you all have to promise to oppose. Otherwise it's just not worth the hassle. :-) TFOWR 21:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Quite. Don't want to sound like a party pooper, but can we ban these silly threads once and for all? Aiken (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) The subthread title should be "an", not "another", because this is the first thread of this kind. Also, I think it's missing a "thread" after the final quotation mark. I think. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)  Fixed, thanks :) Airplaneman ✈ 21:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I added an extra apostrophe to the end, too. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Error: Stack overflow - Pointil(list(list(list(list(list(list)))))) (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Looks like you have quite a PointiLisp there! --j⚛e deckertalk 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Yeth indeed! - Pointillist (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) If y'all are bored, I'd be happy to nomredacted SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC) And nom me as well. that would be a two-part true food fight. Thank you ma'am, may I have another? • Ling.Nut 01:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I'll support an RFA for redactedeasily, though it would likely fail. Secret account 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) He'd refuse. I'd support, too, but who wants a dramafest right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I think we all should have one day on Wikipedia where all non-admins (and I mean all) become admins and get the tools; and all admins become non-admins. Some top performing non-admins who have the max block logs should be given bureaucrat status too. In fact, I'll make a proposal at the pump right now on this. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) You're a few months late for April Fools' Day... EVula // talk // ☯ // 11:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I do hope that wasn't serious. :P  f o x  23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Very! It's already been approved by all Stewards. They're searching for a day to do this. Suggestions are welcome... Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Late December? We should randomly select an IP to be Lord of Misrule ("founder", in the modern tongue). All other IPs become stewards, non-autoconfirmed editors become 'crats, regular editors become admins, admins lose their mops, etc. TFOWR 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Not such a bad idea! I could think of a few admins I would block indef immediately ;)--Kudpung (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Why not give redacted admin rights for a day? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 09:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Could we not use this pointless thread to personally attack other users, blocked or no? There are two RFAs in progress right now anyway so the flimsy excuse for beginning a thread like this for the umpteenth time (hint: it's not funny anymore) is gone anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I heard you like !voting, so...

Main page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010

Preparations are underway for the annual elections to the Arbitration Committee, due to take place mid-November to mid-December. Provisional election pages have been set up based on the model of the 2009 elections, which were conducted using the SecurePoll secret ballot system. The proposed timetable allows for a 10-day nomination period (from Sunday November 14 to Tuesday November 23), a 10-day voting period (Friday November 26 to Monday December 6), and a subsequent period for the vote to be audited by independent scrutineers.

Until the call for nominations on November 14, the parameters of the election are open to community examination and feedback. A draft set of nine general questions to be posed to each candidate has been established (voters will also be able to ask unique questions of individual candidates). Editors interested in helping to organise the elections are encouraged to sign up as volunteer coordinators.

Working as an arbitrator is an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to take it on. This year, 10 arbitrators are expected to be chosen; experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing.

Discuss this at the election talkpage.

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 11:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cliffmore

User:TeleComNasSprVen transcluded Cliffmore's RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cliffmore) without nominating the user, or even asking if the user wanted to transclude it now. While Cliffmore did not have any chance of succeeding, it doesn't seem to have been right of TeleComNasSprVen to transclude it. Thoughts? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If an RfA is transcluded without the candidate's permission, my view is that all post-transclusion edits to the RfA should be undone, the entry should be removed from "unsuccessful RfAs" and the candidate asked if he wants to nominate again. However, this edit suggests this candidate considered the RfA to be open so I don't think it's warranted here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is strange, it was transcluded by bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) on the 12th [2] and then Secret (talk · contribs) removed it within 2 minutes saying "rv per clear cut not now and possible sock". It looks like TeleComnasSprVen was seeking to reverse that editorial decision, over a week later. In general, an RFA should only be transcluded by the candidate or the nominator, or at their request. –xeno^talk 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It also seems that Cliffmore is a sock of indef-blocked user UnitedNow. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's why I reverted Secret ^account 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the details on the socking, but the fact that the candidate was unaware that their RFA was not properly transcluded speaks volumes to the inappropriateness of going ahead and transcluding it without explaining the situation, advising them of their chances, and waiting for confirmation that they wished to proceed. This was a very poor decision and made even worse by the simple fact that there is an unanswered inquiry right on Cliffmore's talk page about this which TeleCom apparently did not bother to look at before going ahead with this ill advised action. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It seemed fairly obvious to me that Cliffmore though he had done everything properly and that the RfA was active by this edit (assuming he's not really a sock that was trying to stir up an issue), so I simply did him a favor and finished the last step. I hadn't noticed I was reverted. But frankly, this is all a moot point given that he hasn't got a chance and he knows it now. Since he hasn't edited since trying to revert my vote, I'd say he's wise to the fact we suspect his sockpuppetry. If he is really just an innocent newbie and not a sock, then he can respond to the inquiry in due time and it will all be explained to him if he doesn't understand why. Nothing irreparable has happened yet. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I want to apologize for my actions, which seem to have stirred up some confusion. I will explain why I had done what I did thus.

Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) was the first to transclude Cliffmore’s RFA, and I believed that he and the candidate had an understanding that the candidate did desire his nomination on the RFA page. After that Secret (talk · contribs) removed the transclusion with the following edit summary “rv per clear cut not now and possible sock.” I thought that this was an inappropriate action, though in good faith as I see, and tried to transclude the nomination again for several reasons:

1. He was not a bureaucrat.
2. He accused the candidate of being a sock, however true that may be.
3. He untranscluded it just two minutes after the RFA.
4. He did not close the nomination.
5. He did not notify the candidate.

Therefore, I went ahead and transcluded it again, with the result that Access Denied (talk · contribs) reverted me, though he is not a bureaucrat either, and now it seems that we are discussing it. But it seems that it does not matter, since the candidate would have known by this time that his RFA was not accepted. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of interest: one does not need to be a bureaucrat to transclude an RfA. Quite the opposite; bureaucrats are rarely involved with RfAs before transclusion. Similarly, it isn't unusual for non-crats to de-list RfAs under certain circumstances (such as WP:SNOW, which the RfA would have qualified as even without the potential sockitude).
If someone reverts you with a semi-vague edit summary, you should take it up with them, not simply perform the same edit again. Not to point fingers, but this entire thread could have been avoided by asking a question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@TeleCom: I was simply carrying out a standard procedure NOTNOW Close. Anyone with an account can do that, and I'm pretty sure I have an account. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, points taken. It was a misunderstanding of the policy on my part, and I do apologize. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's the worst thing that happens to you this week, I think you'll be fine. No worries. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I got a {{talkback}} on this so I guess my further input is being requested. I'm not suggesting that TeleCon "get in trouble" or anything, I just wanted to stress that this was an obvious notnow case and informing the user of that and discussing the matter with them would have been a much better course of action that charging ahead and transcluding a doomed RFA. Also, transcluding it a second time after two users in good standing reverted it would be considered edit warring. It's best to discuss if you find yourself being repeatedly reverted. It seems that message has already been received, so there is little else to discuss here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone fix

Could someone fix the parser function on the RfA for Elen of the Roads. It's not registering a finish time - something needs subst-ing but I've never used this template, so I'm not sure what. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose My personal criteria dictate that all candidates know how to format every aspect of the RFA page perfectly. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My first time through RFA I wasn't even close. Useight (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm going to get at least a dozen opposes just saying "her markup sux". Anyway, Looie did a manual hack on it, so at least it says the right time now, but does that work with the RfA widget? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A. No. Soxbot is baffled.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot only manually updates every 30 minutes. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 01:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dang it, Access Denied, you beat me to saying what I was going to say. ~NerdyScienceDude 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, we're all baffled now. :P Netalarm^talk 01:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Which stops us sloshing when we go round corners ;-)--ClubOranje^T

There's no honour in bamboozling a bot. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for hacking it. I looked at one of the other RfA's and just saw a simple time there, so presumed that the result of the substing would be to replace the template with the actual start time. I would guess that the subst'ing was done incorrectly, but the template syntax is so obscure that it's really hard to figure out what it was supposed to be doing. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Either someone fixed it, or you did it right by accident (something I often do). Thanks for the help - that template is really hard to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Optional" Questions

It hasn't even been 36 hours and there are already 20+ questions on The Thing's RfA. Many of these are almost exactly the same. We really need to do something about this- it's becoming way too common. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think this is the type of candidate where it's not suprising to see a lot of extra questions. With a substantial numbers of edits that are mainly automated, and with a paucity of article work, it's tricky to tease out some of the finer points on how they will use the tools. Looking at some of the questions;

1. AFD closing - seems a sensible question to ask
2. Question on warnings - seems sensible as self professed vandal fighters with the block button may have their own view on wether or not to warn and how many times
3. Question asking for evidence on consensus building - very pertinent
4. Question on article building - relevant
5. Question on Huggle - not sure what this is meant to tease out but seems valid enough
6. Question on thought process re: articles - sensible
7. IAR question - seems fine
8. Multiple accounts - seems fair enough
9. Question on speed of editing - seems fine
10. Question on approach to CSD - very relevant
11. Question on recall - perfectly fine
12. Question on real life interests that is angled to enquire about content - again seems fine

So, yes there are a lot of questions but they're not frivolous and the responses will add value to the discussion. If it's a pile on it really is only because the candidate is somewhat restricted to vandal fighting and username concerns. Pedro :  Chat  08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't mind all of the questions. Ask as many as you feel are necessary. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fake it baby!

I'm sort of confused by many opposers at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2, starting with Courcelles: "the same problems (no content work) that got him rejected three prior times is a major "I didn't hear that"". Many editors concurred with the latter statement, not mentioning Courcelles' opening words ("returning here for a fourth time" [3] - I voted neutral for precisely this reason).

Would the opposers change their minds if the candidate simply faked "content work" for a few weeks? What's the point? Does anyone really believe that The Thing can morph into the new Ottave Rima? Opposes for "no content work, period" are fine with me, but opposing for not dancing to anyone's tune? Or is it just the need to say something apart from "I don't like you?" East of Borschov 12:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Three RfAs, quite some time apart, told TTTSNB that he needs to get involved in developing content. This doesn't mean reams of FAs, it just means improving articles. He elected not to do that. Fine, that's his choice. For me personally the concern is not lack of content development--specialization is good; to borrow a theatre analogy, not everyone can be an actor. We need stagehands and lighting designers too--it is the inability to listen to what others have said. Repeatedly, both in his RfAs and in private discussion. → ROUX ₪ 12:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps to make my point clearer: had TTTNSB never had a prior RfA, and this were his first, I would have almost certainly supported. → ROUX ₪ 12:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would venture that one reason I look for content contribution is that it is harder to fake as a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. One good content addition, like finding and properly formatting and adding a citation, can take ten times as long as a good content deletion. Even the process of "faking it" will give some much needed experience from a content contributor's perspective. Lambanog (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) I don't think it's fair to say this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEYOU. Some people strongly believe admins should have content work; othrs strongly believe rfa candidates must follow the advice of previous rfas. Wikipedians are chock-full of opinions; this is acceptable. • Ling.Nut 12:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There are persistent rumours on this website that admins are supposed to understand (and act on) consensus. If three previous attempts failed due to many opposes on a particular subject, and the candidate didn't substantially address (or pretend to address) that subject before their fourth attempt, there might be some merit in an argument that the candidate isn't entirely in touch with the community's collective position on certain subjects even when it's rubbed in their face.

Personally, I don't think that extensive content work should be a requirement for getting the mop. But, hey, if many other people think otherwise... consensus is king.

bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since it is my oppose at the top, let me elaborate. I don't actually care about content work much, if at all. If you go through my history of voting on RFA's, I'm sure you'd find me supporting candidates with the same level of content work as the current candidate. But not on their fourth trip to RFA. Not when every time prior has had a substantial voice of "Go and do X, then come back". What is meant by "faking it"? If you mean doing something you don't really enjoy to check a box and have something to show at the next RFA, just the experience of defending a piece of work at GAN/FLC/FAC is enlightening. If you mean a total fabrication... any editor caught at that is unlikely to ever have need of any further RFA's, for an entirely different reason. Bottom line, when 30-odd people tell you something three different times, it says a lot about someone how they react to that voice, maybe even more than what the original objection was. (I don't think I would ever oppose a first RFA for a lack of content work. Maybe not even a second.) Courcelles 15:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of faking or checking boxes, but A) getting the breadth of knowledge the community expects and B) showing that you can listen to what others say. Thing has failed to do both. To put it into real life examples, if you want a job, and the job has certain job expectations, then you have to meet those expectations. If you don't meet them, then you don't get the job. If you meet with your boss asking for a raise/promostion, and your boss says to do something, you do it before you ask your boss for a raise/promotion again. If you don't guess what the first thing your boss will ask when you meet? Did you do what I told you to do? If you didn't, then you won't get the raise/job. Sometimes the activity the boss asks for is something you don't think is necessary or will help you get where you want to be. How many hs/college courses did you have to get to get your degree that have little to no bearing on your major? But they are expected to have a well rounded character. It's no different here, we want to know that people have the ability to understand both sides and the ability to listen. Thing's actions say that he either thinks he is better than the community or that he is incapable of listening. Now, I don't know if either of those is really true, but that is what his actions say.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• He did do some content by looking at the talk page of his RFA to be fair, it's very little but still content. Secret ^account 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • But if the candidate does fake article work for two weeks, it's the same reason to oppose, unless the candidate writes an FA out of the blue. Secret ^account 19:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My opposes on content lines is that administrators not aware of audited content processes are far more likely to make bad judgements that inhibit quality content building, which is ostensibly the reason we're all supposed to be here. We have enough people who are policy wonks without regard to their actual application. I'm hardly a "big content contributors get a pass" kind of guy, but it's still important for admins to be jacks of most trades. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"administrators not aware of audited content processes are far more likely to make bad judgements" - any diffs to support your stance David or just the usual WP:OR?Pedro :  Chat  07:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Alansohn 2 18 9 1 67 18:58, 31 October 2010 6 days, 18 hours yes report

What does the "dups: yes" mean? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It means the bot has detected someone voting twice. sonia♫ 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, unrelated: 7 RfA's at once??? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

omg that needs its own thread see below /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

7 rfas at once

There are seven RfAs up at once! Is that a new record? ~NerdyScienceDude 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Until it's that time again.... But to be serious, what does everyone think? Not all of them are going to pass, and there have been varied reactions on all the candidates. Do users who would be usually reluctant to go up at RfA choose to stand when there are more open candidacies? Does this result in "stricter" or "laxer" !votes? I'm curious to what everyone thinks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did the opposite. I intentionally timed my RfA at a time when (a) there was only one other RfA and it was clearly failing; and (b) there was a massive discussion on this page on what to do about the lack of candidates.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's that the candidates feel they're not in the spotlight as much. With only one RFA, a lot of attention will obviously go to that one candidate, but with seven as we have now attention will be spread over the separate candidates. Derild4921☼ 00:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, from two hours ago. sonia♫ 00:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was there when there was 30 candidates at one time (back in late 2005 early 2006). So this is nothing. But I think more people would nominate themselves when RFA is empty because of the lack of quality adminstrators, and they think they have their best shot at passing. Secret ^account 00:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

For me it was just a matter of when I felt the time was right. I don't know why Chaser removed the earlier version of this thread, I see nothing wrong with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored those comments. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Stochastic, perhaps? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And we have none over at WT:BAG. We really could use some help over at WP:BRFA. MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

From early 2005 to early 2008 we were typically appointing an admin a day, so as it is a 7 day process, the norm when RFA was functioning well was for 7 ultimately successful RFAs at any one time. Plus some that didn't succeed (I'm not convinced that all of the 6 now running will or should succeed). Our number of active admins is falling and ultimately if we don't fix RFA then the foundation will doubtless step in and appoint some, as I believe they've done on other projects that failed to run themselves. But if we want to show that consensus can be made to work longterm on a site like this, then we do need to make sure we can recruit enough admins to do the various admin chores. I'm hoping that eventually we can get consensus to address the issue of standards inflation at RFA, and fix RFA before the falling number of active admins shifts from an impending problem to a current one. But I'm not as optimistic as I once was, on current trends the number of active admins will drop below 750 early next year, and I fear that by the time it does we will have begun to have incidents where the site is impacted by our lack of active admins. ϢereSpielChequers 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not active admins, it's active users in general, there was plenty of people who I think deserved to be an admin became inactive later. Also RFA has become tougher, more harsher that some people (including myself) will resist going to RFA or going back to RFA again. Secret ^account 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just RfA that has become tougher and harsher. The entire editing environment has too. The culture appears to have changed. A year ago I saw warnings of instruction creep mentioned. Not these days. The can-do laissez faire thinking of the early Wikipedia has been replaced by a bureaucratic follow the rules mindset. Wikipedia has become too strict in general and the projections one is seeing is the result. Lambanog (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea I'm seeing that in RFA, only two out of the seven appears it's going to pass. I opposed one, and I protest voted support on another one, but all of them, with the exception of two of them would have passed RFA if it was several years ago. And Addihockey likely would have passed RFA if it was 2005, when nothing really mattered. Secret ^account 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My (successful) RfA was part of the original seven. Hence, three out of seven… :-) --Leyo 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a typical snapshot of what things looked like around the peak. Just reading RFA was a totally different experience (and yes, naturally it meant that the level of scrutiny for each candidate was less, as you can see clearly at this complete ordinary stress-free RFA). Chick Bowen 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stats on that old page. Of 19 requests, 15 succeeded and 4 failed. Of the 15 admins, 2 resigned as admins and 2 are no longer active as editors (haven't edited for a year or more). Of the 11 remaining, 5 have not edited since the summer. Of the 6 still currently editing, only 1 is has made at least one action requiring the tools in the last 4 months. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation, do you have any way of working out how many of the 796 admins who are currently active editors have used the tools in the last four months? Or indeed how many "inactive admins" are actually active as admins... ϢereSpielChequers 13:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I could do it manually (gibber! squeak!). I've never particularly looked at how the tools in the toolserver work, to see if one could be finangled into doing it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe could ask Rick Block (talk · contribs) or JamesR (talk · contribs) about that. –xeno^talk 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin-by-function

Not a new suggestion, but has come up again at TTTSNB's RfA. We are now seeing admins from other projects applying for adminship here to work on one highly specific area (eg to do with moving images between en.wiki and Commons), who are actually agreeing as a criterion for acceptance that they will not undertake any other admin tasks.

Given that, is there any scope for looking again at an 'anti-vandal admin role' - full suite of tools, but can only block vandals, delete nonsense pages and attack pages, and protect articles that are experiencing vandalism. If they are the only one around in an emergency (not connected to a 4chan attack), they can do what they think fit, but must report their action at AN for evaluation and feedback (not punishment). It could be a 'first stage role' for those admins that the community feels don't have enough experience, enough content building, or that are young. Anti-vandal admins could either stay in that job, or at a later stage seek to move on to a wider role, either through a 'second stage RfA' or by a community discussion in some other forum (eg if they wanted to move into image work, I'd really want to check out that they have developed the relevant knowledge and competency, which could be a discussion in that community, whereas if they want to move into the dispute resolution type area, a wider discussion on temperament, maturity etc would be relevant).

I know it's been discussed before, but we are seeing a lot of RfAs now where a keen (I suspect often young) editor is being challenged over their content creation, when all they are asking is the tools to protect the 'pedia from the vandals. Vandal fighters burn out. Why not find a way of harnessing that enthusiasm? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea - a lot. However, IIRC, similar things have been proposed before and floundered - it might be worth browsing through some old discussions and mulling over objections raised at the time; that could greatly increase the chances of putting together a tweaked/compromise plan that everyone would be happy with. So: where are the old threads? My search-fu is failing me today, sorry. bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Limited administrators, Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters/Archive 2, Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters. – iridescent 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a smart, logical, productive idea. Ergo, it will never happen. → ROUX ₪ 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose giving admin powers to people without an RfA. Period. There are people who could not pass an RfA due to their own fault; they seek a back door to adminship. No.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Elen's proposal seems to suggest they would still go through an RFA (but a 'functional' RFA) and "second-stage" RFA if they wanted to become full patch. –xeno^talk 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to ask all new admins to only use the tools they know how to use? I'd guess that many admins wouldn't feel comfortable editing complex, parser function-heavy, high-visibility templates, yet they're allowed to, since we assume they have the sense not to go mucking around in areas they don't understand. 28bytes (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is already assumed. –xeno^talk 13:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that as in TTTSNB's RfA, similar issues would come up, and the results would be the same at the jr grade RfA. So I am guessing either we are talking about an easier process or else wasting our time. Possibly both. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In theory, it would be an 'easier' (more lightweight) process because people wouldn't need to worry (as much) about whether granting tools to someone who has little or no substantive content work would put them in a position to make high-level judgments about content (for which they might not be qualified). The truth is, there's nothing stopping someone from putting forth an RFA with a pledge to only use the tools in a vandal-fighting nature as described by Elen; but there is little in the policies/guidelines to enforce such pledges, so people treat them like regular RFAs all the same. –xeno^talk 13:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Making pledges at RfA is like piecrusts--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they're flaky? –xeno^talk 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That too, but the expression is "Promises are like pie crusts, easily made, easily broken." Attributed to Lenin, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we've certainly seen RFA pledges dishonoured in the past. I believe Elen's thoughts are that if it's written into policy, there would be a mechanism for removal if the pledge made at the the functional RFA were broken. –xeno^talk 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though I can't imagine it ever getting that far. Though-- I would limit pledges in time, too, you can't have people desysoped on the basis of what they said in a RfA five years ago.--Wehwalt (talk)

One difficulty is that we need admins who are willing to move around a bit and get involved in areas where there is a need, another is that there are some things that are probably best done by experienced admins. I'd be happy to see some sort of training per tool so that admins couldn't say appoint WP:Rollbackers until they'd passed the relevant training module. I'm loathe to see more limited admins who can only do a subset of admin functions, but I can see a couple of exceptions where unbundling would help. The Block button is really useful for vandal fighters, and I suspect a lot of the "needs more contributions" opposes would be more relaxed about some very experienced dedicated vandalfighters being allowed to block IPs and editors who are not yet autoconfirmed. Equally the spam filter is currently an admin tool, I've never used it myself and would have no objection to it being unbundled, or moved to meta where it probably really belongs. ϢereSpielChequers 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In some recent RfAs, admin-candidates promising to stick to one area have met with distrust and sometimes extra opposes. That seems a little perverse to me and encouraging some kind of admin-lite through the current RfA process may well set up a series of enthusiastic vandalfighters for a dispiriting "Oppose: How can we take this person's word that they won't stray outside the area of their expertise?". bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on this idea. I know one editor who could most certainly be an asset to the admin corp and the Project if only for his image work, and we desperately need more qualified admins to handle that kind of work, and he is an admin on Commons; but on the other hand, he would easily pass RFA on every other measure (trust, knowledge, content work, etc) if he would only submit to RFA. If we could unbundle admin work, he could be put to good use and needs to be able to see deleted revisions on images, but there are are perennial problems with unbundling ... so, I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree, I think in most cases, three months and a little content work would take care of the candidate's difficulties, most rejected on that ground take the community's advice, go spend some time on articles while keeping up their valuable work, and that solves the problem far better than unbundling.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Although, having read Sandy's post a second time, I think she is also referring to the reluctance of some to submit themselves to Hell Week, as we veterans fondly call RfA. However, my position stands, anyone given admin powers must go through it (I make an exception for a non-admin elected to ArbCom, I think that person should get admin powers for their term, and perhaps permanently, simply because they will not be effective without it).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't really referring to "hell week"-- he'd sail through if he chose to submit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. When I ask someone to run, I usually find objections are: I won't have the time for writing if I pass, and also RfA itself is no fun. I do not, I think, stand in the position of the old frat brother who insists that new pledges be hazed, even though times have changed. I simply think that no one should exercise powers over community members without community approval.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You may not insist on the hazing, but I believe that a great many others do. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What Roux said. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, as I see the thread has generated a number of comments. Yes, I was suggesting adding more bureaucratonium to the project by having a policy rather than pledges (I do agree with whoever said that the pledges are dubious in terms of enforcement), with clear criteria for what the person can and can't do, and what happens if they do what they're not supposed to (like we have for people under a 1RR restriction for example). In time, the person could apply for full adminship via RfA. I like the idea of a mentoring or training programme in technical things, copyrights and other knowledge areas, to assist full admins in helping out in all areas. Also for a full RfA, I imagine the community would expect content creation, experience in dispute resolution, and all that good stuff.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! But wouldn't a ban instead of a "block" from using the other admin tools suffice? Personally, I'd be willing to be banned from deleting from AfD, doing UAA requests, doing RFPERM requests if it meant I could have the tools to further deal with vandals by blocking. --Addihockey10^e-mail 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding to that, if a limited admin was to make a single admin action outside of their permitted actions, they would be indefinitely blocked - even if the "action" was properly done. --Addihockey10^e-mail 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a new (at least to me!) way of going about it, and it strikes me as a very interesting variation, one worth examining further. Perhaps there could be a way, added to the existing RfA process, whereby a candidate could "pass subject to restrictions", subject to that kind of ban. I could imagine certain candidates electing to present themselves only as subject to restrictions, and passing that way. Such persons would have to undergo a new RfA in order for the restrictions to be lifted. Is this worth pursuing? I think it might be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so :) You know, what if there was an editor that had so much experience in WP:AFD or something, and the only reason they were declined from adminship was because they didn't have any anti-vandal experience, why can't they just keep working at AFD and be "banned" from any other admin activities until another RfA requesting permission for those tools? --Addihockey10^e-mail 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So the watchmen will have to be watched? openstrings 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not, we shouldn't be appointing people who we can't trust to adminship anyways. Maybe there would be some kind of flag that when an admin goes out of their approved tools that they'll get reported and blocked? --Addihockey10^e-mail 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If we don't trust them with the full package... I don't think it's technically possible for "some kind of flag" to happen- like topic bans, it'd have to be enforced manually. As things stand, when I need something done I just go to the nearest online admin, via my watchlist or something. It would be an immense pain to find an admin that's online and ask them to G6 a page for me, and get "sorry, I'm not trusted to do speedy deletes". If I need a BLP vandal blocked asap, and ask on IRC, I don't want to be met with "oh, I'm not a vandal fighter". Admins are given a full set of tools that do require judgement calls to use in some cases- it's not just like an editor with a topic ban, because they have not been given that trust by the community. Also, if I were an admin on such terms, I wouldn't want to be indeffed and desysopped for revdeling something that clearly needed to be done asap, only because it was outside my restrictions. openstrings 22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the suggestion at the top was for an admin lite - only vandal fighting function. Admin can block vandals, delete vandalism pages, revdelete BLP vandalism, and protect vandalised pages, because vandalism is nice and clear, the penalties are nice and clear, and if they can't tell if it's vandalism or not (eg someone changing a small piece of info without a source), then they let it alone. If they are the only one in the shop when there's any other kind of emergency, they do the best they can and report it to AN for feedback. If people find them doing other stuff routinely, then they either have to pack it in or go for a full RfA, or get the tools taken off them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This exact topic was just brought up a while ago at Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters (check the archives there for more information). I think someone has already pointed this out, but there's no harm in doing so again (pointing it out). That idea lost momentum. Netalarm^talk 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal fighters was a bit different. This is a policy-based rather than technical restriction on using the tools. Elen: thanks for the clarification. openstrings 23:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It is policy based, and relies on the fact that anti vandal admins would still have to demonstrate that they are trustworthy. What they wouldn't have to do is demonstrate huge amounts of content creation. You don't have to have written the article to recognise when it's been vandalised. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm. He's stating that this new "subadmin" would be able to block/project/etc. (essentially deal with vandalism), while adding on that more pressing issues be directed to AN. How is this different from the vandal fighter discussion that closed a while ago? Netalarm^talk 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oi! He??? :) It probably is similar to previous suggestions, but you can see from the latest batch of AfD's why it keeps getting raised. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean RfA? :P Netalarm^talk 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well should we get started on some kind of policy proposal? We might as well start now. --Addihockey10^e-mail 23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Addihockey, it is analogous to a ban. Previously, others have argued that there is no technical way of preventing an admin from using the tools in a non-authorised way. But as we can manage to enforce bans, we could enforce this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a couple of paragraphs that took me 20 minutes to write about this, but then Wikipedia went down for a second and I lost the paragraphs. In general I think it's a bad idea. Secret ^account 23:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would work personally, there are alot of great users out there that are fully capable and able to use the anti-vandal tools properly and because they don't do much content work, they are not passed in a regular RfA. In this "new semi-RfA", you won't have to have content work, you just need a good record of dealing with vandalism properly and no serious conflicts with other users. My two cents. --Addihockey10^e-mail 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and made a page at User:Addihockey10/Admin-by-function, ANYONE can edit it as long as it's constructive. I will add the talk from here to that talk page. --Addihockey10^e-mail 00:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? This discussion has come up at least twice over the past few months. It's not happening, and probably will not happen in the near future, so go write some articles or improve your own chances at passing another one. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it won't happen in the near future, but it probably will (some day) end up happening. I didn't mean to make it look like it was for me - I was actually thinking of TTTSNB to be honest. If it's not going to happen in the near future - why? Are there potential problems that I've overlooked? (excluding the admins going out of their "approved" actions) I'd really like to hear them - honestly. If this thing is going to move forward we need all the potential issues and to sort this out. --Addihockey10^e-mail 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not happening because there is simply no consensus on this issue. I have listed some of my own thoughts on problems with the vandal fighters proposal at Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters#My opinion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA is failing...

...miserably. We really need to rethink our process for choosing new admins. Despite all the comments otherwise, RfA has turned in to a very big deal. Admins are now viewed as a sort of deities. Many potentially good admins refuse to be nominated for an RfA because the process is too rough. People nitpick editors to such an extreme that you can't understand the results. The amount of editors working to help the project in relation to the amount of editors harming the project is dropping. Automated tools are not Satan. They allow you to make up for the decrease in users by rapidly cycling through edits. This allows you to revert problematic edits made and automatically issue a warning template. This is not working! RfA needs to be redone. Users will "Oppose" only because a user works in administrative areas more than in article space. Now what is the point of being an administrator if you only make GAs, FAs, and DYKs? Finally I'm going to end this with a quote from Wiktionary. One who administers affairs; one who directs, manages, executes, or dispenses, whether in civil, judicial, political, or ecclesiastical affairs; a manager. -Administrator from Wiktionary or, for sysop A system operator, especially someone who administers an online communications system or bulletin board. -Sysop from Wiktionary. Note that this does not say "One who is a Journalist". It is completely different. For someone to be a sysop they should not need to have written a ton of content. They should show knowledge in our blocking and protection policies as well as our vandalism policy and stuff related to that. They should also understand Copyright policy. Mr. R00t ^Talk 23:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's failing too, but for different reasons than you apparently, when RFA "votes" aren't even based on basic knowledge that all editors should have of WP:BITE, WP:BLP, WP:3RR and how to deal with new editors. Typically, editors who have engaged content at the GA or FA level are aware of such basics (although I wouldn't say the same for DYK). But worse, many editors don't even read RFAs, so it looks more like a fan club affair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I too think it's failing. It is now being refered to things like "the gauntlet" because many editors are throughly picked apart. Good contributers are not running because they don't want to have to deal with the high amount of criticism and ten billion so called "optional questions" that actually can affect the entire RFA is not answered correctly or not at all. There also needs to be a easier way to desysop a user. This long drawn out ARBCOM procedure doesn't work. A admin has to go on a rampage before it is even considered. If a admin abuses rollback they are told not to do it again. If a non-admin abuses rollback it is taken away. Despite claims otherwise, English Wikipedia Administrators are being given special treatment (not sure about other projects). Abuse is practically being ignored and some violate WP:INVOLVED by using the tools in disputes they are in. In addition the rules on AN/I should be better defined. It is supposed to be only used for abuse or persistent problems where a editor won't listen. Editors are reporting eachother whenever they have a disagreement. This needs to stop. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Every good contributor I know who won't run knows they'll get through just fine, but doesn't want to be outed on WikiReview. I think I talk to more than just a few good contributors, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So every good contributer that you know. I know of a few users who aren't running because they don't want to deal with the hostility RFA has become. (I am not naming names) --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEREN, RFA is always failing. SandyGeorgia has been refusing to run for admin for at least 4 years. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, can we just close this? I've seen so many of these within the recent month or two. Netalarm^talk 23:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to close a perfectly reasonable discussion? If it bores you then don't take part in it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are fully aware that this has been brought up multiple times? See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 203#Long term discussion and even the thread right above this one. They're all about reforming the process. If we want reform, we need a centralized discussion. Oh wait, we already did that. Discussing the same issue over and over again without new suggestions isn't reasonable. Netalarm^talk 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am almost certainly fully aware of a great deal more than you are grasshopper. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that we both are interested in the same thing here - and in cleaning it up? There's no need to begin using statements like that. Netalarm^talk 23:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Like what? I call 'em crickets. We don't need to reform RFA other than getting more scrutiny and more involvement; we do need an easier process for desysopping abusive admins, and until that happens, increased scrutiny on this end is our only option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, cool! :P I'll be off now. Ehh that's the first time someone's ever called be a cricket. *chirps at SandyGeorgia* Netalarm^talk 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

bwaaahaha Rlevse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! (I sometimes wonder if editors who follow RFA too closely need to get out more often :) Anyway, the job of RFA is to scrutinize; it's supposed to be hard! And it should be taken seriously, too :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My perception is that you haven't put yourself forwards at RfA for personal reasons, nothing to do with the ritualised hazing that goes on there. In my experience many of the very best editors aren't administrators, nor are ever likely to be, but I'll spare their blushes by not naming them here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Not that some wouldn't have a field day (or a "bloodbath" according to one fan), but that has nothing to do with why I stay away :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer the "opposing people for no article work" thing - administrators delete articles often. To have no experience of getting an article up to scratch and to then go deleting other people's work... it's not really morally correct.  f o x  23:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Even spammy articles can have had a great deal of work put into them, and sometimes these contributors will go on to edit other articles - on the other hand, new creators of very short articles need encouraging to write more, not have it A7'd because they didn't put in some magic words about asserting importance. I've only ever A7'd things I actually could not find in a Google search anywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no morality here. If there were then administrator wouldn't be a job for life, and even continuing after death in many cases. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:RFC on RFA Reform. I think that may be the best place to finally discuss all this. Netalarm^talk 23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing will be changed, too much vested interest in the status quo'. For instance, the United States didn't become a republic by voting for it, and neither did France. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If nothing's going to be changed, why are we having this discussion in the first place? I don't really care what's on the RfC right now, I'm just saying that if we need reform, we'll need a centralized, big discussion that covers everything. Netalarm^talk 23:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because suppressing the truth cannot really be considered to be healthy? Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think most people know the truth about RfA. xP So we're not going to change it... we're just going to sit here and chat about it and observe. *goes on his balcony* Netalarm^talk 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

{{ec|2}Picking apart a users edits the way we do in an RfA is not "morally" acceptable. And yet, we do it. I really doubt that "morality" is the issue here. RfA needs a fix. I don't care what it is. It just needs fixing. I realize that this stuff has been going on for a while. That means that something is wrong, right? "No consensus" is the worst deterrent for Wikipedia. This needs to be solved. Sooner, rather than later. Mr. R00t ^Talk 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bullocks. We've got editors about to get through who lack the most fundamental knowledge about the Project, and plenty of misinformed statements from Supporters! If anything, we should be scrutinizing more, and not the nitpicky stuff, but the fundamentals! It is pretty much a job for life, so we should get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RFA just got harder that's all, we had cases of adminstrator disapearing, people with large support in RFA later getting desysopped by ArbCom, these little things make a difference. Secret ^account 23:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet the obvious solution, which is staring everyone in the face, a fair and effective mechanism for desysopping, is repeatedly rejected. If you have an explanation for that which doesn't involve dishonesty and corruption I'd be interested to hear it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat the solution I described at my own RfA: instead of putting this in the incompetent hands of the public, create a 10-15 member Admin Committee, elected a al ArbCom, who would be responsible for opping and de-opping admins. This would make removing the bit much easier, and therefore could make getting the bit much easier. Looie496 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think ArbCom does a fair job in desysopping adminstrators who clearly abused their tools, I don't agree with a system that forces adminstrators to get recalled other than the recall category, as it would bring personal grudges against adminstrators and can become nasty. Secret ^account 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Looie, You're on the right track-- the reason FAC works is that you can't vote stack there-- there's a place where the buck stops. There should be a committee that looks at admin abuse short of a full arbcase, which can take months and is a big fat waste of content contributor time, especially when the abuse is obvious and egregious (BTDT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't we already have such a group: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats? –MuZemike 00:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"To have no experience of getting an article up to scratch and to then go deleting other people's work... it's not really morally correct." What does an article not meeting inclusion criteria due to whatever deletion rationale which applies have anything to do with the administrator who happens to come along and delete it? Strange.    Thorncrag  00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone says RfA is failing. That's your own opinion, and I think we're doing reasonably fine. The issue isn't RfA. The issue is a combination of unclueful users making baseless votes and candidates who need to "improve". Is RfA hostile? Well, so's being an admin, so get over it people. Hostile != uncivil. So stop complaining about RfA and write some articles, everyone. Kthx. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While I do think that RfA isn't failing, I do see an undue emphasis being put on article creation. For instance, I would say I would be quite good at article creation. I definitely know how, in all respects. Yet, it is highly unlikely that I will end up creating articles. That usually appears to many as a lack of understanding or ability (in this case on my part) in article creation/expansion. Such though (for me) is not the case. I've been a programmer off and on for decades. I grew up on OS/2 and learned real object oriented programming (something Windows lacks). Because of that, I learned to think out the whole project from top to bottom before even a single line of code is written, then compartmentalize each section and compare to the whole again, wash-rinse-repeat many times... then write the code. My article creation work follows along those same lines (which may tend to create a more cohesive article - but it is at the expense of vast amounts of time - in which someone else has created a very good article). Hence, I only care that a candidate knows how to do it from bottom to top - not that they have spent inordinate amounts of time doing it.

But the important thing is this: this is a community. The community picks it's admins. The community is entitled to put whatever emphasis on whatever skills they deem is important to them. That's reflected in the votes in the RfAs where individuals either support, are neutral or oppose based on (or not) the amount of article creation work a candidate has.

Thus, even in this respect, even though the knowledge of how is more important than the quantity, I think the RfA process works pretty well. It's not my opinion as a whole, on such that matters - it's what the community's opinion as a whole is on this matter. The !votes reflect this. Admins should reflect the needs and desires of the community as a whole in such matters. This example, in my opinion, applies to other areas where some perceive the RfA process to be failing. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TTTSNB :-[

I was really disappointed by the way this was closed. Several people were asking for a detailed rationale by the crat and yet we got none. I'm proposing that when a bureaucrat closes an RFA between 65% and 80%, that a detailed rationale explaining the crat's decision be mandatory. And also, to get and idea on the general thoughts around here, question to the bureaucrats, how would each of you have closed this one? (I'm sure that'll be a popular question in future rfb's ) Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Discretion is usually 70% to 80%, and in most cases, a detailed explanation does come with it. Netalarm^talk 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this idea. --Addihockey10^e-mail 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@netalarm: given the dramatic nature of this RFA I'd consider it a exception. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, but maybe more to the 70-80%, although I agree with AD, that The Thing's is an exception. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 00:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Will there be any future RfBs? Or at least any successful ones? I somewhat doubt it. There are some problems here that need to be dealt with, not swept under the carpet. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The B's talk page notes his rationale, which is a brief one, but on the lines of noting the RFA being below 70%. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when has 65% warranted a closing rationale anyway? Seems to me to simply be the candidate's supporters are unwilling to accept the failure of the candidature. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is weird

SoxBot doesn't seem to be parsing the Utahraptor's RfA; it hasn't udders the count in a few hours. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's all RFAs, if the overview box is to be believed - last updated 0330 UTC? StrPby (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, true. "udders" the count? Weird typo FTW! Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's all good now. We can rest better tonight knowing that the bot is working. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

New RfA procedure proposal

Everybody here is saying that the RfA process needs to be reformed. Well, I believe I have come up with a solution for it. Several editors have brought up the issue that the current process for selecting admins is too nitpicky and tough. I suggest a procedure that is not as nitpicky, but is still tough. It has to be, since selecting administrators should be taken seriously. My new plan goes as follows:

1. First, we drastically lower our content creation expectations. Sure, a few articles, a DYK or two, and a GA or FA here and there would be good, but these show only that a person can write, not if they can handle the sysop tools well. I understand that content creation shows an interest in building the encyclopedia, but doesn't the mop represent clean up of the encyclopedia? WP:ADMIN says "The symbol of a Wikipedia Administrator combines the site's logo with a mop, as sysops are colloquially likened to janitors..."
2. This leads us to our second point. We should look for more CSD, XFD, and anti-vandalism work than content creation. As stated earlier, content creation only shows an interest in building the encyclopedia, while anti-vandalism work, CSD work, and XFD work shows why the admin bit is referred to as "the mop": Administrators clean up the encyclopedia, and while expanding it is important, cleaning is just as important.

Ask yourself: "If I were to hire a janitor for a school, would I hire a businessman who cleans every once in a while (content creators), or would I hire an experienced cleaner (anti-vandals, CSD workers, etc.)?" Hopefully the latter came to mind before the former. We don't have to change everything about our current RfA process; rather, we must change our expectations. The information regarding the RfA process could be changed where it needs to be should my plan be supported. Thank you for taking the time to read this. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 00:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmm hmm --Addihockey10^e-mail 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with your sentiment, though this seems like tilting at windmills.    Thorncrag  00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, and many of us are arguing quite the opposite, so ... no (speaking of PEREN). Until we have a mechanism for desysopping abusive admins, RFA should be more strict, not less. We've already got enough monkeys running the asylum. And you say "a DYK or two, and a GA or FA here and there" as if a DYK is somehow remotely related to the skill, time and knowledge of vandals, trolls and POV pushers it takes to get an "FA here or there" promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to know where to begin with that nonsense. Writing an encyclopedia has very little in common with cleaning a school, except in this wikiwonderland. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning the school was a metaphor for cleaning the encyclopedia, which is what the admin mop represents (hence the term, mop). The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 00:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A very poor and tired metaphor that doesn't reflect the reality. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am unfortunately forced to agree with Malleus on this one. As much as we like to talk about "mops and buckets", the reality is that adminship sometimes requires some "wikicopping". Here's what I said on Wiki-en a few years ago about this issue... If a user tries to edit a page and can't because he is blocked, whether he deserved it or not it's an insult to his intelligence to tell him it was "cleanup" by a "janitor". I came to this list a few years ago because I was blocked for a month, my whole ISP was because of one vandal with an army of sock puppets and a slew of throwaway ISP accounts. You are not going to get me to believe that drastic action was done by the guy who mops the server room floor.. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

YES!!! Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Malleus, how is it a bad metaphor? WP:ADMIN says: "The symbol of a Wikipedia Administrator combines the site's logo with a mop, as sysops are colloquially likened to janitors for rhetorical reasons." The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 00:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid if you don't already know the answer to that question, it will be very hard to explain it to you. And there's already at least five long convoluted colored sigs in this discussion, so I'll have a hard time following anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mine follows policy. --Addihockey10^e-mail 00:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

A metaphor in that policy that was relevant in 2007.  f o x  01:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Colorful convoluted custom sigs are a good indicator of the level of discourse at RFA. Hint. And there's a difference between policy, guideline, and basic courtesy (knowledge not often evident in RFA discussions). If anything, I'm tempted to go back to the days when no one got through RFA without having written an FA. Honestly, the notion that anyone could pop out a dozen or so FAs a day-- as they can DYKs-- is just insulting and shows a good measure of ignorance of what is involved in top content writing. I don't know anyone who has churned out as many FAs in a month as you can DYKs in one day. And in the process, FA writers have to actually encounter ... ummmm ... WP:5P, trolls, vandals, POV-pushers and all manner of disruptive editing. It's what happens while you're actually building the encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How does writing an FA teach one about the deletion policies, or the protection policies, or the moving policies? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you aren't aware that article names are frequently changed among FAs, deletion and merge discussions do occur there, daughter articles have to be built, and since FAs appear on the mainpage, their authors must deal with protection issues. Your line of questioning shows precisely why it would be helpful if more admins actually had to build and maintain top content; apparently you think one can get there in a vacuum. In fact, it causes you to encounter the full range of Wiki policies-- not just one little corner. Like the three-ring circus that is ANI, where few admins have actually had the experience of building an article and dealing with the day-to-day issues of being able to do what we're supposed to do here-- write an encyclopedia without undue interference from trolls, vandals, POV-pushers. And trigger happy admins who don't know policy, guideline, or basic courtesy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And vandal fighters like The Thing and Tommy2010 learn those same policies, just in a different way, yet they both failed. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the community thinks differently. Maybe they should actually try writing an FA, and they might understand why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators do a hell of a lot more than just 'clean up'. But none of it has anything to do with writing.  f o x  01:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia and Malleus Fatuorum are entirely correct here. That RFA needs to be changed is a given. This, however, is a nonsense idea. → ROUX ₪ 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that they just clean up. I meant that that's a big part of being an administrator: the ability to clean up the encyclopedia. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Cleaning up the encyclopedia" is something that we all do though Utahraptor; you don't need special tools for that, or a special title. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know that, but some areas of clean up, such as deletions, require the admin bit. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't understand the meaning of the definition of 'mop' in this context, and you certainly do not understand what adminship actually is these days. Once upon a time it was very much janitorial activity. That is no longer the case. The fact that you do not understand this is prima facie evidence that this proposal is not just misinformed, it is completely incongruent with reality. → ROUX ₪ 01:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good one. I must learn to write with bigger words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh? → ROUX ₪ 01:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean you said it much better than I did or could-- my prose stinks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not a word I would have ever used to describe your prose. You undervalue yourself. → ROUX ₪ 01:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Utahraptor is just trying to help out like everyone else. Let's not resort to insults, please.    Thorncrag  01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you don't tar people with one brush. → ROUX ₪ 01:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no insults in this thread I can see...  f o x  01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Thorn was referring to Roux calling my idea a "nonsensical" one, which isn't exactly an insult in my opinion, but I guess it depends on one's perspective. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is absolutely correct. WP:ADMIN should be changed. Being an admin is a very big deal. It may not have been in 2003 or 2005 or even 2006. But it is today. End of story. Tommy! 01:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've always been disgusted with the "no big deal" propaganda - it is a big deal (notice how no one can pass?); the admin tools are incredibly powerful, not by design, but by the way the community has made them out to be. Admin this, admin that—it is a big deal. THEMONO™ 01:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I never said it wasn't a big deal, all I said was that I think the process by which we choose admins should be changed. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to this new proposal, but there needs to be a formal desysops procedure. I have a idea:

1. If a user believes that a administrator has abused their tools they file a request for reconfirmation. A possible name Wikipedia:Request for adminship/Reconfirmation/USERNAME
2. If three additional editors agree on running a reconfirmation within 3 days of being filed it will be reviewed by a bureaucrat.
3. The bureaucrat will check make sure the reason for the reconfirmation request is genuine. Example if the editor appeared to file the request to get back at the administrator, the request is nullified. The administrator has to have broken a policy, such as misusing rollback.
4. If the bureaucrat finds the reason to be valid then a reconfirmation will be open for seven days. Editors may voice their opinion on the current administrator and !vote Support (for the admin to keep the tools), oppose (for the tools to be removed), neutral (no opinion).
5. If the Administrator has a 70% support or higher, they keep the tools. If it is lower than 70% then they will step down as administrator.

Thoughts? --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I was never speaking to you directly Utah.. I was just saying it should be changed. Tommy! 01:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Nor I to you, Tommy but I do see how you would think I was talking to you I was actually responding to Mono. And Alpha, I support your idea. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, sorry then :). And alpha, I would support, but that's too complicated. Especially with WP:IAR. But that's my take. Tommy! 02:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I put the bureaucrat step in there so there aren't a ton of reconfirmation requests from SPA and sockpuppets/vandals/insert other bad group. With a crat checking it will severely limit the number of requests made out of spite. There would be a whole lot of requests if anyone could start a reconfirmation without additional input. It's mainly there to keep the administrators from getting hounded or threatened by editors with "If you delete that page I'll start a reconfirmation." and stuff like that. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a problem if people just concentrated on improving the content rather than worrying about climbing the Wiki ladder. -129.78.32.24 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• "content creation only shows an interest in building the encyclopedia"—as in, the thing we are actually supposed to be here for? Ucucha 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• 'Crats aren't going to do this anyway, so instead of debating it ... go write some articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly. Until there is community-wide consensus on a desysop procedure, we shouldn't be lowering "expectations", which differ between users anyway. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Impossible. 70% is far too high for a recall RfA that comes at the worst possible time for the admin running. This is much stricter than the original CDA proposal which was already judged too strict by many. But please, if you want to propose a new mandatory RfA recall process, file a formal RfC because what happens on this page carries no weight. —Soap— 10:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  What happens on this page may carry little weight in itself, but it can be a good place to thresh out ideas about adminship (and potential changes to adminship) before filing "a formal RfC". bobrayner (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing - some wikis require admins to reapply every three years. This works, everyone expects it, the odd duff one gets desysopped, and it gives a chance for the burned out to say 'nah, I don't think I'll stand again' without teh dramah. But they pretty much did that from the start, so nobody regards it as a big deal any more. I don't agree with recall RfAs because all they are ever going to be are dramafests that pit sections of the community against each other. If someone runs off the rails, blocks Jimbo and deletes the main page, then desysop them in a quick, clean procedure, where everyone gets to present evidence in a controlled manner (as in the first two sections of an RfAr), and if it is accepted, an agreed committee then decides on the question - does this warrant a desysop or should he just be admonished. If an admin wants support for their actions, approach to 'teh rulez' etc, the correct venue is an RfC, not a recall RfA.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Let me quickly rephrase what I was trying to say with my statement. I was trying to say that vandal fighters who also do CSD work and XFD work learn the same policies as FA writers, yet they don't become administrators due to "content issues." I can see that I'm garnering more opposition than approval, so why don't we just change our expectations to include vandal fighters instead of lowering them? Honestly, The Thing should have become an administrator. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 11:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what many of us who !vote oppose due to lack of content creation in Rfa's are really looking for is someone who shows they are a well-rounded editor. An administrator is someone who the community has entrusted with a wide range of tools at his/her disposal and perhaps the best way to see how they would use those tools beforehand is to see a balanced editor who has a wide range of experiences on the project. There are many different ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and it's probably impossible to do everything on the project, but many of us see content contribution as what should be the "core" contribution of a potential admin. Does an editor have a wide range of experiences if they've never patrolled "recent changes" or if they haven't participated in many XFD discussions? It's hard to tell without knowing what else they've done here. But if the editor shows little or no interest in content creation, for many of us, they've missed out on 90% of the Wikipedia experience. Which isn't to say that vandal fighting isn't important, but the best vandal fighters are also content creators. Ever hear of User:RickK who was so good at vandal fighting that he had a barnstar named after him? Well, he was a content creator too. And his edit history shows he wasn't in such a hurry to get to the next piece of vandalism that he ignored articles needing clean-up, copyediting or POV removal. So if you want a guide on how to be a great vandal fighter and be a strong Rfa candidate, you now have one, because (I'll say it again) the best vandal fighters are also content creators. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 14:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to open Huggle and space/Q your way through thousands of diffs (coming from a huggle user). It's much harder to sit down, research, rewrite, adjust, progress an article into something really valuable. As a matter of principle alone, if you want the respect and prestige that inevitably comes with the mop you should be willing to put in some hard graft. If you're committed to the project, even if you just want to clean-up vandalism, if you are truly committed you will put yourself through the hardship of a few FAC/GAN just to help your own cause and vandal fighting Jebus989^✰ 14:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

RickK burned out - vandal fighters do. And the sheer volume of crap coming in since then has kept on going up. I agree that to be a fully rounded admin you need content creation, but to be a vandal fighter with buttons, you don't. We risk burning out content creators by not harnessing the enthusiasm of the newer (often younger) editors who pick up quickly on vandal fighting, and will happily spend a year or so playing whackamole while they ease in to writing some articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general principle I think anyone who wants to delete content should show reasonable experience of creating and sourcing content. If there is a need for dedicated vandal fighters to have more technical rights let's restart discussion of a "vandal fighter" role, whose powers would be restricted to contributions from IP editors and unconfirmed accounts. - Pointillist (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets do that, because I think it would work (see about three threads up, that spawned [4]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion and it would perhaps eliminate much of the discord we now have at Rfa's. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I get it now. While anti-vandalism, CSD, and XFD work is important, content work shows true administrator qualities that the former work does not show. Is this correct? The Utahraptor's sock (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because some content experience is asked for doesn't mean that it is all you need to become an admin (a candidate with no experience of anti-vandalism, CSD and XfD won't fare very well at RfA). Yes, content experience does show something extra: for example, until someone has sweated to find sources for an article, they are unlikely to understand the dynamics at an AfD. Admins have direct power over content, can influence content debates, muddy waters and tilt the playing field in ways that have nothing to do with the janitor analogy, so naturally the top content contributors are concerned about who gets the "mop". If all we need is someone to repair vandalism and CSD erroneous newpages created by IPs and unconfirmed accounts, then we should revisit the vandal fighter concept. After all, in real life a janitor can't tear up homework or suspend pupils, can they? - Pointillist (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that content contributing and work in other areas are both equal in importance. Looking at my idea again, I can see how I would think of it (obviously), but I now realize that more than just anti-vandalism work is needed before one can receive the mop. You prove a good point when you say janitors can't tear up homework and suspend pupils. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I knew you knew because of your copy-editing involvement, but hopefully this has been a useful thread anyway ...even though it hasn't become an actionable proposal. Anyway, I will try to reformulate the vandal fighter concepts over the next couple of weeks and maybe re-launch the idea in mid-November. - Pointillist (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On reflection I'm not sure this is the right moment to promote the vandal fighter model: there's no consensus that we are suffering from a shortage of admins; the principle that RFA admin candidates should have reasonable content experience is gaining broad support; and as Wehwalt points out there have been a lot of admin reform proposals recently. - Pointillist (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• This thread has gotten very long very quickly, but at a glance I'm not actually seeing an actionable proposal at all. We can't tell users how to think, so what would the mechanism be for making the desired changes? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Pephaps we should use a requests for requests for adminship, where people debate on who's allowed to debate on any adminship? Jokes aside, if Rfa as it currently exists works, then shouldn't there be NO desysopings. The main problem I see is that we need a process to desysop an admin outside of arbcom (I know this has been stated many, many times), perhaps then people would stop making unreasonable demands from unpaid editors. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 23:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well now there is this: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New Userrights Proposal. Mr. R00t ^Talk 03:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it an "unreasonable demand" to expect our "trusted" editors to evidence understanding of the fundamentals of WP:5P? We expect that of all editors, and admins who don't understand 5P certainly can't "admin" effectively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: I agree with your sentiment, but not the rationale implied. For more detail into that, you may wish to read my comment above [5] (last comment (at the moment) in that section). Lack of prolific content creation does not necessarily imply lack of knowledge in that area. On the other hand, it is difficult to quantify one's knowledge of such things without a track record of content creation to review... so, it does kinda create a catch 22. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you at all, and I've supported non-content-contributing candidates in the past-- when I've seen them around other areas of the Project enough to know their character and their knowledge of policy. What we're seeing at RFA is DYKs and Huggle put forward as "experience". They're not; in fact, they allow editors to hide out in quiet corners where they're even less likely to encounter dispute resolution or the real work of learning their way around the kinds of things they'll need to know to be admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This proposal oddly seems to conveniently favor the person that proposed it. Call me a cynic. :) Vodello (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a new desysopping procedure

Addressing the frequent complaints about the lack of a proper desysopping procedure–

• A new RfC subpage will be created at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Administrator misconduct. (I know, RfC's take a while, but they're much better than ArbCom.)
• The requirements shall be similar to those of a Standard RFC/U. At least Two users must have tried and failed to come to agreement with the administrator and address the issue within the past week.
• A bureaucrat or ArbCom member will review the request. To prevent flooding by confused new users, only autoconfirmed users shall be allowed to make RfC's on this matter.
• If the bureaucrat or ArbCom member accepts the RfC, it will be active for a period of two weeks. An 85% 70% consensus will be required for desysopping. If that consensus is reached after the two weeks, the bureaucrat or ArbCom member will promptly contact a steward to desysop the admin in question.
• Of course, cases of extreme abuse will be brought to ArbCom as before.
  

Thoughts, anyone? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 09:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as a manner of process. Use a formal RfC please, although I really would oppose even that since we just had one a few months ago. This is far more friendly to the potentially desysopped admin than the proposal a few days ago, because it moves the consensus level from 70% support down to 15%, but there are still many other problems I'd like to see addressed before the proposal goes anywhere. Also 15% is probably too low, but if we do have an RfC again we could work that out through discussions. Please read WP:CDA if you haven't already, even if it doesn't contain anything you haven't already heard. —Soap— 14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• May I suggest that some editors might peruse WP:PEREN or talk archives and stop clogging this talk page with unworkable proposals? With some experience around the Project, you'll have a better of sense of what has already been suggested, already been rejected, what is already in place, what has no chance of acceptance, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  Also, I should point out that this is a page for discussing requests for adminship, discussion of de-adminship should probably take place at one of the pumps, or WT:RFDA, or similar. (A pointer from here once a proposal that's been well-developed would be fine.) –xeno^talk 14:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for having a procedure for editors to vote to desysop an admin, but 85% is too lenient. To be honest, I'd go with 66% or 70%. We should be allowed to have a say in booting out bad eggs. Vodello (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)

• Oppose I really don't see this as an improvement on the existing Arbcom route, not in fairness, in speed or in practicality. I can't see how you make the tried and failed process work, for starters - who decides whether an admin has addressed an issue? Also I dislike the 85% threshold, if 84% or even 74% of participants in an RFC thought an admin should be desysopped it would not be good the pedia or that admin for them to continue. ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I do support having a desysopping process, but it must be one that is unaffected by pitchforks and torches. We already saw one attempt, led by a person who frankly should know better, last night.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Wehwalt said it perfectly. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no community appetite to reign in admin abuse.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There's very little appetite for even recognising it, much less dealing with it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• This discussion does not even belong here as this for discussing RFA. We spent half of last year trying to come up with a de-sysop procedure that could gain consensus and in the end absolutely nothing was accomplished, it's come up four or five times since then and nothing has been accomplished, and the early results of this conversation would tend to indicate that there is little to no interest in going down this road yet again as it is likely nothing will be accomplished. The problem is that everyone seems to agree that we need something but nobody can agree on what that something should look like, so we appear to be stuck with the status quo. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm just going to throw this idea out and hope it sticks (not sure if it's been proposed before): we have a process similar to RfA for desysopping, but only admins can !vote. Other users may comment, but they cannot !vote. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the worst idea I have ever seen on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a phrase I overuse, but I agree with every word Beeblebrox said. I can't think of anything that would give more weight to the "admins look after their own" allegations which are often made and sometimes true. – iridescent 20:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've killed it. I guess I'm just a stoopid n00b admin. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I changed the proposed required consensus level to 70%. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 21:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading assignment for anyone who wants to propose something "new": Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. In particular, you have to be able to explain to those who will oppose your idea (not to me, I'm friendly to such proposals, but I'm also a realist) how you have addressed, substantively, the criticisms that were made in the past. No short cuts. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CDA and WP:CDARFC are failed proposals/RfCs. The irony is - while we are constantly talking on this page about fixing the RfA process - that it (WP:CDA) is far closer to the basic principles of how I think we should be considering fixing the RfA system. The first step, IMHO is to introduce some quality among the !voters and the posers of the silly pile-on, so called 'optional' questions; far, far too many of whom, are either newbs and minors who think it's cool for their first mission to be among the deciders on how the Wikipedia is run, (that's why they all start off at NPP, for example), and !voters with an axe to grind, or a grudge to bear, and admins who got the bit in easier times and who wouldn't stand a snowball if they re-ran at today's criteria. Finally, a significant amount of the RfA !voting is done - in very good faith - by a very small group of regulars whose numbers do not reflect the serious, mature contributors to Wikipedia, whom we should be encouraging to take a more active part in the RfA process. Fix the RfA process, and fixes for desysoping will follow.--Kudpung (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's right where it always falls apart. You have identified what you see as the principal problems and described a hypothetical situation in which those problems do not exist. That is not a plan for any sort of action. Changing people's attitudes is not an easy thing to do, and trying to force such a change through making new rules or restrictions at RFA is unlikely to succeed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Too many people see the plan as involving tumbrils and guillotines, and the rapid fire repetition of one plan or another to accomplish basically the same thing is not helping matters any. It's hardening positions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Moved to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#RFA closures and scheduled ending time

how to add optional questions

When an RFa is transcluded there is automatically a "hidden" copy of {{Rfa-question}} for adding the optional questions, but it often ends up getting removed during the RFA. Also some users don't seem to realize what it is and ignore it. When the template is used it automatically formats the question and adds the asking user's name in the appropriate place, keeping the question section more uniform and easier to navigate. Any ideas on how to make it more obvious and keep it from disappearing during the RFA? Currently there does not appear to be an edit notice for RFAs, maybe it's time to make one. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice would be the best option here, or we can make it visible on the RfA right under the questions header. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and knocked together a notice, it's at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Improvements are of course welcome, I think it would be best if we keep it fairly simple though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The WikiGnome in me made me add a comma. Useight (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That enormous box pushes relevant page content halfway down my screen, and does not address an actual problem. Townlake (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice suggestions:

• Change div style to the following: <div style="background-color:#e9f2e9;border:1px dashed gray;">
• Also add periods to the end of each sentence, along with adding <big></big> tags to the header.

Cheers, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a typo in the third bullet: "...but may may not actually vote in the support..." Goodvac (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas everyone - but how do we deter people from posting disruptive and/or immature questions? These silly and/or trick so-called 'optional' questions are one of the main reasons why there is a dearth of good candidates coming forward to the slaughter.--Kudpung (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Townlake, none of the things in the box address actual problems - people occasionally get the formatting wrong, but when they do it is easily fixed. I think it would be better to remind people to be civil, to support any criticism with diffs and if they are unfamiliar with the candidate, to spend some time looking at the candidate's contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI the new editnotice can be hidden in your Special:Mypage/skin.css:

#rfa_group_editnotice,
{
    display: none;
}

See user:Xeno/monobook.css for a long list of other stuff that experienced users can probably hide. –xeno^talk 12:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but asking me to hide a zero-value text box by diddling with code just compounds the silliness here. Townlake (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking anyone to do anything, just putting it out there. The relative merits of the box can still be discussed. –xeno^talk 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. Apologies for my unintentional implication there. Townlake (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• It was not my intention to fix the underlying problems of behavior at RFA with this edit notice. I'm a bit crazy, but not so loony as to believe that an edit notice is actually going to reform RFA. The idea was to be helpful to users who are new to RFA. I don't think there is any reasonable way we could restrict the type of questions being asked with an edit notice, but if somebody has some proposed wording I'd be interested in reading it. As for the formatting, I am by no means an expert in this area and used the standard {{editnotice}}. If some div coding would look better please go ahead and do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I did go ahead and change the last bullet point to address the concerns about civility and diffs, but it could maybe be worded a little better. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a few tweaks myself, I agree that the effect of this will be minor. But who knows it might be positive. I've also tweaked the page. ϢereSpielChequers 15:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone delete the editnotice (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship); I've messed up something by moving the page and need the redirect deleted to move the page back. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, Airplaneman has already done so. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the template should be updated. It refers to the questions as "optional", when there is nothing in the rules that suggests they must be so. I do not feel any questions in an RfA should be considered any more "optional" than, say, questions at a job interview. Keepscases (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. My opinion is that they most certainly should be optional, that there are too many of them, and of those, too many are either unintelligent, or trick questions that are just trying to be clever, questions designed deliberately to intimidate and discourage the candidate (we don't get/do that at job interviews - at least not where I come from), and questions posed by newbs who don't even know what the process is all about, let alone the rest of our policies. As another admin once stated, they detract many !voters from the need to do their own research before !voting, and hence the pile-on, single reason opposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Sorry about that! :) --Kudpung (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

what's up with the status box?

It looks like there is a long comment from Ling Nut somehow transposed into the "ending" field. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that looks weird. Useight (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it probably has something to do with the RFA still being transcluded yet closed. Should be sorted now. –xeno^talk 04:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looking better already. Useight (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unbundle the Block button

Our second most common type of admin activity is blocking editors, often if not usually when we are blocking an IP or vandal they are currently on a vandalism spree, so it is important that we have editors available with the block button 24/7. There are several experienced hugglers out there who I think the community would trust if they ran an RFA just for a limited block button. Especially if that block button was not able to block or unblock Autoconfirmed editors (auto confirmed might be a little low a threshold, but we should set this at a level that leaves civility and similar high Drama blocks to admins, and restricts this new group to vandalfighting). So I propose we create a new usergroup which would have a restricted block button, but not the rest of the mop, candidates for this userright could submit something similar to an RFA, but hopefully !voters would be less concerned about questions about content contributions and deletion, and would instead focus more on accuracy of AIV reports. I can see a few occasions arising where these users would leave a decision to an admin because they needed to look at the user's deleted edits, but generally I think this would be safe, useful and I can't remember it being discussed before. ϢereSpielChequers 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin lite has been rejected multiple times, I see no new argument here that would change my mind. Frankly, I feel it would give the unqualified and temperamentally unsuited a foot in the door. I guess the case could be made that it doesn't matter how rude or off target the Jr. grade admins are, none of us are IPs. (not my personal view, as I hope you can tell by my tone).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I see this as different to the Admin lite propoals that I remember, and not necessarily a stepping stone to adminship. Also rudeness and being off target would very much be a consideration when considering candidates for this, but I would hope people would be less stringent about content requirements and probably tenure. ϢereSpielChequers 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, out of curiosity: what would change your mind? → ROUX ₪ 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Full RfA for granting any admin powers, to the same standard and consensus level, no strings which would soften that. And I'd have to see the specific proposal. And a showing that there is a need for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way does this differ (substantially) from Wikipedia:Vandal fighters? (Not that I'm disagreeing with the idea, but it was pretty much sunk that time round). Aiken (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See my amendment above, which crossed in the mail with your comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Vandalfighter proposal was for rights to be handed out by a crat and there was a lot of debate as to what duration of blocks they could dish out and whether protection should also be included. Protection starts getting these users away from AIV and into content, and limiting the block duration means that two vandals doing pretty much the same thing would get treated differently by an admin and whatever we call one of these (though I admit that was one proposal here that I rather ignored and I do agree there is quite a bit of overlap). But this is a clear simple unbundling with a full RFA. I'm assuming that some !voters would be willing to trust candidates for this who they wouldn't trust for full adminship. But I'm not trying to lower the consensus level, as for Wehwalts queries, firstly re specifics, the only thing I haven't said is what you'd call this group and the precise level above autoconfirmed that they could block. Is there a threshold in edits or tenure that you would be comfortable unbundling the block button for? As for need, our number of active admins is declining and RFA has proven unable to replace admins as fast as they go inactive, this has the potential to fix that and ensure that we can block vandals 24/7 for some time to come. ϢereSpielChequers 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, there has been much discussion about the number of active admins declining and whether that represents a problem. I believe it does not. With bots, filters, and because of the fact that most articles likely to attract 500 hits a day, day in, day out have been written, we have shifted from start-up mode to long-term mode. We do not need as many admins as we once had.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bots, filters and the maturity factors that you mention don't reduce our need to have 24/7 coverage at AIV. I'm reluctantly coming round to the idea that if we have to we can survive quite a while with dwindling numbers of active admins for everything else - even attack pages can be blanked for a while. But we are vulnerable at AIV, and I fear it only a matter of time before we come unstuck there. ϢereSpielChequers 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a comment specifically on this proposal, but there is a lot of genuine vandalism not being caught by the bots, filters, and anti-vandal editors. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, the Portuguese Wikipedia recently implemented a "page elimiator" usergroup as a response to a shortage of administrators (see the last bullet point of the "Briefly" section in a Signpost article from earlier this year).  -- Lear's Fool 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I support a radical unbundling of administrative permissions, and the elimination of the designation "administrator". We need to destroy the illusion of greater authority that has slowly been increasing over the years. Gigs (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Anarchy works badly on a number of levels.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Breaking adminship up into 5 or 10 different permissions isn't anarchy. I didn't say we should give them to everyone. We'd just create 5 or 10 more subpages over at WP:Requests for permissions and get rid of this RFA/RFB page. Gigs (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you want it on a requests for permissions page means you want it handed out by something other than a full community !vote (which RfA is, though more than 200 !voters is rare). And to that, I oppose, and from my readings of discussions, I do not stand alone.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not the case at all. The more important tools would still be subject to a "full community vote". Gigs (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Does anybody have a problem where they report someone to WP:AIV and it just sits there? I've made 36 reports to AIV and I think the response time is usually pretty good, which tells me there isn't all that much of an overwhelming need for more people to have the blocking tool. Also, blocking isn't just used for vandals: do we let someone who is not an admin but has the "vandal fighting" flag block for reasons other than vandalism? What about two editors who become extremely uncivil towards each other? How about 3RR's? If arbcom makes a decision about blocking someone should a "vandal fighter" be the one who issues the block? And if someone becomes a "rogue" vandal fighter how do we go about removing their powers? VictorianMutant^(Talk) 16:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes we get the occasional visitor to ANI reporting a backlog at AIV, and as the number of active admins continues its longterm decline this can only happen more often.

I doubt if the vandalfighter proposal would have included 3rr etc, but yes in this proposal these editors could block any IP or autoconfirmed user as long as the block complied with the block policy.

Arbcom tends to take decisions about longerstanding editors so it would be odd if one of these editors could enforce an arbcom decision. But for example if Arbcom decided to block me and forgot about my declared alternate accounts then I think I have an alternate account with insufficient edits to be autoconfirmed.

Arbcom are pretty quick when it comes to rogue admins, I doubt if they'd be any slower if one of these editors had their account compromised.

ϢereSpielChequers 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

AIV has 4 reports on it right now. —Soap— 16:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, speed of admin response at AIV is pretty good. And blocking is kinda heavy, because the block stays around in the log, and tars all future edits by that user or IP. Where I'd like to see some movement is at RFPP, where speed of response is often not so good, and there's no taint. Splitting out the ability to semi-protect for, say, one day, with clear guidelines, and the right removed if they are breached, makes much more sense, IMHO. Am I arguing for a right I'd have more chance of getting? Yes, probably. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

AIV isn't the only block clearinghouse. UAA hands out nearly as many blocks, and it does get backlogged a little more often. Gigs (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, the worst backlog I seen in AIV was eleven users and I blocked most of them in five minutes and that was years ago. I do the occational vandal fighting nowadays and I rarely see a backlog in AIV, every editor I placed in there was blocked within 5 minutes. You have to gain the tools by RFA, even if it's hell week and a few candidates passes, it just isn't nessarry. Secret ^account 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What matters is not how quickly a backlog can be cleared when an admin arrives at AIV, it is how long a vandal can sometimes continue vandalising after they have been reported at AIV. Currently we have nearly 800 active admins, and though I doubt if many are active at blocking, we still usually have someone available. But the trend is inexorably downwards, and unless we do something like this, then as our numbers of active admins continue to dwindle so manning AIV will become an increasing problem. ϢereSpielChequers 19:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

“ ...You have to gain the tools by RFA... Secret ^account ”

(edit conflict)Correct me if I'm wrong Secret, but basically what you are saying is that the only reason for you supporting why the "tools" are "given" at RFA is "because that's the way we've always done it"? How is unbundling this "tool" no different than when Rollback was unbundled? Didn't many users say that unbundling rollback would "doom" Wikipedia... yet that never happened. Also people complain on this page that there "aren't enough admins" yet keep increasing the "admin standard"... If we want to solve the issue of there not being enough admins, shouldn't we be lowering the "admin standard"? Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember if I supported the rollback idea or not, that was years ago, but the block button has the potencial of getting abused, more than rollback. Secret ^account 20:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• If we were to unbundle the tools, blocking is the last one that should be handed out, not the first. The whole "not enough admins" argument is shaky at best and has never been quantified in any meaningful way. Backlogs in what are generally seen as the more important or urgent areas are relatively low of late. Adding more admins or partial admins won't magically make the admin corps more interested in backlogs that nobody currently cares about. As of this moment there are 9,733 uncategorized pages, and it doesn't even take admin tools to fix that backlog. (although I'm glad that after weeks of working on this when I have a moment the number is finally below ten thousand). Categorizing pages isn't as sexy as blocking vandals, but it actually helps users navigate the encyclopedia. And yet there are few users working on the problem despite the fact that anyone can do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I made this type of proposal here if anyone is interested. My proposal was broader than just block. I proposed three "modules" of tools be made. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that having attack pages stay up for 6 hours is a much more serious issue than vandals going unblocked for an extra 5-10 minutes. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 21:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but any editor can (indeed, is encouraged to) blank an attack page. Philip Trueman (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A short way above, in #Admin-by-function, Addihockey10 proposed that candidates for RfA might be able to state that they will accept a voluntary ban against using tools other than those explicitly spelled out in the RfA statement. It seems to me that this got shouted down too quickly by the usual don't-move-my-cheese brigade. It's an idea worth examining further. We already have an existing practice of voluntary self-imposed bans with respect to specific types of edits. ArbCom endorsed some of these in the recent climate change decision. No new software need be created. There would be no change in the way the Bureaucrat would close the RfA. If such an RfA were to pass, the ban would be endorsed by the community in the course of evaluating the RfA, just like existing community bans. If the community does not want to allow a particular candidate to be approved this way, the community will fail the RfA. We would only have to work out how to instruct RfA candidates how to properly state their intentions in the RfA statement. I cannot see any downside to this, and I've been trying hard to think of any. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary limitations are unenforceable, and much as I'd like RFA reformed I'm pretty sure that one won't fly. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's why I made my proposal. If a user only had one administrator module there would be no need for enforcement. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WereSpiel: not necessarily, oh ye of little faith! Please take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2010#October. You will see: "The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans". These were bans proposed first by the users themselves, and made binding by ArbCom as part of the case decision. I see no reason why RfA candidates could not propose tool bans themselves, and have the bans made binding by the community in the course of passing the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blockers, deleters, page-protectors, renamers, account creators, movers, interface editors, rollbackers, Special:UnwatchedPages viewers, and edit hiders. I think that's more than the types of lemmings in Lemmings. –MuZemike 00:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I share WSC's concern for the dearth of RfA candidates but I don't think Admin-lite is the answer. It's a quick fix instead of addressing the perennial problem which goes as politely unnoticed as a loud fart at an aristocratic cocktail party. Since WSC's Signpost article, the reasons no longer need discussion because plenty of well established editors have come out of the woodwork and stated that they are not prepared to step into the snake pit. I can appreciate those reasons just as much as I admire the thicker skinned people who are unruffled by defeat and try again later. In fact some of our very best and most assiduous admins needed a second crack of the whip before the yapping hounds would let them pass to the next level.

The RfA system needs fixing once and for all. The first step, IMHO is to introduce some quality among the !voters, and to discourage the posers of the silly pile-on, so called 'optional' questions; far, far too many of whom, are either newbs and minors who think it's cool for their first mission to be among the deciders on how the Wikipedia is run, !voters with an axe to grind, and admins who wouldn't stand a snowball if they re-ran at today's criteria. Finally, a significant amount of the RfA !voting is done - in very good faith - by a very small group of regulars whose numbers do not reflect the serious, mature contributors to Wikipedia whom we should be encouraging to take a more active part in the RfA process. Reform the RfA process, and the backlogs will fix themselves.--Kudpung (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a quick fix rather than a proper solution, and I would much prefer that we repair or replace RFA. But I'm not convinced that we can get consensus to do that until we hit the point where we don't have enough active admins, and when that happens we won't be in a position to do minor reforms. I do believe that unbundling the block button would enable us to keep this site functioning for quite a few years. As for your other points, I'm not sure that the questions deter people from running, but I worry that they distract !voters, my fear is that people might vote based on reading the question section rather than checking the candidate's contributions. If that happens then RFA becomes less effective at deciding who would make a good admin and much more of a lottery swayed by the few who actually trawl through the candidate's contributions. Attracting more participants would help the process, especially if they are longterm editors, but I fear we have negative feedback loops built into the system that are not amenable to easy reform. ϢereSpielChequers 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that about the questions - it almost echoes the neutral cast that I have just left here.--Kudpung (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of admins would not pass a new RfA. They've made unpopular decisions in the best interest of the wiki, and their enemies would gang up. I can't see how taking them out, as you apparently favor, WSC, would improve what we have here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Unpopular decisions" is a red herring; many admins have made bad decisions, that's why they wouldn't pass. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Some have been bad, others unpopular (but overall benefitting the community) and others bad and unpopular. Airplaneman ✈ 18:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, almost all made in good faith.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that: "almost all". But "almost all" != "all". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt et al. I've opposed several admin recall systems, but my views on this have shifted over time, so I may not be consistent with what I said a year or more ago. I don't want a system that would be vulnerable to one of the badsites whipping up or creating an angry mob, nor do I want a system that would leave both the community and an admin in the invidious position of an admin continuing against the expressed will of the community. I don't regard Arbcom as perfect, but it passes both those tests and creates a couple of benchmarks, as I see no point in supporting a reform unless it looks likely to work at least as fairly and efficiently as Arbcom. As for the assertions that there are bad admins out there, maybe there are, but if so why not discuss your concerns with them, and if that doesn't work, take it to Arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 15:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Blockers" Vodello (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Tangential comment. I noticed somebody saying that there isn't a worrying backlog at UAA. I believe that's not a correct analysis. The edit filters listed at UAA, which eke out promotional names quite easily, almost always have had a huge backlog. In fact, I made a request some days back for more admin help in clearing out the significantly huge backlog (some times, > 50 immediately blockable usernames) that exists in the three edit filters. It'll be good to have admins/non-admins helping out in checking out the edit filters listed at UAA on a regular basis. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The UAA bots have been down since October 14, anyway, so it's not a good time to make a comparison now. —Soap— 10:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding RFAs and WP:CANVASS

See Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Possible canvassing for a discussion related to RFAs and the WP:CANVASS guideline. –xeno^talk 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And for the humor-impaired among us, see also here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What the...

SoxBot is down again? Access Denied – talk to me 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. (X! · talk)  · @724  ·  16:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault. I didn't know SoxBot scanned comments for RFAs. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on registration

I thought the reaction to Answer 5 (registration should be required) in Redthoreau's recent RFA was a bit unfair. Of course, editing without registering was a founding principle, and a lot of contributors still see it as an article of faith, but surely the RFA process should allow candidates to express a dissenting philosophy without it being assumed that this automatically prevents them from being even-handed as admins? - Pointillist (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

People who vote at RFA tend to have kneejerk responses to a wide variety of things, and are often unable to distinguish between 'this is my personal philosophy and I will act this way' and 'this is my personal philosophy, which is at odds with consensus, and I will always act with consensus.' It is utterly distressing, and contributes to the hellhole that is RFA in general, that people blatantly ignore one of the key indicators we look for in admins: the ability and desire to act neutrally in support of consensus no matter what one's personal feelings are. This is one of what I think of as 'Instant Torpedo' questions. That is, questions which, if answered honestly, will immediately destroy any chances of an RFA passing if one does not simply parrot the party line. Should I ever be insane enough to subject myself to RFA again, I would be torpedoed by a host of similar questions. It is simply not fair that RFA candidates are forced to lie in order to pass, or fail for telling the truth, particularly when they have gone to pains to indicate that their personal philosophy will not inform admin actions. The only result of questions like this is ensuring that groupthink decides who becomes an admin; anyone who does not mindlessly echo the official version is sent to the gulag. → ROUX ₪ 11:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was unfair, considering the candidate explicitly made it clear that it was their opinion only. Then again, the candidate had many other issues that were brought up, and it was hardly cause of the RFA failing. AD 11:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)7/22 of opposes mentioned Q5 as wholly or partially the reason, and 4/5 neutrals. Perhaps not the cause, but a cause that would have been ameliorated by voters not being.. oh what's the word.. unable to read? → ROUX ₪ 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well lieing is even more damaging to the project down the road if someone says one thing taylored to what people want to hear at RFA, and do another after RFA. I see nothing wrong with stating an opinion so long as you are not forcing someone to follow it, as above it should be about seeing whether the editor will act neutral and gauge consensus correctly; Yes their opinion will inflence how they will contribute to wikipedia and maybe even proposals they make, which ANY editor admin or non admin can propose equally, but as an admin their opinion should not influence gauging consensus on a opinion. That is what should be looked at. Essentially (some of, not all) the resulting voting at RFA tends to become (with this type of questions anyway); Basically damned if you answer truthfully, damned if you answer untruthfully, equally damned if you dont answer at all. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly why such questions are an instant torpedo. There is no way to answer them honestly if one disagrees with the Official Party Doctrine, and you're destroyed if you refuse to answer questions. → ROUX ₪ 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's possible. People passed with such opinions before. The tricky part is to avoid giving the impression that your opinions will influence how you act as an admin. Regards SoWhy 19:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out in what way Redthoreau's answers someone implied they would influence his/her acts as an admin? I didn't see that in his/her answer. Perhaps it's more that the issue is particularly dear to many people, such that they couldn't accept/trust Redthoreau anymore. It's no different than how studies have shown that scientists evaluate evidence for theories that they support much more leniently than evidence for theories they reject. I think Roux is more likely correct--that by being honest, Redthoreau instantly lost voters, and that nothing xe could have said would have convinced those voters.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that in the absence of Q5 Rt would or should have passed, as there were serious concerns about other issues as well, just that the opinion was clearly detrimental. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau made several fundamental errors, not the least of which was that he made it perfectly clear that he would apply different standards to admins and non-admins. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My point was not about the case at hand but about such cases in general, since, according Roux' assertion, there cannot be a case where someone disagrees with current core policies and succeed. In this case, I think Red's answer did imply a certain bias, like citing that he thinks almost all IPs are vandals. But, if you analyze the !voting, after Red admitted that his philosophy can be adjusted (i.e. when he showed that he can learn from mistakes) in his reply to Phantomsteve's oppose (#5) only one (#8) !vote specifically cited his reply to question 5 as the reason for opposing and only two (#12 and #18) based their oppose partly on the answer to question 5. So I would assert that if Red had answered question 5 with a bit of what he admitted afterwards to Phantomsteve, then this answer would have been much less influential for the !voters. Regards SoWhy 22:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether IPs should be allowed to edit without registering, at this stage of Wikipedia's evolution, is a matter on which good-faith editors can and do legitimately disagree. A candidate's personal opinion on this issue, labelled as such, should not affect the !votes in or outcome of an RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In articles with entrenched POV, or ownership, it is quite frequently only IPS who dare to edit (BTDT, seen how frequently they are reverted even when correct). Although NYB makes a broader point, in the context of that particular RFA and that particular editor's history, I think the opposes were valid, considering everything else evidenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What was remarkable about that RFA was the dearth of contemporary evidence cited against the candidate, with almost all the opposes related to concerns about the answers to the questions, or the blocks and other matters from 2008. Personally I thought Talk:Che Guevara showed the candidate interacting well with IPs, but then as I was his nominator I guess you'd expect me to think that. ϢereSpielChequers 08:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If supporters are under no obligation whatsoever to show that they have done any homework, it's not unreasonable for opposers to feel that they can do so based solely on the strength of an RfA answer. I'm not defending either practise, but I do consider them to be equivalent forms of behavior. —WFC— 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hope that all RFA participants do their homework by reviewing the candidate's contributions and !voting on that basis. Though of course when someone supports or opposes per someone else's analysis we don't know whether they have spent an hour or a minute reviewing the candidate, all we know is that what they found confirmed someone else's nomination or !vote. A few months ago I suggested on this page that !voters say what they've checked, that way latecomers to the discussion would have an opportunity to concentrate on an aspect of the candidate that might not already have been checked in the RFA. I'd like to resurrect the idea, both as a way of making RFA more effective at appointing suitable candidates, and as a response to the concerns that some editors have expressed about editors appearing to simply pile on to one side or the other. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the way to go. Even if it had no effect on people's votes, it would improve the tone of RfA. Ignoring bolded comments and sigs, I believe that in an average 75-80% RfA, there is more prose in the oppose section than the support one. If those who are supporting were to elaborate on the candidate's qualities, that would help redress the balance. —WFC— 12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Though I want to avoid the TLDR situation of anyone who after due consideration is happy to endorse the nomination or the assessment of another !voter feeling they have to write a paragraph expressing the same argument in their own words. So I'm happy that the debate continue to revolve around the minority position, and I say this as someone who has been the sole oppose. I like the idea of balance, and I believe we seriously need to change the tone at RFA, but my idea of balance is that an assessment of a candidate is rarely in truth at either 0% or at 100%, and that whether we support despite X, or oppose despite Y we should consider giving more nuanced and balanced rationales. ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Replying to the first post in this section, no, in an ideal world it wouldn't matter what a candidate's private views were. We're not in an ideal world, however. If I was choosing between candidates in a public election (for a council position, say), I certainly wouldn't choose the candidate who said that privately, he felt that people not on the electoral register should have no say in how the council conducts its business.

For me, however, his answer to Q7 took precedence over everything. Administrators should not be treated differently. Parrot of Doom 11:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

doubtful. I can think of a few editors I would have taken action agaist some time ago if they were admins.©Geni 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I know of a CU/oversighter who expresses similar views and I didn't get anything like that kind of opposition when I expressed an identical view in my own RfA (I was even asked a question on it). If it weren't for the hash made of some of the other questions, I'd almost think people were going out of their way to oppose. Since when were admins not allowed their own opinions? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of improvement at RFA

I've noted how well Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VernoWhitney is advancing, with measured commentary and feedback, compared to recent RFAs, and a relative absence of immediate pile-on Myspacey-support with predominantly colorful sigs and no evidence of evaluation or knowledge of the candidate. I hope this marks a turning point. It could be that RFA is improving-- or it could be that this nom was transcluded at a time that some regular RFA participants are attending high school classes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Since petty pedantry is practically obligatory here, I must point out that your own sig uses some colo[u]r, too. :-)

On a more serious note, it may not help to generalise about folk and drop hints about their maturity.

Undiscriminating pile-on support is not the only issue that people have complained about in recent RfAs, but so far this one does seem to be going nicely. We don't have particularly pointy optional questions, and the bickering over small details has been kept down, and we haven't yet had an oppose for "not active for 18 months" or "not enough comments on portal talk" or whatever. bobrayner (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It sure does-- I added the one extra non-flamboyant color at a time when another Sandy (I think it was SandyDancer, can't remember for sure), who also speaks Spanish and edited similar articles to me, was being confused with me and I was being asked if we were socks. Further response here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there somewhere where I can find a list of "non-flamboyant color(s)"?    Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See my response at 16:57. If someone has told you that your sig is hard to read, you might factor that-- your choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, to clarify, would purple and green be considered a "colorful sig"? Additionally, is there such thing as "immediate pile-on Myspacey-opposition", or does it only flow one way in your view?    Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Snarky, warrants no response-- but I will add that it is very hard for me to see the yellow in your sig. I recommend everyone read WP:ACCESS and WP:SIG-- my eyesight sucks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe my questions are more than relevant - after all, it's not like I did something snarky like facetiously declaring myself the "Queen of Sheba".    Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Red, shame, for all you know, I *am* the Queen of Sheba! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it lunchtime? The colorful sigs are rolling in to Support, with no reasoning supplied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

By long convention, support without extra reasoning at RFA simply means that an editor agrees with the nomination. As for the idea that there is an immediate "myspace support" at RFA, actually a third of the RFAs in September and October received one or no supports, which I take it to mean that there is no automatic support vote. By contrast we haven't had an unopposed RFA since August. ϢereSpielChequers 18:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad things are improving-- I largely ignored RFA as child's play until recently, and I suggest that this "long convention" should change, precisely because RFA was child's play and a popularity contest, with little evidence that !voters actually knew anything about Wiki policy or the nominees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Point noted. Next time I'll either elaborate or add a colorful signature. Actually it is an area where I find it occasionally hard to explain my reasoning, and as I returned to RfA after some time, I opted today for a simple support. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say things were improving, I just pointed out that they weren't as you thought they were. There have been plenty of unsupported RFAs in earlier months as well, though I haven't done stats to see whether it was more or less than a third of them. As for ending the convention of supports not needing a separate rationale, this is the page to propose changes at RFA, if you want to change RFA, why not start a new thread and make a proposal? If you can think of a way to do it without risking TLDR, I might well support such a change. ϢereSpielChequers 18:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new thread: example works better than TLDR. Children learn best by experience, example, consequences, and won't often read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ageist condescension? ~ Sandy, in just the above thread alone you have impugned "regular RFA participants" as "attending high school classes", "being on lunchtime", and being "Myspacey" "children (who) learn best by experience". How is this appropriate according to WP:AGF, WP:Civil and possibly even WP:Bite?    Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to Reverse discrimination, WP:SIG, and WP:ACCESS and my eyesight. Since you are an academic with a PhD, I'm sure you can work it out from there. Since we have members of the admin corp who regularly refer to others with terms like "wankers", I'm sure one of them will be happy to block me for my egregious blasphemy here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The only part of my sig that you need to see is "Red" (pun intended). As for your apparent curmudgeon-laced credentials, and since "this is the internet, anyone can be anyone", I would be more comfortable if you confirmed both your elderly status and poor eye sight with an administrator. Now, I'll watch over the teenagers here and let you get back to sipping your ensure and watching re-runs of Matlock.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If my history of typos don't evidence my age and my eyesight, they may indicate I'm not the Queen of Sheba at all, rather a teenager in my parents' basement-- either way, I win on the logic here. Glad to see the humor! But I still have a hard time seeing your sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, I don't know if this thread is evidence of improvement at WP:RFA, but it's not much of an improvement of WT:RFA. (Not directed towards any single user.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an improvement that it's here and not on the candidate's RFA. And it's quite entertaining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading through this section just made my day. I agree; very entertaining. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an improvement that it's here and not in Jimbo's backyard.--Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAICS most of the evidence-based reasoning (and all the diffs) are in the support section this time around. SandyGeorgia even ignored my disgusting signature! Has the pendulum swung too far the other way? - Pointillist (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it all; it made me laugh almost as hard as OE's facepalm. In fact, once the vertigo, nausea and headache inspired by that monstrosity subsides, I'm thinking of sending you a barnstar of humor. I do hope this new Myspacey-emoticon trend doesn't last, though, as I don't want that to be known as my RFA legacy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You're safe :) sonia♫ 00:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Blush. You were (tangentially) on my mind yesterday afternoon: after all the recent debate about you being the Queen of Sheba it was first up on my car radio—Classic FM with John Eliot Gardiner and the English Baroque Soloists on period instruments—full of light and energy. The hairs on the back of my neck are still dancing to the echoes. - Pointillist (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What debate is that? Are you doubting that I'm the Queen of Sheba? I can have you beheaded for that, you know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Far from it, your majesty! The thrill I get from freebasing Handel and Bach blinds me to almost anything, and anyway the discovery that we are both unbelievably old (in your case c. 2,300 years?) encourages me to be bolder here on wikipedia – I could tell Awadewit a few things first hand about Jane Austen! Bit of a bugger I didn't buy Silicon Valley back in the 1930s though. - Pointillist (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not still holding a grudge because I beat you to it! My investment didn't fare well in the current century, but I take a long-term view on investments. Of course your ramblings are deranged-- your brain is now on a stick in my backyard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You may call it your backyard, but to me it looks like your extensive royal estates. Please may I have my brain back a.s.a.p? Your majesty's loyal leader of the opposition gets a bit picky when people !vote without using their brains. Pointillist (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• In conclusion, I agree completely with WSC's perspective... (that support votes given without reasoning are in essence alluding to agree with the nom). Perhaps the support votes should imperatively add a 'per nom' with their vote. I suggest this because I consider RfAs similar to AfDs (with respect to the consensus generation through an iVote). While closing AfDs, I am given to not considering 'delete' or 'keep' votes that have nothing in their 'keep'/'delete' argument apart from the signature. But the moment a vote has a 'per nom' or 'per so-and-so' written, I consider the vote as good (or as bad) as the nom or the referred-to linked argument/editor. SG's attempts at influencing editors to give reasoning to justify their support/oppose vote may (or may not) be in good faith, but it does also influence editors to become polarised to say the least. A clear cut policy/guideline on the necessity to comment (if only with two words, 'per nom' or 'per so-and-so') would have a reasonable standing. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)