Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 145

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 140 ← Archive 143 Archive 144 Archive 145 Archive 146 Archive 147 → Archive 150

Is something wrong?

Is it just me? but there is a less amount of wikypedians running for adminship, and what's happened to many administators who used to be around all the time wen i used to edit more regularly, like Gwernol, Lradrama, Yamla, Wimt, ElinorD, Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me and Phaedriel? They used to be so helpful...Where have the gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.246.172 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common for users to edit less frequently after they pass an RfA. Perhaps the stress of the "duty" has forced them to take breaks from editing. Also, there are little noms for RfA is becoming more and more debated, as can be seen in the archives of this talk page. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I think all of these adminss had been admins for a long time though...I'm just wondering if something bad hasnt happened to them :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.246.172 (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)This is one of those perenial questions... I know that for many (not all) becoming an admin is the next stage of Wiki-evolution... but often a step towards extinction. You start out with anonymous editing, then you create an account to work on a subject or area that interests you, then (after you get tired of that) you become an admin, then you quit. For many becoming an admin is merely a way to prolong their activity on wikipedia as their normal interests cease to interest them... and yes, I am in a very cynical mood right now.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I was just gonna say, who popped your balloon? Chin up B-man. Keeper ǀ 76 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
People have lives, jobs, other things. No doubt they have burned out as well. Then again, there's nearly 1000 active admins, so that's not really saying most/many become "extinct" after gaining the rights. -- how do you turn this on 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Balloonman, i take it u do not like any of the admins i listed there?
I am not familiar with most... its just my cynical mood and frustration over a lack of power for 11 days getting to me.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, I forgot about Ike. You have every right and reason to be cranky+++. Hope things get back to normal for you soon b-man Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The worst part of the whole thing is that my 40 minute daily commute (one way) is now over 2.5 hours one way... I could live without power, but that commute is killing me.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Can't sleep... was desysoped recently, Phaedriel and ElinorD have left without notice, Yamla has retired and I think the others are still with us... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Acalamari who has so far been away from the wiki for about 3 weeks, most unusual i think from him. But i think what we all have to understand is we're all volunteers with a real life (well looking at some thats questionable :)) and sometimes it gets in the way where we move on in life. Thats why i think we should appreciate the continued contributions from long term wikipedians who have been around for such a long time.

Everyone's contribs are appreciated and they should never be taken for granted, the wiki is such a big place that sometimes it can be hidden from the spotlight what a great job people are doing. The limelight seems always to be on those persistent vandals instead of the contributors actually helping the encyclopedia in everyway posssible. We should take a step back and appreciate the efforts from the above long term "famous" wikipedians, those that appear on the missing wikipedians list and realise that users come and go but the wikipedia will always be here no matter what and its the community "us" that makes it what it is. So here's a great big simley from the community to the community! ^__^ 211.30.19.204 (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy's RfA

Anybody have any idea as to why SoWhy's RFA is not appearing on the box on my talk page?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work for me. Have you tried purging your cache? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Same. Synergy 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You might also need to purge your local cache. Your monobook.js page has instructions on how to do this for Firefox, Opera, and IE. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The Cabal has decreed that there is too much zomg-userboxen-drama at that RFA, and accordingly we will not allow you to see the ongoing percentages. This is a short term measure to protect editors blood pressure, sense of calmness, serenity, and all round wiki-loving. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. Pedro :  Chat  07:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I heart pedro.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Does editing with huggle count towards anything in terms of vandal fighting claims or is it ignored? PXK T /C 14:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It results in a mixed response. Many people see use of Huggle as a good contribution, but equally users that do little more than revert vandalism tend to get a dubious reception. In general, competent use of Huggle is seen as a good thing as long as you have also made substantial contributions in other ways, although editors who are visibly careless or overzealous with Huggle rarely do well. ~ mazca t | c 15:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
mazca is correct of course, but generally I do not see a reason why it shouldn't. Using Huggle (or Twinkle or other tools) does not mean you are not editing, it just provides a nice interface to fight vandalism quickly. If you wanted to disregard those edits, people would go back doing in manually via Special:RecentChanges, which is more of a strain on the bandwidth but not different in terms of their actual work fighting vandals. And after all, if you use Huggle and make mistakes, you are still accountable for that as well. SoWhy 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, Huggle and Twinkle, when run by users that don't know what they're doing, just makes mistakes easier and faster. I'd rather seen a thousand well-thought edits than three thousand Twinkle edits.
As for the "RC bandwidth" thing, that's pretty much bogus; don't worry about performance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, you are correct; as mazca pointed out, it shouldn't be all you are doing. But if you use Huggle or similar in a positive way, there is no reason why it should be disregarded as vandal fighting. It is just like doing vandal fighting manually but easier.
And as for the bandwidth thing, sure, we should not worry about it. But that does not mean imho that we should not use less straining methods if possible. Thats one of the benefits rollback for example (or so it says on its page). :-) SoWhy 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"Bandwidth" in this case is in reference to the end user (as it cuts down the number of pages loaded from three to one), not the WMF servers; you won't cause the Foundation to go bankrupt from webhosting-related charges by not using rollback. Don't worry. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's what I meant mostly. Because Huggle only shows the diffed text, without all the stuff around it, it makes it for people with slower connections to fight vandalism. Must have been a misunderstanding there, but of course the bandwidth to the WMF servers is a minor point here but still I think there is no reason to use up much more than needed. :-) SoWhy 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: If you're not cautious with Huggle (and it's your primary tool) and commit error after error, you'll suffer for it at the hands of irate users. And forget about an RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're not cautious at all and commit error after error, you'll still suffer for it. In that regard, Huggle/Twinkle/et al are no different from regular editing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I am more or less in agreement with you. At RfA, the one thing that bothers me though is a candidate that uses Huggle unilaterally for fighting vandalism - yet that's the only attribute they tout. Regardless, Twinkle is the much safer choice, although it's being rendered obsolete in the fast paced word of Huggle. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I do think the repercussions for misusing Huggle are higher though. The reason is obvious: the speed and quantity of edits. It's all about proportion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
My theory is that one can't Huggle their way into adminship, it takes more than that. Useight (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
What about this request? A primary huggle user, got 140 supports. -- how do you turn this on 15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy is exactly the difference, and your assumption that he is "primarily a huggle user" is demonstrably false. He sees huggle the right way, as an effective tool, uses it the right way, and doesn't use it when he's not supposed to. It isn't about the "level up" and "editcountitis" that many huggle users ascribe to. He has thousands of non-Huggle, high quality edits. Keeper ǀ 76 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think my support on that RFA is a good example of exactly mine and Keeper's point. Useight (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know J.delanoy from a hole in the ground. I'm going off what people wrote on the RFA. There are plenty of people who use Huggle properly and efficiently, but would they get opposed for it? -- how do you turn this on 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
It's all about balance and clue for me. Huggle is fine (actually it's more than fine, it's profoundly effective and has shifted the balance of the editor:vandalizer ratio back into wikipedia's favor) but people oppose for silly reasons all the time. Right now, someone is getting opposed because they put a LOLcat on their self-nom. Egads, that's definitely (sarcasm) someone that's gonna break Wikipedia, right away. Keeper ǀ 76 16:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
People oppose (and support) for reasons that seem sane to them but nuts to everyone else, and 'twas ever thus. I'd like to think we trust the closing crats enough to sort out the stupid opposes from the genuine ones. (One useful byproduct of Majorly's RFA Stats page has been to show that – contrary to "what everyone knows" – successful RFAs below the magic 75%, while not common, aren't wildly unusual; 16 in total, including some "big names" like Krimpet and LessHeard vanU). – iridescent 16:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At one time there was also a concern that someone who is up to no good would rack up a lot of automated edits, get adminship and wreck havoc. Hypothetical example, User:Archcorn signs up, makes a few dozen TW vandal reverts, gets rollback, fires up huggle and gets thousands more. He then runs for admin, passes and goes bat shit crazy. This may be why there are opposes for lack of GA/FA/DYK work.

I myself wonder what's the point. Why go through all that work to pass an RFA just so you can play "dick for a day" with the mop? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah – but ever though there aren't many, there are enough User:Poettransit's out there, that someone obviously does think it worth the while. – iridescent 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
What's your point? There's no way to dissuade someone from gaining the tools if they put forth the effort that you gave as your example. For an example, see Poetlister (or whoever else you want to call them). But someone that only does automated edits isn't very likely to have an opportunity to play "dick for a day" (which is an utterly hilarious name, by the way) in the first place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's fortunate that Archtransit-type people aren't very common, but unfortunately anyone who's willing to put in sufficient work can overcome any trust-based system. There's no way around that, until mind-reading techniques are perfected it's going to be very hard to stop any people truly dedicated to being a dick. And I agree, 'dick for a day' is a truly excellent phrase... need to write an essay on the topic so we can bluelink WP:DICKFORADAY ;) ~ mazca t | c 20:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
That really should be a bluelink. Poof! and it is!!!! (and I fully expect some random admin to come in behind me and delete this, and probably give me some silly warning about wasting time, useless info, and NPA. Meh. Keeper ǀ 76 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the talkpage redirects there with an interesting soft redirect to a commons image. If you intend to write an essay there then it should deal with the short amount of time a newly promoted troublemaker has before he is demopped. How long did Archtransit last, a week? Now please write the essay before I get LARTed for vandalism :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The damage that can be caused by one admin going nuts for a day is minimal. They'll be desysopped and blocked. The damage that can be caused by a sysop making poor deletion and block (and to a lesser extent protect) decisions is much wider but far less measurable. Automated tools are a great thing. But the contributions through autmoated tools do not give RFA commentators sufficent information (IMHO) as to the cluefullness of a candidate. Thus, whilst Huggle, Twinkle, AWB, etc. delivered contributions are welcomed as much as any other, when it comes to granting +sysop their value is considerably less. But only in RFA review and not in any other way. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

extended discussion moved to where?

At SoWhy's RfA, I've just added links to the sections at the RfA talk page to where the discussion were moved. I think such links should always be placed, if only so as to carefully avoid the impression that something is being hidden, and, more importantly, as a basic matter of politeness to those editors whose comments within the moved discussions did not contribute to the disruptiveness which led to the discussion being moved. Everyme 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much standard practice - definitely the way to go. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, not everyone is aware of this hopefully-to-become a standard practice. Everyme 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation

You see guys, when I started editing on Wikipedia, I thought maybe I could be helpful here on the wiki. Numerous times, due to a power struggle, I was turned off. Finally, I decided to take a wikibreak. I left the wiki, and now, I'm halfway coming back. Making VERY small edits here and there. In re to the question above, "what's happened?" its because Wikipedia is such a large community. Editing on the wiki should be taken seriously, but I feel some people take this Wiki TOO seriously. I wanted to become a sysop because I felt I could've been tons more helpful in what I wanted to do, which was close AFD's and watch/assist with RFP and AIV which almost always needs help. I didn't and still don't see why someone would oppose to me being a sysop. I've yet to really do something stupid to show lack of maturity or responsibility on the wiki. It's just.... guys sometimes instead of immediatley responding to something, you should back off for a second and say hmmmmm.... where is this user coming from. Nine times out of ten, you'll be backed up on your decision if you take a second to think, instead of being irrational and getting upset over an edit. Remember, there is no deadline here. Damage can easily be undone. I guess my whole point here is that unfortunatley, many potentially good editors have been harassed over a point of view by saying, well look here and here and here and oobers of other places. Guys, look here and here and here. Sometimes I wonder if Jimbo did the right thing about starting a place like this. When he originally made the sysop position, I don't think he intended it to come to where it is today. Sorry for the soapbox..... I'll let you guys be now. DustiSPEAK!! 16:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason admin applicants get such a hard time is that a large portion of the administrative cadre abuse their power to some extent, because they are practically unaccountable, and the RfA "electorate" contains a large number of people who have either witnessed the results of administrator abuse or are administrator rejects themselves. The disheartenting level of scrutiny is entirely appropriate for a culture of admin-for-life. the skomorokh 16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. naerii 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
But damage caused using the admin tools can't easily be undone. On a technical level, yes it can, but the damage that can be caused to the morale of contributors as they see their work being speedy-deleted by a trigger-happy admin on a spurious A7 call, or unfairly blocked, causes more harm to the project than letting editors with iffy judgement gain access to the tools (speaking generally, and not specifically to you) EJF (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, sure pages can be undeleted, users unblocked, but the real damage is the scowling perception that a newcomer has of Wikipedia, or even a long time contributor coming face to face with unjustified admin abuse. Editors are the cornerstone of Wikipedia - souring their disposition is just about the most harmful thing one can do. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOBIGDEAL is more than five and a half years old. I think its use in discussing RfA should be retired. I understand that you may be disappointed with how your RfA turned out, but seriously, I don't think you've brought up any particularly strong points against the existing RfA system. Your comment about taking a step back and considering where the person is coming from isn't bad advice, but it doesn't change the fact that, if the person has no on-wiki evidence of being trustworthy and reliable, it doesn't matter where the person is coming from. We (as editors) shouldn't be gauged by unverifiable real-world factoids; we can make up whatever we want (though I say I'm a male in his mid twenties, I could be a fourteen year old girl for all anyone knows). That's what caused the entire Essjay situation: people relying too heavily on what someone said they were in the real world. (yeah, that's a bit of a stretch, but that's the justification I have for my attitude on the matter) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
EVula, this has nothing to do with my old RFA, just how i feel atm. DustiSPEAK!! 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned yourself in your opening example; I was just following your lead. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What more can Crats do to help RfA

I've started a thread at WP:BN#We just had a bad month. Don't be shy, but please stay on-topic. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought proposals by Rlevse

  1. All participates who cast a support/oppose/neutral vote/!vote must specify a reason, even if it's "per User:ABC", as long as ABC actually stated a reason.
  2. The closing crat should their reasons for the action taken in all rfa/b closings in a format akin to Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Husond_3 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cirt. The community should realize that the closer a rfa/b is to or in the discretion range, the greater the need for more detail here, and vice versa.
  3. The closing crat should delineate any discounted vote and the reason therefor. This can be done in the closing statement and/or right underneath the discounted vote. During an RFA any crat may also discount a vote and state the reason under the discounted vote.
— Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Question:Given that closed usually means closed, how would non-bureaucrats go about questioning or contesting the discounting of specific !votes? If editors disagreed strongly with the acceptability of a given !vote, would it be brought to WP:BN or would the decision of the closing bureaucrat be final and binding? the skomorokh 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest asking the closing crat, but keep this in mind--is it worth the drama? Would accepting that one vote change the outcome? This may be why the crats generally only make statements in close or contentious cases, ie, in a case of a final tally of 100/1/1, is there really a need to make a statement?...Probably not. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Good idea or no, contestion would very likely occur. It would seem to me that granting bureaucrat discretion would necessitate the need for a forum for recourse, or else risk dissatisfaction. Given that !voters disagree widely on RFA criteria, a bureaucrat discouting a certain class of "poor" opposes (i.e. username, voted against me once, seems a pretty cool guy) would quite likely appear, and be accused of, partisanship. What I'm getting at is that RfA culture and institutions don't seem as developed as those of say, XfD (i.e. there is no WP:DRV or WP:ATA), and thus may run into trouble giving bureacrats more discretion. I support your proposal, but it would bring drama like none before. the skomorokh 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, just few quick comments: There should be a page with common discarded !votes like on such grounds of age, race, religion, political beliefs and the closing crat should not have to explain discarding those each time again. Also, I do not think long rationales are needed on clear outcomes. Like on AfD and similar, the explanation should only be done when the consensus is not clear. SoWhy 20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do you apparently believe that votes are, or ought to be, discarded if made on the basis of age? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Because age, like race, beliefs, and other personal attributes are irrelevant to whether someone will make a good administrator. An adult can be as incompetent as a child, and a child can be as wise as an adult. Not every teenager is a stereotype, and nor is every grown adult. Bureaucrats are there to discount votes that are about issues that won't affect the candidate's ability to administrate; age is one of them. -- how do you turn this on 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That is your opinion, but it it is not mine. What makes your opinion valid, yet mine is to be discarded? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain why one needs to be an adult to be an admin? Mine isn't an opinion either, as there are plenty of non-adult admins already doing a perfectly good job. I'm simply stating the facts. -- how do you turn this on 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Cmon, we've all been over this shit a thousand times. While I agree there are exceptions, I reserve the right to use a candidate's age as one of many criteria I weigh to come to a conclusion. Tan | 39 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could answer my question then? How are the two comparable? -- how do you turn this on 21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposals were well thought out in advance, but I must disagree with the first one and some points of the second. First of all, I do not believe that support votes need to have a rationale. The onus to prove how a candidate might not do well with the tools is on the opposition. A support is simply an affirmation of one's belief that a candidate would be able to serve Wikipedia positively; it generally has no concrete "proof" that it will be the case. For the second, I believe crats should only need to explain their closing rationale when the RFA falls into the "discretionary range." When consensus either way is very clear, there is not much to actually explain. If one feels compelled to give a comprehensive explanation when consensus is clear either way, nothing wrong with that. I think that the third is interesting. It would make the closing decision much more transparent, but I do see the potential for drama that questioning the acceptability of a !vote would bring. So I am unsure about that, but right now I'm feeling it would be a good change. bibliomaniac15 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Some comments, as responses to both Rlevse and to how do you turn this on.
How do you turn this one: Indeed, but I believe the argument of those holding the "age" RfA view to be that unless evidence is presented that a child is extraordinarily sensible—including under pressure—then it logically follows that they may not be able to function as a competent administrator. That is not to say, however, that those holding such view shall blanket oppose any candidate under the age of 20, or 25, or another suitable figure; rather, that their default view is that most children are as clueful as an ordinary child is (against the required standards of sense for functioning as an administrator: not very). Although I don't subscribe to that view, or indeed its inverse, I do note that the logic is very understandable.
Rlevse: Regarding proposal #1, and with no comment on the other suggestions for now, I note that requiring editors who support an RfA without comment are generally considered to contain an invisible "I concur both with the nominator's statement, and his or her sentiment in nominating this candidate, that this candidate is experienced, trustworthy, clued up, and competent enough to function as an administrator for the project, and that promoting this candidate will, I believe, be a net benefit for the project." We could always have people expand that out in full for every vote—it could go some way to prodding people to actually re-read the nominator's statement, as a sort of reality check—and type the full sentence, but I suspect that may not be regarded as a great use of our editors' time. Just a point to be considered.
Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Whenever no reason in stated, I always wonder what the reason is as the crat can't be sure. If it is per the nom, then stating "per nom" would suffice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If no reason is stated, I think it would be safe to assume that's the case. -- how do you turn this on 21:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse: Ah, okay; I misinterpreted your proposal. I had presumed you were suggesting that "per nom" was not a sufficient rationale to accompany one's support. In that case, my concerns are alleviated.
How do you turn this on: I do concur, although I suppose it is important to explicitly note that, to keep everything unambiguous from the point of view of analysing the discussion for a final consensus.
Anthøny ✉ 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
@Anthony: Well, that is what How do you turn this one means I think: If a candidate is able to function as an admin despite his young age, then their contributions will show this already. We expect all candidates to show that they will stay calm and handle pressure in a civil and thoughtful way, so we just expect the same from underage candidates. What I meant, and I guess How do you turn this one means as well, is that opposes like "oppose, too young" should be automatically discarded, not opposes that base their concerns on some proof that the young age makes them less good admins. SoWhy 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing the petition you are presumably preparing to present to whichever government you live under the yoke of that 10-year-olds are just as responsible as eighteen-year-olds, and so ought to be allowed to vote, buy guns, cigarettes, alcohol, drive a car, and get married. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and choose their own bedtime. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing good can come from declaring that everyone under 18 is irresponsible. With that logic, we should deny 17-year-old responsible users adminship based on their age (we got some of those admins). Also, please note that ages for the examples you provide vary, in Germany for example 16-year-olds can buy beer and marry, while in the US they need to be 21 to buy beer. So that's the best example that there shouldn't be a policy just saying "users below the age of X are irresponsible". I am one of the first to admit that kids are annoying and I don't like them really but I do not think that should be a reason to loose us potentially good admins if all they are "doing wrong" is being underage. So I think it's quite good to disallow !votes on such basis because if they are irresponsible, their contributions will show it anyway. SoWhy 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
How exactly is being an admin even close to comparable with ability to buy alcohol, cigarettes, guns etc? -- how do you turn this on 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how important you deem responsibility in adminship, remind me of this for any future RfAs here. Tan | 39 21:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you're looking at this a little irrationally: perhaps because of the strengths of your beliefs in this; perhaps not. Being an administrator—well, being a competent one, and one that does more than menial, routine, always-uncontroversial backlog clearing—on Wikipedia requires clue and foresight that is hard to come by in a child... And, all too often, in an adult, also. The importance isn't on a par with the significance (in terms of potential dangers, that is) of being able to purchase alcohol, firearms, and so on; but it does require the sense that one would hope somebody of that age would have acquired through those valuable extra ears of walking the earth. Anthøny ✉ 21:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Admins should be responsible, but not every 13 year old is stupid. It doesn't take an adult to click a few buttons (as is evidenced by all the underage admins we have already) -- how do you turn this on 21:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the role of an administrator requires much more than simply pushing a few buttons, most especially when incidents start getting heated. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with an administrator who was capable of nothing more than clearing backlogs, what with how the role of the everyday administrator has evolved in the past 1 or 2 year, if not more. Anthøny ✉ 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Every 13-year old can click a button, but not every 13-year old can understand the circumstances that necessitate the clicking of said buttons. We have many underage admins, it is true, but I believe it is a fallacy both ways to assume that every minor is able or unable to become an admin. We have many underage admins, but we also have many underage users with a very simplistic mindset. In the end, though, maturity trumps age, at least for me. Perhaps it's because of my personal underage bias. bibliomaniac15 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that not every 13 year old is responsible. I also know that not every 42 year old is responsible. I always believe maturity trumps age. Age is just a figure. Maturity can be demonstrated through edits. I expect many candidates who failed because of age would have passed if they hadn't mentioned it. That is really telling. I assume when you say you're biased that you're under 21. And you're a bureaucrat as well. I wonder if you'd mentioned your age anywhere you'd have failed? -- how do you turn this on 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have not mentioned my age both because of my privacy concerns and because I wished to be treated like anyone else. Now that many have revealed their ages, I don't think underage adminship is such an unusual thing anymore. As for RFB, I have no doubt that the likes of Anonymous Dissident would easily pass. bibliomaniac15 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(To HDYTTO) One gets the sense you're pushing an agenda that obviously affects you. Tan | 39 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well, it won't affect me. I do work with young people though, and I fully understand that some aren't at all suited to editing, let alone adminship. There are however, always some that are suited. It's the blanket opposing solely because of age I don't like. However, I've been informed that discussions here tend to be circular and don't go anywhere, so I'm going to leave now. I have better things to do than argue in circles :-) -- how do you turn this on 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me tell you frankly what I don't like: the assumption that your opinion is the only that ought to be counted, and that those opinions you don't agree with ought to be "discarded". That's a very slippery slope. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(Wishing I hadn't said I'd leave) I have never said the view should be discarded. Nor have I said my view should be the only one to count. -- how do you turn this on 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It comes down to the fact that every established and good faith editor's opinion should be acceptable. Discarding those opinions is, indeed, a slippery slope and seems very cabalish. Useight (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Votes are discarded every single time an RFA has 1 or more votes on different sides. Example, an RFA ending 50/1/0 is a pass, clearly, but the one user who opposed had his or her view ignored. Clearly there was consensus to promote. In every system like this, someone isn't going to get their way. This isn't about discounting votes, it's about getting a consensus. If the consensus is to promote, and you opposed them, the only thing you can do is live with it. -- how do you turn this on 22:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In a 50/1/0, that sole opposer is not discarded. 98% is enough for consensus. I'm referring to those RFAs that come in at say, 69% support but there are a whole bunch of age-related votes, for example. Those age-related ones shouldn't be indented and/or struck-through just because of the content of those opposes. Useight (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Who has said they should? I certainly haven't. -- how do you turn this on 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, what if the % was 69, but the opposes were saying "User is British". Would that be acceptable? -- how do you turn this on 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2) I never said nor implied that you said that those votes should be discarded. I only said that I am saying that those votes should not be discarded. Regarding "User is British", no comment at this point. Like Anthony said, let's stay on topic. Useight (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
One gets the feeling that this discussion has slipped off-topic. Let's keep discussion focussed firmly on the project, and not on the individual editors participating in the thread. Anthøny ✉ 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't get that feeling. If Malleus believes opposing for age is acceptable, then someone opposing for where the candidate lives is acceptable as well (and their race, beliefs etc). -- how do you turn this on 22:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
How dare you imply that because I hold one view you disagree with then I also hold others that may be just as offensive to me as they are to you. I find your argument to be both insulting and shocking. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't imply you held those views. I was saying that your argument that your opinion should not be discounted is a bad one, because if one person's view is counted, so is everyone elses. Some people will have a view that children make bad admins; others have the exact same view about women. Which are we to count or discount? I apologise if you felt insulted, I really wasn't talking about you at all. -- how do you turn this on 00:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's get this right. Have you ever seen anyone oppose at RfA on the grounds of race, religion or colour? Why the scaremongering about a perfectly legitimate concern about age? Are you suggesting that the concerns are in some way equivalent, or equally obnoxious? If you are, then we clearly have nothing more to say to each other, as you are speaking a language I simply don't understand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I have. I saw someone get opposed the other day for not following the Christian religion. And I felt it was a bad reason to oppose someone, as much as I believe age is. It's very much your opinion it is a valid concern. I happen to disagree. Let's agree to differ on this point. I'm sure there are plenty of other things we agree on :-) -- how do you turn this on 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The point is this: Does someones christianity or lack of make them potentially a bad admin? No, and neither does race or colour, except in the minds of a right-wing moron. Age, on the other hand, can potentially cause issues in terms of maturity. You can't compare race/religion and age for valid/invalid opposes. Andrew Kelly's oppose was invalid because someone not being christian is not something that indicates a potential issue-admin; someone being opposed because they are 12, and might be horribly immature, is valid (although not a view I take myself). Ironholds 01:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This age topic has been beaten to death so many times it's not true. My final word on it for now is that I do not call for the votes of those who support a 12-year-old candidate to be discarded, and so equally I do not expect my opposition to a 12-year-old candidate to be discarded. To juxtapose that position with a prejudice against race, religion, or colour is a gross mischaracterisation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. You cannot infer that. There is no causation nor correlation. To infer what you claimed above is a logical fallacy. Useight (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Partially, or maybe a hairline case, I'm not sure. However, if one makes a blanket assumption about one group, then it is fair game to compare that general perspective to another. Just because there isn't a clear association between maturity and race, nationality or residence, there may be sufficient corollary with another attribute..say..subjectivity on certain topics. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll give you that. What I'm saying is that because a particular editor believes it is acceptable to oppose based on age does not necessarily mean that that same editor believes it is acceptable to oppose based on location, race, or any other attribute. Useight (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, absolutely, I agree with you on that. That wouldn't be a fair inference, and would not logically follow. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I'm just not able to discern the difference between these blanket presumptions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
What Tan said: We've been through this shit a thousand times. Some adults feel one way about this, and some adults and almost all underage people feel a different way, and everyone else doesn't care. Can we hang it up now? Darkspots (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin Bot BRFAs

Just a notice that there a currently two brfas open atm for admin bots that could use more community input --Chris 04:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'Temporary' comments

What is the community's view on support/opposes/neutral(s) which are 'temporary' or for any other reason, not permanent? Should comments only be permitted when the assessors (i.e. the individuals supporting or opposing) have the time to committ to reviewing the candidate? Its just I am seeing more as of late and wondering what the reason behind them really is (which although may be obvious, I don't understand why people don't wait until they can analyse contributions and what not). Caulde 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on your thread here for now, Caulde. I'll get back to you when I've formed an opinion, I need to do more research.  ;-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the exact situation. The people who show up and just stick up "Neutral, will look later", or similar seem to be wasting everyone's time for no great purpose. But the people who do something along the lines of "Support unless someone brings up something bad" are at least providing an opinion. As long as these people generally do return and reconsider their votes, it's not a big problem to me. ~ mazca t | c 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Mazca that first point you make is exactly what I'm saying! Thanks. Caulde 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
So It depends on the exact situation is "exactly what you're saying? Keeper ǀ 76 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but who said that first sentence was a point, I'd say it's just me waffling. :-) ~ mazca t | c 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I meant the "Neutral, will look later bit". Caulde 19:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just messing with you Caulde. I know what you meant :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what the community's view is, or even if it has a consistent view, but as far as I'm concerned all Neutral votes are a waste of space. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come now. We both know that "neutral" votes serve a very useful purpose.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right; I'd forgotten about your legacy to wikipedia. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Neutral !votes can serve a purpose if they provide some good outlines for the candidate's improvement (ie: "I like your mainspace contributions, but saying 'OMG lol delete' in AfD discussions is asinine"). "Neutral pending an answer to my question" is both unhelpful and as mind-boggingly obvious as saying that water is wet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but most of those kinds of analyses can be drawn and left up for discussion in..well..the discussion section. Neutral votes are essentially fluff, even though I've been neutral at times. MF is absolutely right. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My take is that the "Discussion" section is more of a "meta" section; that is, it's discussion about the RfA, rather than about the candidate. Candidate-specific discussion, without choosing a side, is done in the Neutral section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My own view is that comments like "I like your mainspace contributions, but saying 'OMG lol delete' in AfD discussions is asinine" are best made outside the pressure cooker of an RfA unless they're part of the justification for an oppose. A quiet word in the candidate's ear from an editor whose opinion (s)he might be inclined to take notice of would be likely to be more effective IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I occasionally use variations of "provisional oppose as I can't see any evidence of xxx", if something I'd want to see isn't evidenced but I can't see any fault. IMO, as long you one is willing to change it if evidence does come up, I can't see any problem with this. (There's a fairly good example of this on IMatthew's WereSpielChequers RFA at present – as he hadn't mentioned them in his answers to the questions and they weren't obvious in his history, I'd overlooked his significant article-work). – iridescent 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, given that both supports and opposes can be as easily taken away as given whether they're prefixed with "provisional" or "temporary" or not, just by making a little edit, had I been concerned as you were I'd simply have raised the issue with IMatthew on his talk page, and then, depending on his response, decided whether to suppport or oppose. But each to his own I suppose. It's the Neutrals I don't understand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) A neutral vote should be easy to understand. An Rfa is a !vote, in theory anyway. The closing bureaucrat is supposed to look at positive and negative arguments and not focus on the votes. A neutral vote is a way of expressing concerns and positives about a candidate when an editor finds it hard to decide whether the positives outweigh the negatives. I don't see the big deal. (Fair disclosure: [1].)--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll make you a deal. I'll believe that bollox when you show me an RfA that passed at less that 50% or failed at more than 90%. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I can easily show you many such examples. I'll be back as soon as I finish selling the Brooklyn Bridge. (But, seriously. A neutral is just another statement of where someone is on an Rfa.) --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I will always fail to see the point in so-called neutral comments along the lines of "I can't support anyone who uses cat humor in an RfA, it seems like you're not taking the whole thing seriously." That's not neutral, it's a clear suggestion that the candidate isn't taking the RfA seriously. If that's a "neutral" comment then the Pope is my father. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just occurred to me, slow tonight I know, that votes can't be neutral in any meaningful sense anyway. So logically !votes can't be neutral either. Ban 'em I say! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Sign me on. As long as I can !vote in both the support and oppose columns! (What gets me is those guys, like this one, who go 'neutral, leaning toward support'. What's the deal with that? Either support or oppose and stop that backboneless leaning!)--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
We can stop the whole "leaning" phenomenon by adding MOAR levels of response. Why only three? Why not make it more like judging a dance or diving routine? Something out of ten. "8.5". "5.6". 9.9, 1.5, 3.7.... Add em up, and if teh crats have an average about 7.5 or above, they win!!!!. No more leaning. More judgment!!!! It's already a vote, we are only fooling ourselves. I can imagine the whole "badgering" phenomenon will disappear also. Who's gonna argue with a "After reviewing contribs, I give you a 6.8". How could anyone come back with "you SOB! He's at least a 7.4!!!". I think I just solved the RFA problem! Keeper ǀ 76 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, I was just reminded of this. Useight (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Did this whole thread come up because of my "Weak Support for now" that I posted 8 minutes before this thread began? If so, I posted that because the tip of the iceberg looked good and I wanted to voice my opinion of that tip but also declare that I was going to look at the remainder when I had more time to do more than scratch the surface. Useight (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was my "Provisional Oppose at this stage". – iridescent 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It was neither of them, in fact. I've just seen it a few times over my 'wiki-experience' and pondered the rationale behind them and whether or not supports & opposes based on an initial impressions and limited time for reading the RfA were acceptable. Caulde 14:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Or the 2 neutrals in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buckshot06? (which I so kindly addressed :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If RFA is supposed to be a discussion rather than a vote, then making a provisional vote which makes it clear as to what sort of evidence would lead you to reassess is exactly the sort of thing this process needs, and if people don't want all opposers and neutrals to be badgered it is also a great unsubtle way to tell the candidate which comments to spend their time responding to. Secondly and I'm afraid I can't say this without it sounding at least a little critical, if someone indicates a vote is provisional but then doesn't respond to further dialogue then it looks almost as bad as if they vote, post a question and then make no response to the answer to that question. I suspect that if the closing crats were to strike out a few such votes as "provisional vote, responded to by applicant" the second problem would disappear PDQ. Perhaps more controversially if opposers had to phrase their oppose along the lines of "I didn't see X in the part of the contributions that I reviewed - happy to reassess if given examples of that" then RFA might be a very different experience. ϢereSpielChequers 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding canvassing in RFAs

A question regarding canvassing. Would canvassing possibly be regarded as one individual advising another individual to oppose a candidate i.e. User A e-mails User B telling him to Oppose User C's RFA. Would a simple exchange as that class as canvassing? Also, can canvassing just involve two individuals, or would it have to involve several users? D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS puts that behaviour firmly in the inappropriate canvassing camp (Biased, Secret and likely Partisan). –xeno (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In the RFA I'm talking about two users talking over e-mail *possibly* about an RFA and opposing - I have some evidence to back it up. Not quite sure whether this would be the appropriate place to tell all.... any outside party/admin open to an e-mail so I can speak to them? D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably best you email the details to a 'crat... –xeno (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I just have to point out that we have a User:B ;) John Reaves 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Policy-based comment: WP:CANVASS says, right at the beginning (emphasis added by me): "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.". Common-sense based comment: If User A and User B know each other, I just can't figure out how this is a bad thing, how it would be policed, and why we would care. If User B doesn't know User A, the proper response from User B is "Go away". If there is a suspicion that this actually isn't just one user emailing just one other user, then that's a different story, but that's specifcally not how the question is worded. --barneca (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

People are banned from discussing RFA's? ;-) Ok, so only RFA regulars will be able to comment on RFA's then, won't they? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They're banned from trying to sway others' opinions about an RfA in their favor.--KojiDude (C) 01:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing isn't really banned from RFA. The only things I can think of would be anon user !voting and blatant sockpuppetry. Nevertheless, barneca, you're kinda wikilawyering. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that's the first time I've ever been accused of wikilawyering. By two people I respect no less. So, I went back and re-read WP:CANVASS, thinking I might be wrong. I'm not. I stand by my interpretation of both the spirit, and the letter, of the policy. also, note the "common-sense based comment" part of my earlier post. No one is going to tell me what I can and can't email a friend, and I'd love to see them try. --barneca (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Barneca, I understand where you're coming from, but wouldn't that classify as meatpuppetry..if worded in a non-neutral influential tone? I mean, it seems like vote stacking a small scale. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Telling anyone through any means "You should vote ________ in _______'s RfA" is canvassing. It doesn't change depending on how good of friends you are with the guy.--KojiDude (C) 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with KojiDude on this one. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In my mind, if User A tells User B to do something on wiki, and User B does it because User A said so, then the word for that is "User B is weakwilled". If User A knew this was going to happen, or if User A and User B agreed that they would always act in unison like this, then yes I'd use the term meatpuppet. But if User A emails User B "Did you notice that complete jerkoff User C is up for RFA? You haven't opposed yet.", and User B emails back "Yikes, I'd missed that, I'm off to vote Oppose", then no I don't call that canvassing, or meatpuppetry. I call it "conversation". Same goes for an email "You should vote ___ in ____'s RFA".
It's all academic, though because if it truly is limited to two friends, no one is going to find out. In that case, what name you choose to call it is a distinction with no difference.
And, since my cover is blown anyway, and now everyone knows I'm a wikilawyer, I'm actually curious why people think someone went to the trouble of putting the word "multiple" in WP:CANVASS, if it applies even to a single instance. Is that a new addition or soemthing? --barneca (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

<--This thread is reason #one billion for why I don't have email enabled. Sheesh. Keeper ǀ 76 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually if User A tells User B to do something, and A gives good reasons, then User B should really do it. It's called "good advice" ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. true. Hopefully it was relatively clear what I was getting at... --barneca (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Whether it's good advice or bad advice, it's input that User B can consider and act on or reject. In any event, if it is a single one-on-one conversation between two users who know each other, I don't think it is the kind of thing covered by the spirit of WP:CANVASS. It's hard to see how someone sharing an opinion in that case can undermine the RFA process. -- DS1953 talk 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

7 admins created in Sep 08. Crat happy to nominate "unusual" RfAs.

The stats at User:NoSeptember/crat stats show that just 7 users became admins in September 2008 and that this is the lowest figure for any month (the stats go back to 2004).

In contrast, during 2007, we twice hit highs of more than 50 in one month.

Admins do become inactive. And the Project is growing larger all the time. So we need you to become an admin.

Therefore, I am posting here to make sure you know that I am happy to consider nominating editors for RfA. But, more than that, and as demonstrated by my two most recent nominations, I'm willing to nominate unusual candidates. Evidence shows (one successful RfA and one on the way to success it would seem) that such noms can pass - and pass well too.

So:

  • If you're hanging about waiting for someone to notice you, don't. People may well think you're already an admin, so...
  • If you had civility or edit-warring or other problems (even a block or two) early in your time here but an unblemished record for some time since...
  • If you've not been editing for a long time, but do have experience in admin areas and are civil and helpful by nature...
  • If the chances of you ever producing an FA are not just zero, but actually negative <grins> because you're content as a gnome...
  • If you have no enormous "need for the tools" but if granted would use them occasionally just to clear up your own messes like G6 deletions, (so "not adding to the backlogs", rather than "helping reduce" them)...
  • If you've had an unsuccessful RfA before, but have demonstrably moved on since then...
  • Or you're similarly an unusual candidate...

...drop me a line.

Of course, I also welcome well-qualified candidates! Remember, we (the community) are not good at spotting good candidates - we tend to perceive you as admins already.

Drop me a "warts and all" message, disclosing any skeletons - these are best discovered before starting RfA, rather than being uncovered in the middle. And be prepared for me to lightly grill you before I offer a nom.

I can't guarantee to nominate you; I won't if I wouldn't support you myself. And I can't guarantee success. But please do try me.

Two last tips:

  1. it may be worth doing an editor review first, but be polite and review at least one other editor who's been waiting a while.
  2. the best admin candidates are those who already behave in an "adminlike fashion". Advice I spotted early in my time here and took to heart.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) PS Please be patient - my editing this month is heavily restricted by RL and that + my other responsibilities when I am "in" means it may take me a while to get to you.

I'd honestly suggest just giving people the mop without running them through the process. Who wants to answer 40 inane questions about hypothetical situations they have no intention or requirement to encounter, let alone deal with? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who does want to answer lots of questions can try RfB. Question City that is. The volume of RfAs is down. I seek to address that. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The questions are (almost) irrelevant. People do take them too seriously. Anyone can learn how to be an admin. The central issue is, does the community trust you? The answer is often "no." Experience is relevant in the sense that it is the medium in which that trust is built, but some very exp. people do not get the bit. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Have people tried looking through the list of admin hopefuls for potential candidates? -- how do you turn this on 12:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps talking to admin coaches to see if they think their coachees are about ready? Useight (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely the process of admin coaching involves a nomination at the end? I'm sure the coach would be aware of whether the candidate is ready or not. -- how do you turn this on 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do "Editor Coaching", with no objective to eventually submit an RFA, just to help them out as an editor. Useight (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I think coaching was significantly hurt back in Mar-Jun when 15 coachees were clearly not capable and where coaching was poorly done (and I say that as an advocate of coaching.) This gave coaching a bad name and people started to see coaching as bad by default. This legacy, kind of deterred some (including myself) from coaching.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Right you are, coaching took a big blow, I was just suggesting that there are going to be some coachees who are prepared and that finding those individuals would help increase the volume of RFAs. Useight (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just recieved a message from Dweller asking if I would like to become an administrator. My answer would be yes, I would be intrested. Alex (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I do agree more admins are needed. As ever, it's not so much raw numbers but the data behind it. As of now there are just shy of 1,600 admins (1597) yet only 970 are active. A quick look at this history [2] indicates that this figure has fluctuated over the last year but is now almost identical to what it was 11 months ago. So a year of RFA's has resulted in merely treading water in terms of active editors with +sysop. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
To echo Gladys j cortez on WP:BN, the biggest problem is retarded opposes. Crats need to be more active and remove ridiculous oppose rationales. RfA is supposed to be a civil discussion about whether or not the candidate should be allowed to receive sysop rights. What it actually is is an oppurtunity for people to beat other users into the ground any possible reason And yes, the link was intentional. J.delanoygabsadds 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(since J.Delanoy mentioned my comment, I figure it shoud go here too...)Truthfully, I think something that would go a long way toward pulling in more people for adminship would be some sort of boundaries concerning the reasons for which !voters can validly support or oppose. Not that I'm in a position to criticize, since a bunch of the "supports" in my current RfA are for exactly this reason, but "Influential person X likes you, so I do too"--not really valid. Similarly, I've had one person oppose because she thinks I have a "contrived persona" and one opposing because she read my blog, which has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. The sole and only reasons for support and objections should lie in the candidate's ON-WIKI/wiki-related activity (adding the second half because yeah, I wouldn't want an admin whose sole off-Wiki life consisted of badmouthing Wikipedia!). I think a commitment from 'crats to focus the discussion where needed, and when necessary to use their judgement re: which !votes should be considered, would go a long way towards reassuring people. (No, I don't know how this might be done fairly; I'm just putting out the idea. I've seen some truly, truly cockamamie !vote rationales while watching recent RfA's--my own is incredibly tame in comparison.) Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe RFA should be like AFD, FAC, and every other discussion arena on the project. No votes, and reasoned arguments. The bureaucrat has complete discretion, like an admin (and Raul/Sandy) has. -- how do you turn this on 15:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
But RfA is that way, isn't it? Opposes without any rational reason are usually discarded by the closing crats or at least they should be. But discussion and "stupid" opposes serve as a good test if the candidate is able to deal with people complaining about unimportant things. But Dweller's comment on WP:BN is true, maybe crats should step in sooner to remove discussions which are completely off the subject (as I can say happened on my RfA quite a lot).
If you think there are not enough candidates, have a look at WP:HOPEFUL. You can pick and choose amongst willing editors there. ;-) SoWhy 18:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Dweller, I think that your idea and the motivation behind are both sound, and I commend you for the initiative – but it greatly intrigues me as to how people perceive the RfA process as more likely to be successful ("successful" here meaning resulting in promotion to sysop) if they request nomination by another established editor than if they self-nominate. Surely the sentiment behind both is identical, as in both cases, it is a conscious decision by the administrator hopeful to go through the process? Yet, for whatever reason, it is deemed better to "self-nominate via proxy", as it were, presumably to increase the perceived chance of success. And yet, if a candidate is nominated by another editor without having requested the nomination beforehand, and accepts that nomination, does that not express a desire equal to that of the self-nominator to run for adminship – should that be classed as "prima facie evidence of power hunger" as well? I'm sorry to go into Wikipedian sociology, but like I said, I find the whole aura of hostility towards self-nomination highly interesting. haz (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
People should never want to be admins. We should find candidates among the unwilling, and drag them, kicking and screaming, and put them into the position. –xeno (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So you're suggesting we force Sandy to become an admin? ;) -MBK004 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Change from vote

Right now RfA's are a vote. We have opposes and supports and neutrals separated out into their own categories. We then keep judicious records of the count in the tally section. We don't do this with XFD, FA, GAR, or any other area. RfA is the only place where we monitor counts like we do. I suggest that we do away with this numbering of comments and break down into separate sections. Have people comment where they comment---break up the "Supporters above" and "Opposes below." Take away this crutch of being able to easily count the votes. Make it a single read, like XfD's and make it more of a "Who has the strongest case?" This would mean that people who have 75%+ are more likely to fail and even the possibility of people with a 70% or less of passing. It would also add strength when issues are resolved or an "oppose" rationale is deemed invalid/outdated.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unofficially and without lots of thought, I support this. Seems chaotic at first, but I bet many of the problems will be ameliorated by this. A burden on the 'crats, perhaps, but thems the breaks. Tan | 39 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We need to go one of two ways with this - either we call it a vote and stick to a certain percentage or move to an idea like this. I support this particular idea - it goes in line with other consensus based discussions. I actually suggested this about a year back, but nobody liked the idea. As with all discussions, people are supposed to, well, discuss! I'm seeing all to often people getting gunned down for responding to an oppose or a support - the term "badgering" is way overused. People should be free to question what they like to help make consensus clearer and I believe this method would promote discussion. Now, if only we could get rid of the bolded support and opposes then things might be perfect - I guess that's just a dream! :-) Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's more to this than the (modest) proposal makes out. Deprecating percentages in favour of substantive analysis would discourage the concept of AGF support (i.e. "Support, no concerns/WP:WTHN") and of endorsing another's opposition (i.e. "Oppose per the very troubling diffs by Example (talk · contribs)"). The likely result would be that people would have to dig a little deeper in supporting, and add a little extra in opposing, which if AfD is the model to go on, would result in much more threaded discussion, which means a lot more "badgering" and acrimony. I tentatively support the idea, but let's not fool ourselves about the radical transformation this would bring. the skomorokh 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like how the heading for this thread is "minor change". Useight (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, I pointed out that even AFDs are not supposed to be votes during my own RFA, and part (although far from most) of the opposition to my adminship is coming from this crazy idea I have that consensus comes about through debate and discussion, not by counting votes. I think you will have a hard time going anywhere with this.—Kww(talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats were elected to evaluate consensus. This is what they're expected to do. The problem is with this is there are no policies for adminship. We have policies articles should follow, but we don't have policies for admins. At the moment, people can oppose and support for whatever reason they like, and often for no reason at all. This simply doesn't work in XFDs or FxCs, where comments are evaluated based on policy and not "ILIKEIT" comments, and is strictly not a vote, not counted and tallied up. An admin can easily close an AFD with 2 deletes and 5 keeps as delete without issue. If such a thing happened with RFA, there would be uproar. Either we make it a strict vote, with no comments, or we have bureaucrats evaluate consensus properly, and only take into account standards required for adminship when looking at comments. -- how do you turn this on 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference between AFD and RFA is that an article can be easily undeleted while admins cannot easily be desysopped. Useight (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We aren't promoting admins for the purpose of desysopping them. If they mess up, there are relevant processes to go through already. There are too many good candidates failing for extremely dubious reasons. -- how do you turn this on 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We also aren't deleting articles for the purpose of undeleting them. My point was that one process is easily reversible while the other isn't. Useight (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Then maybe we should change that. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Just came across this. An RFA in RFC format? Interesting or what. -- how do you turn this on 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I remember that one, and I participated in it. A novel idea to be sure but I think it wound up causing more trouble than it was worth ... Shereth 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is merely a formatting change. Officially RFA's are already not a vote. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) In other words, if you want to change the layout and remove support and oppose percentages, this is entirely your prerogative.

Well they are a vote, as it evidenced by the fact that the number of RFAs promoted with less than 75% of support I can count with my fingers. Bureaucrats ignore the 75% boundary extremely rarely, and when they do, it causes uproar. It is most definitely a vote. -- how do you turn this on 20:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a very old promise/threat I made, where I said I would shut down RFA if it ever became a vote. O:-)
I propose the following playbook:
  • Try and use the proposed layout for the following couple of nominations.
  • If the layout is opposed on grounds of style, that's fine, let people improve it
  • If the layout is opposed on grounds of "voting is mandatory", we kill RFA
  • If the layout goes unopposed. Hurrah! :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment I was writing for this thread has become too long, so rather than disrupt the thread, I’ll post a link to it here: User:Barneca/The Problem With RFA. For those who don’t care to read it, the only one of my suggestions that has a chance of succeeding is: please stop trying to silence opposers whose criteria you find "invalid". Silencing dissenting opinions leads to Groupthink, and will turn it into even more of a popularity contest than it is now. If an opinion is rare, it is unlikely to affect a vote. If it is common, it is by definition not “invalid”, and shouldn’t be discounted. Anyway, lots of other brilliant IMHO solutions are in the essay. --barneca (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's ok to challenge any comment (support or oppose) -of course in good faith- I'm fine with whatever. Opposition gets challenged more often, because you get a better return on your invested time. But I have seen people challenge supporters too. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait, on reading, you want to take a straight vote, with no challenging. That way lies the destruction of RFA. There are VERY good reasons to keep voting off of the wiki entirely, if only just for consistency. Are you familiar with them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, I want a straight vote after a discussion, where opinions can (and should) be challenged. And, of course, there's no reason to stop discussing after the vote starts; just that there should be a vote-free discussion first, to develop consensus, with voting second, to measure it. I'll re-read to see if I've implied opinions can't be challenged, and change it if I have; that was certainly not my intention. --barneca (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Kind of like an RFC, except at the end of the RFA, or a subpage, or somewhere, people end of voting after the discussion has gone on for a while. (haven't read the RFC thread below yet, going to do that now).--barneca (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominations aren't the problem

Nominations aren't now, and haven't been at any time, the limiting factor in this process. The simple fact is that the support requirements have been much tougher, due in part (and this isn't criticism) to the increased participation of the FAC folks. The result is that many candidates that would have passed previously fail now, and nothing is a more powerful deterrent than the strong likelihood of failure. I'm not sure how or if you can fix that, or even if many of the current regular voters would want you to, but I don't think an increase in nominations is the solution. Avruch T 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on the very interesting, and to me novel thesis that the participation of FAC folks has had a decisive impact in raising standards? It would be consistent with their impact on FAC/FAR/GAN/DYK. the skomorokh 19:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Their standards are lofty? They feel only substantial article writers would make good admins? I'm just brainstorming, but that's probably what the implication is. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
When in perspective though, 1 featured (or good, as has been mentioned in various RfAs recently) article really that much to ask? I don't oppose on content grounds (I have once, in my recent memory, however that was in addition to other aspects I felt needed addressing for sysopping) but I do agree with their sentiment. I must say though, in co-incident with the low pass rate recently there have been 'bad' candidates too; we can't simply 'blame' this on the FAC crowd when all their doing is enforcing their own standards as do others who require 7-8 months participation, for example. Many of the candidacies are simply not good enough, not just because they have low article standards. We need to see more rounded candidates, not just those with high-ranking article contributions. Caulde 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree with you, I was just laying down my interpretation of the original sentiment. I would prefer to see article creation/writing in admin hopefuls. However, nobody should require a set amount of FA or GAs. That is wholly unfair. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Normally the above would be right, but there were very few nominations, successful or unsuccessful, this month. Wizardman 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there are less nominations because people don't want to nominate candidates who are likely to fail, and people also don't want to be candidates who are likely to fail. The fact that passing is more difficult than it has been causes both an increased rate of failure and a decreased rate of attempts. And, in response to Caulde above, I certainly don't "blame" the FAC folks for their standards. In many respects, they are completely right about what background and qualities make the best admins. But it isn't criticism to cite the effect they have had, and continue to have, on the process. In fact, I think most if not all would be proud to acknowledge that their participation has led to many other editors adopting similar standards. Avruch T 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People are hesitant to support requests for adminship because nothing short of ArbCom (and its four month long cases) can forcibly remove a bad admin. How about supporting Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal? This comment addresses the issue of admin recruitment. Jehochman Talk 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC wonkery is only one facet of the equation. The minimum standards for passing an RfA have simply gone up as time passes. I'm sure there is someone out there eager to jump up and say "Nonono, we don't have minimum standards!" Nonsense. Just because it isn't written "You must have this many edits and that many Wikipedia space edits and this many FA contributions", when opposition is both predictable and regular for these reasons, it's a minimum standard. Is this good or bad? I can't say, I'm not really qualified. But how many of us, who have been administrators for any length of time (say a year) can look back at our successful RfA and say that same RfA would be a success under today's standards? There are probably quite a few of us who would not. As the community becomes more stringent about who they will make an admin, the number of admins is going to taper off. Just a fact of life. Shereth 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree. The number of promotions has gone up and down in the past, but it's never been this low. Earlier in the year, we had more than 30 a month. -- how do you turn this on 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is cyclic. I can't begin to guess as far as exactly why this month had such a low participation in RfA and such a low promotion rate. I think perhaps it deserves a wider look; I may decide to compile some statistics. That said, it is still my observation that the community has become more demanding of RfA candidates and that this will naturally result in a reduction in new administrators. Shereth 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I unique in feeling that the minimum standards have *declined*, and that they have been replaced by arbitrary numeric standards instead? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't miss that edit summary, which led to this interesting thread. Yes, standards have seriously declined, in direct proportion to an increase in IRC participation and award-seeking Myspacey editing. If it is true that the participation of FAC folks has changed the standards, that might be because they/we saw FAC and other content review processes (more particularly, GAN and DYK) being used to try to rack up Myspace awards on the admin-coached track to RfA, backlogging processes with deficient nominations in the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed a decrease in arbitrary number !voting in the past few months, as editors are (rightfully) pounced upon when they decide based on thresholds. the skomorokh 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ohhhh cool. Can we tack on a requirement that admins must be ace mediators too? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is that standards are raising higher than candidates can possibly keep up. Back at the beginning of the year, what was it - 3 months and 1000 edits? [ Look at it now - 18 months and 10,000 edits? Sweet Mary mother of Jesus husband of Joseph but not the sister of Mary Magdelene. Or whatever Butters said. Tan | 39 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The higher the standards, the more qualified the successful candidates will be. The more qualified, the less likely they will be to make bad decisions. The fewer bad decisions, the less waste of community time in fixing them. The real problem is the nature of the standards, not their height. I do have a standard that the admin must show some sign of competence as mediator. Of course, that's harder to evaluate than counting edits or FACs. DGG (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some stats

I took a look at the number of nominations vs. the number of successful nominations since September 2004. There's some interesting trends to be seen.

  • September 2008 saw the lowest number of new RfA nominations (26) since March of 2005.
  • This follows a precipitous drop in RfA participation over the last year. November 2007 saw a record (103); seven of the 10 following months saw drops in participation.
  • Prior to April of this year, RfA participation had not fallen below 50 nominations since June of 2005.
  • September 2008 also saw the lowest success rate among RfAs (23.08%) in the entire data set.
  • The success rate of RfAs has been below 40% since March of 2008. Contrast this with the fact that the success rate of RfAs never fell below 40% from the beginning of modern RfAs until February 2006.

've also attached a graphical representation of the total number of RfA's versus the success rate. The data points are a 6 month running to help smooth the curve out a bit but it maintains the integrity of the trends. It is pretty evident that we are seeing a fairly rapid drop in both the rate of new nominations and the rate at which nominations pass. This would seem to indicate the problem is twofold: first, something is causing editors to become increasingly less interested in running for administrator; secondly, the rate at which our nominees are promoted has taken a nosedive. The only logical conclusion is that either the quality of our nominees have taken a massive dip, or the bar at which we set adminship has skyrocketed.

Thoughts? Shereth 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this useful information, especially the graph. I do think though that it's not that candidates are getting worse, but rather standards are increasing. I don't know why they are, but even though they have been (naturally), it's never been the case where less than 40% of nominations are promoted. It's unacceptable to be honest. -- how do you turn this on 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
As an observer of this process (obviously, my interest is higher than normal this week), I need a history lesson: did this process start in September 2004? Was there a feeling prior to September 2004 that more people needed to become admins, but no one knew the right way to go about it?—Kww(talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There were still RfA's back in early '04. September is an arbitrary cutoff because that's where the archive page stops tallying the success vs. failures and I didn't want to manually tally them. I believe it was mid 2003 when the switch from the mailing-list system to a more formal RfA process began. Shereth 20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, armed with that knowledge, two statements:
  1. Something happened in the summer of 2005 that created a fundamental shift in the nomination rate. People that were here then should rack their brains to figure out what.
  2. Success rate is positively correlated to nomination rate, which I find surprising. What it suggests is that when pickings are slim, people are inclined to be harsher on the candidates that do present themselves. That, unfortunately, suggests a harsh base electorate. That model would suggest that there is a decent size group of voters that basically votes no, and that group has a constant interest level. Other voters are attracted when friends and colleagues are nominated, and, while they are here, they are more inclined to vote positively on the remaining candidates than that core group is. Do you have enough data to crunch that you could prove that hypothesis right or wrong? Can you plot, for example, the number of voters/RFA? The number of voters per month that also voted in the previous two months?—Kww(talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Whew, that'd take some doing. I could write a bot to dig out all of that info and crunch it but it will take a while - you'd have to be patient :) I'd also like to point out that it's possible that, rather than the success rate being a function of nomination rate, what if nomination rate is a function of success rate? When the majority of nominations are passing, new ones come in easier, but as the success rate drops people are less willing to be put through the grinder and then the nomination rate follows suit. Just a thought. Shereth 21:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Certainly could be true. If that's true, you would find that the ratio of voters to repeat voters didn't have any relationship to success rates. If the first hypothesis was true, the success rate would have a positive correlation.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
As someone who maintains the cemetery, my guess is that three processes are operating recently:
1) There is currently a low in the population of editors looking to become admins.
2) There has been one of the regular pendulum swings by the RFA regulars to be very cautious. Since RFA regulars are also likely to follow arb cases and the AN boards, it would be interesting to try to correlate the RFA record with arb cases, admin desysops, and AN board drama. Simply put, I think that RFA tightens up in the aftermath of admin controversy, and I also suspect that there is a cumulative effect in the minds of long-term regulars. In 2005, there were far fewer cautionary tales than there are now. Looking at the chart and the list of former admins, the long-term drop in successful nominations, which takes off at the end of 2005/beginning of 2006, correlates with four involuntary desysops. Perhaps this stretch is most responsible for entrenching a more cautious mindset that has held through to the present (with some wiggles)?
3) The nominations that get snowed or tagged with "not now" have dropped dramatically. If these nonviable candidates are dropped from RFA data, the curve evens out somewhat.
So, to summarize: I suspect nominations are down because there are both fewer interested candidates and fewer nonviable nominations (snows, notnow), and success rate is down because the mood at RFA has had one of its periodic swings to greater caution. J. Spencer (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Two more graphs:

  • Number of successful and unsuccessful nominations
    Number of successful and unsuccessful nominations
  • Number of desysops against success rate
    Number of desysops against success rate

Note that while the number of nominations has been declining for the whole of 2008 the number of unsuccessful nominations actually remained fairly constant until quite recently (when it started to decline). I've done the other graph to see if there is a relationship between the number of desysops and the RFA success rate. There is a relationship, but it's not a very strong one (as the correlation coefficient on the graph shows). Hut 8.5 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Kww's postulated existence of a decent size group of voters that basically votes no, is contradicted by the many RfA which pass with almost no negative votes. Perhaps there are people who only vote if they want to oppose. I am not sure that isn't a viable strategy for the normal WPedian, to cut down on time at an auxiliary process: let the regulars decide unless it seems that something is really wrong. DGG (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Coming into this late, but I'm not suprised at all to see the "% success" and "willingness to submit" as negatively correlated. RfA is a public airing of all and sundry issues anyone may have had with you. For good or ill, this is an uncomfortable process. As this process becomes less likely to result in getting the mop, I would be surprised if peopled didn't respond to incentives and accept nominations at a lower rate. Some very good points are made below about huggle/rollback being a big part of the higher standards and lower need for the mop. but we can't overlook the personal aspect of things. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Less trusting, leaving project after failing RfA?

I wonder if it's coincidence that the nosedive in both the number of people running and the success rate happens in February, when Archtransit is desysopped and banned. He'd passed RfA with 100% support (and a nomination from myself). I get the feeling people are less trusting since then. WJBscribe (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if you mentioned Archtransit to people who run for adminship now, its unlikely they'll know who you are talking about. Many of the candidates running now were only small-time contributors to the project when that whole incident happened. Caulde 13:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It's true, but the current potential admin nominees may still see the potential aftermath of Archtransit, namely that RfA participants may be less trusting in current RfAs. I'm not personally sure how much of a change has actually occurred, but you don't necessarily have to be familiar with the cause itself in order to see the effects. ~ mazca t | c 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm also wondering how many people do actually attempt to run for adminship a second or third time. I know of a handful of people that have retired from the project shortly after failing at RfA - is this a trend that we should be worried about? Gazimoff 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add a fourth mandatory question to RfA: "If this fails, will you still stick around?" This actually is a fairly serious suggestion. No offense to our RfA candidates, but if they can't handle RfA, it's unlikely that they could handle being an admin. GlassCobra 13:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but everyone would answer "yes." iMatthew (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps some candidates simply haven't thought of the possibility of their RfA failing, especially if it's for reasons that they strongly disagree with. The question would have to be more specific, obviously. Or perhaps added to the RfA creation page...hm. Thoughts, anyone? GlassCobra 13:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe something like - "Can you please explain a time where you were criticized in any way, and how you handled it"? iMatthew (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I can understand people leaving. It's an extremely stressful experience. In my case, I knew going in that there was a group of people that would sooner die than see me become an admin, and, much as I expected, they are voting against me for precisely for the reason I expected them to. I was hoping they weren't quite such a vocal group, but it doesn't really surprise me that they are. Even with my low expectations, it's been amazingly discouraging (I still tell myself that there's a possibility the next 120 editors in a row will go into the support column, but I think that's a remote possibility). For someone that didn't realize that there were people that opposed them, and find themselves opposed by a broad spectrum of editors, it has to be devastating. Even if they answer that they would stay, they may find in the end that the joy has gone out of it. The community aspect of Wikipedia is important, and being rejected by the community stings, be it a physical community or a virtual one.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree with iMatthew, ask people how they will react to criticism and most will only tell you the positive stuff or the negative stuff but swear that they have changed now. SoWhy 13:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you should take all the blame, WJBscribe. :-) The FM-C68-SV-JzG case also put a damper on enthusiasm for adminship. The way out of this is to establish a community desysoping process. If we make it easier to remove bad admins, and increase oversight of admins by the community, I think we have more assumption of good faith at RFA, and then more people willing to stand for RFA. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what we should do is learn from the reasons people have left the project for reasons other than real life etc. and try to rectify their concerns. This includes admins who have left messages on their page saying the project is this and that etc. Wikipedia should always try to get better and as Pedro stated above, the number of active admins has virtually stayed the same this past yr. Whether an admins duty is too taxing, too tiresome bothersome etc. and people would like to stay away from all of that and just contribute without having the mope in their hands is an issue like more that is being discussed at the Wikipedia:RfA Review but its good something like this has come up so people can share their broad views right away on whatever it is thats on their mind. 211.30.12.197 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jehochman about a dysysoping process. I have seen three excellent editors who have refused to be administrators because of the current politics going on. There are some administrators that bring more heat then light to articles because of thinking or maybe just acting like being an administrator is more powerful than it is supposed to be. There has been a lot of ligitamate concerns over some administrators and so far everything said is ignore or turns into major drama. This kind of thing doesn't show editors any reasons to become an administrator when there is so much drama seen with a few administrators which really effect all it seems esp. when the administrator accuses other administrators of stalking or worse. I also think that administrators should be required to do all of their discussions on wiki and not off site and then come here saying there is a consensus to do something but a lot of editors don't know the story. This back door policy and apparent secrecy decisions being made seem way to political for a lot of editors and thus they are refusing to become administrators. Anyways, this is what I have been seeing lately and I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to get into the politics of being an administrator. People are here to write an encyclopedia and not here, hopefully, for politics and favoritism. Just my opinion, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually doubt Archtransit-episode had any long-term effect on RfA. Granting of Rollback-right started in January, and I think that's a far bigger effect, combined with increasing Huggle usage. A year ago, a vandal whacker could march to RfA with 100 or more reports to AIV, and he/she would receive support !votes – because clearly having an admin rollback and a block button would make them more efficient. Now, the RfA would be closed per WP:SNOW within couple hours. Part of the reason is that they already have rollback, so there is less need for tools, and partly it's just the general inflation of edit counts. Vandal fighting admins are a dying breed... and to make things worse, if an editor is interested in adminship, pretty much the worst thing they could do is reverting vandals. A bit like socking in fact: if you stick around long enough, there is a possibility that !voters may ignore it. Fire up Huggle or Twinkle and you are shooting yourself in foot. And vandal whacking is something most of the editors here have done at some stage. It takes absolutely insane amounts of reverting or couple FAs to squeak through RfA. Few thousand reverts is probably enough to brand an editor as hugglebot. – Sadalmelik ☎ 17:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion a lot of people don't go up a second time due to ridiculousness such as on iMatthew's rfa. A pileon happened there because he answered a question in a controversial way, then someone disagreed. Then when he changed his opinion because apparently that was how it should be, people accused him of only saying what we want to hear. Sorry for the bias in my opinion, but that boy ain't right PXK T /C 23:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_145&oldid=1148680500"