Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Voorts 115 7 3 94 Open 21:06, 8 November 2024 4 days, 5 hours no report

Something radical

Ok, so, most people familiar with the RFA process are aware of the fact that it is generally agreed on that some kind of reform in our process is needed. Most of these people are also aware of the cited reasons for these concerns. For this reason, I won't linger here.

What this thread really regards is a chance for us to reform this process, often seen as a corrupted, misguided and generally a lot worse than it really could be. We've tried various things before; an RfC has even been opened on the problem.

But what I want to suggest is something more concentrated, more regulated, and something that, beforehand, is guaranteed to be followed through with. I am proposing that a solid block of time, perhaps a week, be used and dedicated to the discussion of proposals for reformation of various aspects of RFA. Each proposal, as made by us, the community, will be allowed its own share of time and review, and each proposal can be commented upon, by us, individually, systematically, and in a queued like order. This will ensure that no one proposal is overseen, and that all possible views are looked at and examined.

After a week (or such a designated time), we'll spend another few days looking over the results. And any proposal that has gained a significant amount of agreement, whether the proposal relates to the text on the RFA template header or the entire essence of the RFA process itself, will be followed through with, and implemented as articulated in the proposal.

In this systematic and careful way, I think we may just be able to make some positive changes. The RfC was a mess; comments were everywhere, it was impossible to see general trend of view, various views were missed altogether, and nothing came it. If we structure a process leading to reform properly and with some special planning (rather than simply conforming with a much used and specifically moulded forum like RfC), I think we can make some difference. I think a process as described in these last paragraphs could be an answer.

Obviously, there are many variables to consider. Among the ones most warranting of discussion is the issue of how consensus will be derived from The Week, and in each of its proposals. Well, general discussion hasn't, in past (the RfC, this very talk page), come to any gain or substance. It is just too sketchier a job to attempt determine a general trend in discussions regarding proposals. And, even when a rough trend is seen and acted upon, ire from others participating in the discourse results, and things fall apart. I think that it may have come to the stage where we may need to vote (or !vote, as some of my colleagues call it) on these proposals, rather than just comment. In this way, I suppose, each proposal could be like its own "RFA', if you will allow me to make a connection there. The proposal will be stated, questions about the proposal will follow, and, below, a (!)vote on it can be had. After that particular proposal has enjoyed its share of time in the spotlight, we can promptly move on to the next batch. (Yes, batch. We might need to have more than one proposal on the pedestal at a time, considering the sheer magnitude of proposals that would likely be made. Maybe three or four at any one time...?) After the time is over, we can look at how the proposal went, (!)vote-wise, and a bureaucrat (I'm just assuming that they should be the ones to judge the consensus in each proposal's (!)vote.) will decide the consensus, and then, as necessary, things will be moved towards implementing the change as specified in the proposal.

Another possible question is this: what kind of things could be proposed? After thinking, it becomes obvious that we cannot make a proposal regarding for instance "everyone lightening up when they comment at RFA, being more positive". Its just not possible to follow up on, even if its a great idea. SO proposals should not be vague, but implementable and regarding things that we can, in the short-term at least, change.

In summary, I think the above idea is one that will have some initial flaws. I am not disputing that, I openly admit to it. But I think a structure, a process, similar to this idea may be our only answer. The time has come for the half-hearted and infirm disucssions hade here, on WT:RFA, to end. The time has ended for whining and hot air. Instead of just talking about change, this can be an opportunity for us to discuss it with guarantee of follow through in a definite and rigidly structured forum.

What does the community think of this proposal? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one disagree with your opening assumption, especially following this. Also, your essay demands that it absolutely must change following the week-of-a-million-repeated-proposals, and that is an inadequate and unfair basis to begin on. Splash - tk 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that part of it with any degree of delight. I did it with desparation. Guarantee may be our last option. Other polls and the like have not come to any good because no guarantee of change was made, the comments were not acted upon, some were not even given proper review. Unless we do something that is the be all and end all, I foresee an endless cycle of procrastination and stagnation, and an inability to rise from the rut. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The only way I can see something like this working would be to run it like an arbcom election, with each proposal being a candidate. We'd take "nominations" for a week or so, any proposal to reform RfA is eligible, so long as it has an advocate. After that week, the candidates are announced and the community can question and discuss each. After that week/two weeks, we open voting, and any registered user can support or oppose each suggestion. I'd recommend that users be able to vote for all (or none) of the choices. At the end, we would either have a clear option with a good consensus of support, or we would have no clear option.

It might well be more trouble than it's worth - but if you are serious about giving each proposal its due consideration, then I can't think of a better way. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on RfA (and others may share this too) is that the process is fine as it is. It may go under some small, minute changes in the future, but I don't think any major revamping is needed. Looking at the relevant poll, you can see that no one's putting up much on the process, but rather, the users and the culture need to be changed. Examples of comments pertaining to RfA are: "too many optional questions," "like a popularity contest," or "people's standards are too high." I believe the general community would concur with these problems. These sort of things can't be changed by reforming process. We have to change. Sure, you may say that this proposal is too vague, but I can't think of any better way to solve the "reform" problem. Singularity 02:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think something like this [where each idea gets its fair share of consideration] is excellent. Something needs to be done about RfA, the current system is becoming unwieldy and is slowly CREEPing towards a meltdown. I agree that the users/culture need to change, but hopefully changing the process will help such a change. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:45, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I made some comments to this effect on the Village Pump (Proposals) a few weeks ago, suggesting a similar, but more drawn-out process. They seemed to be mainly ignored. The key comment I made is that it is arbitrary to prefer the status quo over some proposal and if, with approval voting, we find that the status quo loses to some other system, the status quo should be replaced, supermajority or not. — Werdna talk 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't want the upheaval of 'learning' a new process or getting used to it. Also, looking at this cynically, it is very possible that people think that they are more likely to pass RfA under the current system, although this is rather closed-minded, seeing as no-one knows what any new proposal will comprise. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:44, May 16, 2008 (UTC)

Supports-because-of the-Oppose votes

How does the community (you) feel about support votes which state little more than they are supporting because of opposes that they view as bad-faith. I'm mixed with these. If one is blatant in that it is the only reason they are supporting then I think it is clearly wrong, but what about the more ambiguous ones? Since it is acceptable for a support vote to not give any reasoning, can a support vote lose validity because of faulty/selective reasoning?

I thought of this after participating in and reading Philosopher's recent RfA, which passed. Among other things, there was some disagreement over the now infamous "Q4" and his answer. Without going into specifics, which I'm sure many of you are aware of anyways, there were opposes for this answer. Seemingly, there were also supports for either the answer, or the fact some editors disagreed with the concerns over the answer. I went neutral, then oppose early on, and also was involved in a discussion over the answer which I then removed due to undue early emphasis(with permission from the editor I was discussing with). However, the topic of the answer, among other different opposes, lasted during the entire RfA and it seemed many were drawn to the disagreements.

I feel this particular RfA is good to look at under the microscope for many reasons, one important one being the question -- Are more editor's drawn to to vote in a close RfA because of their increased "power" to affect the outcome, or because they dislike the tone of the opposition? All can be discusses, of course, but I want to know if it would be acceptable to further prod support votes that appear to be responding to oppose votes in some way. Since it seems we are not supposes to prod the regular "Support per nom" votes, I wonder how the community would feel about this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This has happened in many particular instances before: example, the Kurt Weber oppose on "suicide". Rudget (Help?) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Valid points Gwynand, but it wouldn't be fair to put "Philosopher the editor" under the microscope because of "Philosopher the RFA candidate's" RFA. That was a brutal RFA. Besides your deleted discussion, there were three other extended, heated discussions that still have trails of destruction on several talkpages, including my own. "Support because you opposed" is weak, I agree, and can be addressed, but I would say let's let Philosopher get on with things and not use him or his RfA as an example of anything, ever. Or at the very least, without an "I don't mind" from Philosopher, to be fair. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, to clear things up: I don't mean this has anything to do with Philosopher himself or his +admin. My oppose vote was what it was, but Philosopher is in no way an editor who I am worried that just got the mop, even if I personally disagreed at this time. In order to discuss the topic I brought up, I could have provided diffs of specific editors who made such votes, which surely would have seemed accusatory. I thought the best way to do it would be to take a look at a recent RfA where I noticed it. It was in no way unique to Philosopher's, and I waited until his RfA was closed to bring this discussion here.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the "more editors are drawn to vote in a close RFA" is valid — if I see an RFA for someone I've never come across and they're ahead 40-1 or opposed 3-10, I'm not going to spend the time it takes to review their contribs since it won't make a difference. The turnout in real-world elections is always higher in marginal contests for exactly the same reason. — iridescent 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, it doesn't seem to make sense to support just because someone opposed for a "bad" reason. On the other hand, if you assume 75% needed for passage of the RfA (yes, I know that oversimplifies things), it would take three supports to counter the one oppose. On the other hand, you'd hope the bureaucrat would ignore any "bad" opposes - and the support-because-of-the-oppose supports as well. The end result would be the same in any case - whether the "bad" reason is neutralized because of support-because-of-the-oppose supports or because the bureaucrat agreed that it was a "bad" reason to oppose, it's still neutralized. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<Off-topic comment: Thanks for the moral support guys. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I brought up a similar topic about Supporters and Opposers responding indirectly to one another above. My take is fairly simple. Stop it. Supporters should not be supporting simply because a candidate is receiving flak. However, that being said, if the support indicates that they are noticing a calm demeanor and resolve despite the flak, that's a little more valid and should be considered. The two sides just need to stop the insidious and subtle warring. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, it's probably hard to make people not support or oppose for any reason. The fact of the matter is, you can support for any reason you want... if it's some insane reason... then just don't type the reason. It's virtually the same for oppose... maybe you are opposing over not liking them because they are Canadian... just type in oppose and give some other reason. My concern is people blatantly admitting they are supporting just because they are against the opposition. There is little we can do to stop supporting for bad reasons, but I'd like to discourage the notion that it is acceptable to put a support in with this reasoning. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no "rule" that says a support !vote cannot be questioned/queried/challenged. Recently, I saw this (not to pick on any one editor, I very much respect this particular one), to which I responded with this. Quickly became a non issue (although that Rfa ultimately failed). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly harmful to the RfA process for someone to give a "bad" reason for their opinion. It's just a waste of a !vote. (This is always assuming that the 'crats can and do decide which !votes to weight/scale/ignore based on rationale. If we don't trust the 'crats to do so, we have a different problem.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that sometimes that the vote is guised because it is civil and well-written, but in reality the vote is only responding to the oppose vote and doesn't really deal with the candidate. Is the vote harmful to the process? Well, maybe no more than any other vote, but it leads me to question -- what exactly we are trying to find a consensus for? Sometimes it appears to be a consensus that people are fed-up of Kurt votes, etc, but not that user:x is qualified. Furthermore, with all this talk about 'crat weighing votes... when was the last time a candidate didn't pass who met the stated threshold from the pure vote?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Supporters can definitely respond indirectly to opposers though. IMO Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus is a great example of that. (another highlight of a bad oppose reason) It just should not be the only reason to support. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. To paraphrase (awkwardly to the point of ridiculousness, but they you go) two knee-jerk reactions don't make a considered opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Three lefts do. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I think it's important that we do argue with the !votes we truly think are wrongheaded. If the 'crats don't have enough discretion to ignore them, and if we're to avoid that pile-on stampede of people who (even granting all the good faith in the world) will sometimes just go for the easy choice, then it's up to the people contributing to the discussion to try and set things right if it's in danger of going down the wrong track. Is there a better way? Maybe the numbered-list format is counterproductive here - perhaps an AfD-style chronological list would be more suited. It certainly could help to remove that oh-so-convenient tally at the top. Okay, done spouting random ideas. You can start reading again :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit late to this, but I have recently supported a candidate partly on the basis that I concur with the examples given by some opposers - but drew a different conclusion regarding the candidates suitability from them. Where one person, for example, may consider a tendency to get overly involved in minutiae as a reason to oppose another may think this an admirable trait in a candidate. However, supporting simply because some persons are opposing or for the reasons they gave is as bad as opposing on a similar criteria. I like to the think that the 'crat disregards such "reflex" votes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Shuffling extended Support/Oppose/Neutral conversations to the RFA talk page

While I agree it's probably a good idea to shuffle extended conversations that may be peripheral to the particular candidate under discussion to the talk page, but in cases where this is necessary, the advisement to move these conversation should probably not come from the candidate themselves as it presents a COI issue. xenocidic (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, if the conversation is pertinent to the matter at hand (the RfA). However where a conversation has moved onto a subject other than the RfA it clearly needs to be moved to talk (or somewhere, depending on it's nature). Personally, I would find that a canadidate who is willing to "grab the horns", and polietly move an irrelevant conversation mid-RfA, would be exhibiting the firmness of purpose that we would want in an administrator. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can definitly see candidates who could do that gracefully... but at the same time, I could see it being take as attempting to move possibly negative comments about themselves off of their RfA page for their benefit (whether or not that was true). -- Natalya 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my train of thought. xenocidic (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the candidates (or even the nominators) should generally refrain from moving "extended discussions". I'm all in favor of moving "extended discussions" when they are distractions, and regardless of the good intentions of a candidate to do so, it would likely garner further opposes, perhaps unfairly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's simple. If a conversation has become no longer relevant to an RFA any editor can move it. If that editor happens to be the candidate all power to them. I agree, self evidently, that for the candidate to move a relevant conversation would be a very bad decision and one that would garner opposes. I also beleive that for a candidate to move an irrelevant conversation will probably garner opposes. However, in the second (hypothetical) case, the opposers would be wrong. WP:BOLD is one of the first things editors encounter. It's the spirit of this work. If a candidate sees an irrelevant conversation has developed on their RFA they are both entitled and should remove it. If that gains opposes then it's not the candidates fault, and I trust the bureuacrats to weight opposes based on such an event accordingly. (again - note this is hypothetical) Pedro :  Chat  19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense Pedro (you usually do:-). However "relevant v. irrelevant is subjective. If someone is making what they feel to be relevant comments in the oppose section, and the candidate removes them, even with good intentions and good faith and peace love and happiness, it will garner more opposes, and more drama, and more meta talk about "what is relevant anyway" and its ilk. Better to leave it to involved parties. For example, I've seen Gwynand, after posting several times in the oppose section with another editor, very graciously approach the other editor on her talk, come to an agreement, and quietly remove the extended discussion. Highly commendable (I don't remember the RfA, sorry no diffs). If a candidate had "decided" that the extended discussion at that point was "irrelevant", I can imagine that both Gwynand (and the other editor) would rightfully object, and perhaps embolden their opposes, or switch to oppose. My general feel is that a candidate can say "please take this elsewhere", or "please don't fight", or "please go away" even, but removing it would too easily be seen as contentious. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RBAGs

Could an uninvolved or less involved than myself party close the remaining RBAGS. The % required is 65%. The crats I've asked aren't really interested in doing it. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OverlordQ's was closed by an IP, so I've removed it from the page and noted his reconfirmation on WP:BAG but I can't close Ilmari Karonen's as I have commented in it. --Chris 05:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've thought and read over the other nomination (Ilmari Karonen's), and even with a 67% support (that's technically a success), it's really borderline. It was closed by me for a short time before I decided to reopen it. How should the nomination be closed? Singularity 06:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of the things desired, was for a crat to close those. I'd suggest we wait on that I guess. SQL^{Query me!} 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Ilmari Karonen's be "restarted" at WT:BAG, which seems to have become the de facto location for these. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, although in the interests of avoiding double-jeopardy, the votes should transfer over at well. MBisanz ^talk 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to just notify people who participated that it's back up, since some may wish to reconsider an early support made before the information leading to the oppose (for example) was brought up. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was more or less what I'd been thinking of doing myself. I'm not sure if I shouldn't delay the "restart" until the ongoing discussion at WT:BOTS is over, though. Particularly seeing as there are currently eight nominations ongoing at WT:BAG (although that could also be seen as a reason for not delaying). Anyway, I think I'll just go and withdraw my RfBAG for now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who are interested there is a proposal at WT:BOT for bots to be request flags on the rfa page --Chris 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In before massive outcry. This is a horrible idea that will result in a lot of useful image-bots being shut down, and a lot of useless/damaging bots getting free reign. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This bot lacks Featured Article creation and has not clerked Renames :). MBisanz ^talk 08:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, weirder shit has happened. (About moving part of the bot approval process to this page, btw. I'm starting to sound a bit like Kim Bruning, and that's scary!) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

User:I'm On Base has been banned for socking.

His RfA and RfB pages could probably be speedily deleted, but I thought I'd note it here first. - jc37 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Where was the community consensus for a ban (link available?)? His talk says blocked for two weeks and the log says indef. He may come back and contribute positively, who knows. Wouldn't a past RfB serve like the rest of the failed? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read Netsnipe's comments (and the block log) again. - jc37 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Yeah we should probably delete them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The deed is done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Requirements

what are the requirements for a administrator? Save The HumansTalk :) 14:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors' opinions on this vary a lot, and there is no fixed set of standards. You can have a look at Wikipedia:Admin coaching, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for. Hut 8.5 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for enquiring, Save the Humans. Hut 8.5 provides some very useful links, which I suggest you have a look at for further information. If you are interested in becoming an administrator, I would also suggest that it's much too soon: you may wish to try out admin. coaching (check out Hut's links), and having a browse through the currently active rfas, to get a feel for what's required. Regards, Anthøny 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in with what I feel is some useful info. There is always editor review to receive feedback from your Wikipedian peers, and also the work-in-progress Admin Mentoring. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the requirements are constantly under flux. What is expected today may be different from what is expected 3 months from now or what was expected 3 months ago. It all depends on who is active in the discussions and what they are looking for. For example, right now the push to have 100 XfD's for a candidate are almost non-existent. Many of the candidates that I've nom'd recently do not participate in XfD's... but around Christmas time if you weren't active on XfD's you might not have bothered applying. There were also some other abstract notions that were pushed at various times---balance in edits, a certain number of mainspace edits, a certain number of talk page comments, etc. A few months ago demonstrated policy knowledge was key. Right now the buzz word is "trust." Are you trusted by the community (which IMHO is how it should be)? Are you trusted by the community not to mess up with the tools? To use them responsibly?Balloonman (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. That's always been part of everyone's requirements. I think that right now, people are putting too much weight on mainspace article building. I absolutely don't have anything wrong with that, but I feel that opposition based on mainspace editing has gone to the point where you cannot feel comfortable being in an RFA without having had a GA. People have different talents. We have had great vandal fighting and wikignome administrators, some who've never written at least a DYK. We also have people who write FAs but can't be civil. Now, we're pushing away those who make these cleanup edits under the pretense of "edit count inflation." Article writing is not the only place you can get experience, contrary to what many RFA voters I've seen think. bibliomaniac15 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Bibliomaniac here. Balloonman, you're absolutely correct about one thing - it should be about trust, almost invariably. However, sadly, that is not the case. Oppositions have such disparity it's tough to iterate the general requirements. Let's just say this. Don't apply if you have less than 4000 edits total, no participation in WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:AN etc..etc, go through admin coaching, have a block in the last 6 months, or find a user who will provide more than three diffs pointing out a few errors in judgment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you do realize that voicing your complaints about the RfA system and people's criteria for oppose will ultimately have a negative effect on your RfA should you decide to run again in the future. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Then there are many people who shouldn't run for RfA in the future. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you meant by that. I do not think that you shouldn't run for RfA again, and nor would I oppose you if you did (barring some unforeseen circumstance, you're pretty much guaranteed a support from me). I have simply observed that ever since your RfA failed you've been making a lot of comments around RfA related discussions that simply convey your idea of the system as broken. I merely believe that making these comments will cause certain people to oppose you. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made similar negative comments about RfA prior to my last application, so that isn't entirely true. Regardless, my point was not to complain about RfA really, but, to demonstrate to an editor unfamiliar with the process, that there are varied reasons for opposes, so it's nearly impossible to foresee an outcome and to really give a straight answer. All of the other places that detail the general criteria/guidelines have been outlined above (one or two by myself). That's all I was getting at. But duly noted about your recommendation/opinion : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom is only pointing out what everybody already knows... the RfA process is broken. Unfortunately, there isn't a better solution out there. The example I've given before. If a person runs for RfA, and a strong oppose shows up early in the !voting, that strong oppose can essentially kill the RfA. The same person runs for RfA, and the same strong oppose shows up, but there are already 20 !votes in support, then the same oppose that killed the first candidate might have little to no effect on the second---despite the candidate being the same hypothetical one, with the same issues, opposed by the same hypothetical person. The only difference being WHEN the oppose was cast. If timing can make that big of a difference, then something is wrong.Balloonman (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than get mired deep in the philosophical discussion, I'll merely answer the editor's question by saying:

It varies for each individual, but essentially it concerns the trust of the community: That the candidate will use the tools and handle the associated responsibilities, both in a trustworthy and responsible manner.

And here's a link my own personal criteria:

User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria

I hope this helps answer your question : ) - jc37 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jc is right. I can sum it up in one word. Disparity. There are no hard-line requirements per se, just general guidelines that most editors like to see. Everyone is different though. Hell, people support for odd/disparate reasons too. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My (much more fun) criteria is at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reopenings

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zginder was closed per SNOW, then more people commented as it was closed, then it was reopened 20 some hours later. How should such a thing be handled in counting comments and deciding when it should be finally close (ie. do we add back the time it wasn't transcluded). MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

After thinking it over, I rescind my earlier opinion about reopening it. The issues or allegations could have been addressed on another forum, preferably the candidate's talk page. Anyway, it should probably be closed after it was initially opened though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely after, since it was possibly the reason or part of the reason for the request to reopen. Although this RfA does need to be closed again per snow. I don't feel comfortable doing it myself because it was retranscluded by an admin. Opposes are 3 to 1 last time I checked and in all probability will fail (given there isn't a mass pile on of 100 support votes right after my timestamp :). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone said a while back, SNOW's are best used as mercy techniques. If the candidate in question wants the process to run to the full end, I believe we should let it do so. -- Avi (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

True. :) Although, it's common practice to close RfA's highly likely to fail. They are usually closed out when advice, suggestions and discussion have become repetitive. Such as this one. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

True too :D. However, I think it is unfair to the candidate to snowball it over their protestations, especially with more than 1 support. (See point 3 in question 6, in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2#Optional questions 5–7 which is closing in around an hour :) ). I think that for more people to attempt an RfA, and as often as not, be required to re-attempt an RfA, they need to feel as they have some control over the process. Not to mention that the SNOW clause is an essay, not a guideline, and even it says that a reasonably raised objection usually indicates that the SNOW was premature :) -- Avi (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I take the opinion that sometimes, people (editors, users, etc.) do not know the things that they do, when they do them. And often times this is the case. My suggestion was more to save face, rather than delimit a candidate (not that you implied). And your RfB statement reads like an actual legal document (see section 7, article 4 dash 10 and so on). ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe I now hold the record for most "optional" questions asked to a non-bot candidate (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot which had 34). And as for the legalese, well, you'll have to speak to my lawyer about that -- Avi (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections regularly have 30+ questions per candidate. bibliomaniac15 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Too true too. I was referring to an RfX, but you are absolutely correct. -- Avi (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your edit summary, I think any process where 15 people can oppose NYB just for moral reasons is pretty much harder than RFA. bibliomaniac15 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, which is why, as hard as RfAs and RfBs are, the ArbCom elections are tougher, in my opinion. Both tougher to pass as well as tougher on the candidate. -- Avi (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions: regardless of the tally, unless they editor has a sub-1k edit count, a non-bureaucrat should not close an RfA prematurely without first consulting the candidate. While I have no doubt as to Andonic's good intentions, it was very premature. The whole point of snow-closing newbie RfAs is (in my opinion) to save them from a potentially disheartening blow (to the point of them not coming back), which is not something that is as likely to happen with someone that's been around for a while (having been around for two years, I'd consider Zgrinder seasoned enough not to worry about).
Long story short, let the 'crats handle it; there's no rush to close RfAs just because they're looking horrible, and the candidate should have at least been asked beforehand. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.... non-crat closures should be rare unless the candidate has indicated a desire to have it closed or is COMPLETELY out of touch with expectations.Balloonman (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why

Does it seem, that once there is one oppose, everyone else decides to pile on more? Do you people get some kind of enjoyment at seeing good people, such as User:Wisdom89 fail an RFA? --143.43.8.55 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and thank you for the kind words. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The same reason that, when someone tries a new ice cream flavor and likes it, everyone else gives it a try. "Hey, this is good!" Analogies aside, if the opposer gives a good reasoning, other people are bound to notice and agree.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There will always be pile on opposes. Sometimes, they're excellent reasons, and editors will agree or share the same mentality, sometimes people cut corners and don't do their homework. Who knows. The one thing that bothers me is this. Can people stop mentioning my name during RfA? (I'm not referring to this thread). Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the first couple of opposers give valid points, others may simply agree. However, some pile-on opposers may just not want to sift through a whole ton of contribs, or maybe some are jumping on a bandwagon. It's hard to say why people do things. Useight (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fads come and go. Some time ago, there was the edit count paranoia, then we had the Wikipedia space thing, and now it's the article space work frenzy. Who knows what will show up next? bibliomaniac15 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal space edits, maybe? Now, that'd really make RfA hell.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I have 100 or so portal edits, all to Portal:Fish/Quiz. bibliomaniac15 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How about pre-adminship media-wiki talk space edits? (grin) - jc37 04:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Evil... EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that could be worse would be pre-admin media-wiki edits. Impossible, perhaps, but not if you game the system. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It was possible to get non-admin MediaWiki edits when MediaWiki:Recentchangestext was unprotected which it seems was before software changes in late December 2004. And before June 2004, the MediaWiki namespace could be used like the template namespace, but all of the history from those times has been moved into the template namespace besides MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. So pre-admin MediaWiki edits are possible with a time machine. Graham87 04:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the 1FA fad. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget the "cool down block" fad. Tiptoety ^talk 04:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So I take it RfA is phasic, just like virtually every societal circumstance. Generations for example. This is what happens when you have a collective of different minds. It's inevitable. Wasn't around for the FA fad, but I've seen the project, mainspace, power hunger, and now admin coaching fads. PH seems to be gaining popularity. Man, the crats really have their work cut out for them sifting through such a minefield. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I view not failing at least two prior RfA's as prima facie evidence the editor is not yet psychologically hardened enough to be an admin. I only failed one, but that was way back in 2007... since then we secretly agreed to peg the pass criteria of RfA to the price of oil, so it became neccesary to add the second failed RfA as a requirement. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the best chance for passing RFA/RFB is to create a time machine to take one back to, say, 2003-2005. Other than that, it's pretty much impossible without free gin and healthy bribes all around, unless you're an absolute angel. bibliomaniac15 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The "not supported by at least one WikiProject" was a persistent oppose for some time. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical questions

Now before we hear groans about "questions" being brought up (again), I'm wondering: Do we feel that specific example ("What if you encountered this:") hypothetical-type of questions are useful?

On one hand I might say "yes", because we learn at least that the condidate knows enough policy and convention to sidestep the questions. But, is this really useful? I'm sure that we all could come up with a myriad hypotheiticals.

Note that in the questions I typically ask candidates, I too have a hypothetical, but it's of the most generic type.

• 6. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A:

This is an encounter which addresses a generic situation an admin (and any active editor) may commonly face, regardless of their topical interest.

Some of these others get rather involved, and honestly, do we expect the candidate to be this experienced to pass? Or are these agenda questions in sheep's clothing? ("Will this candidate support or oppose something I may want or not want in the future?")

In addition, we seem to get questions related to some "Policy/process discussion of the week". If these are being debated philosophically, why should the candidate's candidacy fail based on a philosophical opinion which doesn't violate policy?

I'd like to request that we keep hypotheticals to the most general nature, so as to not bog down the candidate. Is there a chance we can find consensus on this? - jc37 04:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are many parameters to keep in mind when doing something like dispute mediation. Since each case will vary based on the personality of the disputers and the subject of the edit war, I think it would be best to use more precise examples so that it doesn't end up becoming confusing. bibliomaniac15 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is another weakness of hypothetical questions. How can the question be written without including all the information involved? And if the information is all included, how truly effective is the question? And if it's not (which is typical) how much better or worse is the question?

My point was that we should limit this to topic-free questions. For example, if the person has no interest in helping out at UAA, what good is asking about it? - jc37 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But UAA is still relevant to the user of admin tools, we can never be sure the user will stay away from there, and certainly the user will have to deal with some username vio throughout their admin career. Tiptoety ^talk 04:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone planning to spend alot of time at UAA should get a very-specific question, while someone who isn't should get a non-specific one, equivalent to a "just passing by and noticed your username" kind of scenario. And the same for 3RR and AfD, and stuff.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 04:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, in the last year and a half, I can't recall ever having done so myself. (UAA)

(Though I'm sure if I have someone will find "something" that I've forgotten and remind me.)

And legitimately how diverse of a representation of admins do you actually have there? And that's a single page.

So yes, I'll agree with Koji. Specific examples should be restricted to candidates expressing interest in such topical areas. - jc37 05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the only optional questions that should be asked are those that address specific concerns of the individual candidate... I hate the 20 questions that have arisen in recent RfAs.Balloonman (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. These generic questions, as well as the arbitrarily-specific questions, are just trial-by-ordeal. I have hopes that more-experienced RfA participant will show restraint when deciding whether to add their pet questions to the load, but people are proving me wrong. Splash - tk 13:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen. The plethora of questions I got on my first and second RfB were rather crippling; they took a fair amount of time to answer, and my wiki-editing came to a grinding halt, especially on the second one. I feel bad for RfA candidates that are getting inundated with questions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Such questions are usually performance art on the part of the questioner, wishing to demonstrate how amazing a question they can construct in the time available. They do not teach them or anyone else some critical fact that is determinative for adminship. People should stop asking them. Splash - tk 13:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. People complained (and oh, how the complained) when we had users asking trivial, short, five word answer questions like "when should a cool down block be used?", and when editors changed their ways and now as good questions that allow for the community to see how a candidate would handle specific situations we complain. If you do not like asking questions than don't, but I see no harm in a few editors asking specific question in which they feel they can get a better grasp of the candidate. Tiptoety ^talk 14:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical questions of a certain kind may be easy to handle in an RfA, but if they are a different kinds, then problems occur. For the purpose of the point I want to make, let us assume there are only two types: A and B. A hypothetical question which asks about a situation that would only require a single admin action after consideration of the context might fall into the first category (A). However, the kind of hypothetical question that asks about a situation that may extend over a period of time and require a number of interactions with others (B) would be more difficult to handle. This is because of the uncertain nature of the responses from others, and the variety and range of issues that need to be considered for each different reaction that could be encountered, many of which might require quite different subsequent action on the part of the candidate if they were an administrator dealing with it.

In essence, hypothetical questions of type B are merely the start of a means of seeing how the candidate would deal a problem requiring ongoing input. Similar kinds of situations are covered in various kinds of business simulations, wargaming, and role-playing games, etc. They specify a way of having something like a probationary period without the associated risks of having an untested person actually doing a job.

However, in order to handle hypothetical questions of type B more appropriately, one would almost certainly have to have a set up radically different from the way an RfA currently operates. For a given "simulation run" with a candidate, one would ideally have to have carefully controlled sets of responses planned out, a bit like a script, managed by the simulation controllers ("dungeon masters" in the terminology of certain kinds of role-playing games), and various options and responses would have to be specified and planned out, based on the likely responses of the candidate and with fall back situations described if a totally novel response were given. I'm not sure how much useful information would be got if a degree of planning and management approaching tis were not engaged in.

This is not to say that appropriately dealing with hypothetical questions of type B couldn't be done, but I do not consider it would be feasible to do it under the same arrangements that operate for asking optional questions in an RfA: they need much more careful planning and execution than could be achieved in that format. That leaves, as far as I am concerned, hypothetical questions of type A as probably being the only feasible kinds of hypothetical questions to usefully ask in the current conditions operating in a RfA. (Hypothetical questions of type B are typically the kinds of solutions that my occupational psychologist colleagues would describe as an alternative to employers who want a quick and easy and arguably, unsuitable in the specific case, psychometric fix for a tricky issue of whether job candidates can do certain kinds of jobs.)  DDStretch  (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Another way of looking at hypothetical questions is to consider whether a given question is really a trap in disguise. Should we ask questions where the majority of candidates are going to jump in, in good faith, and trip over the complexities we've carefully set up? The problem with this type of question is that, unless the candidate's answer is impeccable, it distracts from the actual contribs and polarises RfA !voters into those who will oppose ("poor judgment", "lack of policy knowledge" etc.) and those who will support ("very bold", "well done for taking on such a difficult question" etc.)—and yes, I'm thinking of the AGF challenge here although not of any particular candidates.

I think RfA questions are best kept to requests for clarification, and perhaps other questions which are written for the candidate in question. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a real issue is that sometimes people will say they'll stick to certain areas, but we have no way of ensuring that. I know of at least one case of someone who said at their RfA that they wouldn't be dealing with a certain area (to allay concerns brought up by the opposition), and then lo and behold, after they were promoted they went to that area. So what on earth can we do? It'd be great to divide up the admin tools, but that's not the way we're doing it. Enigma ^message 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's an admin?

I say that an admin needs to have a few things: A secure account, to avoid malfunction of the flow of Wikipedia's systems, A trustworthy heart, or avoiding the temptation to damage or modify in a bad way the articles written with the sweat and blood of millions of Wikiusers, An urge to act on "terrorism" of Wikipedia, as well as articles with embedded racism, sexism, and other discriminating features, An open mind to hear the calls of Wikiusers who need help or are recieving heavy critisms of their articles and therefore need editing assistance, And finally the knowledge that he is an admin, not a president, not an emperor.

Once, I went to a really strict school where teachers were known to make students respect them. I asked a student where the headmaster was, and he said, "You mean Administrator John, or Administrator Peter?"

I am sure that all admins have read the new admin's guide, and that they should know that an admin is someone who works to build and contribute to the functions of Wikipedia, not a dictator who deletes articles he doesn't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waikintsui304 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out, for the benefit of others, that this was Waikintsui304's second edit to Wikipedia. His first edit to Hillary Rodham Clinton was reverted by The Rambling Man. He's obviously not happy about something, but this seems like an odd way to go about resolving it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

He was actually reverted by a Bureaucrat. This one goes all the way to the top. I smell some serious controversy. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG he's stumbled on our conspiracy to suppress The Truth! Quick everyone, to the escape pod! — iridescent 16:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody saw anything, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Twenty bucks and I'll say you and I were hanging out all night, playing Rock Band. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Waikintsui304, I am sorry that you've been stung before. Admins generally don't act like Dickensian schoolmasters. In fact, new admins are encouraged to read Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, and experienced admins should re-read that advice every so often. If you have issues with a particular admin, there are recourses. First, express your concerns directly to the admin responsible and try to come to a civil resolution. if that is unsuccessful, consider taking it to the Administrator's noticeboard: Incidents.

Those are good ways to start. Keep on truckin', Kingturtle (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've re-read the advice just in case. Good luck... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of RfA

A few minutes ago, this RfA was transcluded by Ryry241. I removed it quickly, no questions were answered. Furthermore, Ryry241 falsely claimed he was nominating Bkerensa, after he filled up the RfA with reasons Bkerensa shouldn't be an admin, along with an oppose vote. The only reason I bring it here is because I see some editor's still saw it and are making their votes. Wanted to make sure everything is on the up-and-up here in regards to my removal. Maybe a 'crat should take a look.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess the few folks who looked didn't realize it was all a single person's work. If possible, I think it should be CSDed as an attack piece. Collectonian (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've CSD'd it as an attack page as I can't see any valid reason for it to stay, and it's unfair should the subject ever decide to run a legitimate RFA. If anyone can think of a reason it needs to stay, feel free to undelete it but at the very least it needs a warning marker on it so no-one thinks it's genuine. — iridescent 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Very unfortunate. Bkerensa apparently created it for themselves, and then Ryry241 took it and ran with it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryry241 made the negative comments and oppose vote on the RFA as his or her very first edit, at a time when the RFA had only been edited by Bkerensa and had not been transcluded anywhere. (I had found it myself at the same time because I was looking at Bkerensa's contributions after having declined three bad speedy A7 nominations from him. His next edit after the speedy noms was to create the RFA.) I don't know whether Ryry241 is a nonce for someone else who found Bkerensa's RFA the same way I did, a longer-term stalker of Bkerensa, or even Bkerensa himself looking to stir up drama for whatever reason, but it smells. The other votes on the RFA after Ryry241's look legit to me, but I think the speedy close and CSD were the right way to handle it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this username is an imitation of User:RyRy5, but then again it could be a coincidence... I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It was blocked as such. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that he was blocked at all. Is he blocked? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ack, Keeper. Wrong log. User is blocked. Moving on. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>And now that I look, and for the record, I believe the user should be blocked, but not for "looking" like another editor. "RyRy" is a very common nickname for people named "Ryan" (I know a couple of Ryans in real life that go by RyRy, whether I like it or not). And, actually looking at the userlist, it's not all that uncommon. I think it a mere coincidence in that case that this user happened upon the string r-y-r-y that happened to resemble a regular user. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Math

This has probably been raised before, perhaps repeatedly. If so, flame away. Question: why do the "support" percentages in the table atop this page ignore the "neutral" !votes? My solution would be to show the support and the oppose percentages (which would not sum to 100% if the number of neutral !votes >= 0). For example, there is a candidate (Addshore) who is listed at 85% support with 48S, 9O, and 11N. I'd suggest writing it like this: S: 71% O: 13%. Just a thought. Again, flame away. Antelan^talk 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong support - and I'd get rid of the colour coding as well, as it highlights the "<75%=fail" mentality. — iridescent 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hrm...Neutrals are pretty much just null votes (might as well just be in the discussion section), they shouldn't figure into the percentages. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

to Iridescent: by that logic, shouldn't we just get rid of the percentage field altogether? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the colors are fine, because they add a kind of "warning" for RfA's that are going badly. The color of the % square has no impact on the RfA itself, anyway. Also, most <75% RfA's don't make it. Anyway, I would assume the reason neutrals aren't counted is because they aren't real votes that shouldn't be held against a candidate. Neutrals are just a "not sure".--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hrm, indeed. By my perspective, neutral votes count neither for nor against a candidate, so I don't think they need to be factored in as oppose votes. Just mentioning the percentage of neutral votes:total votes in another column would suffice, I think. Of course, if changes are the consensus, the bot operator will need to be informed. —Animum (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd say that most neutral votes are more likened to very weak opposes, as they usually read along the lines of "I just can't support..etc..etc..". I've always wondered why they were discounted from the percentages. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But they also imply that they cannot oppose at that time too. —Animum (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's why I said most. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, because consensus has been up until this point that neutral is the equivalent of an abstention. If you really do not trust the candidate, say so. If you really do, say so. Ambivalence is not a statement about the candidate in a system where there is no presupposition of trust or mistrust. -- Avi (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the Neutral section is often home to people that, while they can't actively support a candidate, they also aren't entirely opposed to their promotion (ie: no big huff if they get the sysop bit). They may also use it to present evidence/diffs for the consideration of other participants. So, while the Neutral section is a valuable part of the RfA, it (statistically) doesn't enter into the equation for the overall support percentage for a given RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To Avi - my suggestion supposes neither trust nor distrust. It suggests that we change Support: X% to Support:X% Oppose:X%. It's simply an accurate representation of the math. Antelan^talk 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your math supposes that neutrals are to be considered votes, and convention is that they are not. The support percentage reflects the number of supports against the total of support and oppose votes, and including neutrals would require changing all of the thresholds for RfX etc. This method of counting votes is standard in all polls on Wikipedia. It might make more sense to just to get rid of the neutral section, and have neutral parties post in discussion. Avruch ^T 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think "neutral" should be abolished. Support, Oppose, or get out of the kitchen (abstain). Neutral is too often used as an "I'm not willing to commit to one side or the other because it might hurt me down the road in my own RfA". Not always, though. Some neutrals are legitimately neutral. Most are cop-outs though. Support or oppose. If neutrals don't count against the candidate, and don't count for the candidate, WTF is the point? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless they're bringing something new to the discussion (in which case it should be in discussion), neutrals are pointless. The only reason I could see for doing it is "I want to vote/!vote in every RfA but I don't have an opinion on this one, so..." I have never put myself in neutral. I either support, oppose, or neither. I simply don't understand the purpose of the neutral section. Enigma ^message 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors should be prohibited from formally noting that they've looked at the situation but are unable to support or oppose? That would be a ridiculous restriction. I see no reason or evidence to assume that the vast majority of neutrals are anything but sincere. As an aside, has anyone noted that 5 editors hit WP:100 in recent days? --JayHenry (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Huh. And here I thought I was the only one. I, too, always thought of Neutral as a "I desperatley want to vote but I don't know what to pick" kind of thing. It really serves no purpose. Oh, and about having 'Support % Opposition %' instead of just 'Support %', how hard is it to do the math yourself? If the S% is 86, then the O% has to be 14. 2nd grade math. It might actually be more work to program the bot to do it than it would be to just get a pen and paper and think.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't dismiss the "neutrals" out of hand, the math you've suggested only works if there are 0 neutrals. Antelan^talk 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Responding to your aside, yes I noticed the number of "100" RfAs. Cool. It means, as far as I'm concerned, that RfAs are getting more attention, and a broader spectrum of editors. That said, Neutral should be abolished. Some are sincere. Most are copouts. Editors that are afraid to support. Or afraid to oppose. Abolish it. Anything said in the "neutral" section, if sincere, can easily be added to either the discussion section, or added to the "questions for the candidate section. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that neutral !votes are not simply nothing; a truly mu response is one that doesn't involve clicking the "edit" button. From the "oppose" perspective, a neutral !vote is one that is not supporting the candidate. From the "support" perspective, a neutral !vote is one that is not opposing the candidate. In any case, I agree that neutrals are neither supports nor opposes. We'd just need to add one column (oppose%) and retool the math to convey the full set of information. Three examples, with 30 support !votes being cast in each case, is below. I think it's interesting to see how the numbers look when you look at percentages from both S% and O% perspectives if you count the neutrals. Antelan^talk 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Username	S	O	N	S%	O%	Ending	Duplicates?	Report
Guy	30	5	5	75%	13%	1 May 1:11	No
Guybrush	30	5	0	86%	14%	1 May 1:11	No
GuybrushThreepwood	30	0	5	86%	0%	1 May 01:11	No

On Simple English Wikipedia, we recently abolished Neutral votes, and instead replaced the section with "Comments". Since Neutrals are just comments, and not picking a position, I propose the section be renamed, and the comments there can simply be used in close cases. Al Tally (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But mu and neutral are different concepts. We needn't force one to behave as the other. Editors understand when they comment in the neutral section that it is not calculated into the percentage. Everyone understands it's S/(S+O). Neutrals are explicitly neither. There's no reason to radically overhaul the framework (this is radical, as it would have dramatically changed either the threshold or outcome of every controversial RFA). --JayHenry (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A more interesting example might be

• Support 4
• Oppose 1
• Neutral 95

What's the percentage support for that candidate? Are they trusted by the community? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but irrelevant as such a result would simply not occur. Al Tally (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, ask not "Are they trusted by the community." Ask, "Can they trust that community?" Antelan^talk 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, originally in reply to JayHenry) Style and content-wise, the way people "comment" in the neutral section is remarkably similar to how people are !voting in the support/oppose sections. However, the majority of commenters here think that "neutrals" shouldn't count for anything. If the community does reject my suggestion and reaffirm its embrace of the "neutrals don't count" position, then I would support Al tally's suggesion that we rename the "Neutral" section to "Comments", making clear that you're not !voting neutrally but instead simply !commenting (sorry, I couldn't avoid the typographical pun). Antelan^talk 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Username	S	O	N	S%	O%	Ending
Guy	40	20	0	67%	33%	1 May 1:11
GuybrushThreepwood	40	2	18	67%	4%	1 May 01:11
Guybrush	40	10	10	67%	17%	1 May 1:11

Phrased another way, how would you expect a bureaucrat to evaluate these RFAs, assuming the supports are typical, the opposes are good faith and the neutrals are editors who recognize that both support and oppose have valid points, and do not indicate they are leaning in either direction? --JayHenry (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with the current norms (that <75% tends to fail), let's say 75%/25% = pass, which is the same as saying 3/1 = pass. If everything is above-the-board and equally persuasive, then any RfA where %support/%oppose>=3 could be passed. So, in this case, GuybrushThreepwood passes (67%/4% = 17), Guybrush passes (67%/17%=3.9), but Guy fails (.66bar/.33bar=2). Antelan^talk 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Assuming there was nothing peculiar about the RFAs, as you have stated, I would close the first as unsuccessful and the second and third as successful. But I wouldn't just close them that way because of the numbers you had in a table, I'd need to see the actual RFA. But I think we're making the table more complicated than it needs to be. Useight (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Useight. The closing b'crat needs to examine the specific issues at stake and not just the numbers. For example, the neutral might be actually a support/oppose in disguise, and I have noticed that the "prima facie" thing has been growing only because it is a self nom. The opposers might have gathered a secret mailing list in order to sway the result. Just as "per nom" votes in AFDs are not given as much power, the same should be done here and we should all remember that the RFA is not a votecount. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there should be less concern about changing how the support% is counted. I agree with your assessment, but my intuition tells me that, as long as there is nothing egregious going on for the supports or the opposes, raw percentages more or less rule the day now. Antelan^talk 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

%s/%o>=3 is an exact tautology for S/(S+O)>=.75. Neutrals are still evaluated precisely the same way under what you're saying. --JayHenry (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a mathematical error. Didn't see the % signs there. Antelan^talk 01:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

( e/c)Ok, I'll admit I have no frickin clue what you just typed. But neutrals should be abolished. Or renamed to "comments" as suggested above, unless several 'crats, or at least one 'crat, can tell me that a !vote of "neutral" has any bearing on their decision to promote or not promote. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

After my own pet project (counting neutrals in the denominator), I would favor renaming "neutral" to "comments" and suggesting that people not format their comments like !votes as a "second best" option. Antelan^talk 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a math error. I'll walk you through it:

• S/(S+O) >= .75
• S >= .75 (S+O)
• S >= .75S + .75O
• .25S >= .75O
• S >= 30
• S/(S+O+N) >= 3O/(S+O+N) the percentage of S is equal to S divided by S+O+N
• S% >= 3 O%
• S%/O% >=3

QED. You have proposed the exact same system as we have now. --JayHenry (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my eyes just glazed over. Are you for, or against, abolishing the "neutral" section, JH? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, start your own section to discuss that! o_O Antelan^talk 01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to JH) First of all, you're supposed to tell me, "QED, bitch." Second of all, yes, it's a math error. If I!=0, then (S+I+O)!= (S+O). Antelan^talk 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did the 'I' come from?! What's the significance of the 3? This is Wikipedia, not Wiki-Algebra, man! Just divide S by S+O, right?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I = Neutral, sorry for the accidental notation change. My point is not to change how wikipedia interprets percentages. My method should change nothing about how the actual ratio of support/oppose is registered. Instead, it makes it clear that not all "85% support" RfAs are the same, even if there is no foul play and the arguments are strong on both sides. No standards need to be changed. No closed !votes would need to be reinspected. Nothing changes from the policy side - only the display would change. Antelan^talk 01:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blam!!!!11!11!!!!eleven!!1!!!11 My head just exploded. I'm going offline til tomorrow to recover. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(E/C)Firstly, there have been (rare) sysop promotions that were closer to S/O = 2, but for the sake of this discussion, lets stick with 3. While 'tis true that $\forall _{(N\neq 0)}|(S+O+N)\neq (S+O)$ it IS true that $\forall _{N}|{\frac {S}{O}}=3\rightarrow {\frac {S}{S+O}}=.75$ So JayHenry is correct in his statement, because the latter equation is absent of any mention of N (and please forgive any improper conventional use of the universal operator) -- Avi (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Didn't see the % in his comment, and have struck my disagreement accordingly. (2) This has always been the point - the cutoffs don't change, but there is information gain in displaying the percentages the way I propose. Counting the neutrals, it's interesting to see that someone can have 75% support with 1% oppose, while another can have 75% support with 25% oppose. Antelan^talk 01:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nitpickingly minor point, even if there were no %'s in his equation, it would still work, since if S/O = 3, then S = 3O, so S/(S+O) = 3O/4O = .75 for all S and O. -- Avi (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "interesting" fits there. Maybe confusing, inconveinient, or un-nessecary... but not interesting.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But we do see that, as someone with 75% S vs. 1% O (with the remaining 24% N) displays as 98.67%S now. So the information is retained in that regard -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that line of reasoning, and since all of the raw numbers (S/O/N) are already present, why display any percentage? It's not about retaining information; it's about displaying it usefully. To me, it's more useful to see 70S/15O/15N as "70%S 15%O" (counting neutrals) than as "83%S". Antelan^talk 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For others' utility, Having the numbers S/O/N supplies you with all the information you need, its true. And the %-age is a later addition to the report IIRC. The way it is now, it serves both your purposes (lookung at the #'s) as well as those of people who sepcifically want to focus on the S:O ratio. So why change? -- Avi (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's missing the point. Showing S% as simply S/(S+O) oversimplifies the situation. It should be shown as S/(S+N+O) to avoid overinflating S%. Then, to avoid causing people to think that O% = 100%-S%, an O% column should be created from O/(S+N+O). Antelan^talk 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point exactly, Antelan, but that information already exists in the S/N/O columns. The percentages are not a misrepresentation, depending on your perception of neutral, so we return to the discussion above in that currently, most people prefer to view neutrals as non-participatory voters, and those who are interested in the spread have the raw numbers right there. -- Avi (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for whatever reason you like, and there are plenty, but appealing to "most prefer" when the only option up until now has been the status quo seems to be an unfair tactic. Antelan^talk 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't laughed so hard reading these discussions in a long time. Thanks Avi and especially Keeper! Regarding the substantive issue, let's keep the template box as it is. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, I personally am neutral on what the percentages should be; all the information I need is in the numbers. However, wikipedia works via consensus (well, except for RfB's maybe ;) ) so if you can successfully convince most people as to the need for the change, more power to you. Even better, hack the code on the current report so you can generate your own custom report, and put that out for public consumption. People may try it and like it, you never know. -- Avi (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised anyone thinks the neutral votes are meaningless. I've always considered it like this: no vote -- because I haven't reviewed the information / don't want to make an uninformed vote. neutral -- I have considered the material available, but still can't come to a conclusion. Some may make a neutral vote for whatever reason, but the same is true for support and oppose. I hope the bureaucrats always review and consider the neutral votes, in addition to support and oppose, when making their decisions. (Naturally, they should consider the reasons given for the neutral votes carefully, just like the support and oppose).
– Apis (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

?

I started reading this thread, but about half way down, my three remaining good brain cells packed their bags, jumped out of my ear and waved as they headed for the edge of the desk. Consequently, I haven't enough brainpower left to finish wri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs)

Basically, they're saying neutral votes should count for something, a view I disagree with (if you've ever read any of my neutral votes you'll know why) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur - The Discussion section and Neutral are separate for specific reasons. The "General Discussion" section, where many comments currently filed under neutral would go if Neutral was removed as a choice, is usually for procedural items about the RfA itself, such as "This was the candidate's 5th edit" or "I added one of my old usernames, above, fyi.", or what-have-you. When I !vote in the neutral section, though, I'm usually saying that I am inclined to support (or oppose), but have reason to hold off on doing so. Usually, I'll go Neutral to say something like "A Good candidate, but I want to see his answers to questions X, Y, and Z before supporting" or "I'm concerned about [this diff], and am unable to support unless my concern is addressed" or whatever. Without looking at a particular RfA, it's hard to judge whether the neutrals were actually support/opposes, general comments, or fence-sitters. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they started saying that, but it then became a maths orgy, eeeyuck. If dropping Neutral from RfX isn't listed at WP:PEREN, (it isn't yet, I checked) it should be. Consensus is that Neutral !votes are useful and don't count in the stats. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And, pray tell, what is wrong with a cornucopia of math :) ? -- Avi (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

...other than the fact that a multitude of valuable editors heads have exploded? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What consenting mathematicians get up to behind closed doors is their business, but please don't do it in public. ;-) --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Dweller! You made it! Got those three brain cells back I presume. I thought we'd lost you....and your last sentence is getting added to my quotes page. Spot frickin on. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, one is no longer with us; a result of a tragic 'falling off my desk' incident, and one of the others is somewhat worse for wear, so my contribs may be even shoddier than usual. --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dweller's a Narcher - you can't be expecting him to understand sums. — iridescent 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I edit Wikipedia to avoid doing my homework, then I come here and it's a page full of math?! Thanks a lot. Useight (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. --Dweller (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the required tenure gone up?

Looking over Addshore's RFA, I'm finding it strange that people are opposing him for 20k edits in 4 months, as he's "unexperienced" - have the requirements gone up that much? I passed RFA with approximately 10 weeks of consistent editing (being a small lurker for five months before that) and only 4,000 eidts. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Be warned Sceptre, you're about to get a lecture about automated editing gadgets...not from me though. I had 4 months and 3500 edits when I fooled the community into sysopping me. And that was only this last January. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what's being got at is the lack of content work from Addshore. His edits all seem to be machine reverts. I don't personally think that matters with respect to adminship - we're not all great article writers, but it is a legitimate view point and I respect peoples thoughts on the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the opposes really harp on the four months, rather the overwhelming % of edits that are bot edits, etc. I don't think that has changed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is true, it seems to be a non-issue with regards to this RfA. However, generally speaking, continuous bot use just looks "lethargic", which I don't particularly agree with, but that pretty much sums it up. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[ec] I don't see this as a sudden thing; any time that someone shows a burst of editing and then an RfA, people are anxious. The same thing happened with hmwith; her first RfA was after a couple of months of active editing, and failed, but the second one passed with flying colors. Also note that there are a lot of other reasons that Addshore is being opposed over... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's changed since I was sysopped - my first real experience of article writing was Christmas Day 2005, only ten days before I was nominated. And that was crappy content writing too. And I know there are other oppose reasons, but that's the only one that struck me. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I always felt that the use of automated scripts/applications just indicates the person merely desires a facilitator to help the project. After all, they're so pervasive (in use) right now that if a "manual user" wanted to make a report to WP:UAA, WP:AIV, or simply warn a user politely, it's already been done. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not always already - I sometimes catch vandalism on huggle that's around 3 hours old. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My rationale (obviously, I can't speak for the others) for "not enough major mainspace" opposes I always try to spell out if I'm using it as a reason: I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected. It's not an opposition to automated tools per se (I once racked up 13,000 edits in a month changing a category name), but opposition to users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. — iridescent 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Iridescent. Speaking as someone who does a fair amount of work in the "content" end of things, I can certainly concur that it's really frustrating sometimes to deal with some of those things. On the other hand, some of the "inexperience" issues that arise with the use of automated tools involve communication and collaboration. When a user only needs to click a few buttons instead of actually having to make the effort of communicating with a user - explaining what the problem is with the edit, or why the article doesn't meet WP criteria, for example - we can't really tell if they're just technologically proficient, or if they can adequately articulate the policies they're enforcing. Collaboration to me is also key, because admins have to be able to assess consensus, and it's impossible to do that from a "bird's eye" view: I think having to go through a challenging debate or two really helps an admin candidate to appreciate the spectrum of opinions that may arise. To be honest, if a candidate can demonstrate they're able to collaborate just about anywhere somewhere in the encyclopedia (including templates, wikiprojects, etc), chances are good they'll be okay. Risker (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)ack, fixing my own improper terminology! Risker (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Risker, you said some of the "inexperience" issues that arise with the use of automated tools involve communication and collaboration. When a user only needs to click a few buttons instead of actually having to make the effort of communicating with a user - explaining what the problem is with the edit, or why the article doesn't meet WP criteria, for example - we can't really tell if they're just technologically proficient, or if they can adequately articulate the policies they're enforcing.. To summarize, you are saying they need to know how to play Pong, and not just Galaga. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think she means, they need to know how to drive and not just how to hail a taxi... — iridescent 16:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(to Sceptre) I still come across vandalism from 2006 occasionally (not often in articles, though) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, vandalism can pass unnoticed even by those using tools. In this context, I was a little surprised that this edit didn't raise any red flags at the time, for instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think all admins and RfA candidates needs to have experience in all areas. However, it is a problem if we draw all our admins and RfA candidates from a pool of editors that have almost identical experiences and have similar holes in their backgrounds. Therefore, I would like to see more diversity in candidate backgrounds and more candidates with experience in some neglected areas, such as editing controversial articles. Our current system discourages such candidates from applying and discriminates against appointing such candidates.--Filll (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been pleasantly surprised with the way my candidates have been received. I am explicitly looking for candidates who don't fit pre-determined models---and they have been well received despite not fitting typical expectations.Balloonman (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - you're doing a really good job of identifying potential, even when they don't succeed. (The only editor I ever nommed was shot down in flames despite my thinking he'd be a shoo-in — it's impossible to predict how these things will go.) — iridescent 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have yet to have one shot down... but I have one in the hopper, who I think SHOULD be an admin, but I don't think she can pass due to the manner in which admins are selected. While she doesn't have a civility problem, she is willing to call a spade a spade and won't sugar coat it.Balloonman (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with the article writing opposes are not those in and of itself, but rather when a candidate is willign and proven to be able to help in an area that's needed, yet is opposed with the lack of article content creations. Sometimes opposing for that is valid, but I'm seeing it used pretty often of late. Not really sure what to make of it. Wizardman 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Back in the old days (and I'm actually a relative newbie here, coming in 7/05), when we edited wikipedia by semaphore and smoke signal, climbing uphill, both ways, in the snow and ice, barefoot, with barbed wire wrapped broken glass on our feet for traction, there was the idea that as this project is, at its core, an encyclopædia, its janitors need to understand that intuitively, and one of the ways that was demonstrated was the unwritten 1/2/3FA requirements. If someone made significant contributions to an article that was nearing featured status, that showed that they "groked" the project. Today, it seems, with the dynamic and expansive growth of the project and its editors, the (inevitable) compartmentalization of issues, and the proliferation of automated tools, that criterion seems to have become defunct. Wikipedia, like any social construct, is not immune to evolution. -- Avi (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Avi, it could have been worse... you could have been using a Commodore 64.Balloonman (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Timex Sinclair 1000 all the way; I remember using that puppy attached to an old B&W TV :) -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Will it date me too badly to admit that I understood the reference to Pong above, and have both a Commodore 64 and a Vic-20 over on the storage shelves in the basement? Risker (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Dated badly. Now get your tennis-balled walker lovin' self back to the home. Dinner's at 3:45. Pills at 6. Lights out at 7. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely off topic, but how long does everyone think that an editor will remain on Wikipedia (Just assume nobody dies :] )? Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always assumed nobody dies. Wait, what was the question? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How long will a single editor continue editing WP before retiring? Of course nobody dies :). Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this, and all other questions, is 42. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original question: No, the required tenure has not gone up, if by tenure you mean edit-count. I think people are finally starting to look beyond the number of edits and to consider their quality and type instead. Perhaps I'm deluding myself.

This isn't meant as a comment on this particular candidate - I suspect they have just been caught out by a new swing of the pendulum of RfA-public-opinion, a backlash perhaps against admin candidates who've put in a couple of months high-intensity vandal fighting with automated tools, but don't have much breadth or depth of experience apart from that. Absent a system of handing out partial toolsets, many RfA !voters are understandably cautious with such candidates.

If this really is the start of a new trend, we may soon see a candidate failing because their edit count is too high - or perhaps their edit rate per month is too high. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys edit so darn fast. When I went through RFA, I had almost 6000 edits after a year and a half of being a Wikipedia (2 years if you consider my editing anonymously). And here you guys are, racking up 20k edits in 4 months. Hell, I still don't have 20k edits. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing though. bibliomaniac15 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is directly correlated with the proliferation automatic tools. -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I had 9k edits in the eight months it took me to get my adminship (stats), and now I'm coming up on 26k. No automation for me, thankyouverymuch. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Masochist. Actually, I'm very proud of the fact that I've never used any gadgets. No Twinkle, AWD, huggle, popups. Heck, I don't even use Rollback, which is the evilest of all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've never used an all terrain vehicle for edits either.... Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I, of course meant AWB Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Who edits from inside their jeep anyway? /joke Useight (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They only scripts I'd recommend is Twinkle and Friendly. Why? In the hands of the right user, they just expedient good work. Huggle is absolutely atrocious (no offense to those who endorse it). It's way too easy to make a mistake. The mind isn't meant to work that fast. AWD is just not my style. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is nice enough, but I agree--it can work quickly. I haven't used it for awhile, but I recall spending time undoing some of my own edits. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle doesn't force you to go at any particular speed, it just aims to minimise the delay in doing things so that you can edit quickly if you are comfortable doing so and the situation requires it (large amount of vandalism). Just make yourself check and double-check each diff before deciding what to do with it -- Gurchzilla (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and about rollback, although I have the option, I very rarely use it. In fact, I can't remember the last time I did. There's nothing about it that sets it apart from the "undo" function or the rollback of Twinkle, except that with the latter you can give a nice reason. Quick vandalism reversions can be done manually or with the brightness in my eye. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

← AWB has its uses as well... (disambiguation patrol comes to mind). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought AWB was a waste of time and never bothered installing it - until I had to split a category for the first time. It's also quite handy to leave it running in the background on a big batch of articled with the spell-check on and periodically flip over to see what it's suggesting - takes virtually no extra time, and catches a lot of the "recieve"s and "other then"s that normal copy-edits often miss. — iridescent 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do feel there's a sort of resistance to AWB edit counts, not edit counts in general- I had less than 2,000 edits back last May when I became admin, but I also had a belt of FA and GAs, so I would hope its quality (if articles) rather than quantity. Mop guys shouldn't be discredited tho. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've used AWB and found it very useful in certain instances. Particularly, as you mentioned, when sorting categories or making an identical change to multiple articles. For example, adding a new template one has created or updating a map, or anything along those lines. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Admin Coach

I just wrote an essay on what I perceive to be the role of The Admin Coach. I'd like to get your input. This is a first draft. Feel free to edit it as necessary.Balloonman (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I comment, I should just make a couple of points to avoid shouts of WP:COI. Balloonman is my coach, but has not asked me to come on over. Please therefore apply as much or as little weight to my comments as you feel.

As a rough guide to what Admin coaches should be doing, it does seem to cover a lot of the basics. I think it might also be useful for admin coaches if there was a list of some of the exercises that have been created by yourself and other coaches. Those certainly helped me. Also, maybe a bit more emphasis on the importance on getting coachees taking part in deletion discussions and the like. I must admit I was a bit sceptical at the start of our training session as to why I should be doing those XFDs, as vandal fighting was really why I wanted the mop in the first place - having done a fair few now, I can really see the benefit.

An aside comment I must admit that I haven't spent a huge amount of time watching the RFAs, and so your opening comment of "Recently there has been a proliferation of !votes against candidates who have undergone admin coaching" is kinda worrying as my own RFA approaches. Eep! StephenBuxton (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, I think your coaching page will assuage any concerns people may have. You, IMHO, are a perfect example of how/why coaching can/should work! The valid criticism some people have of coaching is that it is a quick process where in the coach asks a few questions and then gives a gold seal of approval. I've been working with you for over 3 months now and your attitude/contributions to the project have changed significantly during that time period! The Stephen from 3 months ago, despite having thousands of edits, would have failed an RfA... now I fully expect you to pass.Balloonman (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main criticism is that it's gaming the system, in that it's not actually making coachees better potential admins. Balloonman has addressed this too, rightfully pointing out that while that has sometimes happened, overall the coaching program has actually made for better admins, not merely better candidates. Enigma ^message 08:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I tend to be lackadaisical in watching RfAs until more recently, but I found the statement that there have been "a proliferation of !votes against candidates who have undergone admin coaching" intriguing. Are people really voting against candidates for that reason alone? I know I said oppose to one candidate, but it was in part because he hadn't completed his coaching and jumped the gun on self-nominating. I hadn't heard about the admin coaching process myself until then, and I thought it seemed like a great processed that would be very useful to those wanting to be an admin. What reasons are people giving for voting against a coached candidate (in the EC, Enigma seems to have partly answered this, though it seems the problem is more making sure the coaching is really of a mentorship/teaching variety and not of the test prep sort)? Collectonian (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologise for my recent votes on six RfAs. I was having a bad evening, and I took the result of my proposal to ban Kurt Weber quite badly, and made some opposes, which are just as useless and unhelpful as his, probably to attempt to prove a point. It didn't work, I looked stupid. I have been keeping away from RfA for a while, and I intend to continue doing so. I didn't join Wikipedis to fight trolls, I joined to write articles, and I'd like to think I'd been doing a good job of it. Again, apologies if I offended anyone (I believe all the votes are stricken - if they aren't, they should be). Regards, Al Tally (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)