Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 53 0 0 100 Open 22:18, 21 September 2024 6 days, 7 hours no report

Banning trick questions from the RFA process

This should be a no-brainer. I'm pretty sure quite a few people are pissed off at trick questions such as the infamous cool-down-block question, which automatically fails your RFA if you don't answer "never", and I don't think they add to the process at all - as I said on TDH's RFA, we should encourage candidates to think. Reeling off answers from a cheatsheet doesn't say anything about your potential skill as an admin. I'm sure this has been brought up many times as well. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a trick question? Cool down blocks happen all the time. The trick is, never say thats what the block is. — _Maggot^Syn 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a trick question because of how its loaded - answer anything other than "never", you fail your RFA. Even if you write a five-hundred-word essay. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats a load of bull. Did you ever consider that neutrality would prevail over the word never? Simply acknowledging the fact that its current practice, yet inciting its misuse and consequences would easily justify an adequate knowledge of the blocking policy. Far better than No way. I'd never make a cool down block. — _Maggot^Syn 14:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet on another note, a discussion was started here about cool down blocks being removed from the policy altogether. — _Maggot^Syn

We could just ban all questions. Or cut it back down to one question, "Why do you want to be an administrator?" The candidate could then write a couple of paragraphs about why being granted adminship would be a benefit for the encyclopedia. If people can't be bothered to go through an editor's contributions (and therefore find the candidate's style/opinions and understanding of policy/thoughts on meta issues), they shouldn't be voting anyway. :-) We don't need dozens of questions to determine the answers that could be found by actually evaluating a candidate thoroughly. But maybe that's just my opinion. ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sort of like the old days... Although I'm inclined to agree, the first three should still remain. I don't mind restricting some questions just not the first one proposed. — _Maggot^Syn 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The first three questions are fine. Optional questions can sometimes be unfair if they are, as stated, trick questions, and all too often, there ends up being far too many of them. Either restrict it to just the three, or, if there are some optional questions that get asked all the time, have a set of about 4 or 5 questions that get asked all the time, instead of optional ones. We have had a fair few discussions circling around this topic, but nothing ever seems to be done about it. :( Lradrama 14:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult, online, to judge people's clue level. A personal interview could probably easily tell us in only 10 minutes who is a suitable candidate, but we don't have that luxury here. Whatever questions people come up with are probably OK, unless they're completely unreasonable. Even the unreasonable ones are perhaps useful, as they call give us a clue how the candidate responds to unreasonableness. Friday (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a trick question, as long as it is not malicious or misleading(ie "Do you still smoke crack?"). _{1 != 2} 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps no trick questions for RfA Irregulars? Qualified editors who just don't know the RfA process, and have no history of taking a political position on one editing policy or another should be spared the indignity of getting slapped around by one faction or another for answering a question in good faith. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, how many people running for admin are regulars? Most people are running for their first or second time. If the question is truly unfair then the community can decide that, if the answer shows a lack of understanding of an area then the community can take that into account too. _{1 != 2} 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, admin-running regulars. Perhaps TenPoundHammer? Note: That is not an underhanded jab at TPH, if he ran again, I'd support in a heartbeat. Useight (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter how many people are running who are regulars? The point is that those are the only people who could adequately/diplomatically answer a trick question. You have 13 people who are regulars here decide using markup in signatures is so distracting that it should be banned. These 13 people could devise a question which states "What is your position on markup in signatures?". Anyone who then says they support it, or have no problem with it, could quickly find they have earned 13 opposing votes for it, even though signature markup has nothing to do with being a competent administrator. Since an experienced editor who is inexperienced at RfA would never see that coming, it would be unfair to ask such a question. As an RfA noob, I would certainly assume that any questions allowed by the community to remain in my RfA would be admin related. Allowing trick questions, or questions which simply have no bearing on actual admin related duties is misleading to candidates who have come here innocently expecting to be judged on their contribution history. It can lead them to believe that they do not actually understand what the mop is for, when in fact they are essentially just being pushed around by the cool kids in the cafeteria. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is the questions that are asked, so much as how the contributors respond to the answers. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as we base our criteria on trust, then everyone is going to have their own way of determining trust. I do agree that contributors occasionally forget about trust and it turns into prom night sometimes though. _{1 != 2} 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to extend the number of standard questions. It's too easy to go look at successful RFAs for the best answers. Any optional questions should be specific to the candidate. Editors who go down the list of candidates and drop the same questions on them, it's pointless. Look through their contribs and their talk page, and if you have a question for them, ask it. Otherwise, cast your vote and go on with yourself. There's no point in asking some standard question outside of, perhaps, the recall question. Not that it even matters so much, because you can easily fail to add yourself or do so with impossible criteria. LaraLove|Talk 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many of the "optional" questions are intended as trick questions and some even use them as "If you disagree with my opinion on the subject, I'll oppose." Terrific. Enigma ^message 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Lara, of course. Additional questions should only be used to clarify a point about that particular candidate. People going around asking the same questions at every RfA is problematic. Enigma ^message 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the initial stance of banning trick questions (they're more trouble than they're worth) but how do we go about enforcing that? Who gets to decide whether a question qualifies as a trick question or a genuine interest in the candidate's knowledge of policy? Some of them, such as the CDB question, are no-brainers but others may not be. And, if we do agree to ban those questions and allow admins to remove them from debate, what happens with potential as per trick question 5 !votes that were cast between the question being asked initially and the time when it's removed. I guess my point is that the reason why this issue has been brought up before and no consensus was ever reached is because of the high level of interpretation of what constitutes a trick question as well as the difficulty of subsequent enforcement. Maybe I'm terribly nearsigthed for saying this but the only option I see is a strictly pre-determined set of questions without any variation whatosever which would have the drawback of the community not being able to ask a candidate any questions that might alleviate concerns specific only to that candidate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit subjective. Can somebody offer examples of inappropriate "trick questions" other than the bloody "cool-down block" meme? — CharlotteWebb 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't seen Wikipedia:RfA cheatsheet? There's plenty! —Giggy 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for a start, we can ban the CDB question from being asked. It's bloody annoying. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

People should be allowed to ask any question they would like as long as its not malicious. We really shouldn't tell people what they can say, and what they can't say unless, of course, it goes against wikipedias code of conduct. As for questions on cool-down blocks, they're legit. The most important criteria for adminship, in my opinion, is that the user won't misuse the tools. One way to misuse the tools is to do something that goes against policy. The blocking policy currently doesn't allow cool-down blocks, and if someone gives someone a cool-down block, they are misusing the tools. Thus its currently a legit question to ask to determine if someone will misuse the tools.--SJP (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't legit. The question is informally fallacious because, while it asks for a question, there is really only one correct answer. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the conventional wisdom on that point, and I can't support someone who endorses it, or who doesn't endorse it but is more interested in following some so-called "rules" than with using his or her own best judgment. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, here are the possible scenarios that can arise from this situation:

• Says "no cool-down blocks" because he or she agrees with CW, in which case I can't support because the person is wrong
• Says "no cool-down blocks" because, even though he or she disagrees with CW, still will follow the so-called "rules". In this case, I can't support because the person is more interested in following a bunch of so-called "rules" rather than using his or her own best judgment—not a desirable trait on a project that's supposed to be the antithesis of "rule-boundedness"
• Is in fact favor of cool-down blocks and would in fact go ahead and make them, but goes ahead and answers "no" to pass the RFA. In this case, the person is dishonest, and so I can't support.
• Says "Yes, cool-down blocks are fine" and really means it—I can support
• Says "Yes, cool-down blocks are fine" but is just lying to get my support—likelihood is slim to none, given that everyone else would oppose. Certainly unlikely enough that I can, for all practical purposes, afford to ignore it.

I fail to see what's wrong with forcing people to get off the fence and take a position. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Having only one correct answer does not, by itself, make a question "tricky" or otherwise inappropriate. The problem here is the use of a non-obvious term and the lack of context (specifically the failure to answer the question "cool down from what?" before it is asked, see previous discussion, lest I continue to repeat myself). — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Feel free to argue semantics all you want but those are some pretty strict rules you follow on why you can't support someone who follows rules. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Internal rules (i.e. principles, morals, etc.) are quite different from external, arbitrary rules. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in his list of internal rules that's not arbitrarily imposed. No difference. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because you might not understand something, doesn't make it incorrect. Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand his rules, thank you very much. You missed my point in a very spectacular way. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, the question relates to policy. The blocking policy currently states that cool down blocks should never be given. I don't think we should ban people from asking questions that help them get a better idea of the nominees grasp of policy. You're free to have your own opinions. By the way, I appreciate you bringing up a concern you have here, even though I disagree with you:-)Cheers!--SJP (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. The blocking policy, like most other policies, has an inherent exception for when common sense needs to prevail. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has observed and learned at RFA for a while now - although I haven't so far felt I have sufficient knowledge or experience to vote - I'd say the only useful conclusion you can draw from a "yes" is that you're probably dealing with a candidate who is answering in good faith. (Or someone who values a yes from Kurt more than a mop and bucket. Or someone who doesn't mind snow.) Any newbie who visits RFA more than twice will know that "no, never" is required to dodge that particular booby-trap. So someone who answers yes is probably going off personal observation, and knows that short blocks have the practical effect of "time out to cool off", even if their stated aim is to protect or to prevent disruption. I happen to support the cool-down blocks policy clause, because treating fellow adults like two-year-olds having a tantrum is rarely a good way to engage their goodwill for later. It would be unhelpful if admins could issue blocks with the stated aim of cooling a user down. But I think it's a shame that a kneejerk wrong yes-or-no answer about a nuance of policy should signal game over for that RFA. Couldn't the standard question be rephrased so any thoughtful candidate would feel the need to check their understanding of the policy before they answered (thus learning the rule if they were in any way unsure)? What if you asked "Wikipedia has a policy on cool-down blocks. Please explain it in your own words, and say under what circumstances, if any, you would be prepared to issue one." It's still a trick question then, but for all the right reasons, because if they haven't the sense to go and make sure they know what the policy says, they probably shouldn't succeed in an RFA at that point. --Karenjc 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there part of Kurt's response that was specific to cool-down blocks, or would the same logic apply to all questions of the form "do you understand and follow Wikipedia policy?" I ask because there seems to be a logical flaw in Kurt's position regarding admin candidates. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There could be a flaw in your understanding of Kurt. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I will happily accept I may be wrong here and apologies if I am getting too far off topic, I think SheffieldSteel has pinpointed Kurt exactly there. As I said I may be wrong, and anyone may feel free to correct me, but any reasons that Kurt will ever give are full of logical flaws. The CDB question is a logical flaw in that there is no 'correct answer'. If you put the 'wrong' answer to the question you will lose his !vote, even if you sincerely believe that to be true. As he is stated you are 'wrong' (by which he measn that he disagrees with the policy but does not ever try and change it other than complaining that the policy is 'wrong' here). The logical flaw being that no one's opinion can be 'wrong', it may be unpopular or without merit or basis but it is not wrong. As mentioned there is no factually correct answer as the question is asked about an opinion which inherently cannot be answered wrongly. Kurt is not the only person that does this either, there are lots of 'trick' questions in which the answer is either I understand the policy and yes I'll apply it, or no I don't understand the policy but my answer if 'wrong' will lose me either one of all my support !votes

There are also examples that either certain people's reasoning is logically flawed, or his understanding of Latin is. It has been writting in the past that self noms are primae facie evidence of power hunger. Now either this user does understand that primae facie means 'on the face of it' and as such inherently implies a lack of any evidence gathering and therefore fails to comply with the instructions at the top of each RfA, or this user is intentionally refusing to check the merit of any RfA and also fails to comply with the instruction. Not everyone has wikifriends who will be willing to support them but still deserve to be admins.

Now I may be wrong but the purpose of an RfA is that we are looking to find good users who should be sysopped. We are not looking to give people an instant fail question; be that instant fail of the RfA or a question to instantly give someone a reason not to vote for the user. The instant fail is counter productive, if someone says they'd consider a CDB they're not going to pass even though they probably never would. NO one is expected to be the perfect admin before they come in to an RfA. How would they manage it? BigHairRef | Talk 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong, and no amount of appeals to faulty logic can change that. For instance, you say that the purpose of RfA is to find good users. In what way does it do that? Adopting the philosophical position that self-nomination is a prima facie reason to oppose a candidate, as Kurt does, is perfectly reasonable, and a position that has been adopted by other cultures in the past. You may not agree with that position, but that does not make it illogical. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The so-called cooldown block thing confused me; it is a trick question to me, and not all candidates know that... Blake Gripling (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you just change what BigHairRef posted above?[1] Do you really think that's a good idea? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with correcting other people's typos? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that really a serious question? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big supporter of fixing typos in the mainspace, but it's best to leave others' comments as-is. Useight (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I say fix'em all you want, if the other person has a problem with his/her typo being fixed, then he/she'll revert. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you ever alter anything that I've typed on a talk page, then God help you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AGF Mal. Fixing typos is not altering comments unless you seriously cannot spell. You could in fact clarify the reasons why some editors don't like correction, instead of making borderline threats. It was a typo, not a complete rewrite of the comments. — _Maggot^Syn 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Idiotic words from idiots. It ought to be quite plain to anyone that altering another's words is completely unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So now I'm an idiot? I checked the diff and changing hte to the is absolutely nothing to overreact to. Its especially nothing to call another editor an idiot for. — _Maggot^Syn 03:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Headbomb, please see the last entry at Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind. -- Avi (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And leaving other people's comments alone is easier. I drop a note on their talk page if I feel something is truly egregious. Darkspots (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind

Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary.

No meaning is altered by changing "eth RfA" to "the RfA". In fact it only help the message to be more representative to what the author meant. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Before we go any firther I'd like to make it clear I dont mind my edits being sorted if it's just typos. If BG want's to spend his/her time doing it then they're welcome to do so, lord knows I generally type twice the speed I think. And additionally there was no need to call anyone idiots. Unless you sort yourselves down it's time for a cool down block ;-).

Secondly we're now completely missing the point. I'd say that opposing on those grounds alone is a logical fallacy. Linking with the finding point, if RfA's not for finding good admins what's it for? I've said in the past and I mention it again Kurt's Choice of phrase regarding prime facie is wrong (not that I mentioned Kurt in relation to that point) as he defeats the point of RfA by it. As before feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but depending on your point of view RfA is either to find good admin candidates, or to weed out bad ones correct? If it's the former its a logical fallacy to exclude someone on the face of their editing summary. If it's to weed out the bad ones it's a logical fallacy not to investigate the users contribs before making a decision. Either way the user is condemned against the logic of the test which by participating in Kurt accepts. If he dosen't then surely he realises he's wasting his time? That's then not a logical fallacy but pure stupidity, please note my emphasis of the word if.

I assume as you didn't address my first paragraph you agree with it substantially FM?

There is an implied impossibility to pass Kurt's test and therein lies the LF. If you self nom you're screwed, if you go through admin coaching you're screwed, if you don't support CDB you're screwed, if you don't support the colts you're screwed, if you think for yourself but in doing so disagree with Kurt you're screwed, if you give the answer he wants to hear he thinks your buttering him up and you're screwed, if you don't have any wikifriends to nominate you then you're screwed before you start because you don't get nominiated repeat ad infinitum.

Now assume Kurt's is the correct way to go about things, all users apply these tests, the number of admins is now 0 on wikipedia as due to varying opinions no one will ever match every single criteria of each user. How many support !votes have we seen from him? Kurt never ever contributes to discussion, in the same way that anyone who ever writes per X does exactly the same unless is is an undisputable piece of genius writing. Kurt and per Xs contribute nothing to a discussion because they add nothing other than a !vote.

I have yet to see any evidence or even anyone express an opinion that as the best example the CDB question is anything other than a trick to embarras people and slip them up. It may have started as a legitimate question in the past but it has now become a snide way in which to trip less experienced users up (and I mean experience in terms of RfA not WP generally). Iff you look at the page on Loaded question which is what this is, there is no correct answer, such a question serves no perpose other than to get a sensasionalist answer or to give you an excuse not to vote for someone if they haven't self nommed or failed any of the other tests. Such a contribution to RfA helps no one other than anyone who trolls out the question to catch unsuspecting people who have taken time out of their real lives to try and make a difference to a community project, and unfortunately, as in real life, some members of hte community would rather see others fail than do well. BigHairRef | Talk 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit of a latecomer to this discussion but I figure I will add my two cents. First of all, I do fundamentally agree with the intent behind the desire to "ban trick questions". I think that BigHairRef is correct to characterize these as "loaded questions" rather than "trick questions", because they aren't real tricky - you just have to know the rules in order to spit out the right answer. As usual I am willing to assume good faith on the part of those posing these so-called trick questions - far be it from me to assume that their intentions are to trip up an unsuspecting admin candidate and force them into a no-win situation - so much as a less than thorough attempt to assess their understanding of policies and procedures. Regardless of the intention of these questions, they do, often as not, turn in to dealbreakers for a candidate. This isn't so much a reflection of the gravity of the question itself so much as a reflection on what I view as one inherent problem with the way RfA's are conducted and reviewed. A question can only become a magic bullet if we allow it to do so, and I wonder why we (speaking collectively) have allowed one single questions, such as the CDB question, to carry so much weight? Are we equally demanding of the candidates that every single question must be answered to 100% satisfaction in order to support a candidate? A wrong answer given to the CDB question demonstrates a lack of understanding in one small facet of the blocking policy; it does not preclude a general understanding of the block policy, and says nothing to a candidate's grasp of other important policies, such as BLP or deletion policies or the like. Again, I wonder, is the problem the question, or is it the weight we give the question? If we are to set the bar so high as to disqualify potential candidates for missing one question, then why not simply reduce the RfA process to a rigorous quiz on Wikipedia policies and automatically disqualify candidates who fail to pass with 100% prior to discussion? In all serious, not even professional-level accreditation examinations have a strict requirement to answer all questions correctly and allow for some level of incorrect answers, because it is presumed that the candidate will learn to master those deficiencies while practicing their profession. Why shouldn't it be the same with admin candidates? Is the CDB issue so incredibly paramount that getting tripped up on this one question should overshadow a candidate's credentials overall? Are there other, singular facets of policy that are so overwhelmingly important that we cannot promote a candidate who has not mastered understanding of said policy? If so, perhaps these "trick questions" are valuable and should remain. If not, perhaps we need to reevaluate just how much stock we, as the reviewers and evaluators of these candidacies, are placing in said questions rather than debating whether or not we ought to ban them outright. Shereth 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a Friendly Reminder

This section's name is "Banning Trick Questions from the RfA process", not "OMFG YOU CHANGED hte TO the!!!!!!!!!111!!!111111!!!!1!1!!"--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not going to be as boisterous and in your face Koji, he has a point. While it's generally "frowned" upon to modify text from another user, it's not the end of the world in this instance, and it's certainly not enough to detour an entire thread. Knock it off. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you two just mind your own business? I've said what I wanted to say, I don't agree with you or your attitude to what happened, and that's the end of the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce days active from 7 to 4

I think reducing the number of days an RfA is active from 168 to 96 hours would greatly reduce the time a candidate has to spend undergoing the stress of the RfA, while still allowing for plenty of time for a full and fair discussion of the merits of the candidate, as well as allowing for a quicker up or down discussion. In my limited experience, it takes perhaps 15-20 minutes to fully vet a candidate, so that shouldn't be a problem. In discussing this proposal, I would ask that anyone participating offer their rationale. I am also creating an "Alternate proposal" section for those who might have a related, but slightly different idea. S. Dean Jameson 15:26, July 5, 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't think this is such a good idea. 7 days ensures that we can get a full spectrum analysis; for example, there may be those who only edit on the weekends. A 4 day period would allow someone to begin on Monday, and completely skip that segment of editors. –xenocidic (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not certain I understand this concern. If someone is truly concerned about vetting candidates, could they not at least check in at the RfA page on, say, a Wednesday or Thursday, and take a few minutes to vet any Monday/Tuesday candidates? And if they couldn't/wouldn't do so, what is the net-negative of losing the contributions of what must be an extremely low number of potential vetters? S. Dean Jameson 15:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Still opposed to disenfranchising these individuals. –xenocidic (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• If they can't take the stress of a 7 day RfA they can't take the stress of being a good admin. —Giggy 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I understand this point even less. What does the "stress" of a 7-day RfA have to do with pressing the delete button at CSD, the block button at AIV, or the page protect button at RPP? S. Dean Jameson 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Surely you don't seriously think that's what I refer to when I say "the stress of being a good admin"? —Giggy 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  When it's boiled down, the 3 things I mentioned above are the core of being a good admin, are they not? S. Dean Jameson 15:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  No, they're not. They're the crux of basic adminship chores. Anyone can do them. (Sorry to use you as an example but) You've been around for a month and a half and you could do them. We need "good" admins to resolve disputes, deal with subtle POV pushing, and ensure high article quality. Not just anyone can do that. —Giggy 15:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In my view, narrowing the time window when people can grill a potential candidate from 168 hours to 96 hours doesn't materially affect the ability to assess the candidate's demeanor and ability to perform both the "basic tasks" and the "down and dirty" aspects that you point out. How does the extra 72 hours materially affect that? S. Dean Jameson 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Totally oppose anything less than 7 days. Those of us who have jobs aren't necessarily going to be in a position (or in any condition) to check RFA on work days. If I had my way I'd make the AfD period seven days, too. – ırıdescent 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm with Iridescent and Xenocidic on this one. Its unfair to editors who only edit on specific days. — _Maggot^Syn 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) I don't mean to 'pile-on' here, but I see this as somewhat a solution seeking a problem. Yes, RfA is stressful, but there are more reasons for keeping the length at 7 days (unfair to full-time workers, allows things to be brought to light if not immediately obvious) than there are for shortening it to 4 days. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Not "piling on" at all. I should have anticipated that there would be heavy pushback from experienced editors to any changes in the RfA process. I don't see the big detriment to moving the time frame back from 168 hours to 96 hours, but to each their own. I'll definitely think two or three times before proposing any more changes to the RfA process, though! :) S. Dean Jameson 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a bigger issue here. Not only is there no reason to drop the length to 4 days and plenty of reason to keep it at 7 (or even more), the comment that 15-20 minutes is enough time to vet a candidate is worrisome. That is not enough time to thoroughly vet a candidate. That's not to say that those who can't spend more than that much time looking over a candidate should not vote, but they should not consider or attempt to convey that they have a good grasp of the candidate's true qualifications for adminship. Also, speaking on CSD, AIV and RFPP being the foundation of adminship; those may be some of the areas with the most traffic, but they're also the areas of least controversy. They're good examples of the respective administrative policies, but certainly not good examples of what adminship is about overall. LaraLove|Talk 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I take about 15-20 minutes to make certain that the editor-in-question hasn't demonstrated any tendencies that would seem to indicate they would misuse the more volatile tools like the block and delete buttons (~10 minutes or so), and to make certain they at least have a basic knowledge of Wikipedia space. Let's not forget that being an administrator isn't a big deal at all. S. Dean Jameson 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  That's an outdated and inaccurate essay. Adminship on en-wiki is a big deal, and anyone that says otherwise is in denial or doesn't have a grasp on things. There's too much potential for abuse and no easy way to deal with such abuse on this project, thus adminship is a big deal. And the fact that RFA has become so strict is evidence that I'm not alone in this opinion. LaraLove|Talk 17:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Amen Lara. If WP:DEAL were true, this talkpage wouldn't be 142k long. – ırıdescent 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • No, it's not. It's a section of official WP policy, and has been iterated by Jimbo himself. The fact that RfA has become so strict is a symptom, not a solution, in my opinion. S. Dean Jameson 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Jimbo said that in 2003, when we had perhaps 10,000 users; we now have 47,970,984. I don't want to be rude, but as I've said on your talkpage, please read that essay before you cite it, as there's a lengthy explanation as to why that quote's no longer relevant other than in the technical sense of admins having no specific privilege when it comes to editing. – ırıdescent 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Very good point. Here's a quote from Jimbo from this month, so even he agrees. LaraLove|Talk 17:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  The diff you post doesn't indicate support from Jimmy for adminship becoming a big deal. I don't want to argue about this, though, as we seem to simply have irreconcilable differences as to what makes a good potential administrator, and what standards editors requesting (or being nominated for) the extra tools should be held. I do appreciate your and Irridescent's taking the time to discuss it with me, though. We all learn from each other, I think, which is one of the points of this project. S. Dean Jameson 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

S. Dean Jameson, we don't care too much about whether the candidate can push the buttons. Anyone can do that. What we do care about is whether the candidate knows when to do so, knows the consequences of doing so, and is able to deal with said consequences. It's not the button-pushing part that's stressful. It's dealing with the fanatical editor squawking at your face at every turn because you deleted his pet article that's stressful. It's dealing with the mob mentality of a horde of editors clamoring for your blood because you blocked one of their friends thats stressful. And these things don't start and end instantaneously. They drag on for hours, days, weeks, even months and years. So if editors can't handle a mere trifle of RfA compared to the stress of adminship, something that has a real impact on the encyclopedia and the outside world (i.e. the news media), then they shouldn't be admins. —Kurykh 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposals

• Sort-of-proposal for WP:100 RfAs. If it was my choice (which it isn't) I'd prefer it that WP:100 RfAs should be closed automatically when they hit 100, unless their opposition fields more than 5% of the discussion (i.e 100 supports, 5 opposes). If there is 5% it should carry on until the 7 days period is over. If it does hit 100 and their is little to no opposition I see no reason why it should be carried on, considering that most supports after 100 are pile-on's. Rudget (logs) 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I could definitely support a proposal like this, even with only a 10% oppose standard. There seems to be no possibility that an RfA that hits WP:100 with 10% or less opposition will fail. S. Dean Jameson 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  I could see this, with some sort of proviso that it be kept open a minimum period of time to prevent obvious vote stacking getting a dubiously qualified candidate pushed through before the possibly substantial opposition appears. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  That would be a part of the 'proposal'. Rudget (logs) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, with the same rationale in which we shouldn't reduce the days (in the above section). Some RfA's receive a lot of attention, and could get 100 !votes in less than a full day. It would reduce the RfA from 7 days, to 1. Either way, leave this up to the crats. — _Maggot^Syn 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, but if a candidate is so well-known by the community to reach 100 in that space of time, they would also have received more than than 5 opposes too. Rudget (logs) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Got a diff? Often enough, evidence is presented after a long and careful examination. One day is not enough time. — _Maggot^Syn 16:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I haven't. Just a note that I'd oppose a shortening of the timeframe also. Rudget (logs) 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I also disagree. It's not that unusual for an RFA to be sailing towards a pass/fail, and then someone comes along with some new bit of information they've uncovered which makes a bunch of people change their minds. I've sure one of the contributors in the thread above can think of a couple of obvious examples. – ırıdescent 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To bring up that "obvious example", at this point, an RFA was at 100/8/2, which is in that 5-10% range mentioned above. But this RFA didn't end successfully because of more things being brought to light. I oppose cutting RFA times down just because some arbitrary threshold was met. Useight (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That RfA is Exhibit A for the need for reform of the process. That an outstanding content contributor like that gets shouted down by some (not all) VERY weak opposes is exactly why the process needs reform. Amazing. S. Dean Jameson 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's responses like yours that are exhibit A to me that there is a need for reform in the process. Beam 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you really just now learning this? How long do we need to put this editor in the spotlight as a (bad) example for RFA reform? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Keep - there's a reason I didn't link or name it. If you want one going the other way, this looked like it was headed for a surefire WP:SNOW fail and ended up passing at 128-10. – ırıdescent 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And there's a reason why I linked it. There's no need to beat around the bush. Everyone should've been familiar with it, but apparently wasn't when they brought up the idea of the "100 supports without significant opposition = automatic successful". Am I cold-hearted and unfeeling for bringing up this direct evidence rather than merely alluding to it? Some might think so. But I'm just using transparency rather than "there was this one RFA". And I'm not using the editor as an example, rather the RFA itself. Useight (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm certainly glad that user passed. Risker certainly seems like the kind of content-oriented admin that we need more of, and one who has a good head on her shoulders to boot, given her responses to the opposes that were lodged. S. Dean Jameson 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 2) It's not all about content. Adminship involves a lot more than you seem to realize. I agree that it is an example of why RFA needs reform—which is why a study is being conducted on RFA right now with possible reform as the goal—and that RFA was weighed down by quite a few shamefully weak opposes, but there were certainly legitimate concerns raised. Adminship is about trust. Trust that one won't abuse the tools or reveal sensitive information. It's not just about one's contributions alone. LaraLove|Talk 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's "all about content", as I indicated in my "neutral" on the quickly withdrawn "Cubs Fan" RfA. He's a good editor, but had very few wikispace contribs. I think that mainspace contributions should weigh as much as wikispace contributions, though. BTW, where can I find the study you mentioned? I think I dismissed it awhile back from the notices at the top of my watchlist. S. Dean Jameson 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RREV. LaraLove|Talk 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Lara. I've watchlisted it, and may comment soon. S. Dean Jameson 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, although, S Dean, you do realize you're about a week or two behind? Many (I think close to 200) editors have already given their opinions at WP:RREV/Q. Never too late though, I suppose. Keep reading, and know that your opinion is equally as valuable as anyone else's. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keeper. If I don't get to it in time, I guess I'll just continue to check in at this page from time to time, and offer my humble opinion. S. Dean Jameson 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the in-laws at the moment after spending a fair amount of time out of town on business, or I'd have chimed in on this one sooner. Yes, there's a lot of thought about the whole RfA process, from selecting and recommending candidates to contemplate an RfA, all the way through to post-adminship mechanisms. We've had roughly 200 responses through to about 15 questions, which is a phenomenal response rate. Currently, I'm going through those responses and putting a report together on all these responses. It's hoped that this report will be deep and comprehensive enough to be a starting point for any potential reform proposals, if it is felt that they are required. Hope this helps. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I'll wait until you have compiled and sorted the responses, then I may chime in with some thoughts. Thanks for doing this. S. Dean Jameson 18:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Any statisticians around to provide graphs on the number of support/oppose over time (in particular, for controversial RfAs) should prove very useful to why the time for RfAs to run should not be shortened. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Probability of passing as a funciton of time since opening of RFA and support precentage.

• The information you are asking about is basically embedded in this figure I made last year showing how the probability of RFA success evolved as a function of support precentage and time. At the time I made this, if someone had 95+% support after 2 days they had over a 95% chance of passing at the end of 7 days. Of course on the flip side of the coin, there is one example where the person had ~98% support out to 5.5 days and still managed to fail by the seventh day. Dragons flight (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really feel comfortable because what if those 5 Opposes are really good reasoned opposes and the supports are bullshit "I Helped you get that article into Featured" or "We're friends" or "IRC buddy" votes that don't represent the consensus of the community. Beam 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, this doesn't happen often (but what do I know, I've only been active at RfA since May), but is a legitimate concern nonetheless. All things considered, I don't think this is a good idea, we should just let the RfA run for the full duration, regardless of support-to-oppose ratio. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I really hope you don't expect 100 separate people all to make terrible supports, Beamathan. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It could happen due to ignorance. Beam 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, because "I Helped you get that article into Featured" or "We're friends" is a complete bullshit point of view. Naerii 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've Got a Proposal for ya

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we leave RfA the way it is?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering it's virtually impossible to implement changes, I don't have any compunction with leaving it the way it is. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. If we did, then we won't have anything to occupy our time. I mean, write articles? What are you, nuts? —Kurykh 23:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's always copy-editting. --Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we came here to sling mud at each other, you should know that. :) In all seriousness though, I believe that while there might be improvements that can be made, there is really nothing wrong with the current system. —Kurykh 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait until RREV is over. I doubt anything serious will happen after it's finished; we can't seem to reach a consensus at all. The sad fact is, Iridescent is right—WP:DEAL is no longer true, and RfA is almost entirely a vote, not a discussion. Hopefully feedback at RREV can help improve our current situation. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I support no change for the sake of no change! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

strongest support ever Naerii 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Support per Kurkyh and WP:NOTAVOTE. —Giggy 11:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. We should not fear change. There are too many concerns to let all of them fly out of the window for no reason. — _Maggot^Syn 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Redirect ...what? Do you know how rarely I get to !vote Redirect? Cut me some slack.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Speedy keep per nom. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Two and a half Needs more experience with AfD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per my discussion on IRC, and so do all my sockpuppets. – ırıdescent 15:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support I view RFA Change proposals as Lis alibi pendens evidence of things better discussed elsewhere. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral - Per Nom. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Mizu onna sango15's brilliantly eminent argument. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Comment The blinking support is the worst. Make it stop, make it stop! Gary King (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Absolutely The most stupendously brilliant proposal ever on wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong support. Wizardman 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment We won't be able to make Rfa better by changing the actual system. What needs to change is the Rfa regulars. Its not really helpful to just say "Support he'll make a fine admin" or "Oppose Per comments made above." People need to take the time to actually explain why they think the person won't make a good admin, or will make a good admin.--SJP _Chat 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

13. Redundant Support intentionally out of place and after discussion closed IAW WP:IAR!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose Anything can change if it is supported and I (as does everyone) reserve the right to bring proposals to the community's attention, try taking that way from me :P   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the reason why I do not like going on the RFA talk anymore. bibliomaniac15 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see humor as a good thing every now and then. If you don't like it, just close the discussion. It didn't get too out of hand. — _Maggot^Syn 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I like humor just as much as you and the guy next door, and I have no intention of closing the discussion. I was merely voicing a opinion. bibliomaniac15 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I just found your opinion contrary to your rationale for not posting here. I myself rarely post here, but this is only because of the edit conflicts. — _Maggot^Syn 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Signatures

What do you think of making it mandatory for comments in the question and answer section to be signed (and timestamped)? This is the only area on Wikipedia in the project and talk namespaces that I have come across where "please sign your posts" does not apply. No negative effects come to mind. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See above section. In all seriousness though, I don't have a problem with this, but it may make the area a tad messier. Useight (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC on adminbots

A RFC on adminbots has been opened, here. --Chetblong^Talk/_ARK 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad

Why is it necessary to have contributed to an FA before you can possibly become admin? Simply south (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: it isn't. Long answer: many RFA !voters like to see that a candidate has contributed to the mainspace and creating (or significantly working on) an FA is a good way to show that the candidate creates content. Useight (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Has the trend gone so far as to convince users that you must have an FA to become an admin? God forbid! bibliomaniac15 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope not. I've seen the RFA criteria pages of many users and I don't recall many, if any at all, that listed an FA as a requirement. Useight (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the title and the question was the ad.

Simply south (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If that ever becomes a requirement, I won't be an admin for years. :-) Simply south, most RFA "voters" are simply looking for dedication, (here long term), WP:CLUE, and a reasonably active and clean history. Others have more specific requirements and the "length of service" varies, and the community will never ever never ever agree on standardized criteria, including FA/GA, so don't worry 'bout it. If you are passionate about the FA process, go for it! If not, your dispassion will be perceived and it will hurt you more than it helps. Do what you like to do here! Whatever it is, your contributions (unless they're vandalism :0)! are appreciated. Keep up the good work! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Won't be an admin for years?" Um, Keeper, don't look now, but you're already an admin. :P Useight (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

...hence the smiley face. (I thought my sarcasm was thick enough...:-) I fooled everyone months ago. I still have 0 FAs, 0 GAs, 0 DYKs, 0 reports to AIV, and 0 of a whole lotta other things I'm sure that others are currently opposed for. It simply proves to me that RFA is broken, and we (collectively) are being way way too hard on each other. Adminship is about trust and dedication to Wikipedia. Some of the best candidates have mountains of FAs, and years of dedicated article building contributions. Some other candidates that I've supported have mountains of article protection, or mountains of article maintenance. Currently, I firmly believe we need more article author/admins. I've been nominating along those lines. The pendulum may swing again, where we need more vandy-fighting admins, I can move with that. Either way, I'm very glad, as much as I detest RFA in its vulgarity and brutality, that it does not have any strict "must have....x" requirements in order to pass. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying I worked on those FAs for nothing? :p Gary King (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you should work on FAs because you want to work on FAs. If you don't, it will be apparent that you are merely trying to win at the RFA game. (I'm not saying that's true about you Gary, I've never looked at your contribs - simply that it is definitely a trend lately to jump through fiery hoops in order to gain the "rfa trophy" in general). Don't be that guy. Do what you like here on-wiki. If you start doing things you don't like, in order to get a coupla extra measly buttons, what the hell makes you (again, not you Gary, you in general) think that you'll enjoy adminning those same areas that you begrudgingly editted to get adminship? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I WikiGnome because that's what I like to do, if you like making FAs, do that. Find whatever you enjoy and keep doing that. If you don't do what you like, you're likely to burn out. Useight (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

←The ad is somewhat tongue in cheek, but if you meet a good deal of those criteria, you will likely do well at RFA> –xenocidic (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We're all volunteers and you should do what you want to do, something that I try to emphasize in my admin coaching. Trying to force people into doing stuff that they're bad at in order to get the tools doesn't work, and I think is one of the things we have to address with the process. Oh, and Gary, you should be working on those FAs and FLs to blow apart the standings at WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN, not necessarily for the +sysop bit if you want something tangible to shoot for :p. Rule of thumb though is that good article contributions always help. I think I snuck through because of that =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, if you take a look at the articles I work on, they range from a wide variety of topics, so no, I'm not purposely shooting for high rankings ;) That would be a nice side-effect though :p Gary King (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I never really stopped to read the RFA ad, but from what I see, it's uncannily true. bibliomaniac15 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Questioning sanity

Why do some oppose an RfA after the stated time of closing? This recent example shows two such opposes immediately after the 06:05 UTC closing time of this RfA. I don't remember what the policy is for this, are they discounted by the closing 'crat, or are these opposes allowed to stand even though they are technically late? -MBK₀₀₄ 06:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC) _{Yes this example comes from a co-nom of mine.}

It's my understanding that there is no policy against casting an !vote if the RfA is still open. I can understand your view here though, but I don't think it was done purposefully. What would have been your reaction had the above been supports? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I were the closing 'crat, I would strike all !votes placed after the stated closing time in this instance because of the support percentage at the time. I make no difference of support or oppose. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Until its closed, editors can still participate. — _Maggot^Syn 07:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then that tells me (if true) that the stated closing times need to be enforced better than they are. This RfA is still ongoing more than an hour after stated close. Where are the 'crats? -MBK₀₀₄ 07:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. Its not the end of the (world) pedia. This happens every now and then. They might just be busy. Nothing to get alarmed about. — _Maggot^Syn 07:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A few things: First, this is run by VOLUNTEERS not paid employees. As such, things aren't always done timely. Second, the closing time, just like AfD's and everything else on Wikipedia is more of a guideline than an absolute requirement. RfA's are often closed a few hours early or (on rarer cases) an hour or two late. There is no absolute imperative that RfA's close exactly, to the minute, seven days after they were started.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always treated the closing time as a guideline, there generally aren't that many active crats and as long as the discussion gets closed at some point within a day or so of the scheduled ending I have no problem. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 08:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• For a crat's view on this, see User talk:Xenocidic/Archive 5#It wasn't that big of a deal.... –xenocidic (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Great. I make a big deal about nothing (accordingly I've hit myself with a trout. Even my own RfA ran over (duh). I realize that we are all volunteers, but I think there might be a disparity in the locations of the 'crats primarily in North America, Europe and Australia which may have caused this (minor) problem. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

are they discounted by the closing 'crat, or are these opposes allowed to stand even though they are technically late? ← obviously only the "closing 'crat" knows the answer to this question, but I would guess that in most cases neither the 'crat nor anybody else notices the timestamps until well after the fact. — CharlotteWebb 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

External study of Wikipedia adminship process

Well, I think that's what it was. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Taking up the mop. Apologies if this has been mentioned here or elsewhere before. Please note, the authors of that paper might be wrong, so don't immediately jump one way or the other. Maybe just try to extract something useful and add it to the current debates? Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure - their take seems to be overly formulaic toward administrator candidates. Granted, someone would have to be either blind or patently ignorant to try and claim that there are not some truths to the statement that metrics like edit counts and summaries have a clear influence, much to the chagrin of some editors (including myself, who prefer to see a greater emphasis placed on the quality of contributions rather than quantity). But the truth of the matter is that it's far easier to simply look at an edit count as a judge of an editor's relative activity level. As far as the notion of a bot to identify potential RfA candidates - I am somewhat skeptical. Again, a bot is only able to identify raw statistics which are a largely useless measure in determining a candidate's suitability to the task. While I could see some measure of utility in providing a list of "potentials" that interested nominators could comb through for ideas, I doubt it would be any more efficient than the current scenario. For what its worth, I did find it interesting that an increased participation in deletion discussions had an apparently negative effect on success rate. That seems counterintuitive and I cannot explain it. Shereth 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In my experience of RfAs, some users pay quite close attention to a user's arguments on AfD, and readily oppose on the basis of a couple of AfD argument diffs that they disagree with. I could certainly say that, beyond a certain minimum number of AfD edits required to demonstrate you know what you're doing there, further AfD !votes are more likely to attract opposition from people that disagree with you, rather than additional support. I'm not really saying this method of opposing is good or bad, but I can see a reason why that pattern might be there. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No biggie??

Yeah right. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? From here, It appeared that the person on your RfA that seemed to consider it the biggest deal was you. I strongly suggest you take a deep breath and leave it til tomorrow before you engage anyone further about this RfA. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I want the admins tools because I want to edit, not because I'm power hungry. I've said many times that I'm not interested in deletions, blockings, etc... My last RfA had a lot of crap arguments and I could've dealt with it better. So I've made my peace with that, and gave it a new shot, so everyone could deal with it better. I've assumed good faith from my opposers, yet they can't assume good faith from me. That's the shame. No one in there can find one edit I've made of bad faith. No one in there can find one edit I've made to disrupt wikipedia. Yet I'm labeled as some kind of monster because to be able to edit templates. No one gives a damn about my actual worth as an editor, my potential worth as an admin, or what I would actually do with the tools. I've edited template many times before, I've greatly enhanced them. Admins always give me semi-protection when I asked for it, I've given many examples of that, and it's not some meek typo-fixing edit either. I may have shot myself in the foot by reapplying, but so did the RfA by denying me access to template editing and the like. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool off, man. I've left a message on your talk page, and I'm sorry if your second RFA caused you stress, but this doesn't preclude another RFA later. Wait a few months, wait for someone to nominate you, and you'll probably be fine. Really. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This one caused a lot less stress than the last one. I'm mostly disappointed at people, not pissed.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need admin tools to edit though. tabor-^{drop me a line} 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But I do to edit high-use templates without going through 250 doors. I've waited the whole day to do a change at {{physics}}. It took about half an hour to implement, yet over 10 hours to get a response for my editprotected request. Last time it took three days. Next in line are the class and importance templates, which I'll probably have to detail exactly what my modifications are etc..., resulting to what I estimate 2 hours of writing the "request" anywhere from a few hours to a couple of days before someone reads it, taking some of their time as well, having to bother to fiddle with semi-protection for ~20 pages. Were I edit those templates without going through editprotected requests, this would 20 minutes at most, allowing me to do other things than simply wait, and no one would be bothered.

It's funny that people grant such powers to people who would do it as a past time to distract themselves, who says they don't need the tools other than to "have something to do", than to those who demonstrates a need for them to systematically improve Wikipedia. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. RfAs suck, people are stupid, and you should be an admin. We get it. Enough already. Tan | 39 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new tool.... RFA Stats

Well, I've been working on this for a while, using tango's RFA libraries (yaknow, the same ones that make that table up at the top), and while it's not perfect, thought some here might find it useful. Here's where it is. What's it do? It analyzes the RFA's the queried user has edited (periodically! Not every load...), and, tries to ascertain how the queried user !voted in that RFA. It's not always perfect, and, things that can cause it to not parse correctly, are... Renames, funky sigs, etc. I'm going to do a separate one for RFB in a while, depending on how this one's received. Enjoy! :) (Oh, and, mind the red text, please :P) SQL^{Query me!} 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly useful...I like it! Acalamari 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you have released this before I spent all that time creating my RFA participation page?! =) –xenocidic (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it was stuck in "beta" stage for a long time while I was finishing up another tool :) SQL^{Query me!}

Nice tool, was interesting to see my voting record. It failed to parse a few that I couldn't see a reason for, but they all seem to have occurred during the same period when I had a particular signature, so I'm guessing that caused it. Although that sig was rather similar to my current one, so no idea what the difference is! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

SQL is a freekin genius. Although my "funky" sig (I presume) gave mostly "could not parse". I'll presume they were supports (they usually are :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Blushes* Thanks! :) SQL^{Query me!} 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice indeed. Particularly useful, and that caveat is the best I've seen in a while! Rudget (logs) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I like it, and it got pretty close to matching my page as I linked above. –xenocidic (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the RFA libraries are User:Tangotango's, not mine. We are different people! --Tango (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or are you? Rudget (logs) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry :) SQL^{Query me!} 19:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments. Great tool, thanks! --Kbdank71 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So when will it actually work? :P Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, around the time we get SUL... Hmm... Soonish? :P SQL^{Query me!} 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. I thought everyone knew about this already. I've been using this for almost 2 weeks ^_^ — _Maggot^Syn 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Heh, I think a few of the people I showed the beta to showed it to a few people who showed it to a few people :P SQL^{Query me!} 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, phooey. I guess the apostrophe (approximation of ʻ ) in my name breaks things. --Ali'i 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I think it's messing with the RFA library (tangotango's) detection :/ SQL^{Query me!} 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the majority of yours, it was an internal thing with how I was handling users with apostrophes in their names :) SQL^{Query me!} 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As with me. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yours, too, is fixed now. SQL^{Query me!} 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question - looking at mine, the vast majority did not parse, but I've never used a different sig. Are there other bugs other than sig-related? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

More than likely, out of the 130 or so I've participated in, only a few gave me errors. — _Maggot^Syn 20:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The ones that parsed correctly had the same sig as the ones that didn't...what would another bug be? I'm immensely curious to see just how many I supported (I'm pretty sure its above 90%, but still, curious. And extremely lazy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, I remember it being really, really finnicky about s/o/n sections too, particularly somehow when strikeouts occur... SQL^{Query me!} 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of them could just be comments formatted wrong. Also, I've noticed that this tool also catches RfA's that were never transcluded and subsequently never closed. — _Maggot^Syn 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could Strong and Weak votes maybe have some kind of effect on the counter?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the times I did "strong/weak" showed up all right on there. Also don't forget that RfAs where someone updated the tally or closed the RfA are also listed as unable to parse, and elaborate signatures will probably affect it too. Acalamari 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How about: Infinitely supper strong support oh and zOMG YOURNOTANADMMINALREADY?, no srly you're not?. Not that you've done that.... — _Maggot^Syn 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This tool is magnificent - I always wondered about my stats. Unfortunately, it couldn't parse about 20 or so for unknown reasons, but still cool. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work for my name, although it says I edited 4 rfas. Beam 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I never knew I voted neutral for people that have been very successful as a Wikipedian, or that I participated in so many RFA's. bibliomaniac15 21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Of the three it couldn't parse of mine, two were recent RFA's I supported, and the other I voted after it was snowed, so it got reverted.--Bedford ^Pray 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I noticed that it has at least one duplicate for me---I originally created happyme22's RfA with a lower case h, and it it is showing on my list... thus it is capturing RfA's that are never transcluded. Also, I'm assuming that the one's where it is reporting no vote/parsing are the one's that we edited but it couldnt' find our vote?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There were 60 "Did not comment / Could not parse" for me. It'd be nice if the tool segregated successful RFAs from unsuccessful ones that would make it more interesting. Useight (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else have a 50% oppose rate? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of parsable RFA's, it seems that a certain user here has a 94% oppose rate. bibliomaniac15 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

and 80% of those the exact same comment? oh wait, the bot doesn't go in that depth... –xenocidic (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And 15% of those are probably his latest bandwagon...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I've never opposed an RFA. Wow. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Chiding is not allowed! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hee. I guess I'm just too nice :) BTW, great tool SQL. It's so much fun playing around with these things. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

91.5% support rate. Yep, pretty much agree with that. To be really nit picky about this handy tool, it would be handy if the lists of RFA's also show on the same page whether the candidate passed or not. Garion96 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, I'll take a look at doing it... That *should* be pretty easy to parse out. SQL^{Query me!} 02:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kudos on the new tool SQL! R. Baley (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What are "views"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking same question :). Pretty neat, adding to my user page for future reference. Now to look up Kurt. :)<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a neat tool. However, "Views" should be fixed for "Did not comment / Could not parse:" – it's converting a NULL value to an integer value. Gary King (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what "views" are... and it appears to be rather meaningless. It is the number of times this tool has looked at that particular RfA. I picked an RfA at random from my list. It was at 94 "views." I then went to another user, checked the same RfA on his list. It was at 95 views. I went to a third person, that same RfA was now at 96 views. I then went back to my page, and it was at 97 views.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Nice tool. I might make a request though. I note the several of the "could not parse" were RfAs where I left questions in the "questions" section, but didn't get back to them in time to "vote".

Would it be possible to add a section which lists the RfAs which someone "officially" asked a question (that is by posting a section in the "questions" section of the RfA)? If so that would be great : ) - jc37 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually pretty hard to figure out :) If you have a patch to do it, I'll take a look at adding it however :) SQL^{Query me!} 02:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not certain how you currently parse out support/oppose/etc. But if it's by section, I thought that this "by section" might be possible. Even if not, looking for "...by Example" or "...from Example" should do it? - jc37 03:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)