Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Name	Ends	S	O	N	S%	Report
Tcncv	02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)	89	3	1	96.7%	report
Kww 3	Unknown	72	29	6	71.3%	report
MLauba	11:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)	41	1	1	97.6%	report
The Earwig	02:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)	56	0	0	100.0%	report
RayAYang	21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)	28	13	2	68.3%	report
Tango 2	Unknown	10	47	7	17.5%	report

Active Admins & Crats

The top of both this page and the project page have "Current admin count: 1,625 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 30 (list all)". I think that gives us a misleading background to the RFA & RFB processes as these figures includes long dormant accounts. If we have the appropriate bots does anyone object to replacing them with "Currently active admins: ??? (list all) Current active bureaucrats: ?? (list all)". I seem to remember there being a bot somewhere that counts admins who have performed more than a certain number of edits in the last 90 days, though ideally I'd suggest admins and crats who've performed an admin or crat action in the last 90 days. WereSpielChequers 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove the rights of inactive admins

It would be better just to remove the rights from users that aren't interested in using them. Majorly talk 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? Not using an ability is not the same as misusing and ability so removing it would not be helpful.

I do think it would be a fine idea to mark the admins who have recently used their tools as "active" admins. 90 days sounds about right, not measuring edits though but the use of the relevant tools thenselves. Chillum 20:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, it would make the number at the top accurate. Tell me, what purpose does keeping dormant rights have? Majorly talk 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Once an admin, always an admin. That's the rule here, except in the most exceptional of circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone will probably quite soon wheel out that tired old WP:PERENNIAL in yet another attempt to stifle discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. "What's the harm?" "They aren't abusing!" "They might come back!" "It'll cause a lot of work for the stewards!" Blah blah blah. They miss the point that they are simply decoration if not used. Get them if you need them. Lose them if you don't. Give them up if you're no longer trusted by the community. Meta-wiki philosophy, that should be brought here. Alas, it will never happen. Majorly talk 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they should be desysoped if inactive for blank days, because if they're accounts are hacked then well you know.--Giants27 TC 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you know? No, I guess I don't. Why would an inactive account be more hackable than an active one? It's people who actively log in who create opportunities to have their passwords sniffed, cookies re-used, etc. rspεεr (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea that inactive admins should be desysoped has been repeatedly rejected, it is also not the topic of this thread. Dormant does not mean gone forever, people come back. Chillum 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because it has been rejected by the people who hang out on this page, doesn't mean it will be again. I really don't think someone who left in 2003 will be coming back. And if they did, I would not trust them in the slightest to be deleting pages - when they were active, the wiki was extremely different, and many of today's policies non-existent. I think I might propose it again. Majorly talk 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what you'd find is that there are quite a few people who oppose the concept, but are content to ignore you each time you bring it up because it doesn't go anywhere. If it seems like it might go somewhere, those people will probably arrive to set you straight. I know desysopping people is your hobby on meta, but this isn't meta (and meta really isn't all that meta anymore... maybe it should be renamed bureaucracy.wikimedia.org or buro.wiki for short?). Speaking of meta policies, don't they require meta admins to be administrators on another content project? Avruch ^T 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, it is not my "hobby" at all. Please keep your comments non-personal. Obviously, considering you have thousands of edits on Meta-wiki, you know much more than I do about it, so I'll take your word for it.

They'll "set me straight"? By giving me the tired old argument of WP:NOHARM? And your final point, yes, they do. Majorly talk 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be surprised at how many are in favour of the idea Avruch I'd certainly be lining up with Majorly, and you won't see me say that very often. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You could be right, Malleus, but I hope not. I think its a fantastically bad idea for a number of reasons. Proponents think it will be easy and uncontroversial; but it will be anything but. The smokescreen of "But would you want 2003 admins deleting pages in 2009" ignores the fact that after the first few weeks or whatever, any desysopping process would focus on people just past the minimum threshold of activity. A year, six months? So when they come back, all the fringe promoters and wingnuts they pissed off should get Round 2 at RfA, arguing over whether they should be resysopped? If you dislike RfA, and I know you do, you should cringe at the thought. I realize people have a visceral appreciation for admin bloodsport, and some folks just want as many admins as possible desysopped on the belief that it will only help... But confirmations and desysoppings will be difficult and full of drama, far more than its worth to solve some problem no one has really identified. Avruch ^T 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is clear. A disconnect between those doing the work and those who believe that they are in charge of those doing the work, rather than believing that they are supporting those doing the work. If I ruled the World I'd desysop every admin right now, and demand that they went through a reconfirmation RfA. A 2009 RfA, not the nod and a wink stuff that used to go on. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering what problem this is trying to solve? If there isn't a clear issue this is trying to resolve then it's just another unneeded layer of bureaucracy. And it's almost certainly going to add more drama with no corresponding benefit. RxS (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rx. This is a solution in search of a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let them eat cake springs to mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Counting actives rather than all

If you want to propose this change Majorly please do, it is a productive thing to do. I will contribute to the discussion. I don't think there is much chance of the idea being accepted but it is always good to know for sure. This thread is about an idea that has a good chance of being implemented which I support. Marking admins as inactive/active by a bot is a great idea. Chillum 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've split this into two threads because there are two very different proposals here - not least because I and expect many others would be loathe to desysop someone who took a four month wiki break. But you wouldn't really describe them as active would you? WereSpielChequers 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(moved here per topic heading) Is there not a bot somewhere that calculates the number of active hierarchs? That could be parenthesised after the total figure. Skomorokh 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is a list of active admins somewhere. — neuro^(talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the revision history of Wikipedia:List of administrators. Rick Bot updates it daily, so you can see how it varies. Useight (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That lists 945. — neuro^(talk) 01:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I heard somewhere that there are 600 active admins, but "active" is subject to interpretation. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Active", at least for that number, means "has made more than 30 edits in the last 3 months". I wouldn't call that 'active', I would call it 'not inactive'. Certainly the number of admins actively involved in day to day editing is probably a good bit lower. — neuro^(talk) 01:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

... although not yet low enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

30 edits in three months seems more or less inactive to me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything Malleus, Wikipedia needs more admins not less. It is not a big deal you know? Chillum 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a big deal then why do so many clearly incompetent admins fight tooth and nail to avoid being desysoped? If it's not a big deal, then why is it such a big deal to lose the admin bit? Wake up, smell the coffee. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to answer the other question. Why does wikipedia need more admins exactly? Surely there are far too many as it is? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee Malleus, you haven't said why we should not have admins. Frankly the vandals and trolls would just take over if we didn't. No there are not enough admins, we need more. So that we can manage the higher population of users. Now do you have any reasons(you know the things that convince people) why we should not have as many admins?

Who are all these admins that are so incompetent that they are fighting to avoid desysoping? I have seen less than a handful of such admins over the course of years. Chillum 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The archive from the last time the algorithm for how to count admins as active came up is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 155. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original proposal

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 155#Depressing thought was an interesting thread that shows it might be difficult to get consensus for a different way to count how many active admins we have. In particular someone who retires after an afternoons editing would currently be counted as active for the following 90 days, an admin who only performs blocks and deletes would count as inactive if they didn't do 30 edits in 90 days and crucially this is not a binary divide as we have a few very active admins who spend time on wikipedia every day, and many others who might spend an hour a fortnight or less here. I suspect if the bot could also count admin actions such as blocks we could get consensus that an inactive admin is one who hasn't performed an admin action in the last 30 days, and a dormant account is one that hasn't done anything in 60 days. Giving us three groups of admins, Active admins, active editors with admin rights that they rarely if ever use, and currently inactive admins. But back to my original proposal to replace the current figure of number of editors with crat and admin rights with the number of "actives" however actives is defined, I haven't yet spotted any opposition to this even amongst those who disagree as to whether we have too few or too many admins. So unless anyone objects I'll make that change on Thursday. WereSpielChequers 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, maybe list both actives and all admins (like "945/855"). On the same thought, maybe Rick Block could change his bot to update that figure once a week (let's put it on a subpage to make it easier). And I agree with the idea to change the criterion of activity and change WP:LOA to reflect that (if we can have consensus on the variables and Rick makes the changes needed that is). SoWhy 15:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to list active and all as per SoWhy. WereSpielChequers 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We lost another admin today and I'm just sick about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today, I spent a good while reading an ANI thread about an edit war, and reviewing the history of the page in question. After some thought, I decided neither to block the editors involved nor to protect the page. Since then I was happy to see productive editing taking place and an apparent end to the edit war. I've still got eighty-nine days of the same activity to go until I make the inactive list, but it's a start. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I use the admin tools to view deleted pages to check that they were deleted properly & to e-mail copies of deleted articles to editors on request. I also close AfDs without deletion & refuse expired prods where further discussion seems in order. None of this shows up in the logs, but is all legitimate admin activity. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have issued at least half a dozen warnings to vandals today. None of this shows up in admin logs either. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of new user RFAs

Don't you think the amount of new user RFAs we're getting at the moment? These used to be quite rare, but we've had Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wael.Mogherbi, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Syjytg and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blctc all within the last week. None of them had a nomination statement. What's going on?--Patton^t/c 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistically insignificant deviation. Skomorokh 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps RfA is broken? . — Aitias // discussion 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fail. It's been broken for months now. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me} @ 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No evidence to back me up but maybe, just maybe socks? I don't think so but it's a possibility.--Giants27 TC 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too.--Patton^t/c 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do have some shiny new CUs that we need to break in. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dylan - people at RfA are broken.  GARDEN  17:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Garden - People (and keyboards) are broken at RFA. Gazimoff 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As well as caravans.  GARDEN  20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given that all three of them failed to fill out the descriptions of the candidates (themselves), that is a bit curious. Definitely sends up my sockpuppet flag... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Although, the new users log has been rather active as of late, so maybe we're just experiencing a surge of activity. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So has vandalism, I mean I've never reverted 2 vandalisms in 2 minutes before, for me it's usually 2 every 6 or 8 minutes.--Giants27 TC 18:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"I mean I've never reverted 2 vandalisms in 2 minutes before" | Clearly never used WP:HUG then! I remember getting like ten in a minute with that once... ah, man. — neuro^(talk) 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you can easily do 10–20 per minute with Huggle. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the hands of a competent and conscientious user, Huggle is extremely effective. Any proggy that gives users the opportunity to revert vandalism faster than Cluebot is impressive. It also breeds a lot of irritation though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Jarry1250

Hi, just a quick note to let you know that User:Jarry1250 is up for BAG membership (click the above link for the nomination). Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How dare you associate BAG nominations with RfA! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been the norm for some time that BAG nominations are publicised on various noticeboards (including, gasp!, WP:AN). People complained that BAG had a 'cliquey' feel, and so this was one way of getting more community oversight. Richard⁰⁶¹² 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Wisdom89, is BAG membership is such a bad thing ? :P -- Tinu Cherian - 14:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA is too damn stressful (and a possible way that might fix it)

We all know it, RFA's too stressful. People spends up to a week on edge, and do/say things because of the stress that they wouldn't say normally. Solution: Restructure RFA to look more like the CU and Oversight elections. Have people vote, but not leave comments. I think that these comments are part of the reason there is so much discord at RFA. What does everyone think? Sam ^Blab 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Before someone says it (and I know they will), but m:Voting is evil is one of Wikipedia's most important policies, and a pure vote would therefore be evil. Majorly talk 23:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason to make it look any more like a vote; I don't really think the comments-with-votes have much to do with it anyway. Anyone with anything contentious to say would just stick their contentiousness in the discussion section anyway; I much prefer having peoples' opinions attached to their votes so it's easy to see who's thought it through and who's just following the conga line. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You could argue that the current system is an opportunity to see how the candidate performs in stressful situations, as they may very well come up against stress as an admin. Apterygial 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I ever did as an admin was nearly as stressful as going through my reconfirmation RFA. Majorly talk 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this has been proposed, and won't be the last time this has been shot down. I suggest looking into the archives at all the other times when this has come up, meaningfully address all the concerns raised in those discussions, then come back and try again. —kurykh 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see something that can come out of his proposal though. I think a nice concept would be to have RfA's held monthly. For example, every beginning of a month, we would have elections just like we did for ArbCom, where as many candidates would run as applied. That would be instead of having one whenever somebody wanted to open it, we only held RfA's 12 times a year (every month). It would take off a lot of pressure if you were running along with a group of people, instead of (in some cases, by yourself or with one other person). Just a thought. iMatthew // talk // 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that stress comes from within, not from outside. RfA is what it is, and there's nothing that can be done to change it. Any candidate who feels they might be streesed by the bear pit ought to stay well clear of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The CU elections only look better because the people are generally already well known and fairly well liked, so they generate less opposition and (by virtue of having been admins for quite awhile already) they are less likely to respond with erratic or emotional behavior. Plus they're just lower profile - fewer people are aware of those elections to begin with. Avruch ^T 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think it's all that stressful. My RfA is coming to a close tonight, will most likely fail, and I don't have any hard feelings about it. In fact, it's a much better alternative to editor review. I'm not saying that's why I did it (it most certainly is not), but I've had an editor review sit for a month with no response. Here you get the most constructive criticism you could imagine with the bonus of many people saying good things about you (I really am appreciated!). If you shouldn't be requesting adminship, then yes, I can see an RfA being disheartening, but at the same time, you shouldn't have requested it to begin with. Just my 2¢. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

Wadester, trust me, it will definitely fail. But I like your attitude. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know if "stressful" is the right word, I think it's more of "uncertainty". And, generally speaking, whenever there is any event with an unknown outcome that directly affects your future, there's going to be some stress, even if it is solely due to the uncertainty. Not necessarily stress as in fretting and pacing around, but more of an apprehensive wondering, I guess I would call it. Useight (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the biggest things putting me off RfAing myself anyway; I just don't really need the stress of uncertainty. I'm not bothered about people saying nasty things about me, I just don't like worrying for a week - like it or not, Wikipedia's important to me and an RfA is something of a big deal, regardless of what the cliché may be. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The only way to truly fix RfA is &action=delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I kinda like IMatthew's idea of having one every month of the year, because then we can have that message on the watchlist, "vote in this months RFA elections", now the only deciding if we keep the vote at 1 week, or make it longer.--Giants27 TC 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Expect a long proposal coming soon. :) iMatthew // talk // 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like it too. A bit less secrecy seems like a good idea, particularly if candidates were actually allowed to make it widely known that they were standing at RfA without being accused of "canvassing". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to work on writing up a proposal (maybe tomorrow). If anybody would like to see it being put together, bookmark this page and check back often throughout the day tomorrow. (If you go there, be aware that it shows your IP, but nobody will know it's you if you don't fill in your username). iMatthew // talk // 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, in my opinion. Xclamation point 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The only appropriate change if we remove one piece is to remove voting and just have comments. A good 50% of supports are pure fluff. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not stressful. It is just a few questions and a lot of opinions. That is what the people running for admin are asking for. A job interview is stressful, meeting with a doctor about something serious is stressful, being an admin is stressful. I went through RfA twice and I found it to be a pleasant experience both to fail and succeed. If you don't want stress then admin is a terrible job for you. RfA is nothing compared to the stress of an angry mob who will not accept policy berating you on your talk page.

Basically it takes a certain level of ability to handle stress to be an admin, if something as simple and constructive as the criticism on an RfA is too much stress then you should let that stress filter you out of the potential admin pool. RfAs should filter out people who are uncomfortable with people scrutinizing them. Admins are scrutinized.

The comments are the most important part, if it was pure voting with no comments then we might as well make a 'cratBot to do the promoting. The comments people make have an effect on the other people. Chillum 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this out of the way - not allowing comments is a downright silly idea. Hell yeah RfA is stressful, but saying "it is stressful, so lets remove the comments" is just... well, that is just making things even worse. How are people supposed to demonstrate reasons to support or reasons to oppose to others without comments? This is not a good plan. — neuro^(talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways to do RFA, including straight no-comment voting, selecting a fixed number of candidates from a preselected list or an open ballot, or other means, but 1) I'm not sure you would ever get consensus to change, and 2) any new system would have its own plusses and minuses. One advantage to today's RFA system is it gives feedback. People who fail usually walk away with a clue what needs to change before they can be granted the bit. As long as "opposes" are written a if they were "moral supports" i.e. "I would support you but for ..., now go change it and I'll support you down the road" then the current system is probably the way to go. If it should ever turn into a blood sport, then we have a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been using this a lot lately, but I won't say who said it, in case he wishes not to be quoted.

"The RfA process is not broken, the voters are. But since we can't change the voters, we have to change the process."

These threads and proposals are all good, ideas should come whenever possible. iMatthew // talk // 02:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

*Rant*Good quote and I agree 100% with it the RFA process itself is certaintly not broken (so all these people coming here screaming RFA is broken what can we do to fix it? are wrong) I have an idea do away with non-comment votes and no more moral supports those are garbage, "Too early, I'd vote for you down the road however", I have an idea OPPOSE!*End Rant*--Giants27 TC 03:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that CU/Steward/ArbCom elections happen infrequently. If you seriously think the majority of members of the !voting community are going to, individually, exhaustively research ten candidates a month just because a few over-sensitive people have meltdowns due to RfA, you're out of your mind. The current system allows for those of us with better things to do onwiki than diff-stalk to at least get a feel for the general pros and cons of each given candidate (a common-ground launching point, if you will) before doing our own research. Badger Drink (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather people make comments about me than simply say they didn't want to be an admin. That way I could improve as a person and an editor.--Patton^t/c 10:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you find a week at RFA stressful, don't spend a month at FAC ... ;) WilyD 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC stressful? Lol you've gotta be kidding me. It's one of the most relaxing processes there is. Everyone is so friendly.--Patton^t/c 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

{{disputed}} –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My first time at RFA, at least 4 other editors attempted to address objections on my behalf. My first time at FAC, no more than zero other editors attempted to address objections on my behalf. Helpful is more useful than friendly ... WilyD 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a straight vote is helpful from a self-improvement perspective; one of the things I strongly disliked about my recent OS election is that I have no clue why most of the opposers voted the way they did (a couple I was unsurprised about, but for the most part, I have no clue if there's something I need or can work on for the future). Yes, I may have gotten the OS flag, but I'm always interested in how I can improve myself; a straight vote doesn't allow for that. If anything, I think a straight vote would be more stressful, since the candidate would have no clue why they're being opposed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope I can say things like this and hopefully the "nomination succeeded" version of this when I'm ready to put on the asbestos underwear, er, drop my name in the ring. I agree with Badger Drink (talk · contribs)'s comment above: "The current system allows for those of us with better things to do onwiki than diff-stalk to at least get a feel for the general pros and cons of each given candidate (a common-ground launching point, if you will) before doing our own research." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to make RfA voting similar to ArbCom

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.

---

---

Is this a straw poll? Tan | 39 15:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be more of a discussion at first, I hoped. Please feel free to make changes NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I really like this proposal, but I think that the other regulars will sadly slam a WP:PEREN tag. A novel idea though. Sam ^Blab 15:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nah, things are fine as they are. There are problems, but this would make things worse. My reasons are given in the above discussion. Oh, and as is traditional here is my one word bolded summary of my opinion: oppose. If you have any questions about my opinion, just ask. Chillum 15:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am however in favor of the idea of a required 2 or 3 days discussion to be held on the talk page before actual polling begins. You or your nominator would submit your RfA but it will not open for polling for a few days giving people the chance to discuss the matter before casting opinions. I think this will help with NOTNOW problems and give people a chance to make an informed opinion at the poll instead of jumping on a band wagon.

Once this short discussion period is over the RfA would begin and be carried out just as it does now. Chillum 15:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I'd disagree that things are fine as they are. The administrators keep leaving, and the RfA's are passing a lot less frequently. There is a problem, and more people can agree with that. iMatthew // talk // 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it's hard to think that you aren't biased for your own (inexplicably withdrawn) recent failed RfA. Tan | 39 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's what inspired me to try to think up something that would work better than this. Going through it again, it's getting worse and worse. iMatthew // talk // 15:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit sticky, Tan, but true. Also, a comment. 2 weeks? People can hardly get through one. Simon^KSK 15:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) This would seem to be putting more barriers in front of editors wishing to run. The reason ArbCom elections run as they do is because members have to work cohesively as a small team, and it's in the encyclopaedia's interest that the team reflects the norms, values and concerns of a particular point in time. There is no such need for administrators, who can in the vast majority of cases block, delete and protect merrily on their own. I prefer to leave candidacies emerge organically than force them into artificial time periods. Thirdly, this would make RfA more of a big deal. Fourthly, making reviewers look through the contribs of the same amount of candidates all at once is far more stressful. Finally, if you can't handle the scrutiny of the editorial community for a week on your own, you don't have the mental resilience the position requires. Thank you for the thought put into this proposal, and I look forward to hearing more. Skomorokh 15:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Skomorokh. In other news, feels like creep. — neuro^(talk) 16:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This process needs to be fixed. If idea's keep getting shot down, and editors suggesting that it's "too much work" then it never will be. iMatthew // talk // 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I think you're being overly dramatic in thinking this is being 'shot down', but anyway. — neuro^(talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Instituting bad ideas just for the sake of changing something is not a promising approach. And with all due respect, at first glance this looks to be a bad idea; let's discuss it some more to find out. Who are you quoting with regard to effort? Skomorokh 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was just a comment in general. It's what I'm picking up from the thread so far. iMatthew // talk // 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If I were to shoot this down, then it's because I don't think this is an improvement to the RFA process at all, not because it's "too much work". The real problem is the inflation of people's RFA standards, not the process itself.--Atlan (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What Atlan said. --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the suggested advantages appear to be true. In fact, even the oft-repeated meme that RFA is "broken" is not well supported. WilyD 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think having a dedicated RfA time will fix the problems at RfA. I think limiting and restricting the process (in both how vocal participants can be, and when they run) isn't the best way to solve the problem; it works for ArbCom because it's a major role on Wikipedia, and (in theory) all candidates are already well known in the community. That is not the case for admin candidates, where there should be a bit more investigation into their background and edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA itself does not to be fixed the voters do, but I still like the RFA's once a month the rest I'm to lazy to read.--Giants27 TC 17:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA needs fixing, RfA participants need fixing, doesn't matter; restricting the process per the above won't solve either problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No actual problem has been identified, and there's no real reason to believe people could agree upon any identification. Very few RFAs actually turn out wrong, so far as I can see. Until a specific problem is identified, proposing solutions is completely worthless, so far as I can see. WilyD 18:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"RfA participants need fixing" Are you talking about me? : P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a few friends who've been fixed, and they don't seem any worse for the wear. WilyD 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Boo, hiss Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Most RfAs I've seen are quite fair, and it seems to me that the ~1,000 userspace essays and ~200 WT:RFA archives, filled with "RfA is broken!" makes it worse than it actually is. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Personally I think that the fact that RfAs have become much tougher over recent years is a definite move in the right direction. I look forward to the day that it becomes so tough that it is impossible for anyone to pass. The wikifossils will then be forced to consider an alternative. Until then though, minds are closed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose A very bad idea, more stressful, less feedback.--Patton^t/c 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This proposal is a bad idea. As Skomorokh argues above, it would probably reduce the number of successful RFA candidacies, not increase it, as prospective admins would have to wait up to a month to run; it would also arguably increase the drama, by making RFA more of an 'event'. Making RFA more like the ArbCom elections is not desirable - does IMatthew not remember how drama-filled the last lot were? The current RFA system may not be perfect, but it works pretty well: users can submit themselves for adminship and receive an answer in a week, and NOTNOW candidaces are removed speedily. I'm not convinced we have a problem with a lack of successful admins, either; I see four passing RFAs in the top right at the moment. It's true that RFA can be a highly stressful experience for some candidates; but frequently, those who find it too stressful are those who are unsuitable to be an admin anyway. If you're well-suited to be an admin, then chances are you'll have a relatively drama-free RFA. All in all: wrong solution to a nonexistent problem. Robofish (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2009 (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.

NOTNOW

I see a lot of mention of WP:NOTNOW on this page. I am wondering, would I be put into that category if I were to try to become an admin at this point? Sam Barsoom 04:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would likely be the case. You have about 400 edits, and most candidates pass with several thousand. Keep in mind, however, that being a Wikipedian isn't about adminship, so keep up the good work as an editor! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have just told Sam Barsoom to make 6600 meaningless edits and come back. I'd like to suggest that edit count is not how you judge whether someone is ready for RfA. (Also, it's seven thousand this month? Do you even notice the edit count inflation when you're doing it?) rspεεr (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) Note that he said "several", not "seven". Useight (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A candidate with 6600 edits that were essentially spelling corrections done by a bot would be criticised as "inexperienced". 2000 edits or so, all manual, across all areas of Wikipedia could easily be enough. But with a couple hundred, nobody's going to feel they can properly evaluate the candidate (although the vote should probably be 0/0/50 in that case). WilyD 11:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam: Yes, unfortunately users with very few edits do not succeed. This is most often because when gauging a candidate, most editors like to see a larger amount of edits to determine how you would interact with others, how you edit pages, etc. Its not based on the numbers, its only beneficial because we have more information to come to a conclusion. Synergy 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest you look at Wikipedia:List of failed RfAs (Chronological) and read some of those which are mentioned to have been closed under NOTNOW and you will understand, why that happened, then have a look at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship to see what the community expects of their admin candidates (at the moment). Your willingness to ask here before just starting an RFA shows a level of CLUEness and I think with some more months of contributing positevely, you can risk jumping into the shark pool try RFA. Regards SoWhy 07:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also a link at wp:adco that includes the RfA criteria for several people. That might give you an idea of what people are looking for. But yes, with only a few hundred edits, you would end up in the NOTNOW category. While a lot of edits won't say anything about a candidate, too few edits can. With only a few hundred edits, it is impossible for people to properly vet you and see how you behave over time in different scenarios.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The key is this: Do the sum total of your edits demonstrate: trustworthiness, knowledge of policy especially in any are you profess to want to work in but also broad policy knowledge, awareness of where your knowledge is weak, some benefit aka "net positive" for you to have the tools, and nothing negative that isn't either old or very much overcompensated for by superstar behavior elsewhere? Even year-old negatives such as newbie mistakes will require something, even if it's just "I goofed, I learned my lesson as evidenced by my editing the past few months." Trustworthiness is a combination of "won't deliberately violate the rules/abuse the position/publish deleted edits" and "won't accidentally or carelessly violate the rules - too bad/won't delete the main page/won't break the wiki/won't carelessly disclose private information from deleted edits/etc."

With only 400 edits, and no evidence of a long history on a sister project, there's just no way for us to make that evaluation.

Different editors have different minimum standards. I personally like to see a couple thousand edits spread over 6-9 months, not counting months with few edits. I also look for a reasonable amount of policy, admin-ish, article, and discussion-related posts, with at least a handful of edits in most but not necessarily all of the other areas such as Template:, Portal:, File:, etc. "Mandatory-for-me" areas include at least a few AFD, at least a few other-xFD, and at least a few CSD actions, especially those where you express an opinion and back it up with a policy or guideline. xFD/CSD isn't the only admin-ish area on the Wiki. I expect that after 2000 edits, a candidate will have made at least a handful of edits to other admin-ish areas.

As far as the overall "flavor" I'm looking for: Ignoring mistakes and bad behavior that has since been corrected, I'm looking for civility, broad policy knowledge, and a reasonable amount of work on actual articles. GAs and featured content is a big plus, but wikignomes who do cleanup work and have no good- or featured-anythings to their credit can make good admins as well. Most of my article-space edits are gnomish. This isn't to say I won't support someone who doesn't fit this criteria, just that I'll need to look harder for reasons to support. I've supported someone with only a month or two and way under 2000 edits, but he had some unique things about his application that you and 99% of other candidates don't have. There is something you can do to "beat" the minimums, but personally I actively discourage it: In your first 1900 edits and 5 months, create a few pieces of featured content, actively participate in and exhibit leadership in at least 1 major policy-revision debate, adopt a couple users and get accolades for doing so, participate in and exhibit leadership in a Wikiproject or two, exhibit leadership and policy knowledge in xFD discussions, etc. In other words, do all the things an experienced editor would have done but on a compressed time scale while still keeping a cool head. Very few editors attempt such a feat, as most of us have a life beyond Wikipedia. Rather than attempting to do this in a compressed time scale just to get the bit faster, relax, pick and choose the areas that interest you, and throw in an admin-ish area or two, and come back in 6-9 months, and you'll be more than ready. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:41, 18 February 2009

This page is a mess

Note: If the show/hide templates do not work as expected, enable JavaScript davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The main RfA page is a mess. It's way too long and you can't see clearly who is standing. I would like to suggest that the nominations are linked but not transcluded when they are live. You have to navigate to the subpage anyway in order to edit it, so it wouldn't take any more time.

As a halfway proposal, we could at least collapse them. For example:

(Removed to prevent messy table of contents at the top of the page. Martin 13:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Thoughts? Martin 11:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Added JavaScript note. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are, apparently, some accessibility problems with collapse-boxes; but I've never understood why we don't just link live RfAs. With the size of recent discussions, it would make the page far more navigable: I find myself exclusively accessing RfA's via the report at the top of this talk page, rather than using WP:RFA itself. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. The main page as it is takes ages to load if there is more than one decent-sized RfA going on, and the size makes navigation very difficult if the page even bloody loads properly Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose that. It's easier to see each one without opening a gazillion tabsif they're all on the one page. Putting collapsible boxes only increases load time.--Patton^t/c 12:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Collapsable boxes don't always work either - I think I had trouble with them using Konquer - but merely linking, not transcluding might work. Of course, AFD is a much bigger hole that way, and they still transclude ... WilyD 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support just linking them. I doubt anyone would really be worse off if they had to click a link to see the RFA. SoWhy 12:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been the best use of this page in a very long time. Seraphim♥ 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Now how about just listing the nomination(s) and a link to go to the RfA (instead of show/hide). Like this, but make it a level two header:

Msgj

Voice your opinion (talk page) (37/0/0); Scheduled to end 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Msgj (talk · contribs) – [text copied from nomination removed to avoid confusion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)] Happy‑melon 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-Nomination by Tnxman307

[text copied from co-nomination removed to avoid confusion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)] Martin 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• See more about the candidate
• Discussion about the candidate

iMatthew // talk // 15:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Note: Text of nomination and co-nomination removed to save space and to avoid confusion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

90% of the time I access RfA's via one of the number counting tools available, but sometimes I do go to the RfA page, where I like being able to scroll down the RfA's to see what is going on on several of them at one time. So I do have a small preference for the current set up, but it is not something that I really care one way or another about.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the table on the main RfA page? It should be..no? iMatthew // talk // 15:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no for the same reason this has been a bad idea every time the dozen other times it's been proposed. We want people judging candidates on their merits, not on who currently has a high score. I personally would like to see the tallies removed as well, but that ain't gonna happen. – iridescent 16:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea and agree with Seraphim. Dlohcierekim 15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse hiding transcluded RFAs behind show/hide on WP:RFA, provided it does not alter the individual nomination pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I kind of like it the way it already is. I go to WP:RFA and just click on the infobox link to the RFA I want to edit. Plus, with having all the RFAs showing on one page, I can hit CTRL+F and search for my username to see how many of the current RFAs I have commented on, allowing me to quickly check if anyone has commented on my !vote. Useight (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly tempted to just go ahead and make a change to the page; however, with just two RfAs running at the moment, seeing the benefit would be rather difficult. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this very strongly. It's much much much easier to just click the edit link. And I don't even have broadband.--Patton^t/c

Not broken, don't fix. The RfA page has always been long when there's 3+ running at once; it's harmless and simplifies navigation for some people. And if others want differently-simplified navigation, they can add a bot table to their own user page and click the names in that. Townlake (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems we're divided on this proposal (roughly 8 support and 4 oppose), so I'm not going to pursue it. I suppose it's just personal preference really. Martin 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gonna jinx it for sure

It looks like our current 3 candidates are shoe-ins. Now that I've said that it's going to come out that they all failed to report taxable income or something and they'll be forced to withdraw. Oops, sorry about that.  :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, now that you've said that I'm bound by law to use my psychic powers to determine what's wrong with these candidates. Turns out that Amalthea's computer is powered by a kitten furnace, and Msgj and S@bre are actually sockpuppets of each other. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tax evasion ain't such a big deal no more. The guy who's in charge of the IRS failed to pay his taxes. "And thirdly, the IRS [sic] code is more what you call guidelines than actual rules.^[1] Just my (untaxed) 2¢. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! You owe between 10% and 35% of those two cents depending on your tax bracket! Useight (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't worry about my taxes because I have people.--Giants27 TC 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So do I. And they're surprisingly good at math. Problem is they won't stop singing... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Undocumented workers?!?! --Ali'i 18:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser might be needed in this case ;-).--Giants27 TC 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikignomes

Caspian Blue asked an interesting question in Amalthea's RfA about Wikignomes running for RfA in large(r) numbers than article creators. As a discussion on that is tangental to Amalthea's RfA, I said I was going to comment here. I think that is largely because a wikignome is more likely to want to bit than a pure content creator. A pure content creator will rarely stumble upon issues where they need the tools. A wikignome, however, is (by their very nature) going to be all over the place. A wikignome is more likely to find various needs for the tools and find their efforts hampered by not having them. Many of our best article builders are not admins and never will be. They don't need the tools, so the population of article builders who run is smaller. I would argue that many (but not all) of the best article writers won't even bother running. And many of the top tier article builders, if they did run, would fail.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, your not likely to get into content disputes/make enemies if you spend the majority of your time fixing typo's, disambiguate pages and redirects. People who work quietly in the background, by their nature, don't cause controversy. Whereas someone who writes a full featured article on homosexuality in Finland (picked a random country), is guaranteed to piss someone off. One pissed off editor with a few diffs can single handedly sink an RfA. — R² 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I do believe that more amount of "content creators" should be elected to administrators because they can help people resolve frustrating content disputes. Most of never-ending and tendentious disputes in Wiki which are brought up to ArbCom are not disruptions caused by vandals from bad-faith, but stem from conflicting over interpretation of sources, fact checking, etc. For such disputes, only admins with enough experience of building articles can meditate persistent dispute and if needed, they can quickly protect such articles or block disruptive editors before editors have to go ANI/AN or other wiki spaces, so peace would come earlier. On the other hand, vandal fighters and other WikiGnomes can rely on various useful tools such as huggle.--Caspian blue 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• I certainly won't dispute that heavy content-creating editors often make good admins, but surely there's a difference between "we need more content-creating admins" and "we need less wikignome admins"? There's no limit to the number of admins we can have;
• As a mostly-gnomish person, I've been a party to a few minor disputes here and there, in some cases as a direct party in other cases as an unofficial mediator. Most recently, I was on the factually incorrect side of a date-of-death dispute for Jeremy Lusk. The dispute was caused because of conflicting information from different reliable sources. Once all the facts came out, the dispute ended naturally and everyone was happy. Had the exact date of death never come out, the dispute would've dragged on indefinitely, reflecting the fact that the information was in fact disputed in external reliable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• I certainly won't dispute that heavy content-creating editors often make good admins, but surely there's a difference between "we need more content-creating admins" and "we need less wikignome admins"? There's no limit to the number of admins we can have; the solution to a perceived problem here would seem to be to encourage more article-writers to request adminship, rather than discouraging the reverse. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• As important as content-creators are, I often believe wikigomes make better administrators. If nobody ever created another article, Wikipedia would remain a useful and comprehensive resource for years to come; if not for vandal-fighters, janitors, and wikigomes, Wikipedia would be useless in a matter of days. Just my $0.02. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think trying to compare the need for both is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison; we need both content editors and wikignomes, and we need administrators of both types. However, I'm personally biased, since I'm a Wikignome to the core (and have been since the beginning; in three years, I've still yet to create from scratch a single article). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• I propose the creation of a new class of administrators, called gnoministrators. Gnoministrators will have exactly the same set of powers as regular administrators, except that they will be exempt from people complaining about how they never made a featured article. bd2412 T 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gnome me up. :) Dlohcierekim 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know if you meant it... but gnomistrators sounds like commanding a women to do something she does once a month for a large part of their lives...---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 20:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh - not gnomistrators, gnoministrators! bd2412 T 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if we also create a gnomicrat usergroup as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"A pure content creator will rarely stumble upon issues where they ened the tools" I'm suprised at you Balloonman. Just because you don't visit a page whree someone tells you what to do with the tools doesn't mean you won't need them. I must haved requested admin page moves hundreds of times. I think everyone should write at least one FA (Not an FL, FP or anything else, a featured article) before becoming an admin, though that doesn't mean I'll opposed jus tbecause someoen hasn't.--Patton^t/c 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you surprised? The fact cannot be disputed, a person who is doing gnome type work, visiting a hundred different pages a week/day, is more likely to stumble upon a situation wherein the tools will be helpful. The Article Builder, who is focusing on 2-3 articles at time, and a score more in the background is less likely to stumble upon something. It boils down to raw numbers and statistical probability. An article builder isn't going to need the tools as often or as diversely as a gnome might. In fact, when I've approached true article builders their first question is often "Do I really need the tools?" A number of article builders don't want them because they don't ever see the need for them. Article building is important, but many article builders wouldn't notice the tools if they were given them.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 07:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

((ec))Some of us will never, ever create an FA. Including me. You don't need it to be an admin. What Julian said. Building the encyclopedia is important, however opposing because of an editcountits based on article creation is counter productive in that it excludes qualified users from adminship. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how easy it is to write an Fa. Don't say you can't untill you at least try.--Patton^t/c 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that I could never write the "brilliant prose" expected in an FA myself – couldn't even in my native tongue. I didn't even dare propse my article for GA review, cause I thought that it wasn't up to it prose-wise, and I felt it was a waste of reviewer resources.
After I finished my first article I said that "every prospective admin should spend at least a day on the other side of the fence, be it building articles, or patrolling new pages and recent changes." I think an FA writer would benefit just as much from spending a day with Huggle as I did from writing an article and getting it to a DYK. --Amalthea 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I, like some of the others above, have never written a GA or FA, but instead function mostly as a WikiGnome. And I was voted "Best Wikipedia Admin We Know" by my roommates. Useight (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

lol--Patton^t/c 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the best Wikipedia administrator I know. Wait... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world, any editor who competently carries out the things they do in their little corner of Wikipedia, does so in a kind manner, and who demonstrates an ability to learn and adapt should win an RfA election every single time. It doesn't matter whether they write articles, or fix typos. However, every democracy is subject to the irrationalities of the voters, and the RfA constituency suffers from its own form of creationists who reject the idea that evolution is possible amongst contributors, regardless of all supporting evidence. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I might disagree here Hib ... I do a lot of typo stuff, have written a bunch of stubs, even a couple of "most wanted articles". With over 5000 edits, you're right, I might have passed an RfA. However, I tend to deal with a LOT of WQA issues, and even ANI. Because of that, I have probably pished off quite a few - indeed, there are two truly incomprehensible entries on my editor review simply because I pished 2 people off in those forums. I was even taken to ANI because I tried to help someone, and they became belligerant. Because I took the muddy jump into WQA and ANI, I probably never will pass an RfA if I tried. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in this discussion. Even if one might think more content creators should be made admins, we can only consider requests by people who want to become admins. And adminship is largely maintenance, so WikiGnomes are usually more comfortable around it. But as long as noone can honestly claim that content creators are less likely to become admins because of their content creation, there is no point in discussing why there are so few compared to the gnomes. I invite every content creator to consider adminship - but we cannot force those people to request it. But in no way should those who do request it suffer just because they belong to a larger group of users. And I would still request Caspian Blue to elaborate why he thinks missing content creators at RFA are the reason not to support a WikiGnome. I just don't understand that, honestly. Both issues are completely separate (or in this case: Is it Amalthea's fault that so few content creators request adminship?) to me... SoWhy 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If a user shows competence in their non-admin work, be it content creation or gnome-work, they should be allowed to have the bit. That's the only thing that matters IMHO. Sam ^Blab 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Last month we only appointed 6 admins, though this month will be better we are some 11 months into an RFA drought where the number of admins appointed is insufficient to maintain the number of active admins. So I don't think we should be speculating as to why we are seeing so many Wiki Gnomes at RFA, instead we should be wondering why we are seeing so few non Gnomes coming to RFA. If we were back at the 2006/2007 early 2008 level of activity at RFA with only the current numbers of WikiGnomes applying we might well be asking why so few Gnomes were at RFA. WereSpielChequers 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"... we are some 11 months into an RFA drought where the number of admins appointed is insufficient to maintain the number of active admins." So it's not all bad news then. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I am sick and tired of you talking about how we have too many admins, and how the project would be better if they were all gone. Whether you like it or not, administrators an absolute necessity for this project. And we desperately need more. Today, there were >20 vandalism reversions per minute for more than 6 hours straight. That is a lot of blocks. Even when vandalism levels are on the low side, (8-10 rpm) is a rare day when there are enough admins on to keep AIV clean, or to keep the backlogs down at UAA and RFPP. And that's not even counting more complicated things like investigating copyright violations and dealing with 3RR violations and SPAs and sockpuppet investigations. Your fetish against administrators is narrow-minded and irrational. I don't think that you really believe that Wikipedia would be better off without administrators, but if you do, I do not know any words to accurately describe your stupidity. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have even the slightest interest in whether you're sick of me talking about it or not. Try telling someone who gives a shit. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, do you mean "we have too many admins" or "we have too many bad admins"? I'm finding it difficult to imagine any reason why we need less admins who act professionally, improve the encylopedia and generally make the site better. Raven4x4x (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean both. The only "urgent" administrator tasks are dealing with BLP violations and blocking persistent vandals. The actual vandalism is dealt with by regular editors, who are the ones that "improve the encylopedia and generally make the site better". So what if a backlog builds up at AfD, for instance? Better to get it right than to get it done speedily. Besides, the Devil makes work for idle hands, which is at least part of the reason for the ridiculous fashion for issuing civility blocks. And just for delanoy's benefit, the opposite of "too many" isn't "none". There is no excuse for misrepresenting another's opinion in a dishonest affort to discredit it, no matter how "sick and tired" one may be. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we need variety, a bit of everything. That's why I gave up opposing those who don't write articles several months ago. However, article writers are, more likely than most, afraid they have rubbed someone up the wrong way. I made my latest 'enemy' only today on Talk:Michael Jackson :D. Article writers should spend a few months in hiding before jumping through the hoops, and pray that the latest person you've annoyed hasn't already watchlisted your upcoming RfA. — R² 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Try delisting a few GAs and opposing a few FACs if you really want to rack up enemies, it's really not difficult. But who's going to get upset about about a spelling mistake being quietly corrected? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's usually hilareous when I fight breaks out on FAC. Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Cobra, which has degenerated into nothing more than a flame match between the nominator and one of the reviewers.--Patton^t/c 16:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to oppose a GA or FA, or propose de-listing either, have your reasons at the ready and say "if anyone can fix these, I'll support GA or FA status" and give people time to fix them. On the one and only solo GAC I did, one of the criteria, lack of number and sufficiently varied references, was un-fixable so I gave up, without any hard feelings. Fixing the remaining things is still on my to-do list. It was a good, hard review and I applaud the reviewer for being hard on the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. thanks for explaining to me how GA/FA work. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that bad. I held off on RFA for quite some time over it, as I had so many enemies I kept them in cords. But come the big week, only two bothered to show up. WilyD 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I would like to try to become an administrator, but I am not quite sure how to add my name. Adam Penale (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Most probably this page will be of help. — Aitias // discussion 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate--Patton^t/c 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

I noticed Keepscases oppose on Amalthea's RfA. Loads of people ganged up on him for saying that userbox was offensive. Sure it was so long ago it shouldn't matter, but if someone is offended by a userbox, by definition that userbox is offensive, you can't really argue with that. Just a point I'd like to make.--Patton^t/c 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

...okay! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your username offends me, Patton123. By your reasoning, it is offensive. Please report yourself to UAA immediately. Tan | 39 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My username doesn't offend you.--Patton^t/c 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I trust you see the point though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That raises an interesting thought though: Say my great-grandfather has been killed as a soldier fighting George S. Patton in World War I and I hate Patton for that. Does that make an username with "Patton" in it offensive? SoWhy 07:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite simple. That username would be offensive to you, but only you. We only block usernames which are either direct attacks, or those which cause offensive to a large population, not just one person. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's faulty logic to the extreme. Women covering their faces? By definition, the fact that women don't cover their faces in most parts of the world is offensive because there are cultures that still expect it. Women covering their faces? By definition, the fact that women do cover their faces in some parts of the world is offensive because most parts of the world find that to be an outdated motiv. Women, minorities, homosexuals, inter-racial couples, have all been deemed by some to be offensive. That doesn't make it so. The fact that somebody is offended, does not mean that the item that offended them, was in fact offensive.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're either twisting the meaning of terms there or postulating some sort of objective offensiveness; if the predicate "offends" applies to a subject, the prior application of the attribute "offensive" to that subject is implied. Skomorokh 07:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he was trying to say that offensive varies from culture to culture, context to context, and Wikipedia is NPOV. Which means very few things are "objectively" offensive -- offensive in the NPOV context. For example, I might argue we find vandalism or even copyvios offensive, but Wikipedia does not censor profanity, nudity, sexuality, violence, heresy, controversial topics, or bigotry (well, we report on it). Therefore in our "culture" very few things are offensive, and just because someone was offended does not make it so. Cultural norms are fuzzy, probabilistic things, but they do exist and dictate things like this. Andre (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ok I see your point--Patton^t/c 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We cannot say that some is "offensive" simply because somebody takes offense to it. I've known people who were offended when their name was innocently mispronounced, because they didn't get the raise they wanted, etc. While it is easy to see how what is offensive in one culture isn't offensive in another, other things can be taken as offensive that most would not deem offensive. Similarly, two people from the same background might not take the same thing as offensive---the line between good comedy and crude jokes is often a fine line that is determined not by the content, but rather by the person making the joke and the audience. Chris Rock can say the word "Nigger" a hundred times and have people rolling on the floor each time, I say it once, and I'd be labelled a racist. Heck, even if I quoted Chris Rock, *I* might get in trouble! Defining what is offensive is not as easy as saying, "If somebody finds it offensive it is by definition offensive."---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Racist! ~ mazca ^t|c 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall someone (might have been Kelly Martin, if not I apologise to her) opposing anyone with non-encyclopedic userboxes. I think it was overlapping with the time that she opposed if people hadn't been backed by a WikiProject.

People have, do and will oppose at RfA for a huge variety of reasons and the community (in the way it responds to the criticism) and the Crats (in the way they weight them) will take each on its own merits. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So tell us honestly; when reading through an RfA with a view to close, do you pass over bad opposes while gleefully cackling "HA, shoddy reasoning you idiot, sttttttruck. Little do you know I haven't counted your opposes since 2005!" and other things in that vein? :) Skomorokh 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since passing RfB, I've done piles of CHU work, but I've closed very few RfAs so far, and none of those that I have done have been difficult to judge. Curious really, it's not for lack of interest in RfA, as my occasional participation (based on frequent reading) here gives witness. It seems that either I'm offline when RfAs close or I miss them. I suspect it's mostly the former, but I have been known to make errors... <ahem>

That said, I wouldn't say that I'd categorise my reaction to what I perceive as weak reasons for opposing in the kind of terms you describe and I rarely see comments at RfA that I think should be discounted out of hand. Appropriate discussion often follows weak arguments in opposition. These are often instructive, and can lead in surprising directions, even to firming the oppose into a well-justified point. This is useful not just to Crats, but also those who have yet to !vote and those who have !voted, but are still reading and are open-minded enough to reconsider their own positions. Sorry, that's not a simple answer, but it's not a simple question. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a question in jest, and did not deserve the insightful answer you gave; thank you sincerely. Your remarks on discussing opposes are encouraging. Skomorokh 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any RFAs from 2008 where it would have made a difference if crats "didn't count" votes with poor rationales, so it's not making a practical difference, even if it's theoretically interesting which votes they "don't count". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it rarely matters, but I consider the strength of arguments anyway in close cases. I'll typically reformulate an RfA after discounting poor reasoning on both sides of the isle and see how it would affect the closing. Poor reasoning either way tends to be balanced out by people that take better reasoning into account and give their opinion accordingly. RfA works to the extent people do that. - Taxman ^Talk 14:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate the point I tried to make in the RfA: I wish someone, *anyone*, who thinks these userboxes are a good idea would have the courage to say "yes, I display these userboxes because I think it's funny to ridicule others' beliefs. Yes, I like to pat myself on the back about how very intelligent I am. Deal with it." Instead we always get a lot of hemming and hawing and "OMG YOU'RE STEREOTYPING ME BECAUSE I'M AN ATHEIST". To the candidate's credit, he/she did admit that the userbox in question was confrontational, although I still question the intelligence and/or honesty of someone who claims a userbox telling people their long-standing beliefs are absurd isn't meant to be "smug". Keepscases (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the candidate's right to display his beliefs. All the userbox said was "I'm an atheist"; nowhere did it say "I'm right and you're wrong". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They are referring to the userbox that says, "This user believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as creationism.", basically ridiculing religion, and by extention, those who are religious. Useight (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually know something about these issues because the ACLU has been a very positive and potent force in protecting Christians, Muslims, agnostics and others against overreaching judges and federal, local and state governments in the U.S. Thanks to Keepscases for looking at diffs at RFA and being vigilant about this stuff, because some userboxes are problematic for admin candidates. The Flying spaghetti monster is a perfect example of people who thought they were being clever and helpful (in that case, regarding the Kansas evolution hearings), but were neither. The intelligent-design faction was able to say, with some justification, that the point of the analogy was to laugh at the beliefs of local Christians, and by extension to laugh at the Christians, and that helped them win their argument and get a short-term change in the Kansas school curriculum in 2005. I don't know how other people draw the line on Wikipedia; my personal position is that we're going to push good contributors away if we tell them they can't express their beliefs on their own userpage (and I think most editors won't understand what we're saying if we object to the FSM userbox, even though I think we're right), but RFA is another story ... it's okay to treat a divisive userbox as a negative factor at RFA, because admins are supposed to be reducing drama, not inviting it. It's fine to talk about religious issues on the talk pages of articles where the issues are relevant, but it's just unproductive for a person perceived as an authority figure (shows how little people know about admins :) to bring up a divisive issue where the context didn't already exist. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I personally think users should absolutely have the right to display any userbox they wish on their own userpages--but the contents of said userboxes and/or the candidate's judgment in displaying them should and will be brought up at an RfA. Keepscases (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with that, which is why I support your opposes on UB's... UB's are a valid rationale for opposes. To move away from the hot topic of religion. Imagine a person whose UB said something that was a blantant BLP violation. That person's RfA would be killed as the person apparently doesn't understand BLP.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't related to the discussion, and I think it would be pretty easy to open up the can of worms of dissenting viewpoints. Comments by Dank55 and Keepscases regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster and religion are inappropriate and don't relate to the RfA process. Please keep WT:RFA to the discussion of RfAs. I think we've all accepted that even in the close case of a hard-to-call RfA, a userbox oppose on something that doesn't impact the ability of an admin to carry out his roles or impact judgment will not be making the difference either way. So unless anyone has something new to add on the subject of the role of bureaucrats, which I think has been pretty well trod, let's drop the controversial aspects of this. If anyone would like to prove me wrong in my unyielding rationalism please take to my talk page and I'd be glad to help you get rid of your dramatic debate impulse. Or, better yet, work on an article. 71.236.67.221 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume that someone forgot to login. And here's another rfa where people opposed due to a userbox.--Giants27 TC 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens of 'em. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I advise everyone here to not forget the fact that every human on earth is inherently biased. Whether or not it is made public through a userbox is at the discretion of the user. But whether or not this spaghetti monster userbox was placed on the userpage, this user would still have those beliefs. One could argue (and this is just devil's advocate) that this user is more truthful and trustworthy because they made an addition to their userpage that was a bit confrontational to certain other users that may view it (knowing that even if removed, it was still able to be found historically); they were proud of their beliefs just as a Christian or Muslim is proud of theirs. I personally believe that a userpage should not really count very much toward an RfA !vote. Granted exceptions are made there: if you have a KKK userbox, I'll probably not !vote for you because of that, but generally light-hearted, humorous additions to the userpage shouldn't be a big deal and for the most part should be appreciated as funny. Now I could go on for days about the Kansas School Board, but I'll save that for a future debate. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat divided on this topic. On the one hand, I strongly dislike userboxes that express a POV - any POV - and would delete the lot of them if I could, because they only ever seem to provoke arguments (like this one did). On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd ever oppose an RFA based on a userbox alone. It depends what it said I suppose ('this user thinks vandalising Wikipedia is cool!' would be a pretty bad sign...), but in general, how an admin candidate behaves is much more important than what they've got on their userpage. So in this case, while I actually agree that Amalthea's userbox was somewhat unwise and inappropriate, I also think it was pretty silly to oppose him for it. Robofish (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the opposition votes in clearly successful RFAs are done to "raise awareness" of some issue. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-reform

I'm not sure if everyone is aware how much RFA has changed over the last year, and how a lot of things that used to need fixing don't need fixing any more. Look at WWEYANKS52's RFA for instance. (On that subject, please see my question in the discussion section; several voters said they wanted to ask questions, but someone asked 5 questions immediately, so they didn't want to burden the candidate with too many questions ... I suggested a change to the instructions to candidates to handle this.) Anyway, if WWEYANKS52 had shown up a year ago, he would have gotten SNOW'd and booed out of the room too, because there's a lot of stuff he doesn't know, and he doesn't fit the mold of candidates who have passed before. The willingness of voters to support people who don't fit any previous patterns, to think things through fresh, and to help the candidate out (many people have done helpful reviews for the candidate, on his talk page and the RFA page), is nothing like the RFAs of old.

So I stopped thinking about RFA reform and started thinking about Dank55 reform. Some voters strike me as too conflict-happy; I've got the opposite problem, I'm little conflict-phobic, and I haven't jumped in and said something when I thought I might be able to help, for fear that I'd get burned. I think people did get burned a year ago when they tried to do too much, but there are so many people anticipating possible problems at RFA and helping out that the burden isn't on any one person any more. So I'm going to be a little bolder. I think people are bringing problems to RFA that they've been frustrated about elsewhere on Wikipedia; if that's true, then in theory (and maybe in practice), the atmosphere at RFA will improve if we negotiate a settlement elsewhere that makes the problem moot. Although, I can't act in a knee-jerk way or automatically support the guys who are showing up at RFA over the people they're fighting with elsewhere; that would send a message that yelling about your problems at RFA is a good way to get your way. So I can't guarantee that I'll support your side, but I will do is push back against the idea that the best way to deal with voters who have unpopular views at RFA is to ignore them. The right thing to do is to deal with persistent issues, respectfully but firmly. Any feedback so far? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should run for admin, I'd have no opposes. ;-)--Giants27 TC 18:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"but I will do is push back against the idea that the best way to deal with voters who have unpopular views at RFA is to ignore them."... It really is a case by case basis. If someone applies a highly subjective oppose, it may still have merit, and therefore deserves some respect. However, a subjective oppose such as the classic Kurt Weber "prima-facie" bit opposing anyone who self-nominated deserved the grief it received because self-nomination is and was withing the rules of an RfA election campaign. The self-nom oppose was not a problem with the candidate, but with the rules, and therefore had no merit. On the other hand, a userbox oppose is dumb, but at the same time may have merit if the userbox in question really is perceived as widely offensive (and by widely, I don't mean a majority, but that an identifiable demographic would take offense to it). A userbox debate has room for a debate, while voting against someone for self-nominating is the same as giving someone a speeding ticket for driving the speed limit. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we handled AGF issues in general very well in the first half of 2008 at RFA. Kurt's gone, but I think if someone else gave Kurt's famous rationale, that anyone who shows up without a nominator is obviously power-hungry, I'd have a discussion about how "power-hungry" is obviously an insult, and even if it weren't, what's the evidence? I'd ask if there were "power hunger" issues somewhere else around Wikipedia that the voter was trying to draw attention to, and if so, I'd look into whether that was an issue that needed fixing, to stop it from bleeding over into RFA. But if I did all that, and 5 RFAs later, the voter was still saying "You must be power-hungry, and no, I don't need any damn evidence", then I'd try to rally support at WT:RFA for the idea of MedCab and/or ArbCom, with the idea of getting a topic ban from RFA if we can't negotiate a solution. CIVILITY is policy, everywhere on Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And people like you make this a better place, no question. However, I'm using the Kurt example to give life to a generic opposition that simply assumes bad faith from the onset. That is incivility in the purest sense, and we really don't need to pretend that the idea has merit for as long as we often do. I would argue that if Kurt had been dealt with from the very first instance of his self-nom oppose, there would have been far more civility here over the past couple of years. Giving him the benefit of the doubt for as long as we did generated all kinds of bad blood. Viewing that situation as a case study, I think it is good for us to push back hard when someone comes up with a nonsensical oppose that has at its basis a view of each candidate as guilt until proven innocent. This doesn't mean that if I see someone oppose for a reason I disagree with that I should hit them for it. Instead, the assumption of bad faith should be pointed out, and if the voter chooses not to clarify the position with sound logic, the vote should be discounted. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be reading this wrong (because the discussions kind of dwindled, they didn't end with a bang), but I think the recent discussions about off-the-wall questions suggested a lack of support for the idea of discounting questions, votes or rationales that we don't understand or don't like; I think I saw support for the idea that it's all or nothing ... either a voter is clearly a net negative (so we try to deal with what's bugging them, try to negotiate, and boot them from RFA if all else fails), or else we accept them and take the good, the bad and the ugly. If individual votes mattered a lot, that wouldn't be fair to the candidates, but I can't find any RFAs since roughly July where a few votes either way would have broken the wiki; even in the few cases where a few votes could possibly have tipped the result, I think we were generally agreed that there were good reasons it could have gone either way. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When I saw "Dank55 reform" I thought you meant something about how you'd posted to this page almost 200 times since Jan 1. ;-) Avruch ^T 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The RFA table

Something's wrong. In Mfield's sections, it keeps on putting 1 in the oppose section. Yet, there are no opposes. I had to revert this 3 times. Is this a malfunction? Either that, of ST47 doesn't like Mfield.... Simon^KSK 20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is the ghost in the machine, exercising its franchise.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a (totally redundant) # from the oppose section in the RfA concerned. Maybe this will stop the bot from adding 'ghost !votes' :P. Richard⁰⁶¹² 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

ST47 said on it's fixed on IRC.--Patton^t/c 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it is related to wikEd and Safari. wikEd often inserts extra returns in that do not appear until you press save so you have to be in the habit of previewing 100% of edits to remove any that have crept in at that point. I think it did that once there and in combination with an edit conflict a comment got duplicated. I removed the comment but maybe a # got left behind. Anyway its an annoyance to me with wikEd that I put up with because the markup is so useful, I should really file a bug report. Mfield (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Moral supports

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pyfan brings up the question of how moral supports are interpreted by the community and the closing 'crat(s). It seems to me that such !votes are closer to support than oppose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 06:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you could conceivably put "moral support" in either the support or oppose list. If you put them under "support", they count as support votes, I guess (though of course it's not a vote). But it does seem to imply something other than whole-hearted support, so I guess that's something for a bureaucrat to consider if the "vote" is close. Dean B (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who is making a mroal su-pport in htat RFA is saying they don't think the candidate should be an administrator now, but could be later, so the RFA will be closed as a failure presumably.--Patton^t/c 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say right in the middlee. An oppose does not mean "you can never be an admin" it means "I do not feel you can be an admin at the present time" (with a few exceptions). A support, of course, suggests "I feel you can be an admin at this time, and are doing the right things". A moral support is "I do not feel you can be an admin at the present time, but you are going along the right lines"; a little from column A, a little from column B. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But at the end of the day, that's still an oppose, since you don't want them becoming an admin now. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, my thoughts (and text) when I first opened the edit box started "I think it is closer to an oppose" but the "you are going along the right lines" (while most opposes are opposes because the user in question is doing the wrong thing) push it back towards the middle in my mind. Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking it over a bit, I'd say moral supports are essentially neutrals. At Pyfan's RfA, I knew the request would be highly unlikely to succeed, and even though I couldn't fully support, I couldn't oppose either. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay, someone agrees with me for once :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the apocalypse upon us? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to the first "moral support" that was made on an RfA? Personally, I don't know why they've become so widespread, as I find them very patronising. A nicely-worded oppose gets the same message across without making the false statement that you actually think it would be a good idea to promote the candidate to admin at this time... and when you think about the normal English meaning of the phrase "moral support" it barely even makes sense in the context. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has moral supported a number of times, I do agree that they can send a confusing message. An alternative is to simply add value to the candidate but put the comments in the oppose section without the big fat bold "oppose" before it. e.g.;

1. Great work vandal fighting, but with just 500 edits and very little article work I can't support

looks a lot nicer than;

1. Oppose Great work vandal fighting, but with just 500 edits and very little article work I can't support

One word, but it does make a lot of difference. Pedro :  Chat  13:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I really like that way of thinking - it's a very good point and an effective way of making a "friendly oppose". I'll definitely bear that in mind. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And to see it in action [2] :) (note - I would have opposed this candidate, and I agree fully with the comments on his/her RFA that Mazca made so I'm not using that RFA to proove any kind of point) Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, plagiarism! *shakes fist*. But yes, point taken, it does look much friendlier. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Moral support means "Emotional or psychological backing, as opposed to material help" (Answers.com) and support "without making any contribution beyond the emotional or psychological value of the encouragement" (Wikipedia). If someone supports when there is virtually no chance the candidate will pass, and if they switch their vote if something odd happens and the candidate does appear to have a chance of passing, then they're giving moral support, so it fits the definition. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Crats aren't stupid; they will be able to tell the difference between moral support and real support. So I don't think it really matters. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the leading bold word is something offensive (I want to kill your dog Candidate doesn't have any AIV experience.), the tone of the actual !vote itself is vastly more important when it comes to weighing the overall consensus. I promoted Tadakuni despite the relative closeness of the straight number count, primarily because of how supportive and positive the opposers were. Tone does matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. How can I put this gently EVula. You're American. I'm English. I suspect we have a large cultural weight on our shoulders here. Don't get me wrong - I actually have found some (very few but some) Americans who I don't consider to be utterly self centered egotisitcal pricks who think the world stops at their borders. You've probably found the odd Brit you don't consider to be a self-righteous, stuck up, World War II obsessed pompus arse (again - rare). Get my drift on tone and typed words? ;) Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As a fellow Brit I entirely agree, I see a vast difference in tone between your two examples. So much so that I will never prefix any vote at RfA with Oppose ever again. Hell, it's the Oppose section anyway for Christ's sake, no need to rub it in. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand the difference between tone and typed words; but if someone were to write "Strong Oppose I have some mild concerns that you aren't familiar enough with our speedy deletion criteria, but other than that, you're a solid bloke", I'm going to put more emphasis on the actual tone (that being "I only have a slight objection to the idea of you as a sysop, since I only find fault in your skillset in a single area") than the "Strong Oppose" prefix. Then again, I also try to eschew such prefixes in any situation where supports and opposes are naturally divided (such as an RfX, but not in, say, AfDs), so this is just my personal take on the behavior. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

North America recently highlighted in green. Note the large amount of grey matter that appears elsewhere on the face of the Earth.

Good edit summary :) - I think my point here is that "tone" is highly subjective. The context of this thread (moral supports) would imply a WP:NOTNOW candidate, and there seems to be no reason to rub salt in the wounds, as Malleus points out above, to these situations. I readily admit I edit with my own slant on British English, and that what I consider a jocular comment can be read as menacing or aggressive. I undertand your take as a bureaucrat EV but tone seems to be the worng word (or at best an optimistic one!). No biggie, of course. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note in that picture how North America is in green, that means we're more enviormentally sound.--Giants27 TC 21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But not spelling-ly sound. :)  GARDEN  21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the colour green .... Anyhow no need to labour the point ... :) Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour. What utter bollocks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to this seeming conflation of America with North America! Canadians are a separate class of polite self-righteous jerk, endlessly obsessed with national identity. However we have now infiltrated ArbCom and placed a mole into the operation of WMF so you should be more polite... :) Franamax (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

← On the subject of tone, it's perhaps a good thing that we can't hear each other's voices. A Canadian (female) friend of mine used to say that to her ear all English males sounded gay. I always preferred to think of it as elegantly dangerous. I'm in general fascinated by how others perceive our accents though, particularly when we're speaking a foreign language, like when a Liverpudlian tries to communicate with someone from the US deep south. A French friend once told me that to his ear an English person speaking French sounded like "the twittering of a bird". Naturally I had to give him a good kicking, and he never said it again, but food for thought nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Crat proposal

I've proposed a new method for handling inactive crats at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat_removal. MBisanz ^talk 10:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)