Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 83 0 1 100 22:18, 21 September 2024 5 days, 16 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 05:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 06:16:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Stats request re: composition of RfA voters by user access level

Moved from WP:BN

Is there an easy way to determine and breakdown statistics to answer the question "what is the composition of votes in RfA by user privileges?"? Simply put, I'd like to know what proportion of votes for and against new admins are made by admins and functionaries. I'm not looking for anything particularly onerous, just a sample snapshot to get an idea - say the last 20 RfAs? Cheers. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. I've queried User:X! to see if they're interested in crunching these data, since they've already written code that seems to parse RFAs fairly well. –xeno^talk 14:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If no stats are forthcoming, you could get a rough idea of the proportion of administrator voters by browsing the RfAs with this script enabled.  Skomorokh  14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to pretend that it's necessarily a representative sample, but I went through and counted the votes in the most recent successful request (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ched Davis) and here's what I turned up. In short, about 50% of all voters were admins. Cool3 (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

!Vote	Total Admins	Total Non-Admins	Percentage Admins	Rollbackers	CU/Oversight
Support	55	48	53.4%	35	5
Oppose	3	7	30%	3	0
Neutral	1	3	25%	2	0
Total	59	58	50.4%	39	5

That was much quicker than I was expecting - thanks guys. Cool, would you give me an idea of your workflow for doing that and an indication of how long it took - sounds like I may be able to do it for myself. Cheers. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a perl script that (1) downloads/parses the list of admins, (2) downloads/parses the list of !votes on an RFA, and (3) returns the list of !votes marked with which !votes were by admins. It wouldn't be that hard for me to modify it to generate a table of statistics if you are interested. The loading of the list of admins is the slowest part, but that part could be cached. The entire script isn't more than about 100 lines, and most of that is the part that retrieves the webpage over http. By the way, when I ran it on Ched Davis, I got 54-49 for the Support, but it could be a missed lookup in my code. Plastikspork (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the script; I probably miscounted by hand. As for my method, I have popups installed. With popups, if you hover over a username it shows an edit count and user group memberships for that use. I just hovered over everyone and kept a tally on my notepad (high technology indeed). It took 10 or 15 minutes. Like I said, though, the script sounds much better, faster and more sophisticated. Cool3 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could run again, just to assist with data collection ;P. Hey, I noticed the rfatally doesn't seem to be working on Cool3s RfA, does it maybe need to have the 4 piped in as well? — Ched :  ?  20:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I had the same problem at my RfA. You can see that User:X!/Tally has it right. So it's probably something to do with Template:Rfatally. Best to ask X! about it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, yeah you were right. It was just 'cause it was created in the wrong place to start off with. Thought it was using {{PAGENAME}} or something. Anyway, fixed now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As I recall last time I saw this issue (in oppose section) it was because the bot/what have you didn't register a comment unless there was a break of some sort (or another comment) after it. Dunno exactly what the issue was though, my technical side doesn't extend to wikisyntax and machinery. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an unrelated problem (was in the guts of the bot) that I believe is fixed. –xeno^talk 22:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Shudder* bots... rather tally things up by hand like Cool did than muck around in programming and such... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

@Kingpin13 - that's because I've been studying at the WP:EVULA school of never being wrong ... ;P — Ched :  ?  03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see some stats from a bunch of the RfAs, Plastikspork. I'm only beginning to approach moderately skilled at perl, but if you could cache the Admin users, how much quicker would it go? If it becomes negligible, what would it take to include the 2.5k or so rollbackers as well? I ask because I'm less interested in percentage of voters by privilege, and more interested in voting behavior by access level. The numbers presented here are in no way an appropriate sample set, but at least for Ched's, it looks like the more rights, the more likely you are to vote yes. If it's onerous, no sweat, I can attempt it myself. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting project, and I wonder if a few more variables could be added? Firstly can you subdivide the non-admin !vote between the non-admins who've had an RFA, those who haven't yet had an RFA but are Rollbackers, and the rest?? Secondly the support level in the RFA - you might need to take this in 10% bands and group the under 50% together, my prediction would be that the lower the support level the greater the proportion of admins amongst the opposition. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm boarding an international flight in about two hours, but I should have some time after I land. The script would go very fast if the lists of admins and rollbackers were cached. The primary bottleneck is the time it takes to load those pages, as the individual RFA pages load very fast. Plastikspork (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done a quick finger in the air snapshot for the last 10 successful RFA and 'significant' failures. - Failures are more problematic, because some close or are withdrawn with very low participation rates, usually because the candidates are wholly unsuitable - 130 edits, 2months experience etc. - Accordingly I've only included failures with a reasonable participation rate. I can't vouch for the accuracy too much - it was a quick count and it's not overly scientific. If anyone wants me to recheck the results for specific RFA's I'd be happy to.

RFA	support	oppose	neutral	admin support	admin oppose	admin neutral	%admin support	%admin oppose	%admin neutral	Total participation	Total admin participation	%admin participation	%S+admin	%S-admin	%admin effect
	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q
Promotions
Ched Davis	103	10	4	56	3	1	54	30	25	117	60	51	91	87	4	Ched Davis
Mazca	86	4	2	48	3	0	56	75	0	92	51	55	96	97	-2	Mazca
Enigmaman	147	6	5	72	2	2	49	33	40	158	76	48	96	95	1	Enigman
Colds7ream	79	3	6	33	0	1	42	0	17	88	34	39	96	94	2	Colds7ream
Mifter	56	12	3	21	5	2	38	42	67	71	28	39	82	83	-1	Mifter
Backslash Forwardslash	108	10	6	48	1	2	44	10	33	124	51	41	92	87	5	Backslash forwardslash
Billinghurst	78	19	4	39	8	2	50	42	50	101	49	49	80	78	2	Billinghurst
CactusWriter	93	3	0	33	1	0	35	33	0	96	34	35	97	97	0	Cactus writer
FlyingToaster	126	32	5	59	11	2	47	34	40	163	72	44	80	76	4	Flying toaster
Kotra	72	10	4	28	4	1	39	40	25	86	33	38	88	88	0	Kotra
Failures
Theleftorium	41	14	8	18	3	3	44	21	38	63	24	38	75	68	7	Thelaftorium
Kingpin13	39	26	9	15	10	6	38	38	67	74	31	42	60	60	0	Kingpin
S Marshall	51	25	6	18	14	1	35	56	17	82	33	40	67	75	-8	S Marshall
Kelapstick	48	8	6	12	4	5	25	50	83	62	21	34	86	90	-4	Kelapstick
Majorly (2nd)	107	67	19	58	20	8	54	30	42	193	86	45	61	51	10	Majorly
Beeblebrox	30	35	20	7	12	8	23	34	40	85	27	32	46	50	-4	Beeblebrox
Willking1979	38	33	15	11	10	7	29	30	47	86	28	33	54	54	0	Willking1979
Everyking (5th)	156	84	7	72	30	3	46	36	43	247	105	43	65	61	4	Everyking
BQZip01 (4th)	75	38	10	29	13	4	39	34	40	123	46	37	66	65	2	BQZip01
Gaia Octavia Agrippa	22	28	11	8	10	4	36	36	36	61	22	36	44	44	0	Gaia Octavia Agrippa

Notes

1. The following failed RFA were excluded from the stats because they were either withdrawn or failed too early to have enough participants for sensible stat analysis - Alien X2009, SOPHIAN, Wwsecoks, Abce2, Alexander.hugh.george,I Seek To Help & Repair!, frozen 4332, tdrss, tyw7, Gordonrox24, Einsteinbud, Harish89
2. The list was compiled with a manual count using the tool from User:Ais523/adminrights.js. This turns admin's signatures cyan. There may be some count error where the use of forced colours in signatures doesn't reveal admin status. It also doesn't distinguish between admins and other functionaries, although most are also admins.
3. %S+admin is the percentage support votes compared to the total participation less neutral participation. (100/(L-E))xC3
   
4. %S-admin is the percentage support votes adjusted to remove the effects of neutral participation and the admin component of the support and oppose votes. (100/(L-E)-(M-H))x(C-F)
   
5. %admin effect is the sum of the previous two to see what kind of lensing effect the admin vote is having on RFAs.
   

The results are interesting. Generally the admin support and oppose votes cancel out and the results are quite similar to the non-admin vote - there is a range of this effect however between about + or - 10%. By and large Bureaucrats are getting it right and promoting or failing candidates in line with both the admin and non-admin consensus. Two anomalies exist in the S Marshall and Flying Toaster RFAs. Admin voting pushed flying Toaster from 76% non-admin support to 80% (from marginal pass to pass), but pulled S Marshall down from 75% to 67% (from marginal pass to fail). If someone can get me the raw data for a larger selection set, I'd be very grateful. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I've looked at general user participation in RFAs against admin participation. General user participation as a percentage of active editors (155524) is very low - between 0.03%(various) and 0.09% (Everyking). Admin participation as a percentage of total administrators is unsurprisingly higher, between 1.33%(Gaia Octavia) and 6.33% (everyking). Admin participation as a percentage of active editors will be of a similar order to the general editors participation.--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While this doesn't include support/oppose/neutral/other, the following is a table of every user group combination (except bots) and how many edits people in those groups have made to all RFAs since the beginning of 2008.

+------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| grouplist                                                  | edits |
+------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| rollbacker                                                 | 34421 |
| sysop                                                      | 32977 |
| no groups                                                  | 20338 |
| abusefilter,sysop                                          | 16765 |
| accountcreator,rollbacker                                  |  2365 |
| accountcreator,ipblock-exempt,rollbacker                   |  1642 |
| bureaucrat,sysop                                           |   937 |
| checkuser,oversight,sysop                                  |   825 |
| ipblock-exempt,rollbacker                                  |   768 |
| abusefilter,bureaucrat,checkuser,oversight,sysop           |   643 |
| bureaucrat,oversight,sysop                                 |   519 |
| anon                                                       |   513 |
| oversight,sysop                                            |   501 |
| ipblock-exempt                                             |   383 |
| bureaucrat,checkuser,ipblock-exempt,sysop                  |   352 |
| abusefilter,checkuser,sysop                                |   208 |
| ipblock-exempt,oversight,sysop                             |   175 |
| abusefilter,checkuser,oversight,sysop                      |   166 |
| accountcreator                                             |   146 |
| abusefilter,ipblock-exempt,sysop                           |    69 |
| bureaucrat,checkuser,oversight,sysop                       |    44 |
| abusefilter,accountcreator,ipblock-exempt,rollbacker,sysop |    43 |
| abusefilter,rollbacker,sysop                               |    30 |
| abusefilter,bureaucrat,oversight,sysop                     |    25 |
| checkuser,sysop                                            |     9 |
| checkuser,founder,oversight,sysop                          |     1 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+-------+

Note that this counts what the groups are now rather than at the time of the edit being made. The number for admins may be somewhat elevated by people answering questions on their own (passing) RFAs. Mr.Z-man 07:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating; I am always enthralled by statistics, as y'all know by now. One exogenous point, however. I would surmise that there should be severe drop-off in RFA edits by people who have become bureaucrats. Since bureaucrats cannot close contentious discussions in which they have contributed, and it is better that they not close even the brain-numbingly obvious ones in which they have participated, bureaucrats tend not to comment on RfAs to preserve their neutrality. -- Avi (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; very, very rarely will I participate in an RfA, unless I'd have to recuse myself due to being friends with the candidate (like Mazca, who I've known for longer than Wikipedia has existed) or otherwise feeling strongly enough about them to !vote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy only ever commented voted on one RFA, eh? –xeno^talk 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC) in the modern era of RFA =)

Three, in fact.  Skomorokh  19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But only voted on one.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The table only counts comments since the beginning of 2008. Mr.Z-man 21:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when he was involved in each decision on adminship. That was before this page, which means it was certainly before the time when adminship was granted based on a vote. Recall that there was an era when adminship matters, and much other useful business, was transacted on what is now wikien-l but was then known as "the mailing list," a fitting name by virtue of the fact that there was only one of them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. I can't say I'm surprised he's hands off the process nowadays. –xeno^talk 03:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I would absolutely love to see that run on my RFA. Then again, billions of people will ask the same thing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's RfA

(Because everyone else has a subject heading with this) - Can someone do the participation stats of my RfA. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS, if you break it down further by separating out Crats, Stewards, Arbs, Wikipedia Review members, and those who were either blocked or desysopped by ArbCom, I am sure it will look even more exciting. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian

{{resolved|Look folks, he has been warned not to be disruptive and not to destroy Wikipedia, either he will stop or he will be blocked. There is nothing RfA related left to discuss. Lets move on. Chillum 21:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)}}

Still valid points to discuss, by which I mean the first subsection. The original section is now collapsed and archived. NW (Talk) 22:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Now unarchived. The time to archive discussions is when people have pretty much exhausted the useful points, and start repeating themselves and others, or fretting needlessly. There is absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about in this thread. Hopefully we'll get some useful ideas about Peter, but this is about more than Peter, this is about the robustness of RFA and behavioral issues and how to weigh votes and rationales. This is exactly what the RFA community is supposed to be talking about, and we're doing a damn good job ... the arguments are generally tight, on point, and not repeating each other. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a new DougsTech, by the name of Peter Damian (talk · contribs). This time, no opinion is being given, but instead a link to Wikipedia Review, where it is claimed he is trying to "destroy Wikipedia" by opposing every admin. I cannot see what possible benefit there is in letting him do that, so I think an RFA ban for him would be best, until he learns not to abuse it. Majorly talk 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?--Giants27 (c|s) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Just another person taking RFA's weakness of "anyone can vote for any reason" and exploiting it. Majorly talk 12:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to handle this one better than last time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia Review doesn't seem to support viewing a whole thread at a time, I'm going to link to the individual post in which he says that in order to save other people the trouble of scrolling through the whole thing trying to find it: here it is Note that this is just one post in a 100+ post thread. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes very entertaining reading :) But actually putting it into practice is just plain disruptive and I don't see a lot of difference between this and trolling. Chamal ^talk 14:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We should warn him to stop, then enforce that. Or, people could defend the trolling for 4 months then finally get tired of it like we did with Doug, though that seems like a terrible waste of time. Lets just skip to the part where we warn him and then enforce it. Chillum 14:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Better to ignore. Less drama, he'll get bored, the crat isn't going to be fazed by it, let's all build an encyclopedia, OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh ya, because ignoring Doug resulted in less drama... oh wait, it resulted in more. Seriously have we learned nothing? Ignoring trolls does not reduce drama, blocking(assuming they don't heed warnings) them then ignoring them reduces drama. This only just happened a few weeks ago. I think we can all agree that destroying Wikipedia is not compatible with the goals of Wikipedia, we should not ignore things like that, we should block then ignore things like that. Chillum 14:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring him caused no drama, obviously, it was when people ceased to ignore him that the drama ensued. Fail to see how it destroys Wikipedia, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring doesn't exactly work as intended in a situation like this though, does it? In the DougsTech case, almost everyone would manage to ignore him but there was always at least one guy who couldn't resist saying "what, wikipedia needs more admins". I'm ready to bet that there will be people who would just love to say "you're trolling. get out of here" in this case, which is eactly what would give him the impression that he is succeeding. Chamal ^talk 14:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea that everyone on Wikipedia is going to ignore him is unrealistic. Being soft on trolls does not reduce drama, I have seen this theory fail time and time again over the years. It is a nice ideal, but in the real world trolls cause disruption. We can either warn him to stop and block him if he does not, or we can "ignore him" for a few months by which I mean some will ignore him and others will complain, then warn/block him. The whole Doug thing could have been ended at the very start by simply not being soft on trolling, but we let it fester for months and there was plenty of disruption due to that. You cannot solve problems by ignoring them(it sure would be nice if that did work though). Chillum 14:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I know! Let's ban everyone with opinions we disagree with from RFA and demonize those who object as "troll enablers". Then we can rubber-stamp RFAs for all our friends and IRC buddies! Real mature, guys. We have bureaucrats for a reason. Skinwalker (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, did you actually look at what was being talked about? "Oppose per <link to screed about how Wikipedia should be blown up and destroyed>". This has nothing to do with disagreeing, this is run of the mill trolling. There is not even a point to disagree with other than that we should be blown up and destroyed. This is not about silencing any sort of debate, no ideas not involving explosives have even been presented to be silenced. Your comment makes no sense in this context. Chillum 14:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

From the looks of the linked thread, he's trying to destroy Wikipedia with his oppose !votes. DougsTech seemed like he wanted to improve Wikipedia. This guy has admitted he wants to do the opposite, making this a completely different situation than DougsTech's. Regardless of whether Peter is destroying Wikipedia or not, he will continue to try, causing disruption all along the way and possibly succeeding in his goal. Do we really want to let that happen? Timmeh 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What I think we need to see is our bureaucrats simply removing votes like this. They have the authority to do that, and I can't imagine that edit-warring with a bureaucrat on an RfA would be looked on favorably. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support a RFA ban (and possibly more but let's stay on topic). We see here incontrovertible proof of the motivation behind these opposes. They have no genuine purpose related to the merits of the candidacy and, to put it gently, are made purely to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Ignoring only works on a small scale. It would never work on a forum where hundreds of people see the conduct and have the choice of commenting on a disruptive oppose or not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also support said "ban" - why should the crats have to ignore him when the comments could be prevented from ever appearing? Seems odd to me. I'd like to stress that I don't think that this guy is a "new DougsTech" - he is purely out to disrupt Wikipedia while DougsTech's motives were a lot less obvious. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Destroying Wikipedia", really? This indicates he's either a kook, or this statement was made tongue-in-cheek. In either case, I don't see where it's much to worry about. Crats should maybe consider removing nonsense votes in any case tho, if for no other reason than to ward off the otherwise inevitable drama caused by people that just can't resist getting their knickers in a bunch over harmless things. Friday (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• DougsTech wanted to voice an opposition. Peter Damian wants to voice an opposition. If Crats don't like it, fine. However, dissent is not a problem if they simply voice their problem and don't seek to exert undue influence, go around processes, mass canvass, etc. It is one entry and states a strong feeling. I do not like Wikipedia Review, and Peter Damian and I don't have a good history. However, his thoughts are what he feels and he is doing it in a decent manner that is far from problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There have been many RfA 'oppose' votes by Peter Damian recently, but so far there was only one with the 'per this' rationale. Peter is not stupid, and under the circumstances it seems entirely possible that he is playing with the ambiguity of this rationale: In the cited post he didn't just say Wikipedia had to be "blown up and destroyed"; he also said why. Based just on Rlevse's nomination rationale and no knowledge of Ceranthor whatsoever, it appears to me that he might see Ceranthor as part of the problem. Therefore I don't see a WP:Lex Dougstech violation so much as a post that leaves it open whether it violates WP:Lex Dougstech or WP:NPA. Hans Adler 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He also asked others how to best go about destroying Wikipedia, saying that he had some ideas but would like more. Why one Earth would be tolerate someone whose stated goal is to destroy our project? Chillum 16:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree fully with J.delanoy. The 'crats were elected for a reason. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) - I think there are a lot of valid points to be taken from many of the above posts, but I do admit to preferring the J.delanoy solution the best, and topic ban being a resulting solution should the first fail. Several points: 1) Doug was not blocked/banned for his RfA contributions (at least not directly), but rather for rather uncivil personal attacks on a previous admin., and the resulting discussions and responses. 2) However unaccepted, perhaps even ill-informed Dougs reasoning for opposing was, at least there was a reason. I can't say I find any value in Peters WR link in the least. I will admit that Peter does appear to be active in a larger number of topics however. 3)While I certainly agree that ignore/deny is a preferred method of dealing with items, Chillum does mention one very valid point. In practice, it's simply not going to work at RfA. Either because too many editors are unable to ignore the items, or more likely, because they are unwilling to ignore them - so in practice and functionality - Deny does not work. Another point Chillum makes (with total validity) is that "warnings" should come first. (Good grief, I think that's like 3 or 4 times in the last couple weeks I've agreed with Chillum - somehow I just never imagined that would ever come to pass). I do agree with Fuhghettaboutit on this point: in looking at a variety of posts, it does appear that Peter is not content with WP; at least in its current state. While I do prefer the "'crat removal" idea, I'm not sure many, if any, of the 'crats would be inclined to perform such removals. I suspect, that eventually this topic will end up as an AN/I "topic ban/ban" thread before long. Time will tell I guess. — Ched :  ?  16:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's simply not true that Peter didn't give a reason for starting a revolution. I don't agree with the way he formulated it, and you may not even agree that the problem itself exists – that Wikipedia is slowly being take over by the kind of people who should not even try to write an encyclopedia. (It's quite enlightening to compare Wikipedia discussions with Citizendium discussions on the same topic, I can tell you.) But the reason is obviously valid. Hans Adler 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly trust that bureaucrats see right through these opposes. In other words, I don't think we avoid any chance of a candidate's RFA being affected as to whether they will or will not get the bit because of such pointy opposes. But suggesting that crats can just remove them, doesn't mean they will, and there's no reason to think at this time that any crat who did so, would before others are already embroiled in the inevitable ensuing time drain discussion polemics in the wake of such an oppose. A real oppose on the most ridiculous basis ("can't support a user who admits they like chocolate") is still based on the actual candidacy at issue. These opposes have nothing to do with the candidate; they are, by admission, an attempt to hijack the RFA to make a point on a pretextual ground. This should not be sanctioned.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with J.delanoy as well, with the second option being a topic ban. Bureaucrats should remove !votes like the aforementioned and especially !votes like this. Timmeh 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a problem. A user has stated that they will oppose every admin. 'Crats know this, and thus ignore every comment that user makes. What happened to ignoring the trolls? 82.33.48.96 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a given that trollish votes like this will be ignored, yea. The problem is with other users who will invariably respond to one of the non-votes, which spark off a flurry of posts and counter-posts. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed the links, but I'm baffled: If he says his intention is to destroy Wikipedia, why hasn't an admin blocked him? Seems the obvious thing to do to me... --Tango (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly what occurred to me. If I wasn't sure it would set off a ridiculous drama firestorm; I would have no problem blocking him right now - anyone with a stated aim to destroy a project, should not be allowed to contribute to that project. I don't see why this should be a grey area, really. ~ mazca ^talk 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tango, I agree this is obvious and Peter has been warned. If he continues to disrupt or destroy Wikipedia he will be blocked. This is not about RfA at all, this is about a person who is openly attempting to destroy our project. Chillum 17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of warning him? Just block him. AGF doesn't mean we should ignore admissions of bad faith. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is my warning to both of you - you are both in violation of many, many core policies and guidelines with this nonsense. Chillum, your actions are completely incivil, disrespectful, and disruptive. You are taking one line without any personal attacks and turning this into a circus. If anyone should be blocked, it should be you as this is disruption far greater than many of the people that receive indefs. Tango, for aiding and encouraging him, you are only furthering this disruption. You can consider this your warning to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? --Tango (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your not making sense Ottava. We have always discouraged disruptive behavior, I don't see why doing so now is suddenly wrong. You are going to need to clarify your position if you want me to understand it. Chillum 18:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And your behavior is the only one being disruptive and is completely inappropriate. He had one sentence that neither attacked anyone nor bothered anyone. However, here you are threatening blocks, throwing fits, and wasting everyone's time. Even if he is trolling, you fed him and you became the disruption. Your excessive actions are completely inappropriate and are damaging to the integrity of this encyclopedia. Stop now, let this rest, and let it archive. If not, well, you already received one warning. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think I have acted incorrectly then I am always open to greater scrutiny of my actions, I think however that your interpretation of things may be a tad rare. It is strange that you are warning me that I might be blocked because I warned someone that they might be blocked. Surely you can see the cyclical nature of this argument. Chillum 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have your warning. I'm not feeding any of this nonsense with a further response. If you continue this disruption over a tiny, insignificant sentence that is left for Crats to decide then you only have yourself to blame. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

er, "warning" ? Your posts here come across as rather threatening actually, threats which you do not appear to have the ability to enforce. So please, stop escalating an already contentious situation. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a threat - if Chillum continues his blatant disruption and violation of WP:CIVIL by issuing inappropraite warnings, there are consequences. Escalating? I am not the one that created this thread or pursued Peter Damian in a harassing manner over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Empty internet threats aren't terribly impressive. We're having a discussion here about a disruptive RfA voter, it is not uncivil or harassing to point out damian's obvious bad faith. So yes, you are escalating this with baseless threats. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't issue warnings unless there is a clear and blatant problem and I have had such verified by multiple admin. I am an admin at another project and I deal with many admin every day. And a disruptive vote? If you want to say that one sentence is some how disruptive, then there is a serious problem with your ability to judge proportion. I literally hate what Peter Damian stands for. Everyone here knows that. If you can't recognize the serious problem that people like Chillum are causing that gets someone like me to stand up for him, then there is really nothing that can be said. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava every time you accuse me of incivility or some other heinous crime I ask you to gather evidence and seek further scrutiny towards my actions. I invite you to post at ANI anything you think I have done wrong. I ask you this every time you make an accusation, yet you never do it. I invite your scrutiny, and I reject the basis of your warning. Furthermore, any other warnings of this nature belong on my talk page and not on a project talk page. Chillum 21:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You are being utterly ridiculous. As pointed out multiple times, I stated that your warning of Peter Damian was incivil as there is no rational way to claim that one sentence is disruptive especially when you keep going on and on and causing real disruption. Are you claiming that you didn't post at Peter Damian's page? It is blatantly obvious that you did, but you are making it 100% sure that you believe the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, no need to be insulting. I am not being ridiculous. If you want to discuss this issue do so on my talk page instead of exacerbating the situation here. Chillum 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What he wrote at WR was nonsense -- obviously it wouldn't destroy Wikipedia in a month even if everybody voted oppose at every RFA -- so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. In my opinion, though, anybody who avowedly states opinions at RFA that have no relationship to the qualifications of the candidate is being disruptive and deserves at least a topic ban -- note that unconditional support is just as disruptive as unconditional opposition. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, one item I did notice. While I normally don't give much credence to WR as far as a direct impact to individual matters, Peter does directly link to his own posts on WR in several places. It appears to me that in this instance that he is attempting to thumb his nose at WP, but feels that the bulk of his defamatory WP diatribes being off-site, may somehow insulate him from direct repercussions here. But perhaps I'm making suppositions of intent that I shouldn't be? — Ched :  ?  17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with Ottava Rima. Regardless of Peter's stated goals and actions it seems to me like the discussion is moving toward to the "pitchfork and torch" stage. Shinerunner (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, a community ban (which is, I guess, what is being suggested here - they are pretty ill-defined things) is an example of "pitchfork and torch" justice, but it seems to be something the community thinks is a good idea in some situations. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is not the correct venue to deal with the behavioral issues of one editor. This is not really about RfA, more about Peter's state goal of destroying Wikipedia. Peter has been warned, if he does not act disruptively we can just let it go, if he does continue then he will be blocked. There is really not much RfA related left to discuss. So perhaps we should just mark this resolved? Chillum 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My thought was if Peter is using loopholes or skating the edges of policy then the first course of action would be to review and ammend (where possible) the policies invovled. That's all. Shinerunner (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It won't "destroy Wikipedia". It won't affect it in any way. Cookie-cutter oppose votes get very little weight, whatever the motivation behind them. In a "close" RfA the bureaucrat would routinely consider the oppose comments carefully, so we can all be absolutely sure the outcome is not going to hinge on something non-specific and potentially unrelated to the candidate. Peter Damian's suggestion of blindly opposing every candidate will have the same nil impact on RfA results as Dougstech or Kmweber before him. Euryalus (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of his stated intention to destroy Wikipedia, the !votes will create drama here or elsewhere, and I can tell you from experience that it won't stop until the person ceases his controversial activities or is banned. It happened with both Kmweber and DougsTech. I'm wondering if anyone has any objections to bureaucrats removing the !votes on sight. That would stand a good chance of halting the drama. Timmeh 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The only way that votes cause drama is because people like you, Majorly, Chillum, etc, cause a major scene. The original troll is not as bad as the multiple people suckered into fighting and disrupting in going after a troll. Think of it this way - a thief may steal, but this is currently a mob trying to kill the thief. Murder is far worse than theft, yet you are all jumping right in without a care. Stop the bloodlust. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Hello, I'd like to come and work for your company please"
• "Okay, do you have any experience?"
• "Yes, look, I'm well acomplished in the area in which the company works"
• "That's great. We make widgets - do you think they're good?"
• "No."
• "Oh - okay - have you got some good ideas how we can improve the widgets?"
• "Yes, stop making them and let someone else do it"
• "Er..... we're not sure we want you to work here actually"
• "You can't stop me from working here"
  • ...yes we can. Can't we just get rid of this bloke sans drama? If he doesn't like it good for him. Go to Google and get them to stop indexing Wikipedia if you need to. Dear me, this really is not complex. The little man is, contrary to popular and idealist belief, in actual fact very often very wrong. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. As of yet, he's done nothing to deserve a ban. As for banning people because others cause drama when they see the people's posts, isn't that a bit like throwing the demonstrators in jail because the cops are afraid that the demonstrators may be attacked by the townsfolk?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• The maintenance and meta part of Wikipedia does not, as far as I am aware, extend the "anyone can edit" courtesy. Hence our blanket ban on IP's !voting in the three "main" discussion sections of RFA, our tenure and edit requirements for ARBCOM election, at a larger scale our enfranchisement requirements regarding Stewards, etc. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Wehwalt, if we are arresting people based on the commotion they are making, the silent protesters are doing far less damage than the outraged above. By proportion, there are four names above that are currently far ahead in deserving an indef than Peter Damian. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's right (except that I don't see evidence of bloodlust here, as some have stated). I wish people who say that WT:RFA is broken would look at complex threads like this one ... everyone is adding an important perspective, it's a high-quality discussion. The only problem is that the problem is complex, so we tend to get tired out and give up before we've got everything sorted and summed up, so let's start working on that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Ottava, you make very good points, but could you help us understand the boundaries of your arguments? That is, can you acknowledge that there are some people in some situations where the best result for Wikipedia will be at least a short-term block? What kind of behavior from Peter, in your opinion, would merit some kind of block? - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If Peter is here to disrupt (as per the idea that he should be blocked), then having long threads, having multiple people upset, and many people demanding a block is exactly giving him what he wants. The only way to deal with him is to ignore him. Protesters are best defeated by apathy. Remember Hatred is not the opposite of love. Lack of caring is. If people don't get a response, they tend to go away. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with OR there. Ignoring is the best policy. Why respond? Crats have said they discount !votes like that. Peter is just wasting pixels-were it not for the fact he gets reactions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you guys propose to let everyone who edits Wikipedia that this is the plan, and that they shouldn't respond to anything Peter says? No, wait, let's make it simpler. I think we're agreed on the basic facts here, that Peter has said things that indicate he might be trolling. Why don't we pursue your suggested solution first, and see if it works. Let everyone know who responds to Peter that Peter might not be serious, and that it may cause a problem rather than fixing it to engage him in conversation. Try that experiment, then report back here and let us know if that solved the problem. If it doesn't, then we'll have to look for other solutions. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words or agreements in my mouth. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll forgive me I hope, you know we're wiki-friends and always have been ... but sometimes I get frustrated in conversations about behavioral issues with you, Wehwalt. I was being a little sarcastic, of course ... but only a little, I really do think that there's only one criterion here, and that's whatever works, regardless of whether it conforms to some pure wiki-philosophy. Whatever it is that you propose is going to work, try it, and let's see. There's absolutely no shame in thinking that something is going to work and then seeing that it doesn't, no one is psychic. So, the facts: Peter has announced on his userpage that he doesn't intend to do any editing until Oct 3, so we can surmise that he's not here to make useful contributions. He's stated that he thinks Wikipedia is hopeless and he'd like to take it down if he can. He's started making opposes at RFA and then arguing with people who ask him what he means. I can accept your view that Peter has only made growly noises so far and not caused any actual harm. I can also accept the view that Peter isn't (yet) a schoolyard bully. Still, Wikipedia only has one tool: consensus. If we don't use that tool, we have nothing, so let's try to bridge the gap here between your positions and others. You and Ottava so far are not conceding so far that there are any actions at all that would merit blocking ... but surely you don't mean that. Certainly RFA is "robust", and we could weather it quite well even if he decided to do his worst ... but how would infinite patience benefit Wikipedia? - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, no hard feelings, I just professionally get very leery of arguments that begin with phrases like "You'll agree with me ..." and my response is to make it clear that I'm not going that way! That being said, I think the community can handle !votes like that, especially if met each time by a post from an RFA regular warning others not to get sucked into a discussion with Peter. The RfA universe is not huge and I think people will get the lesson, especially if regulars and admins send the right message from the beginning. In the DT area, there was no consistent message and mucha drama. I think if given half a chance, WPeans will act like adults and ignore the !votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I think some of my comments and others were considering the general question of trolling on Wikipedia; it's much easier to handle problematic behavior at RFA, usually by ignoring it and letting the crats handle it. Still, I think people have made a lot of good points in this thread about what problematic behavior is and different ways it might be handled in the future; there is fertile ground here for pulling ideas together and reaching consensus on some key points. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems a disruptive pointy response to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Peter Damian/Established Editors, to me. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

←Just to be clear on my own views: I never called for or supported a ban on Dougs Tech for his !votes, it was the comments made on another editors talk page which violated WP:NPA which pushed my views towards a block or ban. (and I believe that many others felt the same way.) I also was not inclined to comment on Peters "oppose" votes until he linked directly to his own words (with this edit) posted on WR which stated: It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed. which I viewed as a direct insult to the very process which he currently enjoys, and direct attack on this community. — Ched :  ?  23:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter was writing from the perspective of an English adult, not of an American teen. And he is not afraid of hyperbole. Taking these two facts into account, I believe this very section proves his point. There would be more nuanced ways of making it, such as saying that Wikipedia is full of people who think opinions are a valid substitute for thoughts and it's pointless to wait for them to grow up because they keep flooding into the project. Hans Adler 00:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting bureaucrat opinion

If bureaucrats discount the votes, then why allow the votes to remain up at all? In my view, it is simply insulting to the candidate to allow them to remain. We elect bureaucrats partially to monitor the RfA process and ensure that everything goes smoothly. So why not just have them act more forcibly in these matters? I would ask the bureaucrats to please at least make some decision on whether to allow these votes or stop them, so that at least these types of threads won't repeat themselves in the future. NW (Talk) 22:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand the conflict in this. If he continues to oppose every candidate and we "ignore it," we'll get filled with new threads about this editor on a daily basis. If we ban him from RfA, we can move on and avoid all of the drama. – (iMatthew • talk) at 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I would really just like bureaucrats to make the final call, just so that this whole mess is solved once and for all. NW (Talk) 22:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with NW. However, if the bureaucrats agree to remove all the nonsense !votes and if this guy is only making nonsense !votes, there's no sense in letting him continue posting in RFAs. Timmeh 22:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • But why can't we just ban him from !voting? If the crats have to remove his oppose in every RfA, they'll be questioned by someone each time, and it will begin to annoy them. If we just banned him from voting, it'll save the crats a continuous headache. – (iMatthew • talk) at 22:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Not clear to me that the savings in crat headaches justifies a topic ban. Let's wait for crat response before going all hypothetical.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, but let's also review what we already know about how crats in general feel about this. They don't generally strike votes except for technical reasons. They have repeated many times that they carefully weigh the rationales, that it's not a vote, although obviously 2 people saying something is stronger than 1 person saying it. They have also occasionally dropped strong hints (Biblio in reference to DougTech, most recently) along the lines of: "I/we won't pay any attention to a rationale like that one". Julian and JD proposed above that crats should openly strike votes that seem out of bounds, but I don't know ... I might like the way they do things now better, because that leaves the burden with the community to argue it out, rather than transferring that burden to the crats. I think we can handle it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps a compromise position (between JC's and JD's request and the status quo) would be for crats to do what Biblio did and show their hand ... just to do it more often than they've done so far, so that we're not totally stumbling around in the dark when we're trying to figure out their positions. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt "Neutrals" are counted except for their content and only in determining a final sway and not a number count, so why allow them to exist? We allow people to put up supports with ridiculous statements, so why allow them to exist? Why not just put a whole big crack down on everything with a subjective understanding of what is right and wrong? Simply put - we are not a Democracy but we are not totalitarian. We have people who measure consensus, we don't have people who go around and dominate other people. This is an encyclopedia, not a government. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think RfA needs a special exemption from our regular practices regarding disruption and trolling. There is nothing subjective about objecting to the concept of "I am going to destroy your project". Chillum 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am truly and honestly frightened by the fact that I agree with Ottava. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So a follow up question then. On a scale of 0 through 10, where 10 is the amount of weight you would give the nominator support and 1 is the amount of weight you would give "Oppose - No Mediawiki talk edits", how much weight would you accord Peter Damian's votes? NW (Talk) 13:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing scale definitions; you may think it would be helpful (given your post on BN about how a bureaucrat weighing in would stop future bickering, which I highly doubt), but I seriously disagree that it would be. The bureaucrats have already stated that !votes the community has already expressed displeasure with are discounted/weighed differently, and yet situations like this rage on. Putting things on a scale will do nothing but lock us into a standard that does not need to be locked into place. (and not only that, but I don't feel comfortable speaking for all of the bureaucrats, merely for myself) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we please all wait ...

... for a second 'oppose' vote by Peter Damian based on his wish to destroy Wikipedia before continuing to discuss him? Or is a quick look at the contributions of an editor before asking him to be banned too much to ask? Hans Adler 23:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What, and slow down the industry in pitchforks and torches?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with RfA. An editor has declared their intentions to destroy Wikipedia, and even asked in a public forum for ideas on how to best do it. The editor has been warned that attempts to destroy Wikipedia will result in a block. Either he does nothing or he tries to destroy Wikipedia and gets blocked. He can make foolish votes at RfA all day long and I don't care, it is his announcing of plots to have Wikipedia "blown up and destroyed" and its editors "hospitalized" that are the issue. "pitchforks and torches" comments do nothing other than to unfairly belittle a valid position, they in no way move the debate forward. I don't think the "we don't think destroying us is okay" position is really that extreme. Chillum 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another attempt of on-wiki sarcasm gets taken the wrong way. (at least that's the way I understood it) And I agree with Chillum here, RfA votes really do nothing to harm Wikipedia but his possible attempt to destroy Wikipedia is disruptive.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What attempt to destroy Wikipedia, specifically?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'll agree - the sky hasn't fallen; but I'm not exactly ready to turn off the weather channel either. — Ched :  ?  00:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was probably either nothing worth talking about, or if it was, then it was a matter for ANI, not RFA. But then people did start talking about it here ... and people haved covered many points that are either relevant to Peter or relevant to figuring out what to do about future problematic behavior at RFA. That's why I object to the "pitchfork" comment and the early archiving; it suggests that we all have something to be ashamed of, and I don't think we do, I think we're in the brainstorming stage of figuring out what to do about this and similar future cases, and doing a damn good job of it. Now it's time maybe to summarize, maybe to discard some of the suggestions (not because they're not good suggestions, but because we can guess from the dialogue that we'll never get consensus for them). - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if he destroys Wikipedia, I will crawl out from under the rubble and apologize to anyone who is still alive and cares.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't mind "looking", but to be honest, I don't find this response to some advice to be very encouraging either. — Ched :  ?  00:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, specifically this discussion of the best way to destroy Wikipedia. Try as I might I don't read that as humour or a desire to improve things here. ϢereSpielChequers 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Just saying so, though, is the Internet age equivalent of a college kid sitting in what we used to call a late night bull session, discussing how to overturn the social order. I think he's got to actually do something for it to be actionable by a block or ban.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone publicly threatens to assassinate the president, they're going to be arrested. Timmeh 00:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because 18 U.S.C. section 879 makes that illegal. There is a specific criminal law directed at that. The same does not apply here.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I was the one that threw out the "pitchfork and torch" line originally. To me it seemed the conversation was going along the lines that Peter is a clear and present danger and immediate action was needed. I just want to clarify that I'm all for discussing possible solutions.Shinerunner (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

←@ Wehwalt. re: the late night bull sessions. IF it were just talk, I might be willing to AGF. However, it appears that he is already at work on item number 1 of the WSC link. I'm not convinced that it's just talk at this point. — Ched :  ?  01:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Peter Damian fancies himself a real life Internet Tyler Durden and takes a page from Nietzsche in that in order to create one must destroy. He can be safely ignored. –xeno^talk 01:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Damian

1. Majorly is close to the mark when he says "Just another person taking RFA's weakness of "anyone can vote for any reason" and exploiting it." Correct, in a way. Wikipedia is slowly being take over by the kind of people who should not even try to write an encyclopedia. I would like to put a brake on this, and give content contributors a say in how this place is run.
2. Would people stop calling me a troll or sockpuppet. I am doing this in good faith, and I have been making contributions to Wikipedia since July 2003. Here is my first ever edit. And here is my most recent complete article written yesterday.
3. The link to Wikipedia Review was ironic. People had linked there when I voted before, so this time I did it for them.
4. If it annoys people, I will not link, or even give a reason. I will simply vote. I have been a member of this 'community' for more than 6 years, and you will have to rewrite the rules before you can block me for doing this.
5. The idea of banning me from RfA is a final step in removing the rights of content contributors entirely. The kind of people who should not even try to write an encyclopedia will then be able to vote for other people who should not even try to write an encyclopedia, and those who are writing an encyclopedia can be disenfranchised.

Peter Damian (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think this project is hopeless, as you seem to imply in your WR post, why do you even stay around? Why not just leave and let the rest of us who think that this project has a viable future do our best to make that future a reality? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think the project has a viable future. It's like a company that has a good product and could be made to work again, but needs new management. Peter Damian (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you describing a way that you think would collapse the project within a month or two? And posting detailed threads on how to subtly destroy the project within, including (albeit tentatively) advocating deliberately committing subtle vandalism? Seriously, you really expect me to believe you when you say you think this project has a viable future? Or did you mean that you merely want this particular project to fail so you can scavenge its remains? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Do you think there's possibly a different way for you to express that? You believe in Wikipedia, but not how it is currently managed; okay, I may not agree with that position, but I can at least see where you're coming from. However, you're honestly not doing much to upset "the system," just pissing off a handful of editors. Your arguments would have far greater weight (and more impact) if it's something a bit more than just a rubber-stamped oppose (which is certainly what it's coming across as). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I would place Mr. Damian's plans to destroy Wikipedia in the same category as Pinky and the Brain's plans to take over the world: you could probably get a season or two of amusing comedy from the premise, but ultimately both Wikipedia and the world will remain intact. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter's opinion is essentially a colourful variant of "too many admins". I don't see that the well known flaws in the RfA process require us to bring out the tar and feathers. I think well of Peter's work here on the history of logic articles, fwiw.— Charles Stewart (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To Damien Damian (just kidding!): As I say sometimes to people who are upset that their article was speedy-deleted: the point of this process isn't perfection, it's doing what the wiki-projects and the helpboards have asked us to do in a fair and even-handed way. (I can point to recent discussion at WT:CSD if anyone is interested.) We might or might not come up with some kind of recommendation here at WT:RFA that we convey to ANI, and our recommendation may be wrong, since we can't see into people's souls or predict the future ... but our lack of omniscience doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make RFA the best process it can possibly be, and handing out some short-term, suitable time-out in a few cases is not equivalent to being monstrous or wielding pitchforks; therefore, I'd like to see the discussion continue. We're covering things normally covered at ANI but, I'll say it again, I think the quality of the conversation on all sides is higher than it would be if it were happening at ANI ... this is very encouraging. It may be that this is the right place to discuss RFA-related behavioral questions after all, followed by voting on a summary of the positions and their strength here at RFA, and presenting that to ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well put, I'm glad that Peter has explained his position, and that everyone is responding in a relatively civil manner. Hopefully he will be willing to work within the system to improve it. There's an encyclopedia needs a-building, everyone!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here, the account that Peter used to make his first edit from in July 2003, was blocked in April 2008, then again in September 2008 and then Peter registered his account in December 2008.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its fair now that Peter Damian has made his opinion known civilly, that we can put an end to this drama, the troll and sockpuppeting names were not really necessary, but let's give it a chance. Who wants to put a resolve tag.Mitch/HC32 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter, RFA is not supposed to be a vote but a !vote. If you don't want to destroy Wikipedia but you think that the wrong people are becoming Admins, then I suggest you continue to participate at RFa but make it clear in your !votes why you think particular candidates are or are not ready to become admins. There are a number of RFA regulars who focus on candidates' article writing, and while it is currently a minority view that a candidate must be a writer to become an admin, a candidate without significant contributions doesn't need much else to have their RFA fail. However if you want to "give content contributors a say in how this place is run" you might want to consider that opposing a content contributor who has written a Good Article is a strange way to start. ϢereSpielChequers 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because on the surface, the "votes" are all over the place, but I think there's a chance we can get consensus for most of this (and feel free to add more points):

• 1. Whatever we decide here won't apply to Peter Damian, because we haven't generally handed out short or long bans at RFA, and if we didn't know where to draw the lines, then he certainly can't be expected to know. However, if we draw some lines, and if he crosses those lines in the future, we can re-open the matter.
• 2. The RFA community has the right and the obligation to say that certain behaviors are inappropriate at RFA, and to vote/discuss the matter when someone seems to have crossed the lines, and submit a summary of the positions from that vote/discussion to ANI and ask for appropriate action.
• 3. Appropriate action for a first offense might be a week-long ban from individual RFAs (not from WT:RFA, for a first offense), because there's a clock running and a momentum in RFAs, and even though we can eventually sort out any "food fight", sometimes the disruption is unfair both to the candidates and the !voters.
• 4. RFA is "robust", that is, it can withstand a lot of abuse and still produce good results. !Voters generally aren't easily distracted, and even when we are, it's unlikely to significantly change the rationales or percentages, and even when it does, crats are very good at ignoring drama. Therefore, there wouldn't be any great harm to the RFA process if whatever standards we come up with are a little too harsh or a little too lenient; the only real mistake would be to endlessly argue over whether there should be standards of any kind; of course there should be standards. Besides, a short ban can always be softened by an appropriate warning message on the editor's talk page, the same way we soften the blow when we speedy-delete articles: this isn't meant as a mark of dishonor, we're just trying to do our best to make the RFA process work well, you're welcome to come back in a week to !vote in RFAs, you're welcome to discuss your position right now at WT:RFA, etc. (Just be careful about avoiding actions that might get you blocked at ANI ... which is not our department, you'll have to ask over there about that.)
• 5. The standards should be fair and applied equally, but not mechanically; it's not a matter of "500 good contributions means you're okay, 499 is not enough", it's a matter of the !voters reaching a strong consensus that, at the present moment, your only goal in the RFAs you're currently voting in is to cause trouble. We will bend over backwards to avoid either the reality or the perception that people are being temp-RFA-banned for unpopular positions. (I think some are very skeptical that we can do this, but the only way to find out is to try it, and besides, I think the consensus position is that we're ready for this challenge.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with point 1, that any rules cooked up in the immediate future should not be applied retroactively, should RfA be making its own rules? I disagree with point 2 and it's phrasing (such as "The RFA community has the right") indicates to me that RfA seems to think itself independent of other processes. What right does RfA have to decide who can and cannot vote? At the moment, Peter Damian has not breached any policies, so what grounds is there to propose to outlaw future similar behaviour? Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Although WP:OWN only applies to articles, the same logic applies here. "I reject that comment, you're not a regular here" is bad. But my experience when I talk about RFA outside of WT:RFA is that people often assume that "we" are cabalish, when my experience is that this page represents one of the least cabalish pages in all of Wikipedia. I still think the word "we" isn't meaningless, because there are people who (masochistically I'm sure) keep up with everything that's said here, and also because we're all capable of wearing different hats; I think different ways and say different things here than I would at ANI or GAN, because I know that the issues and the "facts in evidence" are different in different parts of Wikipedia. Regarding Peter: I see your point that if he hasn't done anything wrong yet, we shouldn't be singling him out. I think what's going on here is that we're oversensitive because of DougsTech ... but we're also a lot smarter because we all had 4 weeks to ponder our positions because of DougsTech, and everyone wanted to jump in and give their two cents before this spun out of control ... which I think was a very good instinct. Hopefully Peter understands that all this is not directed at him, but on the other hand, we weren't born yesterday, and some of the things that Peter has said here and elsewhere are the things that make you go "Hm" and keep your eye on someone. Just consider it a friendly, and hopefully not prejudicial, warning, Peter. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So does this mean we can no longer give reasons on the lines of this or this? Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason that people say things like that ("Support per [opposing vote]") is that they feel that they need to slap people for bad behavior, because if they don't do it, no one will, and things will get worse. The way to stop people from thinking they need to do that is to come up with community norms on what is "bad" behavior (as in, so bad that it really would be helpful to impose a mild "time-out"), and then do our best to be impartial and fair when that needs to be discussed. I don't always trust people's arguments, but you can just about always trust people's anxiety at RFA ... that is, if there's something that's bugging them, there's probably a reason somewhere, even if they don't do a great job explaining themselves, so it generally helps to listen rather than to dismiss. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Two more points: this is just one person's !vote, but if I had been voting on short-term RFA bans, I would have supported for Kurt (Kmweber) and DougsTech, and no one else. I don't think there's any support for enforcing some kind of purity standard in votes, only for doing something in those very rare cases where the only possible outcome is bad. (However, I would have no trouble supporting the Wikipedian community if we decide to draw the lines somewhere else.) Peter clearly isn't there yet (as far as I'm concerned). The reason to debate individual cases at RFA rather than ANI is because, in general, people at ANI aren't going to know what is or isn't likely to be hopelessly unhelpful behavior at RFA without significant input from people who participate here. Another personal position; if I participate in such an argument about a !voter at RFA, I would stop at the point where we write the summary of our positions and hand it off to ANI. I would hope the folks at ANI would take our opinions seriously, but I wouldn't switch hats and vote on the appropriate sanction at ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for carrying on a conversation with myself, but rather than count the minutes til someone comes up with the obvious objection, I'll answer it now. If all this only applies to Kmweber and DougsTech over the last 2 years, then why are we wasting any time on this? People like that will be blocked eventually, and we can ignore them in the meantime, and even if we don't ignore them, the crats will. The answer is: it's not at all likely that we'll RFA-ban one person a year and nothing else positive will happen. In order to have one of these discussions, we have to think about what kind of behavior constitutes being an unrelenting pain-in-the-ass. Maybe statements about destroying the wiki, or statements that a person doesn't plan to make any useful contributions to Wikipedia, or constant whining about the unfairness of it all, or blatant assertions that nothing the candidate says matters to their vote ... different people have different ideas I think. We'd probably debate them and write them down somewhere. And that list of "behaviors that are a warning sign that things are about to turn ugly at RFA" is a list that everyone could read ... and then maybe we wouldn't even have to ban one a year, because we're being clear about our standards. But it doesn't make any sense to come up with a list of standards if there's never a context where we would use it ... so the theoretical possibility of sanctions has to be on the table. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I could hardly disagree more with Dank's second point above. To suggest that what's risibly called the "RfA community" has special rights to sanction, or any special obligations other than to clean up its act, would be comical in a different context. Suppression of unpopular opinions can never be the answer, no matter what the question is. I disagree with almost everything Dank says, for instance, but I cannot ever see myself calling for his topic ban either here or anywhere else. This is about as bad an idea as I've ever seen presented here, and that's saying something. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think the community (meaning, the part of the Wikipedian community likely to be interested in this, not the "RFA community") is full of crap, then the idea of a community-driven process is likely to be very unappealing. I'd ask you to go back to the top of this thread (all the way back, starting at #Peter Damian) and read all the comments. Each response shows that they had read the thread so far, added something that hadn't been said, and that needed to be said because it was applicable in certain cases, they said it with a minimum of words until you get to my bit and a minimum of drama. That's your answer. We as a community have good judgment and we pay attention, and therefore selecting and enforcing community standards is likely to have a good outcome. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We as a community have good judgment and we pay attention? Actually what brought me to this course of action was the FlyingToaster RfA. I discovered that she had plagiarised work, and evidently had done so in order to get through RfA. Having pointed this out I was subjected to a campaign of vilification by her supporters, not one of whom was able enough to discover the plagiarism for themselves. It was as though the whole 'community' was waiting for some command or decision from on high that there had been plagiarism or not. None had the editorial ability or acumen to detect this for themselves. And this charade is for an encylopedia. It wa then I realised the RfA process was irrecoverably flawed. I shall continue with this campaign. All these links are going in the file which some day will be presented to those who are funding Wikipedia in the belief that its administration really understands how to create a comprehensive and accurate reference work. You can block me or ban me but that goes on file too. Peter Damian (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

←My there certainly are a lot of pieces to this puzzle. Given the numerous accounts, blocks, bans, sanctions, and voluminous history of the editor in question, it is definitely too complex an issue to put a singular lable on. I have to admit, that given all the work by so many respectable editors, admins, and arbs. to lift the indef. ban imposed by Jimbo (with his acceptance), I am surprised at the approach that Peter is now taking a short 6 months latter. In my opinion this approach is ill-conceived, and shows a lack of judgment - as well as a lack of appreciation for those who have supported him in the past. I'll have to say that I could not disagree more strongly with the premise that something must be destroyed in order to repair or rebuild it. (in reference to Wikipedia in general.) I simply have difficulty accepting an editor who has stated a desire to "destroy", albeit with the intent to rebuild. There are real people with real feelings at the end of each RfA, as such, if the community sees fit to allow this to continue, I would ask Peter to please be respectful of that idea when opposing. They say patience is a virtue, and given my relatively short tenure, as well as the knowledge that there are many pieces of this said puzzle that I'm surely unaware of, I suppose it's best to be content in simply watching the events unfold as they will. On a closing note, it appears to me that at least one recent post comes considerably close to WP:NLT; but being a bit short of acumen today, perhaps I'm mistaken. — Ched :  ?  20:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dank asked me to take a look at the points made. While I agree in general with her his general points, I don't see that imposing a specific procedure is a good idea.

• First, putting in place a process which might be invoked once a year in a dynamic and changing community like this is a bad idea.
• Second, I think existing processes can handle it.
• Third, Peter is not Doug. I think we just go on handling this on a case by case basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be helpful if we suppress any "new process" and just see this as the conversation that's always been required before ArbCom and suggested before ANI ... namely, that we show that we've tried to handle it ourselves? And how could we do that without searching for and recording consensus on the main points of what behavior crosses the line? - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. But I still think we are barking up a tree with no prey there. I suggest we close this thread, regretting the pixels forever lost to this discussion and the death of the virtual forest we killed to discuss this, and keep an eye on Peter. If he does anything nasty, then we come back. But right now, there is no need for administrator intervention.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I've been reading up on this whole dramafest, including the entire thread at WR, and I've come to the conclusion that Wikipedians, especially those who frequent RfA, are masochists. What other explanation is there for us tolerating months and months of disrupting RfA to prove a point? It happened with Kmweber, it happened with DougsTech, and now its happening a third time. For those that say its not disruptive if we ignore it, I'll respond that we've tried that ad nauseum, and it doesn't work. If it did, kmweber and DougsTech would still be here, and would not have RTV'd. Sensible Wikipedians would have seen it happen once, or even twice, and then come up with some reasonable guidelines about !votes in RfAs and how not to do it. Dank's suggesiton about writing something up is a great idea. A pretty simple rule that all 3 people would have run afoul of if we had it is "focus on the editor in question, not the process." We don't even have to make up a new policy; we could stick it in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions and WP:POINT. Arguments to Avoid is an essay and linked to from the RFA page; newcomers who don't like the process have a decent chance of checking there to see if it says anything. POINT is a behavioural guideline, and if a specific example like this is listed, then it has some teeth and can be enforced.

The main difference between Peter and kmweber/DT is that Peter has explicitly stated his desire to destroy Wikipedia. In this way, his conduct is even worse than the other two. I'm pretty sure the destruction of Wikipedia is not compatible with the goals and values of Wikipedia, so why would we let it continue? As it is now, his conduct is centered around RfA. Solution is to not let him disrupt RfA. If he were trying to destroy Wikipedia by filing frivolous reports at SPI or RFPP, then he would not be allowed to post there, and might even be blocked. Are you seeing where i'm going with this? Anyway, my main point is that we let this go on for too long, then ban, and then we learn nothing and it happens again. Can we stop it now? Please? Firestorm ^Talk 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One area where you are right on unfortunately is that for whatever reason, people here have a really hard time ignoring these kinds of things. No one seems to be able to walk away from something when there's an option to Say Something. Anyway, it's seems like a pretty straight line from someone wanting to destroy Wikipedia - laying out a plan - starting to act on it - getting banned. It's pretty featherweight, but really....it's the ultimate in bad faith editing and pointy activity. Not sure what the issue is or why he still has editing rights here. RxS (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Beg your pardon, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Peter Damian did disrupt anything? Main page is stil here, servers chirping, RFA candidates come and go... Insanity, perhaps, but no disruption. NVO (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I was away for the last four days; I think all this shows is that WR has a poisonous atmosphere and disrupts when it pervades here. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"A pretty simple rule that all 3 people would have run afoul of if we had it is "focus on the editor in question, not the process." A simple rule, perhaps, but one that fundamentally dishonest, as is the basis of this whole rather unseemly discussion. Are we really expected to believe that it's merely coincidence that all three of the editors named are being objected to because of their pattern of voting in opposition? Would anyone have been concerned if DougsTech had instead been in the habit of voting "Support. Not enough admins."? Is anyone concerned about the very frequent slighting of the oposers and their arguments which is almost encouraged in those voting in support? Those are of course rhetorical questions, as the answers are very clearly "No" and "No". If this "community" actually cared about the integrity of the RfA process it would spend more time worrying about the very many groundless support votes, and a lot less time agonising over a very few opposers. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter cites Flying Toaster's RFA as an example of the RFA process being flawed. I'd just like to point out that Peter Damian's oppose of Flying Toaster "per reasons above, mainly no visible content contribution" doesn't read to me as an oppose per plagiarism. My memory of that saga was that nobody brought up the plagiarism issues until after that RFA was over. Subsequently there has been rather closer attention to this at RFA and there has even been some talk of coordinating our RFA reviews to move away from the current situation of twenty people looking at some parts of a candidates contributions and nobody checking other parts. ϢereSpielChequers 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the votes at rfa, it is simply semantics to assert that one wants to destroy Wikipedia, while at the same time, prefaces this with the out of being a martyr by 'asking' to be banned. Catch 22. Still, it is semantics, lawyering, and I still give Peter props for doing so. However, this plan is quite concise and does nothing to help, nor does it to resolve problems that exist, and they DO exist. This is not the way to go about it. If you want to change the system, tweak it from the inside. But just like in the real world, when someone advocates destroying something, you don't let them try, and try and try. You let them do it on their own. In his own undeniable words:

1. Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up.
2. Demoralise the content contributors so they leave. To an extent this is already happening. The problem here however is that most of the 'community' would welcome them leaving. Then they could concentrate on their job of fighting vandalism and keeping the encyclopedia eternally in the state it was in 2005.
3. Attack the source of funds. This would be very effective but difficult. Requirement: a few articles in respectable journals that showed properly how Wikipedia was distorting human knowledge. (To make up for that ridiculous and skewed 'Nature' article). Properly wzzrite up the stuff about pedophiles, zoophiles, pornographers, Objectivists. Publicise this widely. Talk with journalists.
4. Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
5. Form an alliance with the natural enemies of Wikipedia such as Britannica.
6. Get sponsorship from wealthy person or corporation who would pay editors to contribute.

Further words are:Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

Many of these actions, especially demoralization of any editor or vandal-fighter insults and belittles just about everyone. Why you guys tolerate this is beyond me. Law _{type! snype?} 13:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call. It seems like people are trying to pretend this has something to do with RfA when RfA is in fact just a small part of his campaign against Wikipedia. This discussion is so far out of whack because it is in the wrong venue. I suggest any further discussion take place at WP:ANI. Chillum 13:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good forum as I have blocked him indefinitely. Law _{type! snype?} 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw, I was hoping we could use him to push through an important change at RFA, that is, consensus that it's appropriate to set broad standards, and a page where we could write these down. (And wouldn't it be delicious if someone who's trying to poke us in the eye instead helps us? But that's how it is, it's the challenges that make us strong.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could discuss these issues(again) without the help of someone trying to destroy us? Start a discussion, I will participate. Chillum 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that one admin should go ahead and block when other admins and editors are cognizant of the situation and are discussing it. I'm minded to unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem I have described before in connection with Giano: Every single admin has a veto right against not blocking someone. This does not scale well to situations that many admins look at. Hans Adler 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but neither should one admin go off the reservation when a matter is being discussed and create facts on the ground by blocking. It skews the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Preventing disruption to the project is really the only valid reason for a block, it is what all of our policies are based off of, the protection of the project. I would read the blocking policy and seek consensus for the unblock before just going ahead and doing it, we do have policies about unblocking(except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.). Chillum 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have left a note on Law's talk page already. If I do, I will not act in haste, but await some discussion and feedback. Which I suspect we'll see a lot of. I only wish that Law had announced his intent to block and solicited discussion before acting.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm minded to consider Law's blocking reason "unambiguous error" since hyperbole is not a reason to block, and the quotation is the only reason stated for the block. I think what should be done is that Peter should be unblocked for the limited purpose of restoring the status quo ante and that a thread be opened at AN/I to decide this matter properly, this isn't the proper forum. I really doubt if Peter can destroy Wikipedia during the course of an AN/I thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to act quickly or possibly at all. I'd really like someone to start an AN/I thread on this and let the community decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it would only be useful to talk about it here if it becomes clear that people don't want to talk about it at ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask a vaguely related personal question? It has been mentioned several times in several places that, once someone stops paying attention to RFA, their judgment on RFA matters might be called into question. I've been trying to put energy into starting a local (North Carolina) wikichapter, but my brain is esploding with the extra work. If I dropped out of my usual RFA and CSD duties for 3 months, then catch up in October, would anyone hold that against me in some RFA argument? - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What a strange question! The answer surely has to be "Who cares?" --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that in a very "flat" organization, where titles are worth very little, reputation actually becomes more important, not less important. I think I mean it as a serious question, hopefully I'm not just asking for applause. If I came back in October, and reviewed WT:RFA and RFAs for the 3 months I was gone, and then I said something like "I think we need to do X in order to deal with problem Y", can you see yourself (Malleus) saying, "You've been away for a while, Dan, I really don't think you know what you're talking about"? (I mean, more than you say that already :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If you're concerned about your opinion / status / argumentative weight falling because you're going to be focusing on something else, then don't be. You shouldn't be concerned about how your point will be taken in some hypothetical future RFA argument. That depends much more on how sound and logical your point is rather than whether you've been posting to WT:RFA on a consistent basis over a three month period. Useight (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to throw out a few points on this:

1. In marginal cases, decisions at RFA are not made by deciding which votes count.
2. Peter Damien is hardly alone in being concerned about the composition of the community and the role that RFA plays in determining it.
3. The tradition here is that the 'crats don't deal with the validity and weighting of !votes until there is an RFA closure where it makes a difference.
4. Despite the fact that the tradition of non-bureaucrat closes has (sadly) disappeared here, I do not believe that it is the bureaucrats' job to police the page. It's our job to promote people who meet the criteria, and by extension, decline to promote people who don't.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing message box at the top

I propose removing the notice at the top of this page saying that you shouldn't nominate yourself here. Anyone nominating himself here is clearly not ready for adminship and we can point him in the appropriate direction (whether that's WP:NOTNOW or elsewhere), rather than having an RFA page that stays around for all time. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I said much the same thing about an edit-notice that was proposed recently (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_176#Request_2). And I'll support the removal of that box too (I almost suggested this myself back then). There's a link to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship on the RfA page, I don't feel there is a need for one on here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the message box is quite useful for those new users who want to become admins but are able to read pages that intend to help and inform new users before asking questions (i.e. the kind that probably will make good admins someday). It's quite possible for those to come to this talk page rather the project page because they have already understood that talk pages are for discussions but who have not understood the (for newbies) rather complex system that RFA involves. As such, the message box probably spares us some unneeded requests here. I'm against an editnotice though because someone who ignores the box at the very top will not heed an editnotice anyway. But I'm sure some do see the message box and subsequently do not post requests here, thus sparing us unneeded sections here. I rather prefer to have a RFA page that stays because they usually contain helpful tips for failed candidates that they might want to review later. Regards SoWhy 08:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the message box, and I agree with SoWhy that it's actually very useful for new users. I think it goes a long way toward not biting them, for one thing. RFA is very simple for those of us who've been around for a while and who understand how the system works, but to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia and the constantly-shifting ways things work here, it can be somewhat daunting. It's not a very obtrusive message box, either, so I don't think it hurts anything. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of you think it's better that they go through a lot of trouble working out how to create an RfA, only to have 10 opposes within 5 minutes, all of which consist of "Per User:X", except the first one, which is "Sorry, but per WP:NOTNOW. You don't have enough experience. Try taking part in WP:AIV, WP:CSD, WP:AN/I etc. Hope to see you here in a few months, Don't let this put you of :) - X (talk)", and then have their RfA closed? And regret it in a few months time when they are actually ready, but it makes them appear "power-hungry". Whereas when a message is left here, someone goes and talks to the user, explains pretty much what "User:X" has, and then, if the user still wants to go for RfA, it is explained how to after that. Or that's my view anyway :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone reads the instructions, which tell them exactly what they need to be careful about and they decide to go with it anyway, then yes, I think it's good for them to experience it. I'm all for not BITEing newbies and everything, don't get me wrong. But if someone ignores all advice they get from the very detailed instructions and goes for RFA anyway, can we really expect that they will heed it if they are told here? Those who come to a talk page are usually a bit more experienced already, seeing that they are going to a talk page to discuss things. Those users will not jump into RFA before reading some advice usually and having a message box above that actually gives such advice (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate does not only explain how to nominate after all but also when) will help those users. The others will ignore the message box and still ask here anyway or still go for RFA (the instructions are on the main page after all), so the box will probably not make more people go for RFA than they would anyway. Regards SoWhy 10:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. And you've now left me completely neutral, there's strong arguments for both sides. I'll go with keep the page notice, don't add an edit notice :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

voting

I know we're all vote phobic here, but consider the definition of the word vote... "A formalized choice on matters of administration or other democratic activities" (Wiktionary), "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal. To call it purely a discussion is simply not wise or accurate indeed... South Bay (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some RFAs include more discussion than others, but none contain only voting. This is not a voting process, its a discussion process (or should be). The supports and opposes in boldface are just there to make it easier for bureaucrats to determine consensus. Take a look, for example, at my RFA, in which there was plenty of discussion, though drama-filled, in the oppose section. Opposes are what really spark actual discussion in an RFA, and although it may not seem like it, that is a good thing. After all, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia just wouldn't work without proper discussion and consensus, especially in a place like RFA. In other words, RFA is close enough to being purely discussion-based. Almost nobody supports or opposes a candidate with no reasoning, and I think that's one of the few good aspects of the RFA process. Timmeh 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that Wikipedia would work a lot better (and RfAs would be less acrimonious) if we could decide to use voting in some non-content related places like RfA (voting about content is obvioulsy bad, and that is what the original intent of the "polls are evil" phrase was). In other words, what is poisonous at RfAs is the discussion, not the voting. But most people seem to think differently. Kusma (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Content discussions good: they tend to evaluate content. User value discussions bad: they easily degenerate into tribal popularity contents. Now if we had an attack-resistant trust metric here, maybe seeded by number of contributions to article space, then I think the pure-voting idea would work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I'm fairly relaxed at introducing voting in areas where we are trying to establish weight of opinion between two or more clearly understood options, I'm uncomfortable at doing so at RFA. Almost all !voters at RFA are of the view that some candidates should be promoted and some should not (we have had the odd maverick who opposes all candidates without consideration; looking at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) we haven't had a !voter who supports every candidate without consideration whilst I've been watching RFA, but in theory such a situation could arise). Where we differ is as to whether individual candidates should or should not become admins, and such differences clearly benefit from being done as reasoned !votes based on the candidates contributions "these diffs indicate to me that the candidate is too quick to tag for deletion" as opposed to !votes where the candidate doesn't know why they are being supported or opposed. For example if I oppose because someone has been blocked in the last 12 months they have the opportunity to point out to me that their block was subsequently apologised for as a mistake, if I vote oppose without saying why I do so, the candidate does not have that opportunity. ϢereSpielChequers 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions are good. However, vote+rationale means that you are essentially campaigning at the poll booth, which I find undesirable. But anyway, RFA has moved more and more and more away from voting during the last years (it was almost a vote when I became an admin in April 2006) and does not appear to have improved -- actually, I think that it the fighting and the hostility have increased. So looking at the history of RFA, I think the days when we were mostly voting were superior. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) If we consider it a vote, people will start to believe that everyone's vote is equal, which is not the case, ever. You'd get more canvassing, socks, bribery, everything if it were a simple numbers game. Considering it a discussion hides this premise. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that just removing discussion wouldn't make RfA any less of a popularity contest, in fact it would probably make it more so (as people evaluating the candidate would have less clout than the friend horde.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this issue discussed again, as it gives me the opportunity to remind the often forgetful readers of WT:RFA that RFA is part discussion and part vote. The tally counts neither for nothing nor for everything. Broadly speaking, the tally places the RFA in one of four categories (the percentages given are estimations, and are subject to gradual change): (1) clear consensus to promote, >~80%; (2) clear consensus not to promote, <~50%; (3) no consensus, ~50<x<70%; (4) the notorious discretionary zone, ~70<x<80%. Barring evidence of sockpuppetry or other irregularities, in RFAs falling into categories (1) and (2), the bureaucrat is required to promote and not to promote, respectively. Category (3) also usually defaults to non-promotion. When an RFA falls into category (4), the bureaucrat is required to read it carefully, considering arguments in favor and against, before deciding the outcome.

To be sure, non-vote material such as conversations between users, careful research and presentation of reasons for one's opinion, and so forth are most relevant in category (4) RFAs. But that is not to say they are irrelevant in other RFAs: even in the most apparently obvious cases, the closing bureaucrat is expected to read the discussion, if for no other reason than to ensure that substantial discussion actually took place. An RFA with no text in it other than two lists of signatures for 'support' and 'oppose' would almost certainly be invalidated by the closing bureaucrat.

So, as you can see, both voting and discussion are relevant at every stage of the week-long RFA process, and both vote-counting and discretion are relevant at every part of the RFA-closing process. This is the best system we've yet thought up for regularizing RFA outcomes without making them purely mechanical. — Dan | talk 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think people here just have a phobia of the word "vote". RfAs really are votes (using the definition given at the very top) with varying degrees of discussion (some RfAs have more than others), but anyone who says that is branded as evil and as trying to skirt around consensus. A vote by any other name is still a vote. I think the emphasis, though, should be put on strongly encouraging a rationale to be included with each vote, even with support votes. If people understand that "me, too!" pile on votes are less effective and not necessarily given as much weight as a vote which includes a decent rationale to back up the vote, then I think more people would begin including one. Or maybe that's just me? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason the process isn't considered a vote is that individual arguments (votes, !votes, points of discussion, incoherent drunken ramblings, etc) can and are disregarded without general upheaval over it (*cough*Iran*cough*). A straight vote would see an RfA fail if thirty editors suddenly decided to oppose over a sufficiently weak argument ("The candidate likes green, and I hate that color"), whereas bureaucrats have the ability to disregard superfluous commentary (and what we [the 'crats] consider superfluous is dictated by both our own discretion and what the community feels is bogus). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally think RfA is too much like a vote. It's counterproductive when people start dismissing good-faith discussion as "badgering". I also agree with EVula. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the oppose section should really be about things you can change (and does tend to be), things done wrong in the past. If you're arguing with opposers, I tend to get a sense of denial about one's problems, which is not a good thing. By not complaining, I see a person who's ready to pick up on those points - particularly with an RfA that's going through easily. Drill down into what they find wrong, yes, but starting to make points to the contrary, no. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not every RFA participant does their research thoroughly, or puts their case well, so I would advise any RFA candidate to be ready to respond to implicit questions especially in the oppose section. I also think it is perfectly appropriate to ask !voters for diffs to support unsupported criticisms, especially if you suspect those criticisms to be unfounded. As for well founded criticisms, then unless you can respond along the lines of "thanks for bringing that to my attention - I've now reset my preferences not to default to minor edits" best to leave them unbadgered. ϢereSpielChequers 08:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jarry1250. In the short time I've been hanging around here, as well as reviewing previous successful and unsuccessful RFA's, you see where some unsuccessful RFA candidates have seen the need to answer and sometimes argue with an opposing vote/comment. In my opinion it seems to speak about the temperament of a candidate if they have a willingness to review or change what they may feel is a "right" action or opinion. Having the ability to simply acknowledge another persons views does seem to diffuse alot of problems. Shinerunner (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

On the arguing thing, I have a problem with that. For my first RfB, I made the mistake of responding to the opposers; this wasn't out of a sense of combativeness, it was out of a sense of dialogue. That people have a problem with a candidate responding to their opposers is something that still frustrates me; it seems silly that someone can have comments directed at them (sometimes inaccurate assumptions about intent) but not respond to them directly without earning the ire of the general community. Definitely an area where the RfX process, on the whole, is a failure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

RfB section name

I think it would be clearer if the RfB section was titled "Requests for bureaucratship" instead of "About RfB". The way it's written now, a new editor following a WP:RfB link somewhere might be left wondering what "RfB" actually stands for. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first section includes the sentence "This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected" but I agree that both "About RfA" and "About RfB" are a bit confusing and we can change both to a better heading (like "About requests for adminship" or "About requests for bureaucratship"). Regards SoWhy 10:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, someone following the WP:RfB link doesn't see the lead section. The link points directly to "About RfB". Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jafeluv that the page could be confusing. Perhaps in there should be a link in the sentence...maybe like this:

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
-FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done[1] I made it match the verbiage we have at the top of the RfA page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims of trolling

Resolved

 – Make teh drahmaz stop. Pleez!!! Srs. Start an RFC on the user or take up the discussion elsewhere. This is not a productive discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See comments like this and this. The user who is up at RfA, Davemeistermoab, falsified references as demonstrated on the talk page. This is academically dishonest and violates many of our policies and guidelines. I will not tolerate being called a troll for pointing this out. Not only is it against NPA, it also shows a condoning of such outrageous and egregious behavior. We are an encyclopedia and we need to have integrity. Such things need to be exposed and dealt with. I cannot stand such accusations of this kind in standing up for our foundational principles. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I struck my concerns as they seem to bother Mitch's state of mind, and I would rather not have this continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Clearly, neither you nor David Fuchs is trolling here. You may want to start a thread at WP:AN/I as necessary. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I don't entirely agree with you two about the seriousness of the referencing problem, but it's undoubtedly a valid concern. – iridescent 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I agree that there is no reason for you to be verbally abused with labels of "trolling" for expressing your opinion. I've left notes for those editors asking them to refrain from such rhetoric in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So I am not allowed to tell them that there is a problem. Its not ANI worthy, and I can remove my comments you know.Mitch/HC32 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely what I didn't say. Try again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am only trying to say there is a problem. I wasn't trying to call him one, I said he and Peter are about to get the TROLL award, which I think a few people would care to see is a problem.Mitch/HC32 17:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem? Wouldn't describing the actual harm caused by the problem be more effective and direct than making a quip about "the TROLL award"? If you weren't trying to call him a "troll" by suggesting that he get "the TROLL award", then you have some very strange ideas about language.

Most of us, particularly the bureaucrats who close RFAs, know how to ignore ill-founded votes. Neither they, nor anyone else, needs you to hold their hand and lead them through a primer on who is or is not trolling. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating the comments is unlikely to defuse the dispute. Please reconsider before doing so again. Dekimasuよ! 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps people need to grow thicker skin - if you're called a troll, just brush it off. What is the point of bringing it to light at WT:RFA? ANI is also superfluous and overkill. Just ignore him. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want the throwing out of the term "troll" to stop. I stopped responding to RfAs for a while because of the mob attacks on opposes which culminated in DougsTech's block. I only respond to a few RfAs and those of who claim to be major content contributors where I can check to see if they are abiding by all of our policies and guidelines. Why? Because people game content to try and get adminship, which is detrimental to the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia. This is serious work and I will not be run off this encyclopedia because someone is upset that their friend was exposed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Then put a gun at my head. That's all I have to say.Mitch/HC32 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And yes, these are valid editorial concerns - although I disagree with the severity of them. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

^What Wisdom said. Please let's not add drama by going to ANI. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Too late. iMatthew ^talk at 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I brought it here for a reason - I want the name calling to stop immediately. Disagree with me, fine, but I will not stand those accusations in an RfA. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How many times have you been called a "troll"? (with diffs obviously) But if its just this one time then don't let it bother you.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in a support. If it is on my talk page, sure. But not in a support. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get these threads. The bureaucrats know which arguments to disregard, and which to give more weight to. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Thank you for your vote. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Julian - this thread is saying that I will not take the accusations of trolling that proceeded the incidents around DougsTech or Peter Damian. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, an ANI on the incident has been opened, in which you may want to comment. Law _{type! snype?} 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to nore that Mitch is both an admin and frequently misuses sources. Obviously Dave should get it by 55/6/2 (Actually, I looked at a few of the examples cited here and it looks more like "I know this is true but I need a source" than "the sources aren't giving a complete picture so I'll fill in the holes by guessing".) --NE2 19:11, 4 July 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.

Unexplained opposes

Several commenters above have said 'RFA is a discussion, not a vote' (or 'not just a vote'). If that's true, I have to wonder: why do we allow people to just write Oppose without any further comment? If RFA is supposed to be a discussion, then such votes are entirely unhelpful to it; they tell everyone else you don't want the candidate to be an admin, but they don't give any reason why. (Support without any further comment is less problematic, since it can be assumed to mean 'support per nom'.) If we're not prepared to make RFA a pure vote (and I think that's clear from the discussion above), then why don't we insist that all opposes have at least some rationale? I would advocate that all opposes of the sort 'Oppose, signature' should be struck through until the opposer is prepared to actually contribute something to the discussion. Robofish (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always taken 'Oppose signature' to mean 'Oppose per concerns raised above' in much the same way that you take 'Support signature' to mean 'Support per nom'. -t'shael^chat 22:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with T'Shael. To apply one rule for supports and another for opposes is a ridiculous double standard. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

...OK, fair points. Maybe 'Support, signature' shouldn't be allowed either. The point is, if RFA really is a discussion and not a vote, then why do we allow contributions that don't contain any actual discussion? Robofish (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't allow people to just write Oppose without any further explanation. Support means "Yes, I agree with the nomination statement", whereas oppose means "I disagree with the nomination statement". Therefore the opposers must provide an adequate rationale. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a support vote without a rationale is any more helpful than an unexplained oppose vote. It offers no insight into the voter's thoughts, it doesn't confirm that the voter agrees with the nominating statement. Even if it does, so you agree with the nominating statement? All of it? Why? Hell, at the very least it's not masses of effort just to type "agree with nominating statement". Nev1 (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is for the crat to take call on this and the crat will take into consideration opposes with no reason and give them less or no weightage normally.We cannot remove any oppose of any editor in good standing.Further a oppose saying per someone alse is okay.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a very dangerous road, and it's quite clear from recent events that bureaucrats don't uniformly display the good judgement that popular wikimyth attributes to them. A bureaucrat has no more right to ignore an oppose vote without rationale than to accept a support vote without rationale. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just ban all oppose votes, and cut all this crap? That's obviously the way things are moving here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support per noms or supports without information are more problematic than any oppose - we are not sheep nor a democracy. If you cannot provide your own answer or contribute to the discussion then there is no reason to be here. An oppose without an answer at least says that you cannot agree but you don't necessary know why. Humans have instinct to disagree, but not to agree. That is our survival mechanism. We are not a naturally trusting bunch. Adminship requires trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So it's ok to instinctively feel mistrusting about a candidate, but it's unacceptable to have a gut favorable impression? Unexplained or unrationalized opposes are detrimental for the applicant as they are basically "no's" without any kind of feedback. It's akin to a slap in the face. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What's unacceptable is to discriminate between opposes without rationales and supports without rationales. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What should be done is require a rationale to be given with each vote, whether support, oppose, or neutral. This would at least require thought from the voter, even if it's just "who's reason should I copy". Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point MF, but, historically, it is the skeptic who vehemently disagrees with a proposal that is expected to enumerate the reasons for the distrust and doubt. And let's be realistic here for a moment - it is the opposition that typically cherry picks or targets one or a few missteps/shortcomings. Would you propose that a supporter provide a link to a helpful comment? There is a plethora of examples for positive work in a candidates contributions, but usually only a handful of offenses that are harped on. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom - yes. A natural mistrust is a safety mechanism. A natural trust means that you are a sucker. We need people who are willing to question, investigate, and actually care about a candidate's performance. A blank support does not show this. Trust has to be proven beyond a doubt. Mistrust does not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I agree with you, if presented with a blank slate. But RfA is not an uninformed decision. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it would be reasonable to expect any voter to at least make some rationale, such as "I've worked with this guy and I trust him" vs. "I've worked with this guy and I DON'T trust him". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd be all for making it necessary to provide a rationale. Nev1 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency evident in Wisdom89's argument is of course that those opposing on the basis of "I've worked with this guy and I DON'T trust him" would be required to provide diffs, whereas those supporting with "I've worked with this guy and I trust him" wouldn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be instructive for a voter, either way, to provide an example diff in support of their viewpoint - demonstrating cases where the poster worked with the user and had a good or bad experience. Although it might be hard to provide one single diff. It would probably take a series of diffs. And would the deciders read them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, of course they wouldn't. The day I see an RfA pass at 55% or fail at 85% is the day I'll maybe start to believe that it isn't just a vote, for all of the huff and puff about "consensus", "trust of the community", and the other trite nonsense that surrounds it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard there's a threshold of some kind. Maybe if the tally was hovering right around that threshold is when they would pay more attention to the individual comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

... and maybe the Moon's made of green cheese. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... more like bleu cheese, I think. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I thought you didn't watch this page anymore?  :-) Keeper | 76 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Something brought me to it yesterday ... can't remember what it was now. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

←Reigning this back from discussion of Malleus' wiki-stomping grounds, I think people have to accept that as it currently functions, RfA is a vote. A vote where people can discuss, change their minds, move their support at any whim or as a result of more information, yes, but ultimately a vote (as long as we allow people to strategically support or oppose a candidate to cancel out "bad" votes made by "the other side", it will always continue to be that way.) So I think a more pertinent question is: What can we do (if we feel we don't want RfA to be a vote) to make it less of one? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Requiring an explanation for each !vote may be a good first step. Timmeh 02:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I say get rid of, completely, the "tally" and the percentages that are constantly bot-updated and color coded like some kind of terrorist threat ("oh my, that RFA isn't pale green anymore, it's orange, I should go and vote!") Keeper | 76 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's alleged not to be a vote, yet it actually is, it seems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a vote, why are we tallying? That's all I'm asking. Keeper | 76 02:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad habit, that's why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So if it's just a bad habit, why don't we quit? Someone should update the template with some bold red editing.... Keeper | 76 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't ask me, man. If I were in charge, such comments would have ceased long ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just reply to bizarre "oppose" votes with a simple WP:TYFYV. This is very easy, and until we've actually tried it, nobody seems able to say that it doesn't work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Who should post that, though? The nominee? I got yelled at for daring to respond to the opposers. I figured I had nothing to lose, so I ignored those tut-tuts. But if someone actually wants the job (or more than I did, anyway), would that post be seen as confrontational or drama-generating or something? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think if the nominee responds with a simple, "thank you for your vote," then that's the best-case scenario. If the nominee won't do it, then someone else might, assuming they can pull it off without compromising tact. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing I wonder about is the point of the "neutral" votes. It's like, "Well, I don't care one way or another; I just like seeing my name on RFA pages." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see the point of them, ignore them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Which I mostly did. The question is, why do the deciders pay attention to them? Or do they? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that, no, the b'crats don't pay attention to votes that make no sense. Why is this a sticking point for so many people? Is the perception really that our B'crats are developmentally challenged children who can't tell a vote that matters from the other kind? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Do they ever discuss their methods or actions? Or do they operate in complete secrecy, like the College of Cardinals selecting a new Pope? If it's the latter, that probably accounts for much of the apparent anxiety over this issue. Maybe if they walked through the votes and struck the ones they considered to be irrelevant, that would send a strong message. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, we could just trust that they're not idiots until evidence comes to light that they are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If pass-fail is dependent on a vote count, how well-placed is that trust? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, has it done you wrong yet? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would have gotten adminship, if it hadn't been for all the oppose votes. :) So maybe the other poster is on to something: Only allow support votes. Require a minimum number, with rationales. If a guy runs and gets like 3 votes, obviously he's not well known enough. This is not an original idea, by the way. This approach is patterned after the last election that Saddam Hussein won. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, your not winning adminship is hardly a wrong. Do you have any idea how much less happy you'd be now if your request had succeeded? Seriously. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. My favorite admin asked me, "Why would you even want this job?" And he was right on the money. Being an admin would have forced me to drop most of my sense of humor. And you wouldn't have wanted that. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

...Which brings the conversation full circle. Do we inherently "trust", or inherently "distrust", barring evidence? Isn't that where this whole thread started in regards to admin candidates? WT:RFA, you bedeviled mistress. You always do this to us! You run us in circles, you entrance us with your sirens, you draw us close to you, and then you show us your true colors. I love you WT:RFA, and I despair....Keeper | 76 03:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

...or, you could use them to oppose that editor's future RFA: "candidate !voted neutral too many times at RFA, indicating that he liked seeing his name on rfa's but can't make his frickin mind up about anything." Keeper | 76 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that a non-admin voting one way or another could put himself at risk (for 1 vote, anyway) for his own future RFA. I have a long enemies list now. However, I very seldom vote in RFA's, so for all I know, they might all be admins by now. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole etiquette about RfA votes seems to set up a big game, and people act like it isn't. Objecting to unexplained opposes is just pointless. Any half intelligent editor who doesn't want someone to become an admin for personal reasons or other reasons likely to be unacceptable to the crat or the RfA regs can just find pick from among the excuses available to them, not enough content, concerns already mentioned, hasn't done enough x, and so on. It's just a percentage vote anyway, crats only getting de facto discretion within a certain range. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Or "creates too much drama", as if that had anything to do with doing admin tasks properly - especially when half the ones who say that are bigger drama queens than the nominee. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The tally, coupled with sig supports, and added to a discretionary range has always led me to believe this is nothing but a vote. Either way, there should be no more burden on a supporter than an opposer. If someone opposes without a reason, why does it matter? As far as I can tell, you don't need a reason to oppose, because an oppose is a reason in itself - it is simply saying that you don't want that particular editor to become an administrator, just as a support with no rationale asserts the opposite. Law _{type! snype?} 07:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In theory, except when you get users who vote "Oppose" just because they oppose anyone becoming an admin, rather than judging the merits of the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think there is anything wrong with anyone who does not want more administrators. I'll vote oppose on every new addition to the US Internal Revenue Code because it is far too bloated. Law _{type! snype?} 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that contradicts what you just said, "it is simply saying that you don't want that particular editor to become an administrator." In the case of someone like DT, that's not a true statement. He didn't want any editor to become an admin. It had nothing to do with that particular editor. If he hadn't decided to nominate CoM and reveal what a hypocrite he was, he might still be here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That was hardly contradictory. I could have said it means you may also believe that no other editors become admins. Either way, I'm not concerned. Law _{type! snype?} 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DT said there were already enough admins, hence it supposedly wasn't personal - until he nominated someone for the post, demonstrating that his previous assertion was a lie. But he's gone now, so that's fine. In any case, saying you don't want any more admins has nothing to do with opposing a particular nominee. Two different things. But as I've said before, it's only 1 vote, and if it's really that close that 1 vote makes a difference, it's a questionable nomination anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a word game though. I don't want any particular addition to the IRC. I don't want any additions to the IRC. Either way, I just vote no. Law _{type! snype?} 07:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that if someone writes only that they oppose, and give no reason for it, their !vote is severely discounted when the closing bureaucrat is reviewing the discussion to determine consensus. An oppose like that shouldn't carry the same weight as one expressing an actual reason and providing diffs to back it up. As for support !votes needing specific reasons for supporting, it's generally accepted that someone !voting "support" without going into any details about why is basically endorsing the nomination statement (which should always give good reasons why someone is a good candidate for the job). Neutral !votes, being neither in support of or in opposition to the candidate, should be read to determine if there is good reasoning behind the apathy. I tend to read all three sections (after reviewing the actual contribs of the candidate) and then make my !vote. I sometimes will reference information already posted by someone else in their !vote as well. I do think, however, that regardless of where someone's opinion lies in the discussion, a rationale for their opinion should be included when they add their !vote, even if it's a short one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)