Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Worm That Turned 2 112 0 1 100 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 14 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 19:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 19:26:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

WT:Requests_for_adminship/ThaddeusB#Pzrmd's oppose

What I'm getting from this conversation is that some voters have a legitimate question over whether votes that simply say "oppose" will be "counted" in some sense, and they weren't sure how to respond. The crats have a pretty consistent position that they want the community to shoulder the burden of deciding general principles of what "counts"; then they get to apply the general reasoning to the particular case. Anyone have feedback on how we handled this, and whether bare "oppose" votes count? - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the specific example, (I haven't followeed it closely), but in general I think bare oppose votes can be put into one of two categories. When there's already a number of opposes with reasons in an RFA, and another oppose is added without specific comment, my opinion is that it should be treated as an oppose per the reasons already given. Just as a bare support is treated as a "per nom". When there's no real oposition, and a lone oppose is added without reason, then there's no real reason for the crat to worry about it. A 94% passes just like it would if it was 97% or 100%.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It's fine for an individual voter to react differently to "oppose" (with no rationale) than "oppose per above" ... maybe you want to ask the voter or the community for details on what's going on ... but do we actually want to suggest to the crats that they discount the first but not the second? - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I have with people henpecking over these types of opposes is that supporters with similar statements are not questioned. I regularly see "Support, why not?" or "Support, about time!" or "Support, he's great!" or the like. Rationale to the effect of "Support, does fantastic work at AfD" is never given a second look while someone with "Oppose, shoddy CSD work" is often pressured for clarification or diffs. AfD has, of late, become an extremely unfriendly sort of place for people who choose to oppose nominations that otherwise enjoy broad support; while it may be unfounded, it is certainly doing nothing to dispell the idea that RfA has become rather cliquish. If we are going to ask (or expect) that bare oppose votes (or those with minimal rationale) be discounted, we must expect the same of supporters of the same caliber. Shereth 14:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. While it'd be nice if everyone provided lengthy explanations and gallons of diffs, the nature of RfA - and of Wikipedia culture - is that good faith is assumed. That means, if there is no pressing reasons to oppose, then a "support, per nom" is sufficient. Does every voter who does this actually look through contribs? Unfortunately, no. My point is that the default !vote is, and should be, support. Opposes need reasons more than supports do. Tan | 39 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this concept is part of the reason why RFA is what it is. If I think "User-x" wouldn't be a good admin, I can't just oppose or I get jumped on. I have to come up with multiple of paragraphs and dozens of diffs explaining that "User-X" not only shouldn't be an admin, but should probably be incarcerated somewhere. RFA might be a nicer place if we just let people oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that "Support per nom" should be sufficient as there is an implicit rationale given (the nominator's rationale). But what about the other types I mentioned? "Why not" or "He's great" or the like? I suppose my fundamental disagreement is that a "default" !vote should be "support". I will grant you that it is in line with the notion that adminship is not (should not) be a big deal, and therefore we should be OK with granting the bit to anyone who isn't likely to cause problems. That said, you are placing an unfair burden on people who are expressing one type of opinion while not expecting the same of the rest. I personally believe that all participants should be placed under the same expectations. Shereth 14:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Support, looks good, no problems here" implies a "per nom". At least, it does when I !vote that way. You all realize we're re-hashing arguments that have been orbiting for years now, right? ;-) Tan | 39 14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

When I say "no qualms here", "looks good to me", or similar statements, I'm implying that the user meets my criteria. hmwithτ 14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know, this discussion is even more circular than Triton's orbit. Sometimes I just can't help myself though. WT:RFA should be classified as a drug ... Shereth 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't agree with this. We already have too many admins around here that shouldn't be. If RfDA was available it wouldn't be a problem but assuming good faith is not a valid enough reason to reduce standards. AGF is an editorial guideline, not a criteria for adminship that should let anybody through the door. It's a double standard to allow support without a reason but not oppose without a reason and if you push someone for a reason they will give whatever they can come up with. I agree with Cube lurker, a lonely oppose isn't anything to make a big deal about and if it is among several others it should be a sign of one more person simply agreeing with the reasons already given. Biofase ^flame| stalk  15:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To some extent, we expect a bit more from 'oppose' votes because they carry proportionately more weight. Absent sockpuppetry or other obvious organized disruption, no adminship request will pass unless it clears a threshold of ~75% support. Similarly, a request won't fail if it is above 80% support. (No matter how often we bang on about how RfA isn't a vote and how the bureaucrats' role is to decide whether or not a consensus exists, in practice they only ever get to exercise any discretion inside that narrow window.) That means that every 'oppose' vote has the same effect on the outcome as three support votes. With that extra punch comes a bit of extra responsibility.

Leaving the numbers issue aside, adherents to the 'no big deal' school of adminship candidate evaluation should naturally expect more from an oppose vote. A 'support' can be read as "I didn't see anything wrong here, so go ahead and promote", whereas an 'oppose' says "Red flags have been raised in my mind". It is reasonable (under those interpretations) to expect some specific evidence or substance to back the latter statement; followup on the former would have to be some sort of futile effort to prove a negative.

If we assume that most candidates who fail at RfA are interested in eventually being successful, detailed, evidence-supported oppose votes can also provide guidance to the failed candidate on what needs improvement; it also provides feedback to potential future candidates about what sort of expectations the community has for its admins.

Finally, let's be honest. A vanishingly small proportion of RfA voters have the time, inclination, or even skills necessary to independently and exhaustively examine the background of each and every candidate. The 'oppose' voters are the canary in our coal mine — a well-formed vote draws attention to specific issues that need further community consideration. That doesn't work without clear statements and (ideally) diffs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In essence, a bare support is "I agree with the nominator." It's not usually necessary to add "and here's why" unless you add something that you think might help inform other voters. But if you oppose, you really do have to say "and here's why." We all know you can't say simply "I disagree" full stop on article talk pages and expect to get anywhere... why should be any different on RFA? Auntie E. 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

With all respect to this opinion why is "I agree with nom" any more credible than "I don't agree he'll make good admin"? It doesn't give any indication that the supporter is actually making an informed decision. If there is to be any requirement it should be that all voters verbosely explain themselves to be counted. But I don't see this happening, as already said by many what is the bloody big deal in one or two oppose among a hundred supports. If we have a standard that a number of people, let's say 40 should have voted to determine an accurate outcome then 10 people opposing should be a good indication that there are some real concerns and not all of them need to explain that they agree with what is already said. No wonder this ship is sinking when people make such big deals about nothing. Biofase ^flame| stalk  17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinion "I agree with nom" is based on facts that are laid out to support the nomination. If the oppose !vote is based on contrary facts laid out by previous oppose commenters, then there should be no difference in credibility. If the oppose !vote is saying "The facts are wrong (or I have contrary facts) but I am not going to tell you what they are" then, as in real life, people may tend to discount that opinion. Suppose one person tells you in detail why a candidate for public office should be elected - past community service, a reasoned stand on important issues, a reputation for being highly ethical, etc... One bystander says, "That makes sense. I'm for him." A second bystander says nothing more than "I'm against him." You are trying to evaluate whether he is a good candidate. How much weight would you personally put on the second bystander's opinion, under those circumstances? -- DS1953 ^talk 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It always amuses me when people question whether an oppose will be "counted" when it really can't affect the outcome. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean you weren't planning to promote him to "super-mega-power-administrator" based on the particularly high support percentage? ~ mazca ^talk 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh, where is RfSMPA? I want to apply. Tan | 39 15:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I was going to promote based on the fact that Thaddeus' check cleared. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some shopping to do... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't discuss this without mentioning the specific instance that brought this up, in which a user "strongly opposed" but declined to say why, other than "for a reason that is very important to me but trivial to others." It was noted in response that RFA is a discussion, not a vote, and that some reason must be given if the comment is to be taken into account. It was also noted that, from the point of view of the nominee, a bare "oppose" without a reason that can be addressed would not be appreciated and (I would add) wouldn't help that person change any potentially problematic behaviours. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that "a 'support' can be read as 'I didn't see anything wrong here, so go ahead and promote,'" and at the very least the qualifier "per User:X" is required for opposes. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, it's worth noting that the user has entirely reversed their position and changed to "support." Exploding Boy (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As a thought experiment: what would happen if someone left a polite message on users' talk pages in the future whenever they voted support or oppose without even hinting at any issue they're supporting or opposing over? Something like this: There are legitimate concerns at RFA over supporting and opposing votes that give no reason at all, and some of us have decided to try something new ... leaving this message on users' talk pages and asking for a little bit more ... anything, really, that would give us a clue what you think is important, such as "I like their WP:AfD work" or "per User:Dank's oppose". We're not saying that any of these apply to you or your vote, we've leaving this note with everyone who registers a vote without any rationale, but here are some of the things that are worrying people: 1. Some people think RFA is more like a vote and some think it's more like a discussion, but most are agreed that pushing RFA in the direction of being a pure vote is the wrong way to push it, and votes without rationales do that. 2. An RFA is supposed to be morale-building when it passes, and informative when it fails. "Support" (with no rationale) is a lot like "Why the hell not" or "Better than nothing" ... not very encouraging to the candidate. "Oppose" (with no rationale) doesn't give this or any other candidate useful information about how to pass a future RfA. 3. There are concerns that some people aren't reading anything in the RFA and don't know anything about the candidate they're voting on. It's not required, of course, but selecting at least one reason of the reasons given to support or oppose would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The specifics in this instance is an oppose among what is now over 100 supports. Though RfA is claimed as a discussion it is very much a vote that decides the outcome unless the vote is indeterminate. In this regard a "strong" oppose is no different than any "normal" oppose, it is still only counted as one vote. And besides it was only 2 people that made as though it was a big deal as if there wasn't any more important issues to discuss instead. Biofase ^flame| stalk  19:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many models for consensus. Many of them call for a sort of roll call, in which those who object to the motion on the floor can provide explanations for their opposition. These objections can then be discussed, and solutions can be proposed to move toward consensus. It is unusual in these models to find the need for those in support of the motion to have to provide rationale, unless the opposition far outweighs the support. Kingturtle (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It’s worth further discussion, but I would start by applying it only to the bare oppose. I wanted to pass along some thoughts on this issue, but I see that User:TenOfAllTrades beat me to the punch. We aren’t discussing a random person picked from the street, or even a random editor, we are discussing someone with a substantial track record, probably nominated by someone well-known and respected. Which is not intended as an argument for automatic pass, just an argument that “support” is the expected default, and shouldn’t require extensive support. In contrast, “oppose” is not expected, and, given typical ranges, carries much more weight. I see nothing wrong with placing a larger burden of proof on “oppose”. A well-written “oppose” with specific examples, may give pause to someone inclined to support, but previously unaware of such instances. The opposite is less likely to occur. Having said this, bureaucrats are supposed to weigh the strength of the arguments, not just the count, which increases the importance of adding specifics to an ‘oppose’, but also increases the burden on “support” in case the proportion is in the problem area. If I see 20 out of 100 opposed, with solid reasons, and 80 simple supports, I’d be inclined to close negatively. So at the risk of making the proposal unwieldy, I think it should go to bare ‘oppose’ if the proportion of bare “oppose” is low, but should go to both if the proportion is in the critical middle range. --SPhilbrickT 18:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to gather data, I'd be willing to try this just with the bare oppose votes. I (and a lot of others) have concerns about applying standards to the opposition that we don't apply to the supporters ... but, unlike some of the others that hold that position, I don't think it puts us on a slippery slope. If it causes problems, we'll catch it before it does any real damage. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Generic question

Every time these kinds of discussions pop up on WT:RFA, there is a question that keeps popping up in my head: What is the ultimate goal of this discussion? Are we seeking to create a set of criteria by which the b'crats are going to gauge consensus? Are we really planning on coming up with a list of "Rationale(s) which are to be automatically stricken from the discussion"? I believe I have mentioned it before, but as I see it this is the reason we have bureaucrats to begin with - so that we have someone trustworthy and level-headed who we believe can measure the consensus of a discussion. If we are going to get in the habit of preemptively striking out certain types of !votes that we do not like, aren't we effectively changing the process from a discussion into a (gasp) vote? Last I knew, editors were welcome to express any opinion in a discussion, so long as it is not offensive (or otherwise violates general editing standards). If user ABC wants to oppose user XYZ because "aliens visited me in a dream and told me this user should not be an admin", they should be allowed to express their opinion. No reasonable person, let alone one of our bureaucrats, would allow such a !vote to influence the outcome of the request, but it's just plain bad precedent to start telling people what they are or are not allowed to do in a discussion.

tl;dr version : Why are we getting caught up in trying to do the bureaucrats' job for them? Shereth 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Because many crats have said on many occasions that it's not their job to figure out which kinds of votes matter and how they matter, that's up to us. It's their job to apply our consensus to each individual case. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There are other reasons too. You might laugh if I say this is WT:RFA so I don't want to digress too far ... I'll be happy to have a discussion about all the possible benefits of RFA-related discussion, but only on the points people are already interested in talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair I can see how the discussion could easily wander off onto one that was more about WP:CONSENSUS than WT:RFA so I can understand your hesitation to digress. There's an awful lot I often feel compelled to say regarding this particular subject but in the end, they often get left unsaid because it is only marginally germane to the discussion .. not to mention the fact that (as has been stated above) these kinds of arguments tend to be cycled at WT:RFA every so often and it's probably not worth going blue in the face over :) Shereth 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss matters of RFA, consensus, and pretty much anything else any time on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between us needing community input on general topics (such as the prima facie argument) and actively figuring out the "legality" (for lack of a better phrase) for each and every objectionable !vote. I, for one, don't need community input on whether I should consider a single opposition !vote that is followed by no commentary from the participant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I never knew that "tl;dr" stood for "EVula's thought every time this pops up." Not a particularly accurate acronym, but it's at least shorter than "EVTETTPU." EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope we're trying to improve RfA by encouraging discussion. comments in the numbered list, and responses to those comments on the talk page. People sometimes say that RfA is hostile. They're right, it is. Maybe allowing vigorous discussion on the talk pages of each RfA will reduce that hostility. Maybe a candidate who can keep calm and polite in the face of hostile, and perhaps irrational, opposes would convince a few people to switch from neutral to support? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Or perhaps we'll realise at some stage that RFA is a vote, irrespective of people's exclamation points (or marks) before the word (-: Stifle (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • RfA is a !!vote? EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

oh noes!

No RfAs. I guess this is where I start a panic thread? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I could run, thus preventing mass panic across the place :P ... but then again, I might have to postpone my job hunting... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 01:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the perfect time to go to the old format, ;)--Giants27 (c|s) 01:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry JC, the size of WP:ADMINBACKLOG isn't... really... so... Oh god we're all going to die. Jafeluv (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Answering the unasked question: as far as I can tell, it hasn't happened in at least the past 3 years. tedder (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you aren't looking hard enough... Julian's post is mocking the fact that this happens about every 2 or 3 months... there will be a few hours where there is nobody running... Up until about 6 or 7 months ago, whenever it happened somebody unfamiliar with the ebbs and flows of RFA would make a post about how "This proves RfA is broken" or something. About 6 or 7 months ago, people experienced with RfA started making it into a joke (ala Julian's post.) There are no candidates... time to panic. Again, this happens every 2-3 months.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me restate- I ran my script and didn't find any. Let me know of a date where it is empty and I'll retune the script. Admittedly, the script was mainly looking for monthly maximums. tedder (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there has ever been a full day where there hasn't been an RfA... generally it lasts just a few hours, so if you want to find a time where it happened, you'll either have to look through the archives to find one of the many similar discussions or you will have to recalibrate the script to look for a time on a hour (or even half hour) basis. They are pretty short---just like today. If you ran it, today would not appear.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was looking diff by diff, not daily/hourly. I found a bunch of false alarms, but no blank ones. I just need to be proven wrong so I can figure out what the script is doing incorrectly. tedder (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, that was immediately prior to my RFA. Useight (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• My nomination is always the backup nomination so, if anyone sees a blank RfA page, add my name. ^__^ Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Heheh... time for me to run then ≈ Chamal ^talk 05:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

While reviewing PD images, I happened upon this image

, which is interesting in that it shows at one time the normal number of RFAs open was between 10 and 20. Big change if you ask me. MBisanz ^talk 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen eight or nine open before, but "open" doesn't mean "good". Eight candidates redlining it into the pits of hell doesn't really help our stats. Ironholds (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that the historic pass-rate is 44%, I hope those were aberrant occurrences. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... I wonder if we usually see drops in RfA runs around September, November/December, and so on -- school-driven schedule, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It'd be great to see some 'experimental' RfAs. "I want the tools. I only want them for six months. On $DATE I want them taken away" Or "I want the tools. I only want them for this area, see my existing contribs. I agree to having the tools removed if I take any admin action in any other area" NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be very interesting. Is anyone willing to try it? ;) Timmeh (review me) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cobi's running on an anti-vandal platform. I doubt we'll see him do much else. –xeno^talk 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

lustiger seth ran on a spam blacklist only platform and specifically requested to have the tools removed if he did any other admin action.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The last experimental RfA was torpedoed by people who refused to engage the process on its merits, and turned the RfA into a referendum on the format. Change at RfA is as likely as change anywhere else on Wikipedia; the status quo is too heavily-defended by demagogues and the people who follow them to make any substantive change to anything. So no, an experimental RfA is a bad idea. It'll just entrench this process even further into the way it is. → ROUX ₪ 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I was thinking of that one, couldn't remember the name though. That was within the discretionary range, and if a similar RfA occurred today, it very well might not pass, regardless of candidates' vows to only edit in a specific area. Timmeh (review me) 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That one might have failed then too... I was surprised it passed... of course, I waffled on that one more than any other RfA... in fact, I closed it per NOTNOW before deciding to reopen it...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporting / Opposing but showing evidence of not reading candidate's page

A recent RfA candidate had a userbox clearly asking people to call them female. Many supporters and opposers said "I like/dislike this candidate. he will make good/bad use of the tools".
What happens here? Do we say that those people were just looking at real diffs and these things happen, or do we say those people weren't paying enough attention for their notvote to count as a full notvote?
The actual candidate is not important, and I carefully waited until the RfA finished before asking this. I'm asking about general pronciples, not that specific example. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're full of interesting questions. :) I think it would depend on the vote; if it was clear that they hadn't really looked then you treat as such and it should be clear to the closing 'crat. I don't think the userpage really shouldn't make a difference upon the candidate, unless it was an extreme case. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I couldn't care less what gender the candidate is. Therefore, I probably wouldn't pick up on a userbox stating as such. I don't think it's required to study every detail of the candidate in order to make a decision - especially based on userboxes. Tan | 39 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the mutability and unpredictability of gender on the internet, I'd say it shouldn't matter. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you can't really extrapolate from the failure to read a userbox to mean a failure to thoroughly investigate the candidate. If people do what I do the first port of call is Special:Contributions, not their userpage. Ironholds (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I almost never consider an editor's userpage. Instead I check out their contributions like Ironholds said. So I wouldn't call this a failure to investigate the canidate thoroughly, but instead I would just call it an innocent oversight. Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This is true. In the example I'm thinking of there was a userbox, and a paragraph of text, and these were on the same page as a much quoted essay. So, do some people become swayed by a few sensational diffs and jump on a Support / Oppose notVote while others are taking a more complete view? And does it matter? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They read it, they were all up in a buzz about the IP comments, and they made a real effort to say he/him/use the masculine form. It is pure bigotry and vitrol, its really a shame that in this day and age that sort of intolerance exists. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hesitate to call it bigotry, if it was anything but an accident. I would assume good faith. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Failure to peruse 100% of someone's userboxes in detail is hardly cause to throw around accusations of bigotry and vitriol, I should think. If there's a malicious attitude, that's one thing, but if someone makes a simple mistake, just correct them and move on. Far from finding it shameful, I'm quite happy to be part of a community where no one much cares if the person they're talking to is male, female, or anything in between -- if anything, that strikes me as a lack of bigotry, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just bad writing/research, since it's easy/lazy to assume everyone on t3h intartubez is male. Everyone has their own criteria, and if some people can overlook a block, reading a userpage is by all means not necessary. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I I think you're extrapolating too much if you're jumping from "doesn't know the editor's gender" to "isn't fully considering the candidate." As many people have said, an editor's userpage is hardly the most informative page when scoping out a candidate; even if they do, they would likely be looking at the text on the page (such as "I got [such and such] to FA status") than a mass of userboxes (which, let's be honest here, few people outside the user themselves actually care about). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang on - this isn't just about a userbox. Many people made reference to text on the userpage. Those same people ignored another block of text on the same userpage. I mention the userbox because it's not just a small userbox, or just some text, it's both, and they're on the same page as the essay. So, do people jump on dramatic diffs and notVote based on partial information? And does it matter if they do? If they're missing clear obvious stuff on the same page as the dramatic difference are they also missing the real, useful, contribs the condidate has made that are hidden away in history?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's a good sign when that happens. Lady Justice is blind, and I can't think of any reason why it should matter if a candidate is male or female. English unfortunately doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun, and different people use different words for referring to someone whose gender they don't know or about whose gender they don't care. I personally like the Spivak pronouns, which is why I created {{genderneutral}}, but they're not well enough established, so that I also use "he/she", or even "he" or "she" without checking an editor's gender, when everyone else uses that pronoun. — Sebastian 02:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

English has a perfectly good gender-neutral singular pronoun, used by many of the great writers, including Austen and Dickens, up to and into the 20th century: "they". The first time it was even suggested that "they" wasn't a good gender-neutral singular pronoun was in a nasty little grammar by Anne Fisher, published in 1745. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to change the minds of the prescriptivists. ;) Irbisgreif (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, I prefer "editor" myself. Dekimasuよ! 04:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tried introducing "sie" when neither "he" nor "she" is appropriate, but it never really caught on. – ClockworkSoul 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone actually complained to me when I used "they" when speaking about them^him saying "I'm not more than one person". I find it totally impractical that you need to know a persons gender just to be able to speak correctly. Luckily, we have {{gender}} for that. Jafeluv (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally impractical? Welcome to the English language. :P Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least it's not like in German and Russian where every inanimate object, animal and abstract idea is arbitrarily referred to as either "he", "she" or "it" :) Jafeluv (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical gender is kinda convenient, actually. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the order She, He, or IT... ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not always "he", "she" or "it", sometimes it - at least in German there are words where every gender is correct, gramatically speaking at least. That does not mean that I like it when my girlfriend refers to butter as an "he" (when it's clearly a "she") 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that because she the butter is so fatty? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why you little... Nah, it's because she likes to speak in Bavarian dialect and in that dialect, many words actually have different genders. Trust me, you are lucky that the English language does not have such problems xD SoWhy 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ouch... I remember the Bavaian dialect... you can actually communicate with her?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, when talking to me, she usually talks High German and I'm native to Munich anyway, so I can at least understand Bavarian even if I don't actively speak it. She just uses such "incorrect" genders sometimes in her High German. And funny enough, she uses pure Bavarian when talking to her monther - it's if someone turned a switch! SoWhy 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it's called code switching. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I consider "he" gender neutral. Chances are, 99% of "females" online are males anyway, so they can't possibly be "really" offended, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Rather long thread on wikien-l a few years ago indicates not. And yes, I recognize the humor ;). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fabrictramp wherein the nominator (me) was unaware that the candidate is a woman. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic Research Study Survey: Final Call

Thank you to the Wikipedia community for your participation so far in this ongoing research study, and for your response to our previous post on the Request for Adminship discussion page. We plan on keeping this survey open for one more week and would like to encourage anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to participate to take the survey described below.

As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut, we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate.

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am confident that the WMF wouldn't want me to honestly respond about my RfA experience here. ^__^ Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:CMUResearcher

Lowest edit count?

I was just wondering, what was the lowest edit count a user had and still passed RfA? Triplestop x3 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we should probably narrow down the question. Do you mean edit count on en.wikipedia, or global? lustiger seth is probably the lowest edit count to pass RfA in recent memory, having had only about 100 edits on en at the time that he passed ... but lots more on other WMF wikis. But you probably meant to exclude outliers like that, as well as RfA's from the very early days of Wikipedia. Thus I don;t have an exact answer for you but I suspect the lowest passing edit count in recent enwiki history is somewhere around 4000. kotra and Mazca had fairly low edit counts at the time they were promoted, and they had very few opposes. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to see my RfA brought up as an example of a low-edit-count one. I suppose it really was, though: strangely none of the opposes I got were actually based on edit count at all, even though I was the lowest in a while. Outside of lustiger_seth's (which is excellent at scuppering any RfA statistician's point) the lowest one I can think of recently is Gazimoff from about a year ago, who passed with just under 3000 edits. ~ mazca ^talk 10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is probably a difficult question to get a meaningful answer for. As time has gone by, minimum standards seem to become more and more stringent. While it may be rare to see a candidate pass with less than, say, 5000 edits, it wasn't that long ago that many had less than that. My own RfA a couple of years ago passed and I was shy of 3000 edits at the time. The further back you go, the lower the minimum gets. Shereth 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at historical cases, you can find interesting things like Rdsmith4 passing with 1,500. Overall edit count isn't important because it is the total contribution, not the number of edits, that really matters. I've spent 5 edits trying to get a | set properly in a template and written an entire DYK in a single edit. MBisanz ^talk 06:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Much depends on whether you use automated tools like huggle which whilst useful can dramatically increase ones edit count. That's why if you look through successful RFAs you often see hugglers mentioning the other things that they've done. 3,000 manual edits doing a wide variety of things on the 'pedia will probably take much longer to do than 9,000 Huggle edits, and the person whose done them is much more likely to be ready to be an admin than a specialist who has done the same sort of thing many many times. ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980 passed with <1000 edits. That is the lowest edit count for a regular RFA nomination which I can remember. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be picky, the lowest edit count was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot, which has only ever made one edit (and that was after the RfA closed). Hut 8.5 09:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Interested in going for an RfA

I'm interested in going for an RfA, though I would rightly get snowballed if I went for it now. What are things I can do beforehand to improve my 'chances' of getting supported and not opposed? (Not quite the right use of the word, but I can't think of a better one). The account is new, but I've edited as an IP off and on for a few years, so I'm familiar with the environment. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is to familiarize yourself with the current RfA climate but lurking around various RfA discussions. That's the best way to assess your chances and discover what it is the community has come to expect, lofty as it may be. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Righto, I've been working on doing just that. I just want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row, all my i's dotted, all my t's crossed. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep contributing to all areas of the project, especially the main article space. A lot of people like high edit counts, and continued, solid article-building activity, as well as participation in sysop-related areas, such as WP:AN, WP:AFD, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and so on. A good place for information on how to "prepare" would be the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. Essentially, you'll want to have a solid and proven grounding in policy, as well as tested works and actions that show your understanding of how disputes can be resolved. Reading a lot of the latest RfAs would be a great way to familiarize yourself with the types of questions you'll be asked, as well as the scrutiny you'll face. Also, don't forget about an editor review. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Irbis, read the following. Some are serious, some may not be so much, it's up to you. WP:NAH, User:Giggy/Passing RfA for fun and profit!, Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA, WP:NOTNOW, and WP:NAS, Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Samples of individual users RfA Criteria, User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings, WP:ARL, WP:GRFA. Cheers. tedder (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck running in the future! hmwitht 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Feel free to ping me on my talk page if you need any help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Name formatting

I think the names of adminship pages should be reformatted. Here is my proposal.

Move the adminship pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship > Wikipedia:Adminship/Requests
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship > Wikipedia:Adminship/Requests/Guide
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Past nominations > Wikipedia:Adminship/Requests/Index
• Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship > Wikipedia:Adminship/Requests/Index/Successful/Chronological (with the year subpages being moved similarly)
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies to Wikipedia:Adminship/Requests/Index/Unsuccessful/Alphabetical (with the letter subpages being moved similarly)
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) > Wikipedia:Adminship/Index/Requests/Unsuccessful/Chronological

Move the bureaucratship pages:

• Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies > Wikipedia:Bureaucratship/Requests/Index/Successful/Chronological
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies > Wikipedia:Bureaucratship/Requests/Index/Unsuccessful/Alphabetical
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological > Wikipedia:Bureaucratship/Requests/Index/Unsuccessful/Chronological

Each requests being named like this:

• Wikipedia:Adminship/Requests/USERNAME, instead of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME
• Wikipedia:Bureaucratship/Requests/USERNAME, instead of Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/USERNAME

This will reduce confusion, and make the pages easier to type on the keyboard. What do you think? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 04:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pulling an ArbCom on us, eh? I'm not sure what this is intended to solve. To me, typing out "Requests for adminship" is easier than "Adminship/Requests". But that's just me. (X! · talk)  · @233  ·  04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest we move all the old pages too? Malinaccier (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What a horrifying prospect, Malinaccier. At any rate, is there any good reason to rename everything? The proposed system may be more logically organized, but the current one is more logical and easier for people to relate to. Nobody wants to deal with Wikipedia:Adminship/Index/Requests/Unsuccessful/Chronological, it's a sore just to navigate to. At the very least, I think the RfA process is separate from actual administratorship, and doesn't belong as a subsection. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the confusion? I don't remember anyone ever complaining that the structure was too confusing to navigate. Everything is linked from everywhere else, so noone has to remember those page names anyway... Regards SoWhy 09:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is totally unnecessary. With the navigational template at the top of the Requests for adminship page, any user can easily navigate throughout all the related pages. If some useful pages are missing, add them there. --76.66.199.118 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Being organized is also a reason I want it to be this way, but I just couldn't word it good, so I said nothing about it. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke.
  Also, the "typing" rationale is confusing. I wasn't aware that anyone typed those titles; I've always just copied and pasted their names. Obviously, WP:RFA shouldn't be named "WP:Gorillas consuming gerbils" or something similarly nonsensical, but the names are largely irrelevant, and the existing ones work just fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases

From ANI: User:Jeff G. is pointing out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alan16&oldid=306328221#Oppose and #Neutral this conduct from Keepscases. This would be more productive than there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have restored at ANI, so ignore if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is actually at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Incivility_and_soapboxing_by_Keepscases.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)