Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

SNOW closes - guidelines

I understand that all users who are closing RfAs early mean well, but I think we have now reached the point where the speed with which RfAs are being closed is making people feel far more bitten than had the RfA been left to run its course. I would like to remind everyone that the usual reason why we close RfAs early is to spare the candidate's feelings - ie. to avoid a mounting flood of opposition that could be demoralising. That is quite different from someone determining that the candidate has no chance of succeeding and closing that RfA when only a couple of people have yet commented on it. This risks leaving the unbsuccessful candidate not with the view that the Wikipedia community doesn't feel they're ready yet, but feeling that one or two people have sunk their RfA. I received several emails from upset users and a number of editors have been expressing concerns to me that there is a growing culture of prematurely SNOWing RfAs such that candidates are not being given fair consideration.

I am therefore proposing the following guidelines be followed by someone thinking of closing an RfA early:

1. Have enough people commented such that the candidate will feel they have had a fair hearing?

   Ideally do not close an RfA before about a dozen editor have offered their opinion and advice.

   You shouldn't close based on your personal assessment of the candidate (in the same way that AfDs shouldn't be SNOW closed because of your opinion of the merits of the article alone)

2. Have you contacted the candidate and asked them if they would like their RfA withdrawn?

   This really should be the first port of call - if the candidate wants their RfA to continue you are not doing them a favour by withdrawing it.

   If after some time they have not replied and opposition is mounting, it might then be appropriate to close it early and leave them a kind note

3. If in doubt, better to oppose politely giving encouragement and suggestions for improvement rather than to pull the RfA completely.

Generally, I would like to see people a little more reluctant to speedy close RfAs and a bit more ready to discuss the situation with the candidates. Remember that SNOW closes of RfA evolved as a kindness to the candidate, it isn't some essential part of the process. The clo.se should be seen as a last resort and ideally should be done with the agreement of the candidate. WjBscribe 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Ral315 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The principle I use when closing an RFA early is "Is anything new being added?". If there is nothing new being added and does not stand a chance of succeeding, I will close it. I agree totally with WJBscribe's description here. In addition, please follow the archival instructions on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats or expect an angry note :-) --Deskana (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Thirded. If that's proper English. — Rudget _speak.work 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's not standard English yet, it certainly is analogic change in progress. — Dan | talk 20:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed. Secretlondon (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I created an RfA maintenance page earlier this year. Maybe it is time that an RfA subpage is created where helpful suggestions to the typical user who wants to help out with RfA are available, and a section on WP:SNOW closes would be perfect. This talk page is so active that anything written here will soon get archived and forgotten. NoSeptember 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if ANI is rumbling about having clerks, maybe we can too! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(if so, I totally have dibs)

Those are some fairly good standards, and do address some of my own personal concerns with closing RfAs a bit early. I suppose I'm fifthing this... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to see an oh-so-dynamic example of these suggestions in action, zip right over to User talk:Billy#Your current RfA and see for yourself what a flurry of activity is involved in just asking what the candidate wants. (oh, uh, there's some sarcasm in this post) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree and am glad it was brought up. The recent trend of quickly snowclosing RfA when only four or five users have commented is not what I like seeing. I recently expressed my thoughts on it to Qst on his talk page. Overall, I think these guidelines are a great summary of what needs to be seen. SorryGuy 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit late, but I agree as well. RFA serves a double purpose as a form of editor review, and even for one that's obviously headed for failure the opposes can be useful to someone willing to learn from them. (Witness Elonka's RFA history.) — iridescent 17:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. I was a bit irked when the Michaelsanders RfA was closed prematurely, as I felt he would have picked up at least a few supporters given a couple of days. As far as I'm aware, he didn't request for it to be withdrawn. Deb (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to "strong oppose" naive WP:SNOW candidates? What happened to WP:AGF?

Well, that's about it. I'm seeing this happen all the time. Plus ageism. Plus worse. Sick of it. We need to encourage these kind of editors, not punch them in the face and tell them how self-deluded they are and how much the community ridicule them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason at all, and every reason not to, for the reasons you suggest. Some of the antics I've seen in RfAs really do reflect badly on the opposers themselves. But having said that, you also see "weak oppose"; what's that supposed to mean? Is there a grading system for the RfA !vote? Are strong opposes balanced by strong supports? Is a weak oppose only worth half as much a regular oppose? It's potentially humiliating and it's absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense in terms of telling who might be swayed to the other side through discussion. It doesn't make sense in terms of counting votes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

CBM beat me to it. Remember: it's not a vote, even though it looks similar at first glance. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that just makes an already flawed system worse, because "discussions" generally only take place in the oppose section. At least I can't recall seeing many "discussions" in the support section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact that's the actual system. A lot of people don't know how to use it and just do whatever, but that's a different matter. And more discussions happen in the oppose section, because an oppose is "worth more" to talk with. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't opposes and supports carry equal weight in this !voting system? There's surely just as much value to be had in turning a supporter into a opposer as there is in turning an opposer into a supporter. Perhaps even more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, as a 'rule of thumb' an oppose is equal to about 3.5/4 supports. I, however, do see the value in "Weak Oppose/Support." A weak support/oppose is a person, IMO, who is leaning towards the oppose/support stance, but isn't necessarily sold on the position. So, yes, I would count a weak !vote as less than a full !vote. What about "Strong" !votes? I personally see those more as an attempt to sway future !voters. If a person !votes support, then it is a strong support in my opinion because it indicates that the !voter has made an educated opinion.Balloonman (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that IMO the way that you've discussed this just serves to give the game away about the !voting fallacy. It's not a vote, but the votes are counted, and even given different weightings. That is a logical inconsistency that no amount of wikilawyering can possibly explain by the use of half-understood exclamation marks. Of course, that's just my opinion, but I doubt that I'll be changing it any time soon. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember pointing out in at least one RfA (and even on an editor review as well, I think) that there's no reason whatsoever to strongly oppose people (especially new users) who have no chance of passing an RfA; strongly opposing just drives them away. Instead, advice is what we should give candidates who obviously won't pass. Some people have probably been driven away because they were new, created an RfA in good-faith, and were then strongly opposed. Acalamari 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So, !vote or vote, whatever, I believe we should actively discourage (!)voters specifically from "strong oppose" on such candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How about actively encouraging discussion, in a friendly way. Glass half full versus glass half empty. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

An aside. Some people say the glass is half empty, others say it's half full. I say "Are you going to finish that or not?" :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"The glass is at 50% capacity" is my favorite way to respond. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. But how much easier is it when, finding a WP:SNOW candidate, to say "strong oppose - you're crap, not enough template edits blah blah" than to offer constructive, positive criticism? I agree the half full effect should be promoted but it will never happen unless we act strongly against the easy "sod off" voters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There a simple way around the whole "oppose/strong oppose/weak oppose" problem: don't put a bold phrase at the front of your statement.[1] You're already voicing your opinion in the "Oppose" section, so it's rather difficult to get confused about the general feel for what you're saying. Just a thought. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What about writing three templates? {{support}}, {{oppose}}, and {{comment}}, and making it a rule that every posting has to start with one of the three? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are headers for Support, Oppose, and Discussion (as EVula mentioned). Better to eliminate the bold text altogether than to standardize it. Gracenotes^T § 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to pure boredom, I've created a userbox for just that cause: User:J-stan/Created Userboxen/No Bold. Just alerting everyone for no constructive reason. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Deleted. Bold text is fine, I guess. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Of course I meant to say !rule. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

EVula, you're right, but you have to mandate that rather than suggest it. The point I'm making is that in many cases, decent editors who are simply inexperienced, come here and get mashed by overtly rude and negative (!)voting... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That much I'll agree with you about (the being bitten part, not the mandate bit... though that'd be sweet if I could do that). I think people need to slide back towards "RfA is a discussion"; opposing an RfA doesn't do the candidate a bit of good if you just say "You're a horrible editor" as opposed to "You should focus on such-and-such". EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the bold pretexts, though it really depends on the individual (!)voter. I'll stop using bold before my votepinions (how's that for a wikilogism? Wow, I'm just on a roll!). Also, what are everyone's thoughts on removing the "Neutral" section? We have the discussion heading, and it doesn't get used enough, and Neutrals don't go towards the tally, but they'd still be counted. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think leaving the Neutral section is fine; I see all three sections as being within the overall "Discussion" heading, and traditionally the stuff placed above the first section (Support) is about the RfA itself (such as suggestions that it be withdrawn, etc), whereas the Neutral section is for people that are actively participating in the RfA by saying that they're not endorsing the candidate for one reason or another. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Well when push comes to shove, it's up to each of us to "police" such (!)voting. I abhor strong oppose for folks who don't really know what they're letting themselves in for at WP:RFA. I know we can't really change policy (maybe we can?) but I want us to look after the newbies here just as we do in the mainspace. Actively discourage bad tempered, negative (!)voters at RFA, encourage and help (and I mean help) candidates, particularly those without experience. It's usually obvious who's going to be subject to a WP:SNOW close so let's help them, not destroy them. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean "support everyone, and assume everyone always does the right thing." It merely means what the words say. If someone gets all upset over being opposed, they're only demonstrating that they were a poor candidate. RFA is not a tool that we use to make people feel good, it's a tool we use to evaluate candidates. Friday (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual force of "strong oppose" is exactly equivalent to that of regular old "oppose". The former simply makes a candidate feel worse. Evaluation can be done politely and without piling on; adding yourself as the twentieth "Strong oppose" when there is no support is purposeless and cruel. Surely you appreciate the difference? — Dan | talk 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We're actually referring to new users who get strongly opposed at RfA. Someone who has been with Wikipedia for a while and has a lot of experience is going to know about strong opposes, and will deal with them as necessary. A new user will just think they've done something wrong, will have no way of defending themselves, and will potentially leave the project. There is no reason at all to strongly oppose newcomers. They need advice and guidance, not a telling-off. Acalamari 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Absolutely. We can oppose, and explain ourselves, without being rude. We should avoid pile-ons. Maybe it was just my imagination, but I detected a whiff of "opposing is bad" in some of the above comments, which is what I was responding to. An inexperienced newbie can open an RFA with nothing but the best of faith, but they're still a poor candidate. Friday (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with opposing; just aggression shown to certain (especially new) users. Yes, I agree with you when you say they most likely won't make a good candidate, but more experienced users should educate newcomers who submit an RfA, not chase them away. I don't believe anyone was saying "opposing is bad"; rather, we're discussing that we should be more constructive and less bitey when dealing with users who clearly will not pass an RfA. Acalamari 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

With the truly new editors (i.e. "hello, I have 20 edits, and I'd make a great admin"), frankly I don't believe they should be opposed at all, strong or otherwise. Rather they should delisted by the first person who notices and a friendly explanation left on their talk page. Which, incidentally, would be a lot easier if this community would quit waffling and adopt some standard for the minimum edits before standing for RFA (see a few sections up the page). Dragons flight (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes excellent sense and would be beneficial for everyone involved in the RfA arena. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, while I definitely think that strong opposing is usually not necessary, I don't think it's a problem with WP:AGF, but instead WP:BITE, as mentioned by other above. I disagree with just closing an RFA per WP:SNOW without anyone yet opposing, it's an excellent opportunity to give the new editor brief pointers. At least, until some solid standards get hammered out. Useight (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem is the rather adversarial tone of "Support" and "Oppose"? What about a simple, "Yes" or "No" instead? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, it is that time of the year when we discuss about snowballing, moral support and WP:AGF? Cool, that means I should go to the shopping and buy gifts since Christmas is nearing.

Now, in all seriousness, if a user has the time to check the edit count and issue a "Oppose, with only 15 edits you are not capable of understanding the tasks of an administrator", he could have very well removed the nomination and explained the user why he did so. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to start warning users about it?

Exhibit A being this from a few minutes ago. This is, in clear view, a case of biting a new user. I think consensus here is pretty clear that it's bad, and that we should do everything to stop it. Thoughts on the event -> warning -> block application here, and anyone up for making a warning of some sort? Daniel 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Yes, that's the sort of thing we should avoid. Acalamari 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary only contributes to it and from where I sit that comment was inappropriate. Daniel 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I should hope no blocking is ever necessary for this sort of thing. Biting of newbies is extremely unhealthy; surely this can be explained to anyone? All we need are a few dedicated users to write stern notes (not warnings, please -- just notes, as between colleagues) to people who leave unnecessarily harsh oppose comments. — Dan | talk 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Strong oppose with only 75 edits, this user needs to get more experience. I will support you once you are a very active editor with lots of experience.) What is wrong with this sentence? I never said anything relating that the user may be blocked. I just said that the user needs to get more experience. NHRHS2010 talk 03:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a combination of "strong oppose" (see the discussion above), your edit summary, and how it was quite combatative. Furthermore, "I never said anything relating that the user may be blocked" - I was talking about applying warnings to you, not the candidate. Daniel 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict: No, you misunderstand. No one is saying that you said that user should be blocked. What Daniel is proposing is that we consider making it a bannable offense to bite newbies through strong opposes on SNOW closes (in your case, I think the edit summary was most offensive). While I do not support this, I do think a warning template might be in this case. However, I think we have to make case we only make these warnings in clear newbie biting SNOW closes. In the case of normal users, I think strong opposes can significantly contribute to the discussion. SorryGuy 03:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(To SorryGuy:) A semantic but important quibble: please avoid confusing a block with a ban. A ban is a strong and final penalty for persistent and harmful activities. Nobody has even mentioned such a thing in this conversation. Also, warning templates cause more problems than they solve. What would be so hard about actually writing out a note (as I have done? — Dan | talk 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course, and I do understand the difference. I simply misspoke. May I ask why you feel that warning templates cause more harm? I have written out warnings myself, but warning templates often make things easier, especially for those that wouldn't otherwise be inclined to assist in the warning. SorryGuy 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates tend to be abrupt and speak with the voice of authority: they read like a dictum from The Management or some such. I'm thinking of the old vandalism warning templates and those like it, whose style ("Your recent edits are in breach of X regulation. If you continue to violate it you will be blocked" -- it might as well say "To whom it may concern") is not appropriate for messages among equals, from one editor in good standing to another. Even admins and other folks in positions of responsibility have a duty to treat all good-faith editors alike. It turns out there is already a fairly harmless template for asking people not to bite newbies ({{Uw-bite}}), though the useless image tags it immediately as boilerplate text, and gives it a very impersonal sense. The feeling of a message is just as important as the message itself. If it looks personal (and the best way to do this is by actually making it personal, which anyway is not very hard) it will almost certainly be more effective than any template. Does this make sense? — Dan | talk 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting that is it time to start warning users about biting, with the view to block if they ignored said warnings. I don't propose nor support blocking straight-out, nor should anyone really. Daniel 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone was arguing for blocking straight out. SorryGuy 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what was wrong with my edit summary? It just happened that I pressed each key twice instead of once. NHRHS2010 talk 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If indeed it was a mistake, then no problem; but you must recognize that it looked like a very offhand sort of emphasis -- repeating letters of words is a recognized practice in internet discussions. Its force is something like "[content of utterance] is so obvious I don't even know why I'm bothering to write about it", which is rude in an adminship discussion. — Dan | talk 03:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It could be taken as patronizing, teasing, or maybe insulting in some circumstances (as Daniel may have felt). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a template for biting is a good idea, we have them for most everything else (vandalism, NPA, 3RR, AGF, etc). However, I don't think it's really a blockable offense. Maybe if it crosses the line of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Useight (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we do have a template for "biting" newbies here: Template:Uw-bite. It should be sufficient for most "biting" message although it is probably best to leave a personal message to users for individual cases. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think those should be listed here with the rest of them. But, yeah, individual messages might be better in this case. Useight (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I smell WP:CREEP. We already have WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Why on earth do we nead more? RFA IS A DISCUSSION. If you can't couch an oppose (or for that matter a neutral or support) in tones that will also help the candidate as well as stating your opinion on their suitability for adminship don't bother. But to be honest, I tend to find that the vociferous opposes come to experienced editors. Most early closed "newbie" RfA's I've participated in seem to consist of helpful advice like WP:ER, WP:ADOPT and offers of help. Pedro :  Chat  08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) Nobody has proposed any new policies -- just a strategy for dealing with a percieved problem. Instruction creep irrelevant. (2) Nobody disagrees with your assessment of RFA. All that has been suggested here is that people who do write unhelpful comments be encouraged not to. (3) You must not be watching very closely. Remember why WP:SNOW was invented: to stave off the legions of people who just couldn't resist the opportunity to call an editor insufficient, even his nom was already failing badly. — Dan | talk 14:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rdsmith4. I said "Most early closed "newbie" RfA's I've participated in seem to consist of helpful advice ". You've turned this into "You must not be watching very closely". Key words here are participate in. I don't participate or even see very snow RfA. For your reference the last two I've commented in are Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJMiller and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hardcore_Hak. Reviewing these I see nothing but words of encouragment from all opposers. Pedro :  Chat  16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe that the words "strong oppose" come off more harshly than, say, closing the nomination as a failure? (Such closes being standard accepted practice, of course.) I've certainly seen newbies get upset over the RFA being closed. I agree that we should be polite, but I just don't see a good way to have a failed RFA without making the candidate feel bad, if they're the type of candidate who would feel bad over such a thing. Friday (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh good lord. I see the real problem with "strong opposes" now- it causes people to support obviously unqualified candidates to "balance out" the opposes! I realize it's only a symbolic gesture, but this is entirely the wrong message to send. Yes, we should not hurt people's feelings unnecessarily. But supporting such a candidate in protest? That's a terrible idea. It should be a higher priority to honestly evaluate candidates than to avoid hurting their feelings. Friday (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that reactionary supports are not a good thing (not that I'm saying that one was). But is that any different from "Moral Support" which we often see? In a sense, at least with a moral support it's a stab at pointing out that RfA is a discussion and not a vote. Pedro :  Chat  16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no bans nor blocks for people expressing their opinion on a legitimate question even if it is somewhat biting. Biting is an important thing to avoid, and especially so when the editor is contributing to the mainspace and not just trying to get adminship; but it's not worth figuring out who should get banned for what they do at RfA. People should be able to speak their mind as much as possible... hurt feelings are bad, but not THAT bad. I doubt warnings would be useful although perhaps going to a editor's page and asking them to lay off personally might be. Warning templates tend to annoy many people, and do you really want someone deciding to make a WP:POINT out of this? Epthorn (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Billy

Could someone please close this one? I dorftrottel I talk I 15:57, December 7, 2007

We'll have to wait for Billy to give permission. At last check, EVula asked Billy for permission to close it, and Billy decided to keep it open. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Billy#Your_current_RfA refers. If he wishes to let it run, so be it. Pedro :  Chat  16:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Imo it's well within the SNOW discretionary range, but fine by me. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:29, December 7, 2007

Please see #SNOW closes - guidelines a bit further up; we're trying a new way of dealing with RfAs that places greater emphasis on communication. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see. How about closing and telling him, then? ... Just kidding, I think you could tell. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:01, December 7, 2007

I closed this RFA. See the user's talk page for reasoning. --Deskana (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call... it had definitely progressed well past the "the user is receiving positive feedback" point. I also think it's a good precedent being set that, if an editor has expressed a desire to keep an RfA open, the only editors to perform a snow closure should be 'crats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 09:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. In this type of instance it should only be a 'crat to prevent backlash. Pedro :  Chat  13:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions

Hi. I was just wondering if there is active opposition to optional questions and why my optional questions were reverted. Thanks. Takenages (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering you participated here →Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Takenages, and are aware why, this question would seem to be Forum shopping--Hu12 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't given specific reasons why you thought the questions were inappropriate. As a matter of fact, several people at WP:ANI expressed that they felt the questions were relevant and two nominees went so far as to post question responses on my talk page. So could you please explain your exclusion of my questions beside your personal opinion that does not seem to meet with community consensus? Takenages (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's disruption of Wikipedia to make a point.WP:POINT--Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain specifically why you feel my questions are "disruption" when so many of your peers feel differently. Your removal of questions without explanation has been far more disruptive and "pointy" and your personal attacks are certainly unacceptable. Takenages (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Malformed RfA

I don't know what to do with this one. Help? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not much, apparently, since it's been snow-closed. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 09:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Snow? Please withdraw?

What's a polite way of saying, "excuse me, but your adminship hasn't a snowball's chance?" At the same time would provide some sort of encouragement and suggestions for next time. There used to be a sentence at the top of the RfA page warning the unwary that those with <1500 edits would be unlikely to have success. I don't see it there now. I just feel bad about the new people who get sent out to the lions like this. Dlohcierekim 15:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess it's called "Moral Support" or "Oppose but please do not feel discouraged". They both work for me. Wether they work for the candidate is an apparently contentious matter. If you're taking it to their talk page I'd just reference some other RfA's. Or better yet, just don't even bother and let someone else do it instead. Saves the political issues surrounding RfA. Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that on the (rare) occasions, when I have participated in RFAs where it is obvious that the candidate is obviously acting in good faith but clearly doesn't understand what the role of an admin is, that I wished there was somewhere to run my comments through to parse them into a more humane form. (WP: TACT, the tact squad? ;O)) .

I suppose this ties in with the strong oppose" naive WP:SNOW candidates? discussion above, but sometimes - and they are rare - there are times when it is better not to focus on a candidate's strengths or weaknesses, but focus on their reasons for running. Sometimes there are particular reasons they are running, where they think being an admin might help them sort a problem, so maybe identifying the problem and offering to help might be of more benefit than drawing out the RFA process. Hoping someone nicecomes along doesn't hurt either. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Danswiki RfA

I snow closed this one, without asking permission from the editor... A teensy weensy number of edits, nowhere near enough for anyone to offer any constructive criticism. Avruch^Talk 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea given the user in question was getting biten like this. When removing a snow close from WP:RFA however, I don't believe "heh, duh" is the best edit summary to use[2]. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure to format them properly, like this. --Deskana (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye aye on the formatting. Regarding the heh, duh... I thought about how that would look afterwards, but it was directed at myself cause I screwed it up the first time around by actually blanking the whole RfA instead of just removing the transcluding template ;-P Was not at all directed at the candidate, apologies for having it look that way. Avruch^Talk 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ageism and RfA

Did I miss a turn somewhere? When did we set an age limit on adminship? I thought I saw quite a furor earlier this year over ageism, and I recall that there were already some teenage admins around. In earlier discussions I recall reading that age was irrelevant and that teenage admins were held to meeting the same bar as other nom's. It just seems odd to see it used as an oppose rationale. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

An age limit was never set. However, there does seem to be a sentiment on a point where young is too young, despite the fuzzy rhetoric to the contrary. Full disclosure: I became an admin when I was 16. —Kurykh 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: no, never, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. The main thing being that if you don't say your age, who knows? Prodego ^talk 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Prodego is right that sometimes there is no way to know, however.. When you do know, I think extremely young candidates can appropriately be evaluated based on their age in the absence of other information. Or even with it. Pre-teens just have too much to learn about people and stress, and they should learn it elsewhere first before adminship. Avruch^Talk 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (PS Ageism is enshrined now in ArbCom elections, albeit for different reasons).

I believe that I have encountered a few admins that were less than 15, and many more in the 15-17 range. But we need to ask ourselves, if this user didn't say their age, would we be opposing? Truly that is the question, because if a candidate has acted in an appropriate manner, then they aren't going to abuse the tools, and to decide that is the entire point of an RfA. We need to remember an RfA determines if a user can be trusted with a few extra buttons, not whether this person is qualified for some sort of power position. The more we imagine RfA as a gateway to power, the more exclusive, and the more 'powerful' adminship becomes. The more 'power' admins get, the more people need to jump through hoops to become admins, and the people willing to do that are increasing more likely to be in it for this new 'power' we created, not as much because they are good editors. RfA isn't broken, voters are. No one knows the candidates anymore, and instead try to judge competence by editcount. Prodego ^talk 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. We base our judgements of RfA candidates on what we know, not what we don't. There may be many things we don't know about all kinds of people and candidates that would change how we think of them - but in the mean time, they remain things we don't know. Once we find out, however, there is no reason not to incorporate that information into our assessment. A lack of meaningful participation in dispute resolution for a 50 year old (who presumably has a fair amount of life experience in that area anyway) is much different than a lack of participation in DR for a 12 year old, who clearly has next to no meaningful life experience in... well, most things. Avruch^Talk 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If we can base our opposition on anything a user is, rather than has done, you would introduce a whole slew of issues, which, if taken to extremes, would also introduce political reasons to oppose as well. i.e: "Oppose this user is in party x". Simply put, if a user choses to reveal something about themselves, that should not interfere with their actions on the project. There is no reason to believe that your 50 year old would perform any better then the 12 year old would, and making assumptions about people is a very bad thing to do. Everyone can edit, we should not make people feel compelled to hide who they are. Prodego ^talk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not intending to flood or monopolize this discussion, but if someone joined a neo-Nazi party (Godwin's Law...) and I knew about it, that would certainly bear on my estimation of that persons judgement. Of course, being young is in no way comparable to joining a neo-Nazi party but it is the extreme that demonstrates the concept in this case. If we know about factors that are likely to affect judgement, such as youth, then we should weigh that appropriately in deciding whether to support or oppose. It may not be a deciding factor (as I indicated in my recent oppose for PrestonH, with a sufficient track record in areas of concern I'd switch to support later on) but it is a factor. Avruch^Talk 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Judge an RfA candidate based solely on their merits as a potential administrator. If they have a history of interpreting and executing Wikipedia policy in a sound and reasonable method, sounds like they'd be a good administrator, despite being {{{arbitrary-young-age|14}}}. If they have a history of being an idiot and attacking people, sounds like they woudn't be a good administrator, despite being {{{arbitrary-older-age|42}}}. Pretty simple. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To me that means "Evaluate the likelihood that editor-X will abuse the tools/make egregious errors of misunderstanding or judgement." For me, that includes everything related to the track record of a particular editor as well as anything else I might know that is relevant - including extreme youth, which increases (in my mind) the chances of unpredictable maturity-related issues. Avruch^Talk 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between age and maturity. Maturity should be factored into an RfA vote, age should not necessarily be. There are some immature adults and some mature 14 year olds. What matters is if the user has the demeanor expected to perform the admin tasks in a competent manner. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a difference, of course, but the two concepts are not orthogonal. How many "mature" five-year-olds do you know for instance? But part of the problem is that nobody in this discussion has yet attempted to define "maturity". How can you argue about something that you haven't agreed on a definition of? Isn't that kind of "immature"? :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Counter-argument: how many five-year-olds do you know that edit Wikipedia? :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

... constructively? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Touché. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know where my towel is. Do you? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

$\lim _{\mathrm {age} \to \infty }\mathrm {probability~of~maturity} =100\%$. Yea.... Prodego ^talk 02:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia could one answer an age limit question with an actual limit... Sean William @ 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

$\lim _{\mathrm {age} \to \infty }\mathrm {probability~of~senility} =100\%$ bibliomaniac15 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I just saw that "admin since" userbox on your userpage, and had to do a double take to mine, which I just added. Interesting coincidence. Prodego ^talk 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't read math, does that say something like 'As age approaches infinity, the probability of maturity approaches 100%'?Avruch^Talk 02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not a counter-argument, that is avoiding the issue. It seems very likely that by most most people's definition of "maturity", that is positively correlates with chronological age, at least up until some age that people here seem unwilling to even speculate about. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You lost me at the third indent-colon. Could you please explain? (now what's really scary is that I understood Prodego's expression at first glance. I'm a nerd) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Well,

• The term "maturity" has not been defined.
• It is very likely that however it is defined it will positively correlate (standard stats stuff) with chronological age.
• It is also very likely that, just like IQ, that positive correlation will not continue beyond a certain age, contrary to what is suggested by Prodego's expression.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What I find is scarey is the confusion so evident in this discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That would not contradict the limit. Indeed, that it will rapidly climb then drop off is nearly certain. It could be described as a curve with a horizontal asymptote at 100%, for J-stan. Also keep in mind this is probability. Prodego ^talk 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

<<post edit conflict>> I think I'm less "mature" than I was at 14, meaning more relaxed, more into living for the moment, and less assiduous. Unfortunately, I've also found that it's true that it's all down-hill after 45. As to confusion, "the likelihood of confusion approaches 100% as age increases." Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Borne out by medical research: risk of Alzheimers doubles every 5 years after age 55, till 1 in 3 have the disease at 85. Avruch^Talk 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I'm less mature than I was at 3:00! I think that there are more minors with the mop than we'd think. Younger people seem to have a significant amount of time spent looking for things to do. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, children: "admin" isn't an elected office where you're supposed to vote on whether someone gets health insurance or something :). If someone has proven themselves helpful and friendly, and the project would reap some small benefit from their having the tools, then they should have them. If a 9 year old is smart enough to be a good contributor and knows when to hit the buttons, why should we care? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And I would never have guessed Kurykh was a teenager-- at least as articulate as I am and probabley better organized thoughts. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor admins of the world unite! bibliomaniac15 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm in shock - I was always under the impression that the extremely mature and well reasoned administrator Bibliomaniac15 was at least 40! I think this shows you can't judge a book by its cover.... Ryan Postlethwaite 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maturity is often defined as the ability to perform socially appropriate actions at appropriate times. If you want a counterexample of maturity, it would be the subject of this. (I can sense a libel suit coming my way...) --Kurykh 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's think for a second about what it takes to become a good RfA candidate: a long standing reputation of being a good wikipedian (discovered through edits history, general problem solving skills, and interactions with others, and it takes a large number of these to judge this on. Never thought I'd defend editcountitis). If these have been displayed in an editor, they would make a fine candidate. What of those require an age over 14? And hey, if a 24 year old can have multiple doctorates, why can't an 11 year old get a few extra buttons? :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually had the whole Essjay thing in mind when I stated that we should judge based solely on a candidate's merits (which includes ignoring what real-world qualifications they have, such as degrees, as well as the standard other stuff like age, gender, race, orientation, blah blah...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ageism, so far as doubting someone's ability or maturity based on age-related factors, should be applied cautiously, if at all. It is a well-known fact that a great number of Wikipedia's admins are teenagers (and, in some cases, even younger). It should be remembered that we have sysops even at the lower end of that spectrum, at ages 13, and 14, who are doing just fine in their positions of trust. Perhaps I am biased, being 12, but I see ageism in these respects as something that could only serve as an obstacle to someone's potential. Let age alone not be a judging factor of one's maturity or ability, but instead examine these factors of a candidate's suitability independently of age, which is an unchangable characteristic. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ageism has quite recently become a factor in determining who gets to become admins and who don't, and I mean recently...though its mostly due to the candidate being naive and publicly providing this information to others or via userpages..and as AD mentioned above, most admins....and I mean most..(over 65% or so) are teenagers and only a handful are minors..but then we usually have more bigger issues to consider since most opposes are also based on edit counts, experiences, recent conflicts between other users and Personal conflicts as well....Maturity can't actually be judged on age alone since some users are far to knowledgeable for their age and as J-stan- pointed out above..hehe.. do we really know who is on the other side of that Monitor? X-Files theme being played in the background...--Cometstyles 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with AD that age should not be the sole factor. I merely believe it should be a single factor, and that its weight should increase in the absence of other information. I assume that teenagers and pre-teens are less capable of handling the role of an administrator, but its important to evaluate each candidate individually to look for proof contradicting the rule. A capable 12 year old administrator is absolutely an exception, not a rule. Avruch^Talk 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Age is not a factor when we close an RFA. Proof of experience and hard work in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia is a better model. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I harbor a strong suspicion that a fourteen year-old who earns the mop is more likely to remain a dedicated Wikipedian for life - the younger we are when we inculcate our habits, the stronger they stick. bd2412 T 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said! Cheers, :) MikeReichold 04:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think younger editors have a tendancy to make adminship their "goal" on Wikipedia and once they have it, they can lose interest in Wikipedia. I would say that this balances out with what you've said so that we don't notice any net change. That said, I don't agree with judging people based on their age. Age is just a number. It's how you act that counts. --Deskana (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

:::I can tell very young users, or those lacking conventional higher education. Those with high IQs are a little difficult, but eventually are revealed. As most tend to insist on adhering strictly to the confusing "rules", but only when it comes to "regular" editors -- not themselves or among other admins. Young people see things mostly in black and white. To be mature is many things. Though, most young people can tolerate stress better than older people, and learn the "rules"... that's why they are thought to make good admins. But, to understand the more complex human conditions, they are at a disadvantage -- and potentially detrimental to the community. The same can be said of old uneducated people too. lol. - Jeeny ^(talk) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana. I sometimes get the feeling that our younger editors see adminship as something coveted, and they make it their goal. Of course, I can't prove any of this, but it's a connection I've made. On a different note, I would like to know how many of the admins desysopped by ArbCom were under 18. I don't recall of any major incidents with our younger admins. It seems the troublemakers are the 20+ crowd. :whistles: Nishkid64 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If I can comment again, I think that Deskana's idea about some younger editors desiring the mop as their goal can perhaps be linked to the misguided notion about Wikipedia being some kind of game, where one can score points for becoming an admin, writing an article, or reverting vandalism. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone can justify their own views on why someone under 18, 16, or 10 should not be an admin they should be allowed to do it and not get jumped on. Personally, I would be hesitant of anyone under 16 for a number of reasons. That does not mean I would not support someone, but I would probably have a few questions. Do their parents allow them privacy on the computer to email with complete strangers, for example? I'm not sure what I would want the answer to be on that one, but if they cannot then they may not be in a good position to be an admin. Other uses cite legal concerns as well concerning privacy- again, in Florida I believe 18 (or possibly 16 for some things) is the legal age of consent, etc- that means that a minor generally cannot enter into contracts and cannot be held responsible for many actions. While I would not let this determine the status of a nomination completely in my mind, I think it's unwise to decide what is and what is not an appropriate grounds for oppose or support, particularly if someone doesn't just say "under 21, not old enough" but somehow clarifies what they believe a little further. Epthorn (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

and one more note, ageism is sometimes a good thing. There's a reason 13 year olds can't drive. This doesn't apply directly to WP, but let's not raise the banner against something that is not ALWAYS a mistake... Epthorn (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing to consider: while it may be heresy on Wikipedia, in the entire rest of the world, it's pretty normal to expect someone to be an adult before taking on a position of responsibility. So who's got it wrong, Wikipedia or the rest of the world? Maybe both, but I think Wikipedia is unusual in that it's online, and a few of the early contributors were indeed youngsters who were apparently mature beyond their years. This has skewed our perspective here somewhat. Friday (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. I think the real problem with having 'ageism' is that people will then just lie about their age. I would rather at least know and be able to determine based on that information. But if someone else wants to disagree with that they shouldn't face 'warnings' in my view. Epthorn (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to think someone in their early teens is too young to be an admin as a general rule. If a user makes an isse about their own age by revealing it, then they can't complain when other people take it into consideration. It's also ridiculous to think about chastising, or even banning, people who express their opinions about potential admins for this, or any other reason. If people are adult enough to stand for such a position they should be adult enough to expect and welcome a frank debate about their merits. Any admin is going to get plenty of much worse abuse from disgruntled vandals if they pass, let's face it. Nick mallory (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe but age is an interesting concept when one counts the number of birthdays a person has had because in reality its meaningless. Either a person is considered to suitable for trust or not, oh and for the record my 10th birth day is only 76 days(77 based on UTC) away. Gnangarra 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Age is certainly not meaningless, interesting concept or not; it is a measure of physical and mental development. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Age is an arbatory measure based on the earths rotation around the sun, physical developement means nothing here, mental development is only assessable by what is already written to say hey your only 15 so you need to wait 12 months doesnt mean that a person will be any better an editor because of the wait. Hence while its a interesting concept for assessment ultimately as a stand alone line in the sand its flawed. Gnangarra 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be foolish to deny the relationship between age and reliability, but it would be equally foolish to give too much credence to such a relationship. In short, I don't take age into account much, but I certainly understand why others do. Unlike other "isms", "ageism" is based on tendencies that really do exist. 1 != 2 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall nominated for deletion

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall has been nominated for deletion. Regulars here are likely to be interested. The discussion is at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Discussion should be there, not here. GRBerry 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1000 active admins

Using the definition used by the bot that updates the List of admins page (Active = at least 30 edits in the last 2 months), we will shortly reach the level of 1000 active admins. Just something to think about. NoSeptember 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. FloNight (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly noticed over the last couple of weeks that we seem to be keeping on top of the generic admin hangouts like WP:AIV and WP:RFPP better than we have done in the past - now we just to get the less well known backlogs down. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And what might some of those less well known backlogs be? bd2412 T 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

there's plenty, see below for a few examples - I personally don't frquent any of them, but I think it would be a good time to start. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "lesser known backlogs", but AfD could use more hands - 200+ waiting for to be closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. WjBscribe 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems & Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images also have a large backlog. Almost a month old backlog there. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also the new newpage patrol; I knocked fifty or so out last night from November 11, plus several deletions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to say that I'm one of the new active admins helping towards 1000. If there's anywhere I can help, I'm usually available. I do spend most of my time at CAT:CSD, with some glances at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:ANI, but I'm available for other tasks. Just let me know. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question to candidate in RfA template

I added a question to {{RfA}}, and was reverted citing lack of consensus. The question I added was:

:4. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia?

I based this question on WP:SOCK as well as the "disclosures" section at Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#Things_to_consider_before_accepting_a_nomination. Admin candidate need to be candid about their use of alternate accounts. A discussion about this addition is most welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't need to be candid about alternate accounts. Almost every allowed use of sockpuppets doesn't work if the link between accounts is revealed. Arbcom has a requirement that all sockpuppets be disclosed to the committee when one joins it; why should RfA have a more stringent requirement? -Amarkov moo! 03:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree there are positions that require something like alternate accounts to be revealed, such as arbcom, I don't think adminship is one of them. Certainly a question that could be added to individual RfA pages, but I don't see the need to add it to the standard questions. FYI, the disclosure section was removed. - auburnpilot talk 03:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Jossi, earlier today I removed the disclosures section from the Guide as well [3]. My understanding is that you unilaterally added that section in the first place a month ago. As far as I am concerned, expecting candidates to publicly discuss other usernames they may have edited under involves serious privacy concerns. More than a few people have changed their accounts and/or taken other steps to protect their identity in recognition the impact Wikipedia can have on their real lives. Doing so is entirely legitimate. Dragons flight (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many legitimate reasons to have socks for me to support this being a standard question. If there's evidence that a candidate is abusing our sock policy, it should be brought up in the RfA, but outside of that, I don't see a need to call attention to it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you could still ask it as an optional question if you feel strongly about it. bibliomaniac15 07:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We have enough questions as it is. We don't need any more. Thanks, Redrocketboy 10:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be opposed to that as question to ask at all. What kind of answer would you be looking for? If the candidate says anything other than "No" it automatically puts them under suspicion, as "sock and "alternate accounts" has such a negative connotation. If they have a sock account that they are not disclosing, it is either a disruptive sock and they are just going to lie or it is for privacy and they couldn't tell about it. I don't see how using privacy socks or alternate accounts for public computers is relevant to being an admin. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would expect admins to be candid and forthcoming, and to put themselves on record about the use of alternate accounts. This is needed for accountability reasons. I will ask these questions as an additional questions if there is no agreement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my first thought when reading that was "are you now, or have you ever been, a Communist?" :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that is funny shiznit. the_undertow ^talk 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gp75motorsports 2

Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs) request for adminship is what we should all try and avoid. It was clear after a few opposes that this was not going to succeed, yet this is a user in good standing. Effort should be make in these RfA's to offer constructive critisism, almost turning it into a big editor review. What I can see at present is a lot of users jumping in with a one line oppose that serves very little purpose or help to the candidate. In these situations, we should try and offer advice to the candidate so they can improve for the future - if this isn't possible, it's best to recuse yourself from commenting. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ryan Postlethwaite here. When it is a clear a nomination is not going to pass and an editor has already contacted the user regarding a snow close, there really is no reason to repeat already stated opposes. It is at this point that we should do our best to either encourage the user or simply not comment. SorryGuy  Talk  03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a severe problem with having to ask a user if they are OK with a close - this editor appears to be offline - the next time they check, the opposition could be massive, not only putting them off running for adminship again, but also contributing in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ryan's argument, which is why I tried to be constructive in my criticism. Ganging up on an editor is very unproductive, and just creates ill-will all the way around. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone says what Ryan says here once every few months, and yet we still do it. We all need to mellow out and put the shoe on the other foot as much as possible. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My oppose was about as constructive and mellow as I could be, to be honest. Daniel 12:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the opposes - they all seem to be pretty constructive to me. What may be best is, if an experienced editor or admin could see where the consensus was going they could SNOW close it, or suggest the candidate withdraws on their talk page. I've seen worse than this one though, with opposes like "Strong oppose - are you kidding? Is this some kind of dumb joke, because I'm not laughing. No, seriously, get off our website!" (well not quite as bad, but I'm sure you get the idea ^_^). I saw a thread here recently about setting some minimum standards. What happened with that? It would be a good idea, I think to set a minimum amount of edits and time, as well as time between RFAs. Thanks Redrocketboy 16:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, but I doubt any such thing will happen. If go through the archives of this page, you'll realize that set standards seem to be be debated alot. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So you think that a bunch of one liners, repeating the same thing is helpful to a candidate? They only serve to pile on the numbers, and offer no help to the candidate. As I said, unless you are prepared to go through the candidates contributions and offer a good review and some advice, it's best to stay out of it. Oppose - lack of experience serves no purpose after the first 4 people have said the same thing. Tell the candidate where to comment, areas of the project that would help improve the way he edits or simply how changes in his attitude could make him a better wikipedian. At least 75% of those opposes serve to pile on, and merely kick the candidate in the teeth. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think they are helpful. They are not negative though. If it helps, I'll help close such requests if I see them, to avoid this. Although, I'm not sure someone like me should be doing it. I'll always give good feedback, as I did on this RfA. Redrocketboy 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

While the RfA process remains a ballot by another name though, such oppose !votes are inevitable, to counter the support !votes. Everyone knows that the percentage of votes is really all that matters, it's mystifying as to why there's such a widespread reluctance to admit the fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that 15 opposes with 1 support is an acceptable number before this was archived? That would be a smack in the face to any contributor who put in a request for adminship in good faith. Yeah, if it's not obvious, there needs to be opposes to counteract the supports - but this was clearly not going to pass after the first few opposes, so why did everyone else need to comment to say exactly the same thing? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm suggesting that neither you nor anyone else has a crystal ball. "Clearly"? If that word had been used in an article it would have been challenged, as I'm challenging it now. If the RfA process is considered to be so brutal that it can't always be allowed to run its course, then look at the process, make it less brutal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

At least this RfA shows that the process isn't broken. Daniel 04:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for greatly limiting reconfirmations

Clearly, we should do something about these undesirable reconfirmations before they become an habit. Here's an idea for a proposal:

• Administrators who have voluntarily requested to be desysopped may not start a reconfirmation RFA in order to become administrators again. They must instead ask a bureaucrat to restore the previous admin status. Only the bureaucrat may eventually start a reconfirmation process if he/she has concerns about the former administrators and prefers a clear position by the community before promoting them again. Reconfirmations that have not been started/endorsed by a bureaucrat may be speedy closed by any user.

Any comments/changes/ideas? Húsönd 17:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. A bureaucrat will not necessarily have the same feelings about the user that the community does. As can be seen from recent confirmation RfAs (Walton One, Majorly, Gurch), other things have come up, as well as the problem of the fact they are running at all. If an admin wants to run, let them run, and if you think it is a waste of time, don't take part. Thanks. Redrocketboy 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this could work. The bureaucrat should take into consideration whether they voluntarily gave it up to avoid a recall or something else (such as with OldWindyBear. He voluntarily gave it up, under a lot of pressure). Time should also be considered. If they gave up the bit 4 months prior, the crat should consider an RfA. There are many factors that should be taken into account, but all in all, it seems sound. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Redrocketboy. The job of the bureaucrats is to evaluate the community consensus at the time of the RFA, not to guess what it is months later. Mr.Z-man 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with Redrocketboy, for much the same reason. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tentatively, I agree. However, I have concerns that this clause could simply become a process-for-process'-sake sort of thing, which is definitely what we don't need. We shouldn't require an exceptionally-clear-promote candidate to have to re-undertake an RfA discussion, which could be a trap we find ourselves falling into if this proposition is enforced to rigorously. Anthøny 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I follow that logic. Who is it that decides who these "exceptionally-clear-promote" candidates are? Harking back to something that J-stan said earlier, I'd be far more suspicious of someone who voluntary gave up adminship and then a week later wanted it back again than I would be about someone asking for the admin tools back after 6 months. But in either case I don't see why one bureaucrat should be allowed to make that decision. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an unneeded rule to solve a problem that is not really a problem. If someone needs only ask to be an admin to be given the bit, but decides to do an RfA anyways then it does not harm the community. The person just needs to abide by the result. 1 != 2 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I too disagree, Husond. However, I do believe that users who have voluntarily resigned there adminship should be aware of what is likely to happen, should they decided to reconfirm via an RfA. On most reconfirmation RfA's, some see it as trolling to get more !votes, and ultimately — prove there acceptance among other members of the community. I think, honestly, we should leave it up to the user in question who is considering it, as to which route they wish to take to regain there adminship. Qst 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen from recent confirmation RfAs (Walton One, Majorly, Gurch), other things have come up... User:Redrocketboy

Ehh. IMV if you have been an admin long enough, you will step on plenty of toes. Sometimes oversenstive toes, sometimes big powerful influential toes. The concerns from Majorly's RfA - the ones that weren't bullshit - sprung from his interactions while he was an admin. Same with Walton. Gurch is, well, Gurch. (I mean that in the nicest possible way!)

But that's a different matter. To respond to Husond's proposal, I don't think it necessary at this stage. Reconfirmation is not a dime a dozen, and if you don't want to take part, seriously, you don't need to. As I said on Walton's RfA, it takes me less time to say something nice/bad about the person than to bitch about the process.

The person just needs to abide by the result. User:Until(1 == 2) - So... the results of reconfirmation RfAs are definitely to be considered binding? With a bunch of people urging you to a crat throughout the process, what's to stop you from doing that even after it's failed? Once you find the right friendly crat, of course :) ~ Riana ⁂ 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What's to stop you? Honesty hopefully. But your comments about anyone having been an admin long enough will have stepped on some toes applies just as much to any other editor undergoing an RfA. Arguably admins ought to have stepped on a lot less toes, because of their privileged position. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that some of those toes didn't deserve to be stepped on in the first place; I've got 500+ blocks that say otherwise... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply observing that the same leeway doesn't appear to be given to nominations where the candidate has not given up the extra buttons. It is quite common to see candidates opposed simply because they have disagreed with someone in the previous three months, and to be recommended to keep their heads down for a further three months before they try another RfA. What's sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. 2146 blocks here, that means over 10000 toes ;) As for honesty - I'm not sure how many in our community possess that, forgive the recent-drama-induced-cynicism. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• So everyone has to assume good faith except admins? Is that what you're suggesting? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The main thing I would be worried about if something like this were to be implemented is in regards to the ramification on other RfAs. Adding in this in writing may make guidelines stricter and RfA's more difficult, which we definitely do not need. Wizardman 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I'm on record as abhoring these reconfirmation RfA's I agree with Wizardman that there are ramifications here on making RfA itself even harder. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I give some support to the original idea, if the admin asked for the desysop for non-behavioral reasons. Admins are going to piss people off. It comes with the job. This is going to automatically draw out a fair amount of opposition to an RfA reconfirmation. Less drama. - Crockspot (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Would you mind translating "non-behavioral reasons" into English for my benefit please? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think he means things such as having not enough time on their hands to feel like they need it, maybe privacy reasons and off-wiki harassment (btw, could they create a legit sock and transfer the tools to that accoutn while still editing on the desysopped account?), things like that. I may have missed some. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I meant, as opposed to someone giving up the tools voluntarily, because of pressure over their admin actions. - Crockspot (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up. Good feedback though. :-) Húsönd 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Open for recall?

I'm certainly not the only one who has noticed that promising to be "open to recall" is a nice way to get some additional support in a RFA nomination. Unfortunately, this is a vacuous promise. It turns out that when such a recall is actually requested, the subject tends to (1) set ludicrous standards of the amount of people required to recall, (2) blandly state that whomever requesting it does not qualify, (3) simply remove himself from the category, or (4) promise they'll seek RFC or RFAr which applies exactly the same to anybody not in that category. This started as a nice idea, but in effect it's now only a political misdirection. >Radiant< 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends. There's an active RFA right now where the offer is pretty clear. On the other hand, a couple weeks ago a higher profile editor did tap dance a little when the subject came up. So I guess it's situational. It may not be the most useful thing, but it has it's uses. RxS (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which RFA that would be, but no, the offer is not "pretty clear", because the person offering has no obligation whatsoever to stick to his offer. The record shows several people who promised to be open to recall, who in fact weren't, and withdrew their promise when it actually became an issue. But, you know, I'll promise to give you an equal share in this million-dollar inheritance if you would be so kind as to forward me a thousand bucks in fees, so I can get the inheritance cleared. >Radiant< 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the offer is actually quite clear: "six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship". What isn't clear is if she (or anyone else making a similar offer) will honor it. Semantics maybe, but good faith is still alive I think. Some editors have honored the offer, others have not so as I said it's situational. If you give me your address I'll send a check. RxS (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly not the only one to have noticed that it often seems to be an empty promise. I'm more inclined to support those candidates who are honest enough to say that they won't be "open to recall". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a recall process, and I like the idea better than the actual process. It seems to be deeply flawed, seemingly based on numbers alone, and small ones at that. I think promising to go for recall is a bad way to gain support. I finally see the need for an official (*gasp*) proposal for a better recon system. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

J-stan: I'm not aware that you're "involved" in a recall process, is someone recalling you? You're not an admin here that I could tell, so presumably not. Did you sign a recall petition as one of the petitioners calling for recall of some admin? I didn't see that either, but I may have missed that. Are you clerking a recall? Otherwise you're not really "directly involved" although you certainly may have commented somewhere. But that's peripheral. I agree with the general sense here... I think that asking people to say they're willing to stand for recall during their RfA is not something to be encouraged, rather it ought to be discouraged (I've changed my view on that from when recall was first developed). I'm not even sure I favour people making the commitment voluntarily, without promption. As to the process being flawed, I hear that a lot. I would say so far it has worked pretty well if you review the 11 recalls so far. As for the numbers being off... If you yourself (if and when you become an admin) decide that 6 is the wrong number, the merit of it being voluntary is that you can set the number of petitioners needed to 16, or 60, or whatever you want... subject only to judgment by the community as to whether that was a suitable choice or not. Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 December 2007

Hi, I have no idea who I'm responding to, but let me clarify: I'm not an admin, but on Mercury's recall, I seemed to have inadvertently created some controversy be creating a "Users against recall" section. I believe it is flawed based on the seemingly formal procedure, but it's entirely informal. Hope that clears it up, unidentified questioner. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You were replying to me. I had a two paragraph reply (the upper one to you, the lower to Radiant!) which got split. My bad for doing 2 para replies... I've stuck an unsigned up there to clarify. Hope that helps. As for creating controversy, the only controversy you may have inadvertantly created is to attempt to have the section have any standing as part of the recall process itself. The comments themselves are nice gestures. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Inadvertent controversy, nonetheless. It gives Mercury an idea that his inevitable recon-RfA has a good chance of passing. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And a very nice gesture on your part it was, as well. My point, (which really is small, ok?) is that it's nice, but not part of the process as it's usually done. That's all. Showing support would be in the next phase, should the petition be certified, if Mercury chooses RfA, or RfC, rather than in this phase. Sorry to belabor such a small point, and you're a standup guy for standing up and saying what you said. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

what do you know, the points do get smaller! Kidding. Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't quite sure how these things work, and wanted to make sure the reconfirmation train didn't leave without me, while at the same time attempting to stop said train by creating the procedural equivalent of a "Get Well Soon" card in the middle of the tracks. Thanks for the kind words as well. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Therein lies the emptiness of the promise. It's for the administrator being recalled to set the rules, such as, and I quote: "six editors in good standing by his own criteria ...". It's a Humpty Dumpty world where words appear to mean whatever you want them to mean. Or should that be !mean? :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, we've had 10 complete and 1 that is ongoing. The community has judged harshly when admins have given even the appearance of wriggle, and judged quite supportively when they have not. (Crzrussian got a lot of supports when he stood again after two months based on his integrity during the process) I don't see it quite the same as you do, I guess. By and large the process works. Even if the admin doesn't adhere. The admin doesn't actually have to adhere for it to work, which is why it's a good process. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I think you should also review the 10 past and 1 ongoing requests, as archived here Category_talk:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests... I'm not sure I at all agree with your characterisation of the committment to stand for recall as "vacuous". I see the vast majority of petitions, when it comes to that, working through the process peacably and amicably. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lar see J-stan's involvement in an ongoing recall here—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that recall, I've commented there myself. But I do not consider myself "involved". The involved parties are Mercury, the clerk, and those who choose to petition. Everyone else is an observer. Certainly if others wish to comment, let them, but they're not involved, (except to the extent that we all are in everything that happens on Wiki) in my view. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been a couple of recalls recently, and I'll mention names if anyone wants me to, that match what Radiant is saying. I would suggest making the recall procedure more formal and "set in stone" to prevent the waffling that we've seen lately. I would support that. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose it. It's voluntary, that's the point. Thats why it works. I have not seen a mandatory desysop proposal here that I would support. At other wikis the processes work but they don't scale to here. In my view anyway. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that it is voluntary as to whether you put your account name on the recall list or not. But once you list your name there, you're committed to follow whatever formal recall process the community may decide to put in place. Cla68 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that any sign that such a thing would come to pass is one of the very few things that would convince me to remove my name from the current list/category. You could certainly start a NEW list/category if you wanted to with that provision, (which I won't be joining) but the essence of the current process is that it's voluntary. Someone else can't change the rules on participants in that process, that's not how it works. If you, a member of the list/category, change them yourself in a ruleslawyerly way, you may be damned in the court of public opinion for it, but it's your decision and yours alone. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Malleus, in AOR defense, opening a recall is not as bad as filling a 3RR report. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are the two things comparable in your view? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The harder the process, the less likely to be used. If adminship is not a big deal, then there should be a way to remove them without filling a request for arbitration, at least inactive ones. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I take your point. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The best way to deal with this is to give zero credence to candidates promises of being open to recall. We should be judging candidates by their merits, not how easily we can de-admin them if they screw up. 1 != 2 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree... and stop asking people about it during their RfA as well. (I freely admit I used to ask and now I think it's a bad idea. Noone is as hardcore antismoking as a reformed smoker, as they say ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, regardless of whether the candidate plans on joining Admins for Recall, only their past history should be considered. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea of admins for recall was silly, which I believe I said when it was thought up. The fact is, if an admin does something that warrants recall, not honoring a recall the request isn't going to make anything worse. Only good admins can be penalized by it. Prodego ^talk 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And if the result of the recall is simply an RfC the result of which is decided by the admin themself, as here, the process hardly seems to be worthwhile from anyone's pov. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Eh? So far this particular RfC is far less dramatic than the average one and I posit that it's because the admin in question is adhering to his commitment to graciously proceed with the RfC instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into one. That is a bonus right there. But the outcome is not known yet, so let's work some example outcomes.

1. RfC comes out (slightly to overwhelmingly) in support of retention, and admin stays on. Those not satisfied can still pursue dispute resolution and now have clear evidence of trying and failing to resolve dispute, plus information all packaged up neatly for arbcom == "worked" and worth it. Arbcom may well reject since much material presented during RfC suggests that the malfeasance is a minority view. Or not. But material packaged better than if arbcom case started from scratch.
2. RfC comes out (slightly to overwhelmingly) in support of retention, and admin decides to resign perhaps because of a few comments that struck home. == "worked" and worth it although maybe just getting the comments might have been enough? Still the RfC sharpens thinking.
3. RfC comes out a tossup and admin stays on. Likely to be held in lower regard by court of community opinion. Those not satisfied can still pursue dispute resolution and now have clear evidence of trying and failing to resolve dispute, plus information all packaged up neatly for arbcom. == "worked" (in that the community opinion is now clarified) dunno if "worth it" or not.
4. RfC comes out a tossup and admin resigns. == "worked" and worth it although maybe just getting the comments might have been enough? Still the RfC sharpens thinking. Clearer rationale than before anyway and less likely to have 'chip on shoulder because community did me wrong' in future (hopefully).
5. RfC comes out (slightly to overwhelmingly) in support of resignation and admin stays on. This will be a "moderately difficult" to "open and shut" (respectively) ArbCom case in which admin likely will be unadmined == "worked" and worth it (arbcom case will benefit from legwork, and we had less drama than if went straight to ArbCom)
6. RfC comes out (slightly to overwhemlingly) in support of resignation and admin resigns. == "worked" (in that the community desire is fulfilled and with less drama than a normal RfC and no need for arbcom)

So I'd say it works under all those cases. (and this is why my own most likely choice should I have a recall petition certified against me would be RfC) What case did I miss or which case did I mis-state or mis-evaluate? ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was merely commenting on a process in which the "!accused" also gets to be the "!judge". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Lar - I am aware of that page; but you should also be aware that while there have been a few productive requests, the majority of requests on there were only resolved "amicably" because the admin chose to ignore it, or decided that whomever requested it wasn't "in good standing" enough to make the request, or even simply removed himself from the "recall" category, AND proceed to revert war over that very log page, and THEN nominate it for deletion. It would seem that those admins that get into enough trouble that their recall is requested, are precisely those that are disinclined to listen to it. >Radiant< 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Radiant!: I get a different set of sums when I look through those. Not perfect but not a majority defective.

• Piotrus 1: never got to 6... no tweaking of criteria evident during process. Process worked.
• Merovingian: never got to 6... no tweaking of criteria evident during process. Some felt that the requester was trolling but the process took the requester seriously and that was that. Process worked.
• Crzrussian: the process unfolded with grace and civility and Crzrussian resigned as he indicated he would
• Bunchofgrapes: never got to 6... no tweaking of criteria evident during process. Some felt that the requester was trolling but the process took the requester seriously and that was that. There were some critics of the process that did not help it go smoothly but they were not so disruptive as to make the process not work. Process worked.
• Friday: never got to 6. Friday was lax in not specifying criteria in advance but adopted the "standard" ones... even when I strained hard, I could not see how there were 6 qualified petitioners. Process worked.
• Piotrus 2: never got to 6... Heck, never got past 2. No tweaking of criteria evident during process. Process worked.
• Misza13: probably the most unstructured one, no one was asked to clerk but it appears to me only one petitioner certified. no tweaking of criteria evident during process, but arguably Misza13 did not acknowledge the request. Under the most generously favourable to your argument criteria, we'll call this "process did not work" but it's a reach.
• Ryulong 1: Very unstructured (an argument for having a clerk help do this).. petitioners withdrew after getting a promise to change behaviour. Under the most generously favourable to your argument criteria, we'll call this "process did not work" but it's a reach. I'd argue it worked.
• Ryulong 2: A single requester. No other support. Again, very unstructured, an argument for Ryulong asking for clerking instead of being dismissive in response. Hard to argue this as a failure though. But we'll give it to you anyway.
• Durova: Durova took a certain amount of pressure of public opinion during the process. Guess what, that's a feature, not a flaw. The process is going to get you heat if you even appear to be waffling. But in the end she certified the precursor RfC, and was about to embark on the recall when events overcame her. I personally consider that one an unqualified success.
• Mercury: Jury's still out but it's an unqualified success so far.

That's my analysis. I count 2 admins out of 9 or 4 recalls out of 11 (giving you every shadow of doubt, every possible gimme) as not having been unqualified process successes. Perhaps there are other recalls not documented on that page which I am not aware of? Oh and to toot clerking... every recall that was clerked (during the recall phase) was a successful process (during the recall phase). Therefore I conclude that your analysis may not be correct. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall.

An ongoing recall discussion is location at User:Mercury/RFC. Mercury 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Open for recall: an idea

Wikipedia:Admin Accountability Alliance. Please give your comments on its talk page. >Radiant< 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)