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 Have you contacted the candidate and asked them if they would like their RfA withdrawn?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

Well this may be extremely hard to believe, but on some place I can't really remember now I became an admin when I was 10. And I did just fine. I can't even believe I did that. -- ~ <font=Courier New>Ryan A. Taylor || ← that was a link to my user page! OMGWTFBBQ || DUMPING GROUND! 22:14, 15 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)

Age is not arbitary, and to suggest that it is shows rather poor judgment, or a poor understanding of what the word "arbitrary" actually means. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 14 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)

And it would be equally foolish to give too little credence to such a relationship. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The older an editor the more likely a person carries political, relgious, racial, social, educational, and physical baggage, this is the beauty of Wikipedia we can and generally do operate as a community where only the actions of an editor should be considered, over coming all of the real life barriers that hinder knowledge exchange. Is it more foolish to learn what there is learn irregardless of the knowledge source, or to exclude learning by creating barriers. Gnangarra 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The older an editor the more likely he knows there is more than black and white and rules are not meant to be followed by letter. I welcome teens in Wikipedia but they don't need to be an admin to write articles. There are many adults who aren't wise—even way above average intelligence and a PhD does not prevent you from abusing the admin powers. But teens don't even have the chance to be wise. That's why I oppose every candidate younger than 20—maybe for very good reasons I would make few exceptions. I understand the wish to show off in school with this rank (I don't condemn this) but we wouldn't do Wikipedia a flavor with the appointment of a teen and maybe not even the teen. The thresholds of other users are lower than mine but I guess no one would like to have a 12 year old being an admin. Of course he or she can correctly decide whether it's vandalism when someone empties an article or writes something gay but this could be detected by a bot, too. We need admins for weighing up relevance for Wikipedia and to help solving NPOV disputes and this requires much experience. Gaining experience means making mistakes. As I said before teens are welcomed to make their mistakes in Wikipedia and thereby gaining experience—but they should not be able to block their disputants or set up facts by deleting articles. --mms (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of age-ist bullshit that burns me up. If the only thing you are looking at is age then you are clearly prejudiced and not doing your job as an RFA evaluator. Rather than getting hung-up on a single number, you should be looking at the user's contribution history. If you can tell they are immature based on their actions then fine, but the presence of immaturity can occur in 25 year olds just as easily as 15 year olds. As someone who has known and worked with extremely gifted teenagers (including 13-year-old college students), I can tell you from personal experience that some individuals are more mature than the typical person twice their age. The candidates at RFA are supposed to be evaluated individually and not via a set of arbitrary and rigid standards. Oh, and since the community has had 13-year-old Bureaucrat, I don't think the community would be all that bothered by a 12-year-old admin, provided a qualified and mature 12-year-old wanted the job. Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm part of the community and I'm bothered. Age is one of my criteria which I think is legitimate to have. It's not up to you to judge my work as an RfA evaluator. Every possible criterion can be viewed as a prejudice. --mms (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You cannot conclusively say that "User X is a teenager, ergo, they are unfit to be an admin." I think that the great majority of teenage admins look at Wikipedia as something other than a game, e.g. the future of human knowledge. I honestly think that you should judge people by their work alone; if Anonymous Dissident did not reveal his age here, would any of you suspect that he's younger than 20? I highly doubt it. Regards, Keilana 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot conclusively say that "User X is a former vandal who stopped fairly recently, ergo, they are unfit to be an admin" either. People are perfectly capable of stopping their vandalism, becoming productive, and making a good admin very soon after. That doesn't mean vandalism three months ago can't be considered. -Amarkov moo! 17:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that I can say that most of the teens on Wikipedia that contribute heavily to admin/policy related issues are not your average teens. What kind of teens would sit around all day and contribute to the kind of issues that come up on Wikipedia? I also believe that upon becoming an admin, a teen would grow up very fast. Malinaccier (talk) 17:46, 16 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)

Today we reached 1000 active admins. NoSeptember 20:16, 15 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)

LOL, I see your point... Maybe whay we need to do is something different. See proposal below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser requirement for RfA candidates - Proposal

To ensure/assure that RFA candidates have not abused WP:SOCK, I propose that in order to apply or accept a nomination for adminiship, the candidate needs to voluntarily accept that a checkuser is run on their account. The results of the checkuser will be not made public, but it will be made available to the bureaucrat closing the RfA. In this manner, we will be assured that there is no abuse of process. If an editors does not feel comfortable with this, he.she should not accept a nomination. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But any checkuser who's suspicious can run a check anyway, and block if the results reveal ongoing abuse of sockpuppets. And what happens in this case if the checkuser returns a result that says the user was abusing sockpuppets, but now is not? Should the bureaucrat ignore this and follow consensus anyway, or ignore the uninformed consensus and follow the checkuser? -Amarkov moo! 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

These are good questions, Amarkov, and I do not have the answers. But I think that this is worth exploring, as it is about time that we have some basic measure of accountability, and encourage editors that plan to accept a nomination to do the right thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers aren't for fishing. This is a poor idea, and it sounds like making an already broken process even more broke. Redrocketboy 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not about fishing, Redrocketboy. It is about accountability of those that want/plan to apply for adminship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Support would increase confidence in the admins. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   How so? On the list of things that make people unconfident in the admins, having sockpuppets intending to harm Wikipedia is very very low. -Amarkov moo! 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   By increasing the transparency of adminship. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   But it doesn't increase the transparency of adminship in any way people care about. Increasing transparency would involve not holding some administrator discussions in secret, or demanding that they be accountable to the community. Even at Wikipedia Review, nobody thinks we're promoting admins who use sockpuppets contrary to policy. -Amarkov moo! 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   It's a "Cæsar's wife" thing. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   Except, as I keep saying, there isn't any suspicion. Even if there were, a policy of action based on random unfounded suspicions is a bad idea. -Amarkov moo! 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   It's about demonstrating that there is no need for suspicion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   If I may interject here: if evidence is presented that is actually completely harmless but carries a Caeser's wife-esque stigma, a constructive and good-faith editor might not become an admin. Hypothetically: a CheckUser reveals that a candidate with no other red flags is using Tor, despite the fact that this is currently allowed by policy. Something like this happened once, except that then, WP:PROXY's spirit did not match its wording. Really, did we (as a community) learn nothing from the hundreds of posts on the wikien-l mailing list, and an entire arbitration case, about Jayjg's actions in ChatlotteWebb's RFA? Gracenotes^T § 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

   But this is not where any suspicion is. Should we check government records to make sure we don't have any serial killers as admins? Of course not, because nobody at all is worried about that. -Amarkov moo! 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   Well, of course we can just take admin's word for it that admin's are trustworthy! DuncanHill (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   No, we shouldn't, but we also shouldn't bend over backwards for everyone with any theoretical concern. -Amarkov moo! 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This is a real issue. Though not common, there have been administrators with abusive sockpuppets (or who were themselves sockpuppets) and they caused a great deal of trouble. Even where the editor did not cross the line of committing sanctionable for behavior violations, secret use of alternate accounts is something that ought to be admitted to so we can make up our own mind on how suitable a candidate is for adminship. Other people might be fine to know that the administrators patrolling the system have other accounts or are not who they seem to be. But I for one care a great deal to have admins who are completely level and aboveboard and do not involve themselves in mischief, drama, and cloak-and-dagger secrecy.Wikidemo (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  Very few admins have been conclusively shown to be abusing sockpuppets. And all that I know of would not have been caught by a mandatory checkuser, because they either knew how to get around checkuser or did not start sockpuppeting until after they were promoted. Really, why would someone intelligent who wants to disrupt Wikipedia not wait until after promotion to do things? -Amarkov moo! 06:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, is there a context for this proposal? Have there been past cases where this was a specific concern? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Alternative_solution:_strengthen_the_good_hand.2Fbad_hand_provision. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose Checkuser wouldn't have caught OWB, since he used different computers. It may even wrongly implicate people with shared IP addresses (like, I don't know college students). And if we implement this, all admins should be checked, not just people who want to be admins. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 19:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm amazed at your naivity. Checkuser can *not* verify whether there's a WP:SOCK infringement. Also, I thought you were somewhat informed about the Durova/!! case. !! had changed identity, so could turn up as a checkuser "positive". Appears the change was perfectly legitimate under even the strictest interpretation of WP:SOCK. We'd be witch-hunting again, and losing well-established other admins/bureaucrats/... because they can't eliminate false positives without information that is not available through checkuser. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Still more amazed... above you linked to Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Alternative_solution:_strengthen_the_good_hand.2Fbad_hand_provision as a discussion leading up to this proposal. That WP:SOCK talk page section was a discussion initiated by Durova. That discussion took place 8-9 November, Durova heavily contributing. Two weeks later Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova was started. If anything, that arbcom case learned that, with retrospect, we should not summarily accept Durova's appreciation of how to approach WP:SOCK issues. This calls for a careful re-evaluation of that discussion, not just take its conclusions to the next level. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to this proposal as well. It runs contrary to the idea of assume good faith and might be seen as a privacy breach that would deter some users from considering an RFA. And if only the bureaucrats know the result, what's the point? Are they going to override community consensus if they think a breach of WP:SOCK has occurred? Mr.Z-man 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Still more amazed.. Uh? What Durova said there is unrelated to the unfortunate incident she was involved in. I simply do not see any strong arguments so far against this, besides personal opinions. Checkuser will most definitively show if an admin candidate has edited under multiple account names. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well lets not go that far. Lets say checkuser might show, and might show false positives. It is not magic wiki pixie dust. Prodego ^talk 03:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, can you name any candidate who went through RFA this year who used other accounts in breach of policy? If not, you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist; unless you have evidence that a wave of sock-puppeteers are going to go through RFAs in the near future. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 03:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser works best if there is already a suspicion of multiple accounts. If a checkuser is done on someone who uses a large dynamic IP range it can be helpful if there is already a likely second account, they would both be on the same range. However, if only one account is being checked, all the checkuser is going to see is all the accounts on that range. Unless two edited at the same time on the same IP, that won't prove anything and could be a false positive if a candidate is in the the same city as a banned user and happened to use an IP shortly after the banned user. Some ISPs also use proxy servers that multiple users connect through at the same time (AOL). If there is a suspicion that an account may be a sock of another known account it can determine that they use the same ISP and the same range, but with only 1 account the checkuser will just see a bunch of seemingly unrelated accounts and there is the same potential for false positives. Mr.Z-man 07:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This idea would solve nothing, and only introduce a rat's nest of problems to the RfA process. Checkuser is a specialized tool for specialized situations. Not only does it not prove innocence -- which could sadly end up ruining someone's wiki-career if a hazy result comes up somehow -- but it doesn't definitively prove guilt either, as "professional" sockpuppeteers could easily bury their wrongdoings by using open proxies and different user-agents, or even cease socking for 30 days prior to RfA so the data goes stale. This could easily lull people into a false sense of security, and as pointed out above, prior cases such as Oldwindybear have indeed eluded checkusers. --krimpet✽ 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidates should not prove themselves innocent of sockpuppetry; rather, accusers should prove that their allegations have substance. —Kurykh 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors getting CU permission are required to agree to some sort of privacy condition, would CU not cross over the line of privacy. Ignoring a persons right to privacy how frequently would the CU need to be run on admins, who's going to spend time doing that and who's going to check the checkusers? Gnangarra 04:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

When did WP:Assume bad faith become policy? --Carnildo (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not for fishing. And I agree to the above that it doesn't reveal much unless there is a second account to check against. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. I think this is a perennial, well intentioned, proposal that is not a good idea. I personally would be very loath to carry out any such speculative checks, even if it were RfA policy. But then I turn down CU requests on {{fishing}} grounds on a regular basis. ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As a checkuser, I'm decidedly opposed to this for a number of reasons; it currently falls outside policy, is a needless compromise of editor privacy, is {{fishing}}, as Lar points out, and is more likely to increase drama rather than reduce it. Furthermore, "professional" sockpuppeteers are already more than familiar with CheckUser and how to circumvent it. I fail to see the benefit here whatsoever - Alison ^❤ 13:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. We should add rules and processes when there is an identified problem that the additional complexity addresses, and where it seems clear that the cost of that additional complexity is more than compensated for by the problem it (at least partly) solves. Here we have no such problem - Wikipedia does not suffer from large numbers of admins running sock farms. But clearly such a change would have costs - of making the adminship policy more onerous ("here, please sign approval to run a checkuser on you"), more work for checkusers, and potential false positives. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Terrible idea. CU is not for fishing. There are legit uses of socks. What about homes where both husband/wife or father/son, etc edit? What about AGF? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose — Completely counter to WP:AGF and counter the the spirit of Wikimedia Foundation policy — " On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam)...." In fact, if someone with checkuser priviledges does run a checkuser on any candidate for administrator, that should be revealed on the RfA, along with justification for those actions. — ERcheck (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, admin candidates need not be exempt from the privacy policies without reasonable suspicion. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. Proposal withdrawn. I still believe that we need some measures to assure admins's accountability and transparency in this regard. Admins should be discouraged of using SP accounts, in particular applying the good hand/bad hand MO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I invite you all to a good debate about admin's accountability and proposals in this regard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about: Sysops Are An Elite Cabal. They Are Above the Law. :) Gracenotes^T § 06:36, 17 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)

The process shouldn't be changed if the fault is the candidate (which, to be fair, sometimes it is). While I don't think we should be jerks by any stretch of the imagination, we also shouldn't be handing out cotton candy and fluffy cuddly-wuddly little teddy bears to the candidates. If they can't stand up to some light grilling, they have no business being an administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was just "light-grilling", then why should a candidate be pulled out of the nomination to spare their feelings; because you believe that you have a crystal ball? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you and I need to define what we're discussing; I'm talking about RfAs in general, and you're (apparently) talking about this RfA in particular. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not talking about any specific RfA. I too am talking generally. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:45, 15 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)

• That's highly skewed. You assume that any time it "didn't get to 6", the "process worked" - despite the fact that several of these were either ignored entirely by their subject, or turned into a minor flame war where the subject started disqualifying the requesters for arbitrary reasons. Hello? The point of such a process is that people listen to it. Turns out they don't.
• In case you haven't been following it, Mercury is most definitely not an unqualified success, because he (1) made up ludicrous standards, (2) declared the request an "abuse of process", (3) removed himself from the cat, (4) edit warred to get himself removed from the recall log, (5) nominated said log for deletion, (6) stated on the CFD for the cat that it was abused, and (7) only after much grumbling and heel-dragging made up some process that was obviously skewed to be unable to actually accomplish anything. "Unqualified success"... yeah right.
• Although this severely undermines the credibility of "recalling", the irony is that none of this was actually necessary, because Merc is a decent admin and there isn't really all that much objection to him to begin with - but if you see how much awkwardness he caused for something that wasn't a big deal, then imagine how the "recall" cat might respond when it is a big deal. >Radiant< 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Skewed? I think your using terms like "ludicrous" isn't really showing much lack of skew... I've presented an analysis of each one. You have as of yet, not, or if you did, I missed it. I think you need to analyze each one individually rather than just making broad characterizations. I think you've significantly mis-characterized several of the "didn't get to 6" ones, even if I give you the ones I already gave you as not being unqualified successes. But perhaps this isn't the page for detailed analysis. We get it, you don't think the process works. I don't think that's a universally, or even near universally, held view. Heck, it may not even be a majority view. Not that majority rule is the way to decide anything, Polls are evil^tm. ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• You can "think" whatever you like, but if I can find seven irregularities in what you call an "unqualified success", I think you need to re-think your definition of "success". >Radiant< 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My definition of success is with respect to the alternative(s) which of course are somewhat unknowable but fairly obvious to project with some probability based on other similar situations without recall in the mix... (For example I posit that the community would have been in for a bumpier ride in Durova's case than what (still pretty bumpy to be sure) it actually got...) I was not aware that Mercury did some of the things you say he did and I agree that some/many/all of them are inappropriate. What I saw was a recall petition that was executed with grace and decorum and an RfC that seems to be going better than average for these sorts of things. That's a success for the recall process in my book. But I'm not infallible. I could be biased. (So could you, I am certain you would admit.) Pick one or more of the others and give us your analysis. Why, for example, would Crzrussian's not be an unqualified success? Or Friday's? You're the one making the assertion that this process is a failure, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well I think we can chalk Mercury's up as a dismal failure now, unless the point of the exercise was to destroy Mercury's reputation, at which it certainly succeeded. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That will obviously depend on your point of view. However I view any process that takes to task an administrator for what I consider to be a serious abuse of power in trying to censor the opinion of another editor to be at least a limited success. Although it would also be fair to say that I have no confidence at all in the integrity of the present RfC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Christoper: I'm not sure when you wrote the above but as of NOW I don't think I agree. Mercury's process was exceedingly bumpy. But public opinion, in my view, did what this process encourages it to do, it chivvied him along into doing the right thing, even after some missteps. There was a petition, (thanks in part to public opinion pressure, I'd posit) it was certified, there was a next step (the RfC) and when the RfC was mishandled, public opinion seems to have had a hand in Mercury resigning, and resigning "under a cloud". Now some will argue that the process, because it was bumpy, was a failure. I disagree, because I'm considering the alternative, which in my view would have been a messy ArbCom case. Even with all the drama, missteps, etc of this case, I still think the alternative is worse. I'm hoping that the next recall, if there is one, will be characterised by the recallee taking a lesson from this and get the process steps clearly stated once, at the beginning, and avoid things like changing them around, trying to edit war over pages, or delete them, and the like, because public opinion has a low tolerance for that. If you want a perfectly smooth process, this is not it. But en:wp has none of those and maybe never will. For reference, refer to my six alternatives list, above... this was coming out as an alternative 3, and lo and behold, it became 4. I'm chalking this all up in the "could have been better but still a success" column. Pollyanna 02:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, the usefulness of recall is very debatable at this point. There are good and bad examples. It's probably stretching to call it a success or a failure. It's perhaps only significant as a way of saying "yes, I intend to be accountable". The essential enigma of recall is that those who volunteer probably don't need it, while those who do need it would never participate. Oh well. I still hold out hope that it may serve as a useful stepping stone toward some means of making removing the bit somewhere near as easy as granting it in the first place. Friday (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "enigma", just a vote-catching promise that has no actual substance at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that it worked in this case, bumps and all. Mercury was not able to duck the outcome of the process he agreed to initiate. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, except that by being the judge of his own RfC he makes a mockery of the process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well "makes a mockery" is a bit strong... :) I'd go so far as to say "The community has judged harshly when admins have given even the appearance of wriggle, and judged quite supportively when they have not." (I think I said that before in fact. :) )That's what happened here, I think. If Mercury subsequently stands for admin again, the wiggle will be raised as a negative, and the fact that he ultimately did resign as a positive... Which will weigh more? Who can say but I have my theory. This in part why I've changed my own level of specification of process in advance and plan to, after I and others find any holes, strongly suggest that other category members carry out a similar exercise. Not necessarily adopt my processes but go to my level of detail. This is new in the last 24 hours that I got this detailed but it's clear to me that advance is much better than during. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's tantamount to being on editor review. None of this is binding, so I'm not quite sure why this discussion is toned so heavily. It's simply an idea that can be XfD'd at any time. Is the consensus that there should be a process that can or shall I say be readily enforced? If not, this speculation is just for fun. I appreciate the time and effort put into this topic, but it's still a tag away from CfD. the_undertow ^talk 12:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oi. It's turning into somewhat of a perennial CfD nom actually, as it's up for deletion right now. I predict another "close-no consensus". But at least for me, the category is no longer the key. The key is my commitment to the community. Even a successful deletion of the category (which I highly doubt would happen) cannot take that commitment away. To your other point, I think public opinion is starting to form more and more strongly that wiggle (or even perceived wiggle) is not good. For best results: Make a commitment and stick to it. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 15 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)

• I like the version used by Lar (talk · contribs), at User:Lar/Accountability, and this could be a good model going forward. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
  • It should be noted that the cited page applies to CAT:AOTR not to the new proposal, although it's been cited in discussion about the proposal. I think the new proposal has a lot of merit and have tried to participate in identifing the good points about it as well as those things in need of fixing. However I strongly feel that the justification given reads in way too polemical a manner. When I tried to change it to read more neutrally, but still retain the sense of why the proposal exists, Radiant accused me of "trouncing" the proposal, and then summarily reverted all of my suggestions. I don't think that's a constructive approach. I hope Radiant changes that approach because I do think the proposal has merit, incorporates novel ideas, and should be developed further. It has one technical flaw which I've highlighted there as well... it is my understanding of Steward policy (which I've studied at some length, given my interest in the job :) ) that Stewards don't turn bits off except when: a) requested to do so by the person possessing the access rights (after making sure it's that person by requiring crosslinking) (this ultimately is the enforcement technique that CAT:AOTR depends on, the force of public opinion) or b) requested to do so by a duly constituted authority (such as an ArbCom, the Foundation, or Jimbo Himself), or c) requested to do so after a clear community consensus has been arrived at (such as what happened recently at Commons when the community decided to desysop someone). This proposal seems to require stewards to enforce bit removal in a circumstance that does not fit any of the three above situations, which is problematic, as Stewards are not supposed to evaluate things, only act in almost purely mechanical ways. I think there might be ways to solve that issue but as written it's my view it won't work, it needs fixing. Radiant dismisses this issue out of hand, I don't think Radiant has internalised my point yet. I'd encourage others to participate in the discussion, and to edit the material as seen fit, the page could benefit, in my view, from wider participation. On the other hand, if Radiant continues to reject changes with wholesale reverts and dismiss honest attempts to work on the proposal to improve it so it will work, perhaps it needs userification. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And another note. I just revised my accountability page a LOT. It's like 5x bigger I think (enough for a DYK article now, at least! :) ) I tightened up some of my committments, and I have specified to what I think is a pretty low level of detail what should happen in every part of the process for every alternative I could think of. I really don't think that changing things as you go, or even giving the perception of doing so, is a good idea. I invite comment (on the talk page of that page) along the lines of "I spotted this hole", although not on "you should do it this way instead" :) ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An alternative recall idea

Why don't we simply adapt existing processes, rather than try to reinvent the wheel? We should take the standard process for a user conduct RfC and adapt it to an administrator conduct RfC, with a higher certification threshold (say 6). Like an RfC, the outcome doesn't need to be sanctions imposed or adminship resigned - but it can be. See my post [4].

Essentially, it seems like Wikipedia:Request for administrator recall or Wikipedia:Requests for administrator review would formalise and standardize the review process for administrators using what people are already accustomed to as a format. Avruch^Talk 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What about arbcom or RFC? Can't either of those fill this need? 1 != 2 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of them are rather slow and unwieldy, especially arbcom. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'Slow and unwieldy' is a good when we're talking about desysopping. Requiring parties to gather evidence, present their statements in some sort of organized fashion, and cool their heels a bit before a decision is taken is much more helpful than a free-for-all finger-pointing-and-shouting match. 'Fast and easy' is a way to get sloppy results and mob justice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said Ten, "slow and unwieldy" is just another way for saying evidence needs to be presented and discussion needs to go forward in a structured way. The last thing we needs a a quick and easy desysoping method. 1 != 2 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Avruch, variations on that theme have been suggested a number of times before. My stock response regarding the problems with most such proposed schemes can be found here. You may also find the rest of that discussion interesting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

CAT:AOTR actually works, despite what you might read above from detractors who may not have done a thorough analysis. Other processes have been proposed. As of yet, no mandatory process has gained commmunity acceptance at this wiki. (mandatory processes have gained acceptance at other wikis, c.f. Commons which has one: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship) This voluntary process, CAT:AOTR has acceptance (~8-9%) from a large enough segment of the admin community that it's not an aberration. It also has non-acceptance (90+%) from a large enough segment that imposing it involuntarily will fail. I think you should try to see if you can come up with a proposal that works, by all means, but I see this general idea as a perennial proposal that has yet to succeed. Don't let that dissuade you, maybe you have the insight that everyone else lacked to find the set of changes, or entirely new ideas, that will get wide acceptance. I wish you the best in your quest. ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The value of comments in snow RfA's

For the second time in a few days I've been disapointed at what I've seen in snow RfA's. We need to offer candidates advice so they can improve in the future. When a candidate only has a couple of moral supports and 9 opposes, an comment like Oppose - not enough experience does not help the candidate in anyway whatsoever. They've been told this in the other 9 opposes and that comment just merely adds to the pile on. Offer some advice - what areas could improve on? Are there any areas you suggest they edit? Do they need to change anything about there editing? - if you can't be bothered to do this, then there really isn't much point in commenting as there's plenty of others that are able to offer constructive advice to candidates without just simply adding an extra number. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ryan here; Wikipedia does not have a good reputation particularly as it is, we need to be supporting newcomers and offering advice, not just simply telling them where to get off too. However, I have seen numerous threads like this over time spans of months, but nothing really changes, yet I suppose, neither do some users, so its just like a vicious circle... Qst 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I completely disgree with Ryan here. In fact I think that the whole wikpipedia administrator idea is flawed. On the one hand it's supposed to be "no big deal", yet on the other hand we have hordes of teenagers gasping for it, in spite of having no experience of actually trying to write an encyclopedia. That's what is turning people off. Well, it's turning me off anyway. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with what I'm saying - the idea I'm trying to get across is that two word opposes serve no purpose when an RfA is in a snow position. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're both right. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I should point out the RFA in question involved a user who's been here over a year. But I think the only way we can get people to stop is to warn them about biting and block if the pattern continues (and theres consensus to do so). ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's even more reason to give more credit to the candidate and give them a proper review. In the RfA I'm talking about, the user had plenty of contributions to go through, but some people commenting didn't seem bothered. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of posting about this issue here repeatedly, have you talked to the editors who do it? Maybe they're the ones less likely to check WT:RFA, I don't know. –Pomte 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I tried in the RfA as well.... This is a more general reminder to everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a very big reason to at least try to offer some words of advice or encouragement rather than "punching the new guys in the face" as it has been called. If we just cast them aside, they may leave Wikipedia altogether and we lose any valuable contributions they would have otherwise made. I think we should avoid "Strong Oppose" in the cases of new editors and instead try to let them down easy with pointers on how to improve. However, there's a fine line that has to be walked so RFA doesn't turn into Editor Review. Useight (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that misses the point. Why Strong Oppose as opposed to Oppose? Isn't that just an emotional appeal to inevitable "pile-oners"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is people are expressing concerns about piling on, and yet other people are expressing concerns about snowball-closing RfA's too early. I can't see these two principles working mutually. For the record, I also totally agree with Malleus Fatuarum on teenage administrator-wannabes, a few who have gone through RfA recently and been 'victims' of biting. Daniel 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the key Daniel. When the RfA starts to turn into a pile on, with users just adding numbers to the opposes and offering nothing to help the candidate, it's the time to close. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO this is just another example of why WP is becoming more and more an encyclopedia edited by a small circle of users. This is inevitable, as the rules always increase in number and size, the familiarity and experience of the existing users always increases, and their patience and ability to adapt to the newcomer's level decreases. New users need 10 times more effort to familiarize themselves with the don'ts, and old ones have 10 times less the ability to understand them. New ones end up blocked or chased away, and old ones keep expanding the rules. WP:BITE should become a core policy, and WP needs a serious cleanup in the bureaucratic processes. How about applying everywhere the old concept of WP:COMMONSENSE vs the new reality of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP? NikoSilver 00:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd have to admit that I have a lot of sympathy with Niko's view. Not all admins have the maturity to be able to distinguish between uncivility (sic) and honesty. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ryan: That often happens after only three or four opposers. A recent thread on this page (I'm not sure if it's still active or if it has been archived) had a bureaucrat consensus, if I recall correctly, that three or four opposers was not sufficient to snowball-close an RfA (in addition to having to ask the candidate, etc.). Daniel 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a feeling that this is preaching to the choir. The people who should hear this are people who are pile-on opposing, and who don't really read this page. --Kurykh 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I did this in the RfA - I guess I'll just have to start spamming talk pages over this, but we should consider making it clear to users that pile on that they should offer something constructive. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I still fail to see why you think you should be able to tell other people what their opinion should be. People either support or oppose a nomination and can give a reason or two if they choose. This isn't a therapy session or a sports day where everyone wins a prize. If you want to change the rules of the process then put a formal request in with a well worked out rationale, just taking it upon yourself to 'spam' people's talk pages to tell them what they can and cannot say isn't on. Nick mallory (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What I'm suggesting is that when a candidacy clearly isn't going to pass, what's the point in piling on even further unless you have something constructive to add? The candidate isn't going to get the tools, he's probably upset anyway - if it's an ultimate pile on then he might become disillusioned with the project and decide to leave - we don't want that to happen. At a point in an RfA where it is going to fail (such as with 8 opposes and no supports), if you are going to comment, then offer advice to the candidate - don't just state "no experience" - it isn't helpful, the candidates probably already been told that 8 times before. Discuss areas the candidate might wish to participate in. An oppose with no constructive critisism and only a couple of words serves no purpose in an RfA that is at a point where it is obviously going to fail. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just floating an idea

We all know that RfAs aren't supposed to be a vote, and yet we all know that they are.

So what about admitting that, and weighting votes appropriately? Instead of the nonsense that a strong oppose is worth 3.75 of a support? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the ratio was overly analytical. One support cancels one oppose. the_undertow ^talk 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we promoting people to adminship when only 50% + 1 people support that? -Amarkov moo! 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what the votes are for. If 51% support per the editor's skills and 49% oppose because the editor is a certain race, then ya, I'm cool with that. the_undertow ^talk 01:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was led to believe that it's not a vote. Have I been misinformed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but no, but yeah. generaly, RfA's are called failed below 50%, sucessfull over 80%, and no consensus somewhere in between. There is still the hand of the 'crat in there though, they are not hard numbers. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason people say that an oppose is worth 3.75 of a support is because of the percentages used in RfA: typically 70% and below is failed, 80% and above is passed, and 70-80% is discretionary (weighing of arguments). The system is part vote, part discussion, so people who say it's a vote are half wrong, and vice versa. --Kurykh 01:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you appear to be unable to recognise the logical errors in your response. Which simply confirms my own view that "kiddie-admins" are chasing away too many otherwise committed editors. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that directed at me? --Kurykh 01:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's directed at anyone and everyone who believes this half-baked nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you find this page nonsensical, don't look at it. No one is making you do so. Go edit some articles or something; after all, this is an encyclopedia, not a project for you to condescend to or be contemptuous towards. Rephrase: to be condescending or contemptuous towards others who don't agree with you. --Kurykh 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for demonstrating my point. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And mines concurrently. --Kurykh 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Malleus - check your ire at the door. This is a civil discussion, and there is no reason to get irritated or insulting to other people involved in the discussion. If you can't contribute constructively, then go do something else until you can. Avruch^Talk 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't confuse disagreement with ire. There are far too many other people around here who can't tell the difference already. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Its more a vote with discussion, where the vote is a clear x or y (+80, -50) then thats what happens when there is a grey result the opinions expressed are given weight, as the oppose votes have a greater weight already they are the ones that get scrutiny. Though in theory it could be closed against the numbers if a bureaucrat had cause to ignore the numbers. This process gets it right so effectively that alternative solutions struggle to get due consideration, it does fail occassionally these cases mostly fall through to processes like AN/I, RfC, recall, and ultimately ARBCOM. Gnangarra 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gnangarra - in my experience (as a longtime participant in RfA), it's usually treated effectively as a vote, with those under 70% almost always failing (except for Danny, but that was an unusual case) and those over 80% always passing. Obviously, in extreme cases an obvious bad-faith oppose will be disregarded by the closing bureaucrat, and if the result falls between 70-80% the bureaucrat has some discretion (although they should, IMO, avoid factoring in their own opinion of the candidate, and should be prepared to explain their decision). However, it's also a discussion, in that everyone who casts a vote with a rationale can expect to have their opinion challenged and discussed. This is healthy, because it allows other participants to make an informed decision on how to vote.

It's also true that in practice an oppose is worth 3 supports (since around 75% support is usually needed to pass), so people should think before opposing an RfA, and should always be prepared to give a rationale. Walton^One 13:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How about those 'crats start striking out moronic votes at sight during the RfA process? That would send the pile-oners (of either side) do their homework quite effectively. After all, nobody wants their two cents stricken... Ah, and we still need more bureaucrats... NikoSilver 14:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you define as a "moronic" vote? Occasionally there are votes which are self-evidently given in bad faith, but provided that someone is supporting/opposing in good faith then their opinion ought not to be stricken or ignored. If their reasoning is poor, then it won't influence other voters to pile on. Walton^One 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That question of Walton's concerned me too when I read the comment about "moronic votes". The only possible interpretation seemed to be "votes that I don't agree with". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my (unsuccessful) attempt to Laconizein. I meant votes with no justification whatsoever (and those close to that but I wouldn't know where to draw the line). This is obviously (and supposedly) done secretly anyway by b'crats after the end of the RfA, but still, striking them pronto so that everybody notices and so that people learn not to do it again might not be such a bad idea. Is it? NikoSilver 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA is neither pure discussion nor pure voting, since neither of these would make an acceptable process -- just as no economic system is purely free or purely planned. A while ago I attempted a longer answer to this question, along with a definition of the word 'consensus' as it is used in RFA: see [5] (and a follow-up: [6]). — Dan | talk 16:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the process is more of a mix of the two, than anything. However, Malleus Fatuarum seems to disagree. If you would, Malleus Fatuarum, I was wondering if you could explain why you feel such? SorryGuy  Talk  05:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because if it were indeed not a vote, then there ought to be examples at the extremes to demonstrate the point. For instance, has an RfA ever been closed as successful with only a 51% majority supporting, or closed as unsuccessful with 98% in support? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but the characterization of RfA as either a vote or a discussion has been refuted time and time again. Attempts to paint RfA as "if it isn't a vote then it is a vote" are becoming ludicrous to the extreme. —Kurykh 08:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, vote-discussion duality. We must derive a wave-equation for the voton particle. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen any refutation. An unwillingness to accept the bleedin' obvious, yes, but not a refutation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"The bleedin' obvious"? Black and white are not the only colors in this world. —Kurykh 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No they're not. In fact black and white aren't even strictly colours. A bit like votes that aren't strictly votes I suppose. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That I agree with. :) —Kurykh 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's always a point of agreement in any disagreement; the trick to keeping the disagreement constructive is to find it, and to build from it. Perhaps we've found our point of agreement. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe we just found a wording we both accept. But your basic premise remains true. —Kurykh 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, with the best will in the world, I don't think that we have. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions about Elonka's RfA

This section has deviated from a discussion of Elonka's RfA to a discussion about her character, which does not belong here. Please go find another, more appropriate forum or return to the original topic, please. —Kurykh 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I was wondering how a rather controversial editor such as User:Elonka (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3) managed to be chosen as an Administrator. Elonka only received 74% of the votes, and this percentage was decreasing daily as more and more contributors were voicing their concerns (during the last few days of the RfA there were about as many Oppose as Support). I thought Administrators were supposed to be chosen by consensus (and I wonder whether 74% can be considered consensus, especially given the seriousness of the Opposes), although I understand bureaucrats have some latitude in their decisions also. I also checked past history of Admisnistrator nominations at Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies, and it seems almost unheard of to be elected with only 74% of the votes. I also cannot find a case of an Administrator being elected with anything close to 61 Opposes. Could anyone give me some feedback on the legitimacy of this nomination? PHG (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, RFA was just a vote. It's unfortunate, given the quantity and nature of the objections. Friday (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that Rdsmith4 of all bureaucrats simply counts votes rather amusing - he is by far the least likely to do so in my personal experience. As to other precedents requested by PHG, he could review Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Number 57, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krimpet or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU for examples that spring to mind. Also, there are the more controversial RfAs that were closed following the exercise of bureaucrat discretion Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny (over 100 users opposing), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3 , Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3. The Elonka RfA is far less remarkable than those last three. Ultimately the RfA was in an area where the community clearly expects bureaucrats to evaluate the consensus of the discussion based on their best judgement. If someone wants to know more about Rdsmith4's reasoning on this particular close, I suggest they ask him. WjBscribe 18:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a person can be effective and efficient at WP without stepping on a few toes. To get to 74+% with the number of participants shows a great deal of support. Perhaps it would be better to stop complaining and help Elonka to grow as an admin. Cheers and congratulations to her. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a massive 1% difference. Bcrats can promote from 70-80% generally, and given the fact there was plenty canvassing going on and some opposes were fairly unreasoned, the promote was good and I wish Elonka well too. Redrocketboy 18:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it was a good promotion. I had finally made up my mind to support, but found the RfA already closed, so count at least one more !vote for support, if it makes anyone feel better. - Crockspot (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the opposes were not unreasoned. There is a huge difference between unreasonable opposition, and opposition you simply do not like. -Amarkov moo! 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Still not comfortable with her having the tools, sorry." Any reason? "Same as before." What? Those are just two poorly reasoned opposes. You could do the same with the supports, as an argument, but it wouldn't really work. The candidate is innocent until proven guilty - hence support is automatic unless there's good reason not to. Redrocketboy 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are those poorly reasoned? They essentially say "my opinion has not changed since the last RfA", which is not at all unreasonable. -Amarkov moo! 19:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that. The RFA is not mentioned anywhere. Also, I'm uncertain how the last RFA is at all relevant. When someone fails an RFA, they aren't set targets to improve. Anyhow, 74% is a perfectly valid pass. If anyone has any problem with an action by Elonka, they can always talk to her about it. Redrocketboy 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

74% is not an inherently unreasonable bar for passing an RfA, true. The problem is that most of the time, promotions are refused until at least 75%, and bureaucrat candidates are opposed for saying they intend to promote below 80%. It has to be an even standard. -Amarkov moo! 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

They get opposed for mentioning numbers at all, it seems :) Redrocketboy 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to voice my opinion that the closing admin was shown to be biased in during the RfA. Mindraker (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This was a controversial case, but 74% is high enough to constitute a valid pass. I personally would probably not have promoted (simply because of the number and strength of the opposes), but IMO this was within the reasonable range of bureaucrat discretion, and I don't think it need be overturned. We should at least give Elonka a chance to serve as an administrator before we start arguing about whether she should have been promoted; only time will tell whether it was the right decision. (For the record, I supported her second RfA but didn't vote on the third one.) Walton^One 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of the irrationality we had to deal with during the RfA. 74% means nothing, when your own crats believe that everyone is a sockpuppet. Mindraker (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything wrong with that. He tried to reformat everything, but messed the sections, and went back to the previous version. Apparently he wanted to remove two opposing opinions, although it is a bit messy to find them out. Unless someone deleted Wikipedia:Assume good faith and I didn't realize yet about that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe (the crat present during the RfA) had been shown to only harass and heckle opposing voters here. Mindraker (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot dismiss the fact that he had valid points. He could have very well tagged them with {{spa}}, would you think that is harassing as well? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

He didn't question User:KDerrida's support, and KDerrida has -50 contributions ... -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That is true. Personally I would have. Guess this means we have irrefutable proof that he was biased, right? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And some explanation: I am one of those who think support votes follow the "assume good faith" motto and (therefore) need no justification, but opposition must be referenced because, otherwise, they are not following our AGF policy. Therefore, I can understand WJBscribe being double checking opposes but not so much support. This is a personal comment though (which will surely prevent me from being elected bureaucrat forever). Only he can answer why he didn't question KDerrida's support as well. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user did not have suffrage, there were users who were tagged as "This user does not have suffrage," and indented. If the user was known to be a sockpuppet, then an appropriate tag, as well as an indentation would have been appropriate. However, repeated interrogations and scrutiny is conduct unbecoming of an elected bureaucrat. Mindraker (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As he was a co-nom of Elonka's second RFA...I am not sure why people expected WJBscribe to be a neutral and impartial in the third? Perhaps I am too cynical.... •CHILLDOUBT• 15:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Lets do a count if you remove these 2 opposes here and the support of User:KDerrida the numbers change to 75.3% with them in its 74.8%, as Amarkov discussed earlier ...promotions are refused until at least 75%... this one right on the line how ever the numbers are adjusted but then RfA is a discussion, thats why we give trust to bureaucrats to use commonsense and weigh the opinions raised. Gnangarra 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less about tenths of a percentage points. I -do- care about the fact that it -is- clear that if you called this discussion a 'consensus', Wikipedia certainly isn't working very well with Wiktionary.  :) Mindraker (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So, if some other 'crat had promoted her to adminship, it would still be wrong? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Had another "'crat" exhibited the same questionable behaviors as WJBscribe did during the RfA process for Elonka, it would still be wrong, yes. Mindraker (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, WJBscribe did not even act as a bureaucrat here. If you think his actions were "harrassment", perhaps you should look up the definition of that word. Rdsmith4, the bureaucrat who closed it was as neutral as you could get. The close was within bureaucratic discretion range; please at least give Elonka a chance to do something wrong before you complain about her. Thanks Redrocketboy 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ok, you obviously haven't been following the Franco-Mongol alliance page, as one of many examples. Mindraker (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add here her use of Wikipedia for personal aggrandizement and false claims of nobility, as well. Mindraker (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're getting WT:RFA confused with WP:RFC, in regards to Elonka herself... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

*Chuckle*, you are amusing. Since this election was clearly questionable, was questioned, and is being questioned still, and her RfA clearly states that "Elonka has stated in the past that she likes the idea of the admin recall system, and plans to place herself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall.", and Elonka is on the list for recall -- why hasn't Elonka stepped down? Mindraker (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

...because this isn't her talk page? The idea behind recall is also in the event of abuse of admin powers; she's been an admin for what, 48 hours now? All I see is you stating that you don't like her, not citing actual evidence of abuse of her administrator position. If you have a problem with her, take it up with her, and if that goes nowhere, then seek an audience elsewhere (though, to be fair, I'm not sure off the top of my head where... an RfC seems like a good place to start, though). EVula // talk // ☯ //

If you don't want to talk about this, nobody is obligating you to talk about this. Mindraker (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize. I'm pointing out that you need to talk to her about problems with her; the first step in dispute resolution is not to go running to a group of unrelated people. I checked her talk page, and I didn't see any notice whatsoever about this thread; how do you expect her to know you wish her to step down as an admin if you don't tell her?
(as an aside, the number of colons is starting to make me dizzy...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of the flaws and corruptions in the electoral process, I do not recognize her as ever having been properly elected as such. Mindraker (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) As for recalling her, as others have said, it is supposed to be based on her actions as administrator. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

She was never properly elected as an administrator, she did not meet consensus, and the election was corrupted. Mindraker (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka passed RfA as validly as everyone else: through the decision of a bureaucrat, one of the people we, the community, have placed our trust in to make these decisions. (74% is not even particularly low.) It's not an "election." --krimpet✽ 19:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes she did, that RFA was in line with policy...please base your comments on her administrative actions. The community recognizes her as an admin, if you have a problem try WP:RFC or start an Arbcom action. But I think you'll find that a hard road at this point in time. RxS (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I understand your argument, Mindtraker, but you must see that few agree with you and that your argument is not really going anywhere, don't you? The facts are these: when a request is in the 70-80 range, consensus is possible. While I personally do not feel it was reached in this case, I believe that if the Bcrat believes it was that should be enough. Look at the RfAs linked to above, precedent obviously shows that more contentious RfAs have been closed with the tools being given before. If Elonka will make as bad of an admin as you suspect, then simply wait until the grievous mistakes that you see coming occur. Until then, I would suggest you drop it. SorryGuy  Talk  19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The closing rationale

I note that Rdsmith4 has now given a fairly full explanation of his close following PHG's request: [7], [8]. I think it worth quoting that reply here in the hope of replacing some of the heat above with a little light. WjBscribe 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

“ I didn't "choose [Elonka] as an Administrator" -- I merely closed her RFA. She was nominated and supported by dozens of other editors. The percentage you mention is firmly within the oft-discussed discretionary range (70%-80%) wherein bureaucrats may decide as they see fit. As for the percentage decreasing daily, I cannot guess what might have happened had her RFA lasted two weeks instead of one. No earth-shattering new information was introduced in the last day before its closing; a week is the traditional period in which anybody who wishes to comment may do so; I saw no reason to extend discussion. All I could do, therefore, was interpret the comments already present.

When you "thought Administrators were supposed to be chosen by consensus", you thought aright. My job is to decide what makes a consensus and what does not. This one was a very close call -- right in the middle of the discretionary range. I read the whole thing, as well as most of her second RFA. The objections did not seem to be of terrible concern (e.g. "No indication that the problems that impeded her multiple past attempts to gain adminship have been addressed", where in fact she gave extensive indication to that effect in the answers to her questions; "Still not comfortable with her having the tools" with no reason given; "far to many questionable edits" with no examples, even when asked for examples, etc.) and were mediated by plenty of compliments and reluctance ("Elonka is a great editor, and I do wish her the best"; "Elonka is a smart editor" "[I am] reluctant to oppose this RfA", etc.).

All of this tipped the balance in my mind toward promotion. Regards — Dan | talk 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

”

Very well, if the appointment of Administrators is by consensus or agreement, that definitely was not present then, nor is it present now. Please show me where your notion of "agreement" is? Elonka is one of the most controversial and conflict-causing editors on Wikipedia, currently. That, if anything, runs against the very grain of "agreement" and "consensus". We also scrutinize the 'crats who seek to throw the election ((Personal attack removed)). Mindraker (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mindraker, your contributions here really aren't helpful. You're just throwing accusations around blindly because you're angry. You've had a very good explanation of the close - which was carried out by an impartial bureaucrat. This page does not exist to allow those unhappy witht he result of an RfA to vent. If you are going to make serious accusations of misconduct as you just did. I suggest you take the advice above and find support for an RfC or take this to ArbCom. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask you to retract that accusation. WjBscribe 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I shall quote myself from Elonka's RfA, "When a statement is true, it is not libel or slander, no matter how bad the statement is." There is no need for me to retract anything. Mindraker (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

{{RFAq}}

Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay, but I think it takes the same time just writing it out than using this template, if you're main goal is to make life easier doing this. --Hirohisat ^年末 11:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• looks nice and does keep the responses organised though I'd expect a potential admin to able to use basic formatting when answering the questions Gnangarra 13:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice work, AD. But I thought you were going to write articles? ;) Redrocketboy 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I already wrote 2 today William Ohnesorge and Voisin-Farman I. :P -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend ditching {{{2}}} and just subst:ing the template; if you were to transclude the template ({{RFAq|What is your favorite color?|answer}}), it wouldn't clean up the code very much, and it would break if someone provided a diff for their answer (though it could be gotten around with {{RFAq|What is your favorite color?|2=answer}}). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like someone has already fixed some of those issues. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall deleted, now on DRV

Just posting a notification here of the DRV, as this is directly relevant to admins. Lawrence Cohen 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV closed as overturn AfD (not by me). —Kurykh 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a new type of admin?

Cobi [[9]] appears to be doing amazing work with his bot- yet doesn't have a lot of interaction with users, and mainspace wikipedia editing.

I have often wondered if we need a whole new type of wiki-assistant, who were not full fledged admins but had a few of the abilities of admins for more cleaning up/tidying housecleaning work (which Cobi is already doing in abundance) and less user-interaction/settling disputes work.

Cobi is doing oodles of good. Instead of making him an admin- with a whole range of powers, responsibilities, why not simply create a new type of wiki-assistant so we can support and empower Cobi, and more importantly then one user, others like him, in doing the very needed and extremely helpful work they are already doing?

For example a type of "assistant" as opposed to admin, who could handle non-controversial page deletes, moves, block obvious vandals, etc.?

Thoughts? Sethie (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and has been rejected, not because of its lack of feasibility, but because of technical reasons. —Kurykh 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The individual tools could be (technically) given out individually so you could have users who could only delete or only protect, etc., but there is no technical way to restrict people to only "non-controversial" admin tasks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• As Z-man says, there is no way to have the software restrict people to doing non-controversial tasks. And even if people promoted in this way would not abuse it and do controversial things anyway, we'd have constant debate about "LOOK HE'S BEING CONTROVERSIAL BANNN HIM!" -Amarkov moo! 06:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could set up some sort of "assistant", with some admin powers, but the only way I can think of to do this would be to give the assistant power to fully protect a page until an admin could block the user. But then again, they'd have to revert the vandalism, protect the page, and report the user to AIV and follow the user's contribs reverting and protecting any page they vandalized while waiting for a block to go through. Then we'd have to go around unprotecting the pages. Seems like more work than it already is. Hmm, maybe the assistants could be given power to block users for specific reasons that are more concrete, such as 3RR, or to delete images. I'm just bouncing ideas here and I'll keep thinking about it. Useight (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that any "sub-admin" position would need some sort of approval process, which would be almost identical to RfA... we'd effectively be making a whole 'nother layer of business just for a nominal benefit. I'm not convinced that this is a great idea; if someone is good enough to be an "admin assistant", they're probably good enough to be an admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The cool thing about our system is that admins can do whatever work they want one day, and then something different another. I'd hate to see a jr. admin that serves only one purpose. Besides that, those who concentrate on just one thing, like a permanent jurist, may have a little too much influence after a matter of time. It's not a terrible idea, and I see from where it derives, but it seems a bit more complex to install than it may be worth. I just don't see it as a necessity at this time. the_undertow ^talk 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Werdna, with four? unsuccessful RFAs, seems to be working behind the scenes as a developer. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is sort of related, at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Bot there is an idea being floated to have a bot update T:DYK, and to perhaps allow a few "trusted non-admins" to be able to push the button to update the Next Update material to the protected T:DYK template. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

RfBs

I have requested a bot to update RFBs along with RFAs, since the Tangobot doesn't seem to, on this page. Thanks. Redrocketboy 07:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is handy, and thank you, although the question of wether we're likely to see another RfB in the near future does arise ...... :) Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) If I'd look at the RfA page first I'd not look stupid now, would I...... :) Pedro :  Chat  08:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! :D Redrocketboy 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you transclude Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report instead of one of the tangobot pages, you will get the extra notification that an RfB is in progress. NoSeptember 16:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with would be preferred, as with Pedro I hadn't even realized there was an active RfB before reading the talk page. SorryGuy  Talk  02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Joke supports/opposes

In Cobi's RfA, there are instances of Supports but written as Opposes as jokes. At least a couple have already been removed. Please make your vote clear which way you to say either support/oppose, to avoid confusion for bcrats. Thanks. Redrocketboy 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

!votes are placed in the areas where they are supposed to be, meaning the whole "Support" or "Oppose" prefix is unnecessary, so it doesn't matter what it says. Besides, no crat would ever consider "too many vandal reverts" to be an actual opposition argument that was placed in the wrong place. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, I tend to agree with Redrocketboy (talk · contribs). It's best to avoid confusion in RfAs. Even if it is meant as an obvious joke, it confused me for a second, and we wouldn't want that to be a sticking point later on, for whatever silly reason someone could bring up. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Well, I certainly don't think entire RfAs should run with nothing but joke !votes ("Support Uses Fair Use images in the User namespace. ~~~~"), but I was mentioning more the exact concern that it would confuse the bureaucrats, which it wouldn't (I consider such concerns more valid on language-independent projects, like Commons or Meta, where the preceding bold phrase is much more important and a joke really is likely to be confusing).
That said, I try to make my joke !votes as outrageous as possible to eliminate confusion; I think I've "opposed" because an editor had under 50,000 edits before. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Oppose. [Candidate] sucks." in the support section? :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You oppose me because I wore my Thursday underwear on Saturday :) Spebi 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I supported you for that. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stamping out this bit of whimsy before it catches on. Sure, it looks like folks having a bit of fun, but I suspect that this is only the first step in a reversal of values, which will surely lead to untold chaos and, no doubt, the death of God. Also, the bureaucrats are a fairly dense bunch of editors, and would really have struggled to identify these insincere comments. Your kindness in sparing us this grievous mental anguish is much appreciated. — Dan | talk 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All sarcasm aside, why not just save the cajoling and jokes for after an RfA has been completed? Cirt (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Because not everything around here has to be boring as bran flakes. *cut to overdramatic first BJAODN, now this? Where will it all stop? AAAAAH, screaming, running around with head on fire, general carnage* *cough* Because it's harmless. Just don't make joke supports in the oppose column, that's nasty. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we ask some RfA candidates after their RfA has been completed, which they would rather have had in their RfA: A "joke" support, or a well-thought out support with a short comment as to why that editor thinks they should be an Admin? Cirt (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

I personally liked any joke opposes on my RfA, made a long and stomach-twisty week go a bit easier. That said, I am a sick puppy. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If the individual RfA candidates don't mind, then I have no real problems with it. I just thought that they'd appreciate more a well-thought out rationale of support, as opposed to a quip which may or may not really say much substantially about the candidate and their qualifications. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

There's only so much qualification an editor can point out before other supports seem repetitive. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I suppose it would be less of an issue in a "pile on" support situation. Cirt (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

There is nothing wrong with bran flakes. They are, for example, more exciting than mere corn flakes. (Even if corn flakes do get their own whole article and bran flakes merely a sectional redirect. Oy! Who speedied the bran flakes article?!). Splash - tk 11:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

People need to be sensible enough to 1) recognize humour and 2) not remove other user's comments without asking unless they are clearly vandalism or disruption. RfA can be very stressful. Breaking the tension has its benefits. Sometimes you just run out of news ways of saying, "this user can be trusted with the tools for these obvious reasons." I'd like to think that most of us are bright enough to take a joke. <<Dlohcierekim at work.>> Cheers, :) MikeReichold 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

<<sticking the rest of my interupted at work comment in after edit conflict>>The problem is sometmes we are so intent and abosrbed in all of this that we either misread something or write something that does not come out right. Or a real life interuption occurs (like just now) that affects are comments in some way. <<dlohcierekim at work>> Cheers, :) MikeReichold 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

Oh dear. [10] Pedro :  Chat  00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget we're working in plain text here. How many times has someone told a joke on the internet and no-one got it? Tell jokes if you really must, but don't say no-one warned you when a bureaucrat discounts your opinion because they didn't get the joke, or thought that you intended to oppose but put it in the wrong section. --bainer (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some missed the point of my comment. I think humour is essential for RFAs. However, some of the supports read just like opposes. Such as "Oppose, too many mainspace edits". I for one couldn't work that out if I was unfamiliar with the user writing it. On one hand, it could be making a joke out of some editors' standards for a high level of mainspace activity. On the other hand, it could be serious, saying the user ought to spend more time doing admin related work. I don't want to stop the humour - it's when people become confused by it and have to ask lots of questions it becomes a problem. Thanks. Redrocketboy 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I love humor in RfAs, and I think it's definitely needed more often in controversial RfAs, which are often large, mud-slinging events where no one says anything funny. However, to get back on topic, I actually find "joke opposes/supports" annoying and sometimes even confusing, especially when you think someone pretended to oppose when in fact they had actually placed their oppose in the support section by mistake (and even worse when they change to "strong oppose" when correcting their oppose: that's not funny). I say keep the humor, but stop the (placed in the support section) "Oppose - user doesn't have 100,000 MediaWiki edits" support/oppose jokes. Acalamari 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• RRB says joke supports have been removed recently - uh, has anyone checked on this to make sure that valid supports aren't being removed because people don't get the joke? Avruch^Talk 17:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral until answers question

Firstly, what is the point of this? Why strike neutral until the answer, instead of just waiting until the answer is given? And I thought the extra questions were supposed to be optional? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah, I did that with Husond's RfB, but I don't see the point now. I don't usually ask questions, any way. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's pointless really. What I really don't like is "Neutral until questions are answered - if they remain unanswered, I'll oppose". Ridiculous. Redrocketboy 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what got me to thread this post, RRB. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Though I fully plan on answering the questions, I did find the statement to be rather... well, odd. As for the temporary Neutrals, they've never made much sense to me, but whatever floats your boat... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec'd by fucking4) Whilst agreeing "neutral pending question X" is pointless (one assumes RfA candidates will not need the extra prompt to answer a question) additional questions are probably the least "optional". One assumes that anyone asking a question is looking for a response to judge wether to support or oppose a candidate, and therefore the candidate's reply at least should ensure a comment (read vote), good or bad. Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From my viewings of RfA, I believe the first three questions, plus additional questions, are "optional" in name only. After all, if they were truly optional, anyone who didn't answer them wouldn't have to worry about neutrals or opposes. Plus, I think a lot of people may not realize that the questions are optional, and oppose or go neutral because of this. Acalamari 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If someone doesn't answer my two questions I'll oppose, pretty much (given I ask them on the first day, they should have plenty of time). The additional questions are "optional" only that you can choose not to answer them, but the fact that you will do will lead to opposes. Daniel 22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea of an "optional question" in an RFA, as it is popularly understood at least, is a senseless paradox. The person asking the question obviously thinks that it is relevant to the candidate's qualifications or trustworthiness, and will naturally be less inclined to support the candidate if it goes unanswered. A truly optional question would have to come with a promise from the user asking it that his opinion of the candidate will not change if the candidate does not answer his question -- but the only questions for which this promise would make any sense are questions that have nothing to do with adminship. This is all complicated by the fact that many users other than the user who poses a question may form opinions on the basis of the candidate's answer or lack of answer to the question. "Optional" questions are only optional according to the process -- you are not permitted to begin an RFA if you have not answered the classic "required" questions, while the "optional" questions come afterward. I suggest changing the designator from "optional" to "additional" so as to avoid this subtle but persistent confusion. — Dan | talk 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more realistic if we re-tagged the default questions as "initial questions", since I think everyone agrees that "optional" is hilariously inaccurate. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I call my two questions "additional", and I support what Rdsmith4 says above. Daniel 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side point, there is no contradiction between the fact that a question may be formally "optional" and the fact that a candidate who declines to answer it may be opposed on the basis of failing to answer a question. In real life, for instance, it is "optional" for a political candidate to distribute election leaflets or to communicate in any way with the voters, as no law forces him to do so; however, a political candidate who did not do this would receive fewer votes as a result of it. (Not necessarily suggesting that admins are political candidates - I'm only using the analogy to demonstrate the proper meaning of the term "optional". The analogy could apply equally to businesses and advertising, for instance.) So editors are entitled to oppose a candidate on the basis of failure to answer the questions; that doesn't stop the questions being optional, and no candidate is actually required to answer them. In particular, a candidate might choose not to answer an additional question which was seen as being unduly personal, inappropriate or irrelevant. This is all up to the discretion of the candidate, but they should be aware that it may affect editors' votes in their RfA/B. Walton^One 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The optional questions I lifted off a long string of previous users (User:Dlohcierekim/questions) came with the disclaimer, "They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like." They were, I guess, more optional than some of the more current sets. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I do this sometimes is simply to make sure I don't forget I have to participate in the discussion. It's like a mnemonic. User:Krator (t c) 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting before Transclusion

I don't usually complain about things I see on an RFA, but this was ridiculous. Seven people voted support before the page was transcluded, and five came before the candidate had accepted the nomination or answered the questions. If someone had opposed before the questions were answered or nom accepted, he'd get scalded for it. Something needs to be done about situations like this. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate used to say not to vote before transclusion, but the wording was softened a few hours before the RFA in question was created. As a side note, I would've brought this up earlier, but didn't feel it would be fair to Mattinbgn. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does it matter that people start before? Redrocketboy 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some feel that users are reluctant/hesitant to oppose if they see a lot of support. Some feel it skews the RfA in that subsequent participants don't look closely enough at the nom to make an informed decision. Dlohcierekim 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't say it happened in the RFA I pointed out, but a nominee could use it to gain too much support for the opposition to have a chance. And like I said, 5 people voted before the nominee answered even answered a question, what would happen if someone opposed before that? Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with !voting before the page is transcluded on to the main RfA page; if anything, its a good thing — as if people comment before transclusion, it will prevent the user from receiving more criticism, thus potentially preventing new users from becoming upset and/or leaving over an RfA. Qst 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of flaws with RfA at the moment, but I do not think this is one of them. Voting before or after transclusion or whether or not the candidate has accepted will make little or no difference to the final outcome. Lradrama 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think voting before transclusion is ok, but maybe instead of voting before it's been accepted should be replaced with friendly notes convincing the user to accept the RfA, or something. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As Sasha wrote: "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate used to say not to vote before transclusion, but the wording was softened a few hours before the RFA in question was created." But few lines earlier in another section, the same page still says: Please double check your RfA to make sure there are no votes on the page before it is "transcluded" (added to the main RfA page). I took this literally and asked a supporter in my RfA to revert the vote for now (he/she did and later supported again). Shouldn't the text say what, if anything, to do if there are votes? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, voting before the RFA is transcluded is a terrible idea. See this RFA which, how quickly we forget, was delivered to the community with 60 support votes pre-loaded and failed as a result. If you keep the RFA un-transcluded you can control who sees it, more or less, and set it up so just likely supporters see it. No one wants to be the first to make a serious oppose to a popular RFA... so engineered RFAs are a real danger. RFA is about getting community feedback... not figuring out clever ways to make sure just your friends know there's a ballot box to stuff. --W.marsh 01:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding CSCWEM... He withdrew it after 3 (3) opposes, and succeeded subsequently. I wouldn't say it 'failed' and certainly the community viewed him as an acceptable administrator. Isn't that the point? Avruch^Talk 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not one for policy and such (big shocker, I know), but why set time limits if pre-voting can occur? Formal debates and discussions have definitive time frames - beginning and end. I see NO harm in adhering to these limits, but I do see users feeling ostracized from ignoring these limits. It's not policy, but I really think it should be, and until then, I think people should use their discretion by not voting until it's officially announced - which would seem to fall in line with the spirit of the format. the_undertow ^talk 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to echo W.marsh and The_undertow. They sum up how I feel, exactly. --Deskana (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that if it's been confirmed that the nominated has confirmed their nomination beforehand, the nominator(s) and maybe one or two users can place a vote before transclusion. Other than that, voting should really stay after transclusion. bibliomaniac15 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the nominator(s) voting, since their support is a given. I also don't mind seeing people vote if they know wouldn't be able to after transclusion (going on vacation, family situation, etc.), but the given reason here was "Please note that the first 7 supports were added before Matt had transcluded the RfA on the main page. Mainly because the Aussies are all very eager to see him pass." Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should viewed as a policy only when it has actually become one. I'd suggest someone propose it, if they feel it should be policy, and let the community decide. Of course, people can oppose for reasons that aren't based on policy. I don't think opposes based on pre-transclusion votes are very well reasoned - imho, a candidacy should be evaluated on the merits of the candidate, not the timing of the votes. Avruch^Talk 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; ultimately, the candidate isn't necessarily responsible for the actions of others (though they could remove the !votes when they transclude the RfA, all that will happen is those editors will individual restore their !votes, meaning that the net effect is almost nothing). A notation marking the end of the pre-transclusion edits would be good, though; it would inform all RfA readers of the full situation without additional legwork (let's be honest, how many people !voting in an RfA check the main RfA page for when exactly it was transcluded?). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really so much to ask that people not stuff their friend's RFAs before the rest of us can realistically be expected to see the RFA? This kind of stuff is what makes RFA seem cliquish. --W.marsh 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot echo that more. What is it that makes it so difficult to wait until it's officially started, since RfA is official? the_undertow ^talk 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its like running up the score before the opening kickoff of a football game Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What about pre-transclusion opposes? What honest candidate wouldn't feel awkward asking someone to remove an oppose before transclusion? Who is responsible for taking action? Maybe all pre-transclusion comments should be marked as such, if they can't be reverted for whatever reason. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people comment them all out, and ask people to re-add the "#" to confirm they've read post-transclusion comments, and that seems to work. I've never encountered a pre-transclusion oppose though. A lot of this would be avoided if people just found about RFAs from WP:RFA, not from backchannel communications. --W.marsh 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got more than one redlinked RfA (and RfB) on my watchlist... I just have the good sense not to say anything until it's officially up and running. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• No problem at all. Any "opposes" from users because of comments before transclusion when it is clearly not the candidate's fault at all are absolutely ridiculous. If a couple of people are excited about supporting early, let them be, there's nothing wrong with limited humour in RfA – it appears that lately there's been a lot of discussion about ruling out the remaining humour in the process. Unless there is no intention to transclude the nomination onto the main page, I see nothing wrong with "premature", "pre-transclusion" supporting. Spebi 03:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder why everybody so quickly throws agf out the window and assumes that people have hidden intentions, its these types of assumptions that cause divisions right from the on set of reform discussions that utlimately hinder them. All this discussion has done is open the can of beans now we need to look for such intentions in the rfa process. Gnangarra 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess early votes are nearly always due to not knowing the rules, or not noticing that the nomination hasn't been accepted and transcluded. How about adding a clear message to the vote section of the initial page: "Do not vote or comment before the candidate has accepted and this page is transcluded at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship." The candidate could be instructed to remove the message, and others seeing it later could do it otherwise. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the bullshit, unnecessary stress this caused me during my RfA, it either needs to be put in writing that it's not allowed and you'll get opposed for it, or there needs to be something on the page it self to alert people that it's not been transcluded. Use the closed AFD code. Red background and border. No voting until transclusion, wherein the code is removed. Pedro and I worked this out during my RfA. It's in the archives. Check week one of November. Lara❤Love 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in the archives, but I do remember seeing it here. Thats why I waited 'til after the RFA ended to bring this up. Getting back to CSCWEM's RFA, this comment is the best I've ever seen on any RFA. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 06:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)