Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Isaacl (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 6 July 2014 (→‎Per Votes: edit for clarity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Significa liberdade 88 1 1 99 22:18, 21 September 2024 5 days, 11 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Asilvering RfA Successful 6 Sep 2024 245 1 0 >99
HouseBlaster RfA Successful 23 Jun 2024 153 27 8 85
Pickersgill-Cunliffe RfA Successful 15 Jun 2024 201 0 0 100
Elli RfA Successful 7 Jun 2024 207 6 3 97

Current time: 10:50:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Striking votes

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have an ongoing concern about the indenting/striking of oppose !votes at RfA. In my opinion, it is not acceptable to do this purely on suspicion of sockpuppetry. (If sockpuppetry is confirmed by checkuser, of course the !vote should be struck.) In the case of blatant trolling, it is also reasonable to strike a !vote. However I do not believe that "Oppose per anothereditor" constitutes blatant trolling.

I am happy for any bureaucrat to indent/strike a !vote. They are entrusted by the community to judge the consensus, and they will ignore inappropriate !votes in the final tally. However I am not happy to see editors, even administrators, striking !votes based on their own interpretations of what constitutes "trolling". I have raised my concern at Floquenbeam's talk page. It is unfortunate that there is no guidance about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it is worth, I had a CU on IRC right after the vote was cast, and 5 minutes later it had confirmed as a sock. I started the SPI and the CU posted the linkage before it was struck. Whether or not the person who struck the comment knew this or not, I have no idea, but they were caught as a sock before the striking. If Floq struck the vote, it is likely they already saw the CU. As far as I know, you don't strike unless it is known to be a sock (the case here), or the vote itself is trolling or disruptive enough to earn a block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think only Floquenbeam can shed light on how much information they had when they indented the comment but I tend to agree that the comment was rightly indented but only on the grounds of sock puppetry. Perhaps more details on the rationale of why would also be a helpful addition. "Oppose per another editor" by itself certainly wouldn't constitute trolling for me, but when factoring in their contributions, I think trolling was a very realistic conclusion. The editor has 19 edits of which 14 were to their user page. The final edit seems to make very little sense and possibly constitutes as vandalism. Another comment at a talk page asking if a mobile service provider "sucks" puts into question how they were able to find and properly !vote on an RFA. Somewhat suspect. I'm not saying I fully support the move but I certainly understand the rationale and recognize there is a legitimate argument behind the action. Mkdwtalk 19:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware of the CU results when I indented and struck the vote (I didn't even see that had happened until the next day, when Axl left a note on my talk page). I had, instead, done what Mkdw just did, and looked at the user's contributions. After that, I struck a vote by an obvious returning troll. I had just kind of assumed that common sense would apply to an RFA page; since I've been around long enough to know better than that, I apologize for my inexplicable optimism. By all means, someone please restore the vote so a crat can turn around, fill out Form G54a-1, and strike it correctly themselves. I further suggest a 30 day RFC on how we can change the wording of some policy somewhere to prevent this from ever happening again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcastic retort is unwelcome. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda liked it myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me, regardless of who should strike out or what our precedent is (admittedly I've been out of the loop), that the situation is a textbook IAR case. What's done is done; let's just AGF and move on. bibliomaniac15 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, nobody should be striking or removing "per so-and-so" votes from a good faith user, but clearly in this case Floq's instincts were correct. I agree with Bibliomaniac that there's really not much value in using this case to change or reinforce any sort of precedent. 28bytes (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a bureaucrat is clever enough to recognize that a vote is inappropriate, they are clever enough to recognize that a vote was struck inappropriately. Much more compelling is the fact that many experienced editors watch RfAs and would disagree with a strike if they thought it warranted. @Axl: Please do not waste the time and energy of good editors by raising pointless objections—it's pointless because there is no trend towards inappropriate striking, and the vote has no effect on the outcome, and the strike was confirmed to be correct soon afterwards. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should be a administrator!!!

Its too harsh on people. I want to run but I cant. Boom parachute (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure the project's aims would be better served by assigning the rights of the sysop group to the autoconfirmed user group. I could see quite a few problems with everybody being able to block and delete, or worse, protect. Snowolf How can I help? 16:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is a recipe for chaos. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are plenty of autoconfirmed vandals too. Imagine vandals being able to just block good contributors and get away with editing fully protected page. I am sorry to say, but that is not going to happen. Dustin (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to my above comment... We try to soften the image a bit, but in the end Admins are Wikipedia's beat cops. We have to be careful who gets a badge and billy stick on here, just like we do in the real world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Boom parachute: Listen to what the others have said. There is a reason that the administrator group is selective. Still, if you manage to stay on Wikipedia for a good while, maintain good editing practices, and have civil discussions, you may eventually become a candidate for it. You can gain lesser rights more easily than administrator rights, such as reviewer and rollback rights. Dustin (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that adminship should be a LOT less restrictive; and should be granted more easily to anyone who has edited Wikipedia for long enough in good standing, and has demonstrated an understanding of when and how to use the tools properly. However, that's a long way from "everyone". It should be "everyone who isn't going to abuse them, as demonstrated by being a decent person for a good while"... --Jayron32 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said you "can't" be an admin? Yes WP:NOTNOW currently applies but get a few years of good, hard work under your belt and give it a go...! GiantSnowman 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with @Jayron32: but equally it should be easier to take away. If we had a proper community-led recall process and we weren't selecting people for admin-for-life status, I think many would relax their super-critical demands on candidates. But no, not everybody - I can easily think of plenty who should not be admins (amongst both the current admin and non-admin ranks). Is there any chance we'd ever get the community to agree to a community-led recall process? I doubt it - there are too many existing admins who would oppose it in order to presersupport this userve their own unquestionable privileges, and judging by previous attempts there are too few non-admins who care enough to do anything about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    [citation needed] on the last bit. It is unwise, and borderline rude, to tell people what their own internal thoughts and feelings are. --Jayron32 17:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, fair point. I do think there is adequate evidence out there in the wider world that autocracy tends to be self-serving, but I do not mean to impute such motives to all admins who might oppose a community-led recall process. Having said that, I do remain convinced that some are indeed self-serving in their motives - but I will not offer evidence, because I don't want to personalize it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is enough that anyone can just ask to be an admin and that consensus decides if it should granted. Some tools have more potential for disruption than others, a demonstration of an understanding of how they should be used is essential. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that this whole "admin for life" thing is a myth. Several admins have lost their priviledges. The community can and has resorted to arbcom to remove admins that ceased to meet the expectations of the community. When an admin acts out the community makes it clear to them and if they continue they lose the mop.

I cannot think of a single occasion where the community has come to a policy based consensus that someone should not be an admin and they remain an admin. After all, it is not a big deal. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "it is not a big deal": If you actually believe that, then I think you're being hopelessly naive - judging by the RfAs and the discussions about administration I've seen over the time I've been active, I'd say it's vying for the title of the biggest deal Wikipedia has even seen. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship itself is no big deal. Your edit button looks the same, people still revert you for dreadfully silly reasons, and your coffee is still weak in the morning. The community has opted to make RfA a big deal, complete with a week of interrogation and public shaming, but RfA and adminship are two different things. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. In an ideal world it wouldn't be a big deal. But in the real world, it is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Nothing any admin can do is irreversible. Perhaps I'm simply lucky to have had an uneventful career as an admin, but I'm more inclined to believe that's the norm. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did everyone get from a question from [someone very young] with 5 edits who puts on his user page that he likes rap music and video games and wants to be an administrator. When I was [that young], I don't believe I ever said I wanted to be an administrator when I grew up. Seems like a lot of conversations on these pages all devolve into becoming an admin, recalling an admin, the problems with RfAs, etc. It's like that thing in the first book of Tolkien's trilogy: all paths lead down to that river (forget the name). Hopefully, Tom is around to pull everyone out of the tree.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it touched on a sore point - that at least some of us are opposed to the current self-serving admin culture? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But so many of us have sore points, Boing! said Zebedee. That doesn't necessarily mean we should use every opportunity to raise them, does it?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every opportunity? I suspect most neutral observers will find that a bit of an exaggeration. But can I ask you, do you assume that you are one of the admins I rail against? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exaggeration? More like blatant hyperbole. :-) I'd have to follow you around to know that, and despite the fact that we've had two exchanges in the last couple of days, I'm not stalking you ("I am not a crook"). As for me being one of that select group of admins, the short answer is I have no idea. But I have no basis for thinking I'm on your shit list. I'd just as soon not even know, frankly. That way, I can maintain the illusion that I am the very model of a modern wikipedia administrator (hopeless, sorry). I'll stop babbling now, much as I enjoy it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough ;-) For the record, and despite the fact that perhaps you'd rather not know and the fact that you and I might occasionally disagree, I actually think you're one of our best. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to start a separate discussion about this stuff. The topic had shifted from the original point of "Everyone should be a administrator!!!" to a load of discussions regarding admins, the RfA process, and all of this other stuff. Dustin (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bbb23 I bet when you were [that young] Wikipedia was not in your head. So the comparision is faulty. I want to be an administrator. Boom parachute (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Wikipedia was not in my head or anywhere else for that matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Boom parachute: You must acquire experience, be an editor for a while, and make significant contributions to the encyclopedia to imbue trust into the Wikipedia community before you can become an administrator. You may continue to want it though, and just make a good editor of yourself, and then someday make a request for adminship. Dustin (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I had Wikipedia in my head at that age[...]. Still, because of this, I can say that you in calling the comparison faulty are not entirely correct. If you want to become an admin someday, then I would suggest doing something along the lines of what I have previously said. Dustin (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Thought

If somebody runs for admin they should be automatic support unless there is something bad that they did. Boom parachute (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with that. The first to come to mind is that there could be an editor with only one edit that was good and no other edits. They had no bad edits, so there. Dustin (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided I dont want to be an admin right now

I must wait. Boom parachute (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Template talk:RfA toolbox doesn't get much attention, so...

These links are expired:

2nd row (Analysis):
4th row (Cross-wiki):

Thanks, Ansh666 07:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver is shutting down at the end of this month after which all tools will migrate to Wikimedia labs. None of the above are currently available on the labs site AFAICT - It might be an idea to contact their authors to see if they have plans to migrate their tools to the new server.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be User:Dungodung and User:Scottywong. (Hope they get the pings and come check.) Ansh666 12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My tools have been moved to tool labs --Filip (§) 16:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, updated. Thanks for the heads up. Ansh666 03:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Count of votes

People come to view nominations. The first line contains these words:

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (45/6/8); Scheduled to end 01:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Could that please be adjusted to not disclose the count of support and oppose? Such numbers may motivate readers to support the currently larger group (i.e., support in the example line I gave) without reading through the discussion thoroughly. --Gryllida (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to support the proposition that people will be motivated to "support the currently larger group"? Pedro :  Chat  12:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of evidence for that. It's called the Bandwagon effect and its influence on how people respond to polls is well-studied; see Opinion_poll#Effect_on_voters. I presume it's the reason the old article feedback tool was designed to discourage users from viewing an article's existing ratings before rating it themselves. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some kind of anonymous voting system would be required to counteract this though; seeing a large number of votes in one section compared to the other will cause the same effect as seeing the numbers at the top. Sam Walton (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But RFA is not a vote :) - Fair point Adrian, thank you. Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think it's much of a problem, anyways. Obvious pile-on votes are typically assigned lesser or no weight by bureaucrats, anyways, aren't they? Ansh666 12:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. "Support ~~~~" should be / is given far less weight than "Support well informed comment with diffs here. Given people are very much encouraged to explain their support/oppose I really can't see that there's that much of an issue. And anyway, the bloody great RFA counter with the Red/Amber/Green is far more likely to sway people than the inline count at the top of the RFA, surely? Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the tally would not negate the bandwagon effect. An invisible vote would do that, but we actually find the ability to persuade others with your vote desirable at RFA. So this is a "problem" we're not trying to solve.--Atlan (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atlan makes a persuasive argument about persuasive arguments, but I'd prefer the counter to be less prominent. bobrayner (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really prominent at all, I didn't notice it was there until now. Unless you're talking about the giant green/red box counter table thing. Ansh666 04:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Votes

Lots of people in RfA or in general in other discussions too, votes per other user's arguments e.g. like Support/Oppose per User:GoodArgument etc. What if the User:GoodArguments later changes his opinion or to be specific his vote. What happens to these per votes ? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Per" votes that say nothing else would normally be given less weight anyway, so not sure it matters. I will sometimes do a "Per" vote but then expand on the first person's rationale or add more info, using the "per" to simply not duplicate an entire paragraph. If someone does a "Per Bob" vote, then Bob changes his vote from support to oppose (or the inverse), then weighing that vote is up to the Crat. I imagine it varies from Crat to Crat, which is another reason why simple "Per" only votes without explanation are a bad idea. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original support argument would still be visible, as it is customary to strike out a changed vote, not delete it outright. So the per vote would be still be classed as per the rational that had been used to support. I do however agree with what Dennis says, supports are best supported with an actual rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a fan of "per" votes, but sometimes an editor says what needs to be said, succinctly and accurately. In such cases I see no reason to reinvent the wheel as it were. If another editor has covered the salient points and I agree with them, why do I need to post something new or go through the trouble of rewording what has already been expressed? That seems more like an exercise for grammar students... "Now class I want you to read the last two paragraphs on page 66 and rephrase them in your own words while retaining their meaning and correct grammar." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't speak for Crats at RFA, but when I'm closing AFDs and the like, "Per Bob" votes are weighted less because they don't really add to the discussion. Something as simple as "Per Bob, the coverage isn't WP:SIGCOV" would be fully counted as it at least attempts to explain why. If you just say "Per Bob", how do I know you even read Bob's comments and not just parroting him because Bob agreed with you in your last AFD? Or are you sucking up to gain favor? Or that you just hate the article creator? We don't know each editor individually nor their motivations, so we can only use their words, their logic. Seeing some effort to explain the vote always gives the !vote more impact when determining consensus. At least for me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Though I appreciate the issue being addressed, which is a significant problem in an anonymous, online community, there are also notable downsides. The redundancy introduced means discussion threads are longer than necessary, both through the initial repetition of comments, and the multiplicity of subthreads that ensue when others feel compelled to reply to individual comments. In addition to discouraging participation, for discussions such as RfA, it also increases the degree of confrontation, since the subject under scrutiny has to see the same criticisms repeated over and over.
        • I think a more ideal approach would be what is typically done in the real world: build up a consolidated summary of pros and cons, and then the closer can evaluate the strengths of each, considering the support they received in the discussion thread. To further facilitate judging support, there can be a list of those who believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and a list of those who believe the reverse, where each person can make an optional, brief summary statement, but all discussion would be kept to separate sections. This format can help prune redundant subthreads and limit repetition, which should make the whole discussion more readily accessible to more participants. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • As much as RFA sucks, it pales in comparison to some of the stress you will experience once you get the bit. If you can't handle criticism at RFA, you probably won't handle it if you get the bit. Every action (even those that don't use the tools) will constantly be questioned, and often by those with less than good faith, and most of the time, all you can do is grin and bear it. You can't use real world solutions a Wikipedia, as in the real world there is accountability and here there is none. Many RFCs are longer than the worst RFAs, sometimes 10x larger, so the redundancy and the space it takes up isn't really a problem. Most RFAs are relatively easy to close compared to some RFCs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree that redundancy isn't a problem; many people drop into a discussion and say, the previous discussion's too long so I didn't read it, but here are my thoughts, thereby kicking off another cycle of the same point-counterpoint discussion (and really I had RfCs and other contentious discussions in mind, which I agree are generally far worse than RfAs in this respect). Trimming down the repetition of the same points over and over will make it easier for prospective participants to understand the whole conversation and contribute positively. I agree the absence of accountability is an issue with many possible approaches, so if getting each person to express a brief summary of their viewpoint is the best tradeoff, so be it. Nonetheless, I think trying to avoid subdiscussions for each person's comments would be beneficial, as well as building up a consolidated list of pros and cons. isaacl (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=615854653"