Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Feel free to join the discussion on the future of Requests for adminship process at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Everyone's comments are welcome!

Self Nomination

Although I have not been around very long, I have seen a number of very strong editors nominate themselves for RfA. I have also seen some not so great editors nominated by two or even three of their friends. Its troubling to see something like this in regards to self-nom:

• "Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber"
  

This has been posted on several ongoing RfAs seemingly completely without any consideration of the contributions or personal attributes of the editor under evaluation. I wanted to bring this up here to have a discussion not in the middle of an RfA. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a silly reason to oppose. But that doesn't mean that we can tell people what criteria they may use to determine if they trust a candidate. -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone is using criteria that the community broadly regards as frivolous or capricious, then although they are free to use that criterion, their opinion should be given less weight. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it has to be kept in mind that administrators must have the trust of the community as a whole to work effectively. Things like FAC can ignore silly objections to a greater extent because an article is no worse for some people not liking it. -Amarkov moo! 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can draw up Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in RfA discussions? —Kurykh 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me; it could be made into a sort of primer that first-time voters at RfA can read up. But I guess there won't be many people for such a page.- TwoOars 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions already exists, so why not use it? Yes, I know you mistyped the link. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link;I looked for it but I guess I did not look hard enough :). - TwoOars 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the WP:BOLD road and vomitted up some text onto that essay regarding this topic. It needs some polishing, so have at it! I hope that I have not stomped any toes by editing an essay...—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, that is true, but it doesn't mean that the community can't require people to provide good reasons why they do or do not trust someone. --bainer (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But who will determine what constitutes a "good" reason? I agree that opposing on that basis is ridiculous (and shows a lack of understanding of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY), but I'd rather have that than some supposed 'authority' dictating when people may or may not trust others. Of course, there's nothing wrong with questioning or challenging such opposes. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The usual process of consensus, of course. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it's ridiculous. Having higher standards for self-noms is explainable, opposing them because they are self-noms is absurd. —Kurykh 03:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, heaven forbid someone not take the time to hunt around for someone to nominate them when they feel up to the task... silly reason. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's something wrong with self-noms, we may as well disqualify them altogether. I could easily dig up a half dozen excellent admins who got their mop via self-nom, but I think you all get the idea. YechielMan 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a great reason to oppose. Let's see how this looks. If you nominate yourself, you're considered power-hungry. What if, you choose to accept a nomination from another user? Shouldn't you also be considered power-hungry in that case? You have the option to decline the nomination, but if you instead choose to accept it, wouldn't that mean you're also eager to have the admin tools? The justification doesn't seem right, and I don't see this as being a noteworthy reason to oppose. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's not it at all. Think more along the lines of Cincinnatus, or even George Washington--both men who had absolutely no desire whatsoever for the reins of power, but nonetheless accepted them because they had no choice. Kurt Weber 18:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I should have opposed Nishkid's power-hungry self-nom... :) Majorly (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You should have. :) *Literally takes a bit out of Jimbo* Nishkid64 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Any editor who self-nominates is obviously insecure and wants the power to compensate for that insecurity. Any editor who is nominated and accepts is obviously power-hungry, but is also insecure since s/he didn't have the courage to self-nominate. Any editor who is nominated and declines obviously has ulterior motives and has something to hide ... s/he is also insecure for not wanting to get the power. It all makes sense. ;-) -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask all self-noms to withdraw and then nominate them? That would clearly make the process more fair. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is we need more good admins. It should not matter one bit whether they nominate themselves, they are nominated by Steven Colbert, or my girlfriend's cat. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your premise, but not your conclusions. I'm sure you'd agree with me that "we need more admins" does not mean that "anyone who asks for it should be made an admin"--and I know that that's not what you're saying, but it's important to understand this. Clearly, we both agree that the end does not justify the means--that SOME standards should be applied. At the end of the day, it comes down to economics: trade-offs and risk-aversion. You are less risk-averse on this particular issue than I am, so your choice in the trade-off between "getting more admins" and "keeping out people who shouldn't be admins" is different than mine is. It's really not a difference in principle, just a difference in priorities. Kurt Weber 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Kurt, is that you don't even bother evaluating a candidate if they are self nom. You simply oppose "prima facie" under the radical, bad-faith assumption that they are power hungry. Maybe some of them don't see adminship as a power trip, but rather as a chance to contribute on this project in a different way than they do as editors. And really, what power is it that you fear an admin is going to take on? They are still held accountable for their actions and can be de-sysoped if they are causing problems. I think that it takes some care and time to evaluate a candidate for adminship. Looking to see where the nomination came from, however, does not seem very important relative to all other variables. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's not like many nominations aren't asked for by the candidate. If someone wants to be an admin I'd actually prefer they just say so, rather than try to play RFA politics and "arrange" a nomination for themselves. We aren't picking presidents, we're picking people who'll help clear CSD and block a few vandals. --W.marsh 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And people who can view deleted material, undelete it, stand for ArbCom, request checkuser access, block and unblock any user (not just vandals), protect and unprotect articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, some non-admins went up for ArbCom in the last election *coughDanielcough*. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is getting off topic, but I'm not convinced that stricter (in this case, inflexible) RFA voting makes us any more likely to detect the bad apples. At any rate, I'd think a candidate being honest and not playing political games would be a positive sign. --W.marsh 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the political games part. And Kurt Weber, you are right in saying it is just a difference in priorities; but what everyone here is saying is that your risk-aversion seems to be bordering on paranoia.- TwoOars 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Self noms are fine, some people will hold it against you, but you should already know that going in. ^(H) 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-noms are OK by me and for those who don't like it, its better that they stay "Neutral" than oppose because as Black Falcon mentioned, it all makes sense :) ..--Cometstyles 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Never ever trust a self-nom. As we all edit this work openly, all know each other on a personal basis, and don't use pseuodnyms for our account names, a self nomination is pointless and a waste of time. Every editor on Wikipedia knows exactly how good or bad all the rest are, so someone else will nominate you if you need the tools. Cough. Pedro |  Chat  20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not too sure about that. Some of our greatest admins were self-noms, and some of our worst ones were nominated by others. So using this as a alleged premise for power hunger is disingenuous at best. —Kurykh 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is borderline trolling there. Have you actually looked at the performance of any successful self-noms? You can start with my performance if you like. --W.marsh 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, guess irony doesn't work in text rather than speech. See my edit summary on my comment. W.marsh I'd prefer you looked a bit closer and actuallly read my comments before acusing me of trolling please. Pedro |  Chat 

We should not have to look at edit summaries to discern between sarcasm and reality. —Kurykh 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So I guess You all know each other personally and we don't use pseudonyms was just outright trolling Mr Kurykh? Or is Kurygh your first name ?? Cummon guys, stay real please! Pedro |  Chat 

The "cough" at the end was telling, but I thought it was sarcastic anyway. Leebo ^T/C 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of things that shouldn't be, yet still are. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Like we shouldn't be going "AAHHHHH! Ridiculous oppose rationale! Burn him/her/it!"? :) —Kurykh 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM at work. It would be interesting to look at a dozen or so "problem admins" (those who were socks, abusive, truly power-hungry) and see how many were self-noms. Runcorn? Nope. Robdurbar was, in fact, a self-nom. I won't name any other names since my definition of "problem admin" may not be shared by all, but I'd be surprised if self-noms had any more predictive power than a coin flip. Yes, Cininnatus and George Washington are excellent role models, if somewhat embellished by legend. But realistically, what's wrong with people who are actually interested in being admins coming forward for community scrutiny? I don't see self-noms as a problem; if anything, requiring outside noms encourages the political aspects of this enterprise, which I find a net negative. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) Well whatever, I guess you weren't trolling, but you shouldn't be so shocked if there's a misunderstanding when you say something that sounds very trollish unless someone checks your vague edit summary (which I didn't do). --W.marsh 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So I guess you didn't as such read my actual comment (not edit summary) then, and take a brief moments to realise that precious few people here edit under their real name? Complex stuff, obviously.....Pedro |  Chat  21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you just don't get it... if you communicated ineffectively, you're partially to blame. Just trying to insult me further isn't helpful. --W.marsh 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have been so ineffective in my communication. I'm also sorry you think I insulted you. I guess that you accusing me of trolling wasn't offenisive at all. I think self noms are really great. Hope that clears up my opinion! :) Pedro |  Chat  21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Look - I'm sorry if that offended, I really am, but really I was trying to make a serious point within it and accusations of trolling are not pleasent. I guess my humour is better of elsewhere. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat 

<sarcasm>Sarcasm is a great way to let people know what you mean! It will never be misunderstood.</sarcasm> ^(H) 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good oh. I guess Uncyclopedia is better for me than trying to help out this encyclopedia then.Pedro |  Chat  21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I always find it tiresome when editors start threatening to leave the project like this...—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the irony is wearing a bit thin then. Quite how do you interpret that as a threat to leave? Like anyone not editing ever again here is a threat anyhow??? Let's stay with the plot boys and girls, this thread is about people deciding for themselves they need some buttons to help them. I'm sorry if my comments have seemed disruptive, they really aren't meant to be. Self noms are no big deal IMHO. Does that end this ? Pedro |  Chat 

Gaff struck through his comments, as have I. They were both off topic and we have discussed on our respective talk pages for transparency. Pedro |  Chat  22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole arguments eventually fails in the face of this—we do not scrutinize the nominators as part of the RfA process. So long as that continues to be the case, I can ask my next-door neighbor, with three edits to Cats, to nominate me, and in Kmweber's book, it's just as valid as a nom from Jimbo and far less valid than a self-nom. Unless we're planning on changing that any time soon, restricting self-noms is pointless, and serves only to insult those who legitimately want/need the tools and don't want to go through the hassle of finding a sponsor. RfA candidates, self-nom or not, still rise and fall on the basis of their merits, not their noms'. Jouster  (whisper) 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The argument that self-noms should be opposed "prima facie" (how I love that little gem of a phrase), also is ultimately counterproductive for wikipedia. We need good admins to keep things moving smoothly around here. There are constant and sizeable backlogs in a number of places requiring admin attention. Its silly to think that excellent admin candidates are sitting on the shelf waiting for a nom, when it would be so much better to just move forward and get them working with the mop. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, the entire above is possibly the greatest proof that editors take a cursory glance rather than digging deeper before casting votes at RfA.......Pedro |  Chat  21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a point of information, when a prima facie case is established, the burden then shifts to the defendant (in this case self-nominator) to provide evidence to the contrary. For an RFA, that would include the answers to questions, contribution history, etc. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff (in this case, the opposer) to address that evidence. The reason this argument is silly is because that last part is not occurring. You can't just say, "This is a prima facie case for..." and then not address countervailing evidence. It's an untenable position. -Chunky Rice 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Very true. However RfA is not a courtroom, and come to that it's not a vote either. It's an opportunity to gather consensus so that the closing 'crat can make an informed decision. Well, I think that was the idea ........ :) Pedro |  Chat  19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it's not a courtroom, but in a consensus discussion, both sides present arguments for their point of view. Therefore, it is reasonable to point out the ways in which an argument is faulty. Here, the refusal to consider evidence which runs counter to the prima facie case renders the argument essentially invalid. A prima facie case is the first step in an argument, not the last. -Chunky Rice 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A good point fairly made. I see where you're coming from now, and agree. Thanks for you time in replying. Pedro |  Chat  20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a good point. However, the user repeatedly !voting this way is not apparently interested in hearing arguments. This leaves it ultimately up to the closer of the RfA to decide how much credence to give a prima facie oppose. As I see it, a prima facie oppose on self-noms is very much against WP:AGF. From my read of the discussion here, it seems that there is a consensus that such argument is superficial, bad faith, and not to be taken seriously. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as RfA isn't supposed to be a vote, and our bureaucrats tend to have at least a trace of common sense, I really don't see the point in harassing !voters who have an obviously flawed rationale. If a nomination has 80 supports and 2 opposes, it's obvious that consensus lies with the candidate. If a candidate is being opposed in greater numbers, then there's obviously more flaws to them than being allegedly power-hungry. Yes, frivolous opposes are annoying, but it's not like you get extra privileges for having zero opposes. I say we live and let live as far as RfA rationales go, since ultimately, it's just a few nuts in a sea of mostly reasonable people. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it sometimes seems to deter oppose voters if the first oppose vote has a strange rationale. For example, I think Kelly Martin's "no WikiProject endorsement" oppose votes helped some candidates gain extra support. Kusma (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that comment. Pedro |  Chat  07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

*cough*Kelly never opposed based on Wikiprojects*cough* Oh, never mind... Riana ⁂ 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing about that pseudonym thing, Pedro. Turns out they use "Blue" as a surname in France and Scotland[1]. *Backs away slowly...* Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

<dry humour - not sarcasm>And indeed Pedro is simply a Spanish variant of Peter....What a coincidence.</dry humour - not sarcasm>. Pedro |  Chat  07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I nominated myself because the poor guy who nominated me the first time got dragged through a heap of crap. And I haven't (yet) destroyed the very foundation of Wikipedia. There are sometimes good reasons for nominating oneself. Another might be if lots of people want to nominate you and you think (like I do) that co-noms are lame. Neil ╦ 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:RfA Navigation

Just a note to all, I've re-worde the active nominations section at Template:RfA Navigation so it now reads active nominations for Admin and Bureaucratship instead of Active nominations for Admin and Bureaucrat, if this causes any problems please revert. Regards --The Sunshine Man 09:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine. Of course, I would think "Adminship and Bureaucratship" would sound better, but it's probably fine the way it is. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it accordingly, I thought at first it would sound as if I was repeating myself but you were right. Thanks --The Sunshine Man 18:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving the page

This is only the 22^nd heading, but the scroll bar is still quite long. Is it fine if I archive the page? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Majorly (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I archived the Gracenotes RfA stuff. Still quite long though. —Kurykh 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I archivd up to the "editcountitis", in case you couldn't tell. :) Just revert it and yell at me if that was too far, ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wah! :-( I made a scintillating comment in an old thread, and now no-one will read it... <sniffle> (well, seeing the sarcasm detector failed a few sections above, I'd better add this disclaimer not to take this comment seriously) Carcharoth 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I had read your comment before the archiving. And I agree it's a good one.:)- TwoOars 07:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• The general rule of thumb here at WT:RFA is that any thread without discussion for 3 or more days can be archived. --Durin 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't we just sic one of the bots on this page? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • We tried that, and it did a rather awkward job of it. --Durin 19:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, silly bots... <cue 80s-era sitcom laughter> EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean a laugh track? bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think bots can do laugh tracks yet... Carcharoth 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One of these days soon... bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason closing rationales are not given?

Maybe it's common and I haven't noticed it, but I have to wonder why closes of RFAs are not given more comment. For example, comparing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DoomsDay349 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AKMask, we see two similar RFAs, both recent. One was closed without comment as a success, one was closed without comment as a failure. Both had nearly the same support percentage by my reckoning. Anyone else think it'd be good to see more rationales given? Friday (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If we work by %, which I hope the bureaucrats don't, Doomsday349 had very nearly 77% and AKMask had nearly 74. A bit of a difference there, and I think both closes were correct and do not need any explanation as they fall into the bureaucrat's discretion "range". Majorly (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They may have a discretion, but that doesn't mean crats don't have to give reasons for exercising it one way rather than the other. From WP:CRAT :"They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner." I'm not sure whether rationales should be given as standard, but if an explanation from a crat decision is wanted, anyone (but especially I would think the unsuccessful candidate) may simply ask them... WjBaway 08:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily belove rationales should be compulsorily, I think just leaving a closing comment on an RfA result would be a good idea in some cases - especially for those that don't pass. Though, as already said, if you want query a result you can just ask. Camaron1 | Chris 11:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All too often, though, if a result is queried it really gets out of hand... – Chacor 11:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Majorly: statistically there is no difference between the 77% and the 74% with this sample size. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I think exact numbers should be that important, but I make them both a bit below 70% as a support percentage. If you look at only supports versus opposes, then yes, the numbers would be higher. And, not that exact wording is what's most important here, but the RFA page does say that a 75 % "support" is the typical cutoff. I can't see any reasonable way to interpret "support percentage" as anything other than supports divided by total number of "votes". If they mean to go instead by oppose percentage, they'd have said that. Friday (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind neutrals aren't counted. Majorly (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support fraction is generally calculated as support/(support+oppose) with the neutral comments disregarded. I think you calculated support/(support+oppose+neutral)?AKAF 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, I calculated support as a percentage of "votes". If neutrals are disregarded, wouldn't it be more clear to call them comments rather than "neutral votes", and maybe move them to a different section? Friday (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you count neutrals in the equation, they in reality become oppose votes. I prefer to think of them as abstentions with comment, not votes. --Kevin Murray 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bear in mind THIS ISN'T A &(*)#@^(&)#@^$@O#$@O&$)*@%#R@&*!(!@^#Y VOTE! Grr. --Durin 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So what are you trying to say here, exactly? --nae'blis 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (not signed in at present)
    • Good grief. Do I have to spell it out for you? It's a VOTE! Duh! ;) --Durin 17:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I probably shouldn't try to get into the 'crats heads on this one, and I should note that I was on the "wrong side" of both discussions, but here is what I think happened.... For DoomsDay349, there was a strong final flurry of support 14/3/1, while for AKMask, the finish showed a strong flurry of opposition 6/12/3. Also, generalizing, I think that most of the opposition on the former was related to experience/maturity, while the latter focussed on civility. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thing crats should give a reason for promoting/failing an RFA under 80%. This would eliminate all these discussion about why *$#@& was promoted when *#%*$ happened. It also helps us understand more how the crats make there decisions (which hopefully isn't by reading Tangobots table) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's done by reading Tarot cards. --Durin 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought they ask the rabbit in the magician's magic hat. After all, the way they determine it is like magic, you never know how it's done. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I closed both RfAs. I tend to write out my closing rationale only where an RfA has proven so controversial that I suspect my closing rationale is bound to be questioned, but am also happy to respond to questions on the topic. There was slightly more opposition to AKMask than to DoomsDay349, which I took into account, but the main difference was the nature of the support and oppose rationales.

Opposition to DoomsDay349 mostly came over the issue of maturity; notably linking prominently to WP:FUCK. However, many supporters specifically stated that they did not feel that this was a problem, and several specifically praised that essay. One or two objections arose over a variety of other issues. I attached very little weight to objections primarily relating to the candidate's age (as opposed to their maturity). Taking all this into account, I concluded that there was a clear consensus to make DoomsDay349 an administrator.

AKMask's RfA was very finely balanced. There were strong points made both in support of and in opposition to the RfA. Ultimately, I attached significance to the decrease in the support percentage towards the end of the RfA and noted that several users cited concerns over actions AKMask had undertaken while the RfA was ongoing (although unconnected with it). This opened the possibility that earlier contributors to the RfA might have commented differently given later events. Given that the RfA was otherwise so closely balanced, I concluded that consensus could not be demonstrated to make AKMask an administrator.

If anyone has any further queries on either RfA, I will be happy to answer them. Warofdreams talk 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No clear need for tools

Having deliberately stopped following threads here more than a year ago due to repetition ("I have a reform idea for RfA...") I'm sure this thread will itself be a repeat. But I must ask: when did the idiotic "no clear need for tools" meme arise? I think meme is the right word, as it wasn't at all common as an oppose rationale in '05 and early '06, as I recall, and now it seems to be the central oppose rationale on some RfAs. When and why did this happen? I wouldn't even call it a bad argument—it's a non-argument. It literally makes no sense. If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose. I wonder if it might be possible to impress upon the 'crats that the argument should be ignored, as the comments themselves will probably continue to appear. Marskell 08:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The general sentiment in the factors survey on this point was that this is not an important criterion, and as such I think bureaucrats should be confident in giving less weight to opinions based on this. Whether a candidate was trusted to use the tools was regarded as more important than how often a candidate planned to use them, and several users expressed the idea that what people should really be looking for is how enthusiastic a candidate is in general, and not whether the tools were needed to do A, B and C. --bainer (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposing for the reason of we need more active admins boggles the mind. –Pomte 08:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, if they can be trusted not to fuck things up then they can have the tools - clear need can't always be demonstrated, and people may find more confidence in using them when they have them or gain interestes in admin related work. Viridae^Talk 09:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Q1, where you talk about your need for tools, is misleading anyway. I thought I'd be focused on vandal-cleanup and block requests. Instead my logs are full of image deletions. Sometimes you don't clearly know what you will need the tools for until you get them. Basically, we need more smart, clueful, trustworthy people with access, that's all. Riana ⁂ 09:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would be nice to see general interest (through editing habits) in some related project space area. It doesn't have to be everywhere, but somewhere would be nice : ) - jc37 09:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it would be nice. Obviously people who spend their time around XfDs, policy discussions etc have a way easier time of it at RfA. But I don't think that we should deny someone the tools just because they haven't participated in 100 XfDs a month, reverted 300 vandalism acts, tagged 200 speedies... (I'm not being facetious... these are someone's actual RfA criteria, I read them somewhere last year and thought I would be doomed when I ran! ;) ) I honestly think that if someone has been around a decent amount of time, showed that they can edit responsibly, be it in the main space or in the project space, hasn't pissed off too many people, and can show a little basic courtesy to their fellow users, they shouldn't have to have a terrible time of it at RfA just because they're not pledging to save the Wiki :) Riana ⁂ 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that I think at least general knowledge of the WP:5P is essential to at least show willingness to learn, be civil, discern applicability of WP:IAR, etc., no real arguments to that from me. But then your response sounds oddly familiar : ) - jc37 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's where the 'clueful' bit comes in! ;) Riana ⁂ 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be more productive to change Q1 then, from a direct question about what someone plans to do with the tools to a more general inquiry about what their interests are with respect to maintenance. --bainer (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Jimbo says adminship is no big deal. It's just a technical matter. His exact words. The technical matter is that an admin has some buttons other editors don't, in the same way logged in users have some abilities IP's don't. I really can't see how these extra buttons can be called anything other than tools. So if you have no need to use the buttons, why become an admin? Because if you don't need the admin tools then I can only see you have become an admin for adminships sake - and adminship is not a medal or reward. I'm not being confrontational here but, Marskell raised the point, and that's how I see the answer. I await being shot down in flames :) Pedro |  Chat  11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why become an admin? Why not? If they can be trusted, why not? Majorly (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You asked the rhetorical question Why become an admin? That's the nail there Majorly. Why? Because you need some buttons to help or becasue it's a reward, or some third reason I can't yet see. Pedro |  Chat  11:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, I did not want to return to this discussion again but I couldn't help commenting. Take DrKiernan's RfA for example. He "did not demonstrate a need for tools" according to many. But he had stated in his answer to Q1 that he might tackle backlogs. That he has demonstrated no need for tools so far does not mean he will not need them in the future. We should give the tools if the candidate if the candidate asks (and is eligible, like I said before). You keep saying it should not be a reward but ultimately you are treating it that way. If it's not a reward, why not give it to someone who asks for it and who is sure not to misuse it? Going back to the screwdriver analogy, if someone is giving away screwdrivers for free, I would like to have one, whether I am going to use it or not, just in case. What the person giving away the screwdrivers should check about is whether I am the kind of person to stick the screwdriver in my nose or into someone else's head. That person need not bother to think why I want the screwdriver, because it was already determined that I am not going to abuse it. Now in this analogy, I do not see the screwdriver as a reward and I doubt anyone will. The point is adminship is not such a big thing as you think it is. No one can wreck all of wikipedia with admin tools. And "admin tools" are not in short supply. - TwoOars 12:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was answering it with another question: why not? Please tell me why not. Also see Wikipedia:Yyy?. Majorly (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I'm with you. Why Not become an admin. No reason at all. None. Full stop. If the community trusts you and you want to do some extra work then go for it. But I fear that I can't see a Q1 answer of "I'd like to be an admin because I want to be" sitting too well at RfA. Pedro |  Chat  12:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Granted the "tools" are free and don't cost anyone anything. But what you seem to be saying is, lets give everyone we trust the buttons, and hope they do something with them. And if they don't and we got in wrong and they go on a rampage then we'll just take it on the chin, revert it, and move on. But the point of this thread was that people are oposing RfA on the basis of no need for the tools. And the point of my question is still unanswered. If RfA is not about getting the tools, what's the point of being an admin? Incidentally, I'm not sure I quite appreciate your slight that "adminship is not a big thing as you think it is" Can you come up with the diff's where I've said adminship is a big thing ? Cheers. Pedro |  Chat  12:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent, answer to Pedro)1. It was not a slight by any stretch of imagination. We are having a civil discussion and let us keep it that way, without getting personal. I got that impression because you keep repeating the mantra that adminship is not a reward, paradoxical as that may sound. (But really who cares if the candidate thinks it is? The candidate will realize soon enough that it is not.) 2. If RfA is not about getting the tools, what's the point of being an admin?: often someone wants to do something just to see what options are available. For example, I did not intend to register an account on WP. I edited first as an IP. Then I felt a little curious abt what I can do with an account. Now I occasionally create articles, which I couldn't have done as an IP. I may not have had this need to create articles if I were still an IP. What I am trying to say is even if the candidate has no clear plan about what to do as an admin, let's give them the tools anyway and then if even 1% of such "curious" candidates find that there's a big backlog and want to help out, that would be great. - TwoOars 12:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Of course, we have always had civil dealing in the past and I would not wish it be any other way. Let's move on. 2. Okay, right I do accept that argument. Whether the risk / reward balance is good enough to convince voters at RfA that a deomnstrable lack of need for the tools at the time of RfA is another question. I have often voted support for candidates who need the tools, but very rarely opposed on the basis of not needing them, so in that sense I'm being a hypocrite. However I still think that "need for tools" is as valid at times as "edit-count" and "main space contributions" - both commnly cited - when discussing an RfA, and therefore ultimately reject the idea that it is an invalid comment, which was the nature of this thread at outset. Pedro |  Chat  13:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent, answer to Pedro) By citing "need for tools" as an oppose reason ,we are only driving off people who can possibly help better. There is no "point" in becoming an admin, same as there is no "point" in contributing to wikipedia. And you say we have to consider the risk-benefit ratio: that is true, candidates who have proven that they will not abuse the basic tools, will also probably not abuse the admin tools. Of course, there is a small chance that an occasional bad egg gets in but "no need for tools" as a criterion is not going to eliminate that anyway, so why have the criterion at all?- TwoOars 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"You keep saying it should not be a reward but ultimately you are treating it that way." That's what's so strange. Placing a meaningless demand on nominees only serves to suggest that adminship is a much bigger deal than it actually is. "Demonstrated need..." Why? We're not handing out a license to kill. At a minimum, we may simply be giving people with a large watchlist rollback and protection. If they are otherwise trustworthy, what's the harm? "...got in wrong and they go on a rampage" is totally a red herring. The point is that all other things being equal (e.g. the person is as civil, trustworthy, and reasonably experienced as the last admin through) having or not having plans for the tools is irrelevant; if they are not used, there is literally no harm done. DrK's present nom is a total sham. "You don't intend to make wikipedia better with the tools, you just want to make your life easier." I've read a lot of stupid shit on RfAs, but this one is something else. Marskell 13:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you will notice (1) I made a neutral comment at that RfA, (2) did not make the "You don't intend to make wikipedia better with the tools, you just want to make your life easier." comment, and (3) "stupid shit" is not the valid reasoning or argument I'd expect to be given to disagree with my viewpoint. Whilst TwoOars and Majorly do not share my ideas (and I am trying my hardest to understand why they think I am wrong, in order that I can be a better contributor to Wikipedia as a whole) they have expressed their view point in a WP:CIVIL fashion. I'd kindly ask you refrain from ad hominum attacks and argue against my ideas rather than me. Pedro |  Chat  13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Twooars has kindly pointed out that I may be mistaken here. Did you mean "I've read a lot of stupid shit within RfA's" rather than on RfA's ? As one reflects our discussion on RfA (i.e. this discussion) and the other reflects a conversation within an RfA (i.e. DrK's). If so, my apologies for the misinterpretation. Please clarify and I will happily strike through the above if this is so. Pedro |  Chat  13:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pedro here. Question 1 reads "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" If a candidate fails to list tasks which only admins can do, than they really shouldn't be an admin. with DrKiernan, it did read like he simply wanted to have an easier way to revert changes to articles he likes. And being an admin isn't such a big deal, why is it so hard to become one? For every single oppose a user gets, he must get 3 supports. Needing a 75% support rate makes it a big deal. Furthermore, if king jimbo thinks being admin is no bug deal, he should make every registered user one. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 13:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And reverting vandalism helps everyone. Guess why it's so hard to become one? It's because people like you insist on opposing fine candidates for the strangest of reasons, and no, it's not a % vote. Majorly (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing here, but of the top of my head I remember reading something like, 75% support is needed to pass, however some candidates get by with less, and others candidates fail with more. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, in no more than 5 or 6 RfAs has consensus gone the opposite way of my vote. And in four of those, I voted to support, but the candidate ended up failing or withdrawing. So I'm pretty good then. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary unindent) The fact is that "You don't intend to make wikipedia better with the tools, you just want to make your life easier" is stupid shit. And I have to agree with Majorly, one of the main problems with RfA is the perception that many have that it's damn near impossible to pass because people are just waiting for a reason, any reason, to oppose. When you (talking to BH here) oppose on frivolous grounds and make completely unnecessary comments like [2] you are not only harming the candidate, you are ultimately perpetuating the problems with RfA. I'm not sure Majorly always finds the best way to question RfA votes but it's important to make sure people realize the harm they are doing to the project by denying adminship to worthy candidates on superficial grounds. Pascal.Tesson 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you should read the whole edit log, because here I apologized for the comment you mentioned (4). I'm also not the one who wrote the "you just want to make your life easier" comment. And per my abve comment, I've only opposed one candidate who ending passing that RfA, so I'd have to argue that for most part I represent the norm. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's nice of you to apologize but it was nevertheless a rude comment to make in the first place and clearly one that did not assume good faith. As for your "success rate" on RfAs, I think that the mere fact that you're citing it (as proof that you know what you're doing) is a clear sign that you don't understand what RfA is supposed to accomplish. Can you honestly say that your support or opposition on these RfAs has always been the result of your past interactions with the candidates and a thorough review of their contributions? If not, please consider participating in fewer RfAs and make sure that the opinion you provide on candidates is one with substance. Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand what you mean about participating in fewer RfAs, however many of the same people vote in almost all RfAs (Majorly comes to mind). Also I do try to review each candidate before I vote on them using the tools provided (edit log, edit count, answers to questions, candidates talk and user pages), however I'll try to do a closer review of each candidate before I vote. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe do your research before accusing... I've taken a position on seven of the current fourteen RfAs... that's half, not almost all :) Majorly (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accuse you, it just seems that you comment on alot of RfAs. Others users that come to mind are Aldebear, G1ggy, DGG, and JetLover. I'm not saying they comment in all RfAs, just that I seem to run into them at alot of RfAs. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One possibility that may have been overlooked is: "I'd like to help out with admin stuff - but I will need to learn on the job, especially the technical aspects, and I may gain new interests after I've used the tools for a while. From my past record, do you think I can be trusted to do that?" - that is a clear case of a candidate who doesn't have a clear use for the tools, but is only asking for trust that they won't abuse the tools. What do those opposing on the basis of "no clear need for tools" say to that? Carcharoth 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

People who really understand adminship don't espouse the "no need for the tools" nonsense. In fact the number of admins I see who've done that lately is miraculously zero. Perhaps they know what they are talking about. pschemp | talk 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The only reason you should oppose for a lack of need of tools would be if the candidate shows that he doesn't understand what the tools actually are. If someone who's new to the project shows up and his answer to question one is "I'd like to wikify and write articles", then you can use the 'no demonstrated need' excuse to gently let him down. People who know better won't self-nominate or accept a nomination unless there's some need for the tools, and it just becomes an excuse for opposing for no reason. - Bobet 15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

To pschemp and Bobet. So what is it that admins do that other editors can't do? Pedro |  Chat  15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(an aside) Pedro, when I pasted that sentence from the RfA I didn't mean to suggest you wrote it. It's just an egregious example of where the logic leads (so what if he does just want to make his life easier?). And "stupid shit" wasn't directed at you. It's a simple enough summary of some of the comments there. Marskell 16:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the revelant policy pages is that adminship would be, ideally, the default state. The reason that it is not is because of the potential for abuse. Therefore, as long as an editor has demonstrated that it is unlikely that they will abuse the tools (with a history that indicates an understanding of policy and a calm demeanor), there's really no reason to withhold them, in my opinion. Whether they use the tools once a day, once a month or once a year, Wikipedia benefits. -Chunky Rice 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely correct, Rice. The most common support used to be unlikely to abuse tools and the most common oppose used to be not comfortable with the tools in the hands of this user, and variations of that. If an admin uses the tools once a day, that's one delete, protect, block, etc that I don't have to do... and we're at a ratio of about 1,500 - 2,000 editors per admin right now, so every bit counts. Backlog at speedy deletions is regularly 300 articles or more.

Later we saw editcountitis, which at least had the virture of a quick-and-lazy way of saying "inexperienced" or "I cannot tell if this editor is likely to abuse the tools, since we don't know much about them." Now people get AWB or TW and rack up the edit count, and we have edit counts far exceeding what would have been very substantial counts on Rfa just a year or two ago, but we still don't know if they're likely to abuse the tools. Later came the Must have at least 1 FA, which is absurd because if we only have FA writers taking care of all this scutwork, who is going to have time to write the FAs? Now we have the ultimate in illogical - six FAs, trustworthy, and being opposed because he isn't meeting someone's undefined "proof" he "needs" the tools. Puppy is wondering where the common sense went. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that! But it does seem that the tide has changed and that those of us who protested the absurdity of the no need for tools argument have been heard. The RfA of DrKiernan was at 13/22/8 at some point and it is now at 46/20/9 and, as Anthony told me earlier today, DrK just might produce the most dramatic reversal since Lazarus. We often forget that for RfA to work properly those of us who have been around longer have to set its tone. By that I certainly don't mean bullying others into sharing our view but patiently explaining what should and should not be relevant arguments. In that particular RfA, I think what happened is that many were put off by the rather minimalistic answers to questions and for that DrK has only himself to blame. Once one editor started with the "no need for tools" argument, the thing sort of snowballed because it does not appear to be such a crazy argument at first glance, especially to participants who are not so accustomed to RfA debates or don't have experience with adminship. Note for instance that the opposes from the more established users came on slightly different grounds. But because, Majorly, BigDT, rspeer and others took the time to explain why the argument doesn't make as much sense as one might think, a few opposers changed their mind and hopefully will now be able to bring that experience in future RfA debates. Actually, if the RfA ends up being successful, it may be a sign that, hey, perhaps RfA is not as broken as we like to think.Pascal.Tesson 01:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a rethink. Editcountitis is bad, but most would accept that you need to have done some editing before going for an RfA. Has anyone with less than 200 edits on any wikipedia being granted sysop rights via an RfA (i.e. I exclude developers or special requests for understaffed wikis).? I doubt it. So we have to accept that in someway it is always going to be referenced a tiny bit bit it is a bad thing. In the same way, I think "need for the tools" will always be referenced a little bit. I think I should have expressed myself better here. What I feel is that there should be some advantage to the editor to have the tools. Point of the tools is the wrong expression and I retract it. A candidate should be able to show that the tools will be an advantage to them in their chores, even if they're going to use them just once ever. But if they are genuinely never going to have an advantage by having them then, even the tiniest risk threatened by a rogue admin, or more likely a compromised account, or frankly just the mates of an admin getting on the admin's PC and vandalising the front page for a laugh, mean there's no point them having the buttons. To this end almost every seasoned editor should get the tools if they can demonstrate their trustworthiness. An advantage in having the tools would be demonstrable by, say, just one report to WP:AIV or one occasion where a rollback would have been used. This would seem likely in most (sensible) RfA's and therefore questioning the point does become academic. I formally switch sides on this debate and now agree it is not a good reason to oppose a candidtae at RfA except in the rarest of cicumstances as outlined above. Pedro |  Chat  12:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument "no clear need for tools" is one of the silliest I've seen on wiki. This can't always be demonstrated and keeps us from having more dedicated helpers. Fact is, no one individual HAS to have them, but SOMEONE (actually many people) does or work on wiki simply won't get done. Jimbo is only half right, admin is a big deal because if we give admin rights to someone that's irresponsible, we've done wrong. If it were truly no big deal, why do we have a nomination process? While I'm on my soapbox, the "I have a better idea" merry go round drove me away from regularly reading this page. No one has yet come up with one better than what we have. Rlevse 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So on the basis that no one has come up with anything better so far, in your opinion, then we stop having talk pages, stop having debate and stay as we are? With respect, accusing dicussion of being "silly" is hardly a positive expression. If we don't propose, analyse and ultimately accept some change this whole project will by neccesity stagnate. Pedro |  Chat  20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

that's your opinion. Rlevse 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Angela had ~83 edits when she was made an admin. Imagine that today, she'd be laughed off the site. Now she's one of the most prominent and respected users on all of Wikimedia. Edit count is nothing. Majorly (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, you contradict yourself. Edit count is nothing to you and many others, and I'm doing my best to inclde myself within the many others. But you stated right above that now she'd be laughed off the site. So I'm afraid edit count is something to others, like it or not, by your very own argument - otherwise why would she be laughed off the site? Pedro |  Chat  20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also Majorly, if you saw a user that had 83 edits try out for adminship, what would you do? I seriously doubt that even you would support that user. Also, there have been plenty of users that make RfAs that have only 83 or so edits. They are not laughed off the site. They are encouraged to contribute more and then try again. Captain panda 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support if those 83 edits was a help to our encyclopedia, and showed the user got it. Yes, it is possible. Majorly (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Times have changed. With the rise of vandalism that we've been seeing for the past year or so, our criteria has become even more strict. I find the example with Angela obsolete. (Not meant to be an offense to her abilities) bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"With the rise of vandalism..."? What on earth does that have to do with adminship? If anything, that's a sign we need to lower the criteria so that we have more people to deal with this vandalism – Gurch 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"No need for tools" is an extremely pointless reason to oppose an adminship. Anybody trusted enough to not abuse the tools should get them. Often times you find them useful after you have them. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with what Oleg has said here. At the very least, however, it is comforting to know that this 'need for tools' idiocy is not restricted to en-wiki, it has spread to the Commons also. Riana ⁂ 15:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comforting is not the word I would have used... Majorly (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Would concerning be the word? Or what about two ... grimly inevitable...? Pedro |  Chat  15:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comforting that we're not alone. Concerning because they just missed out on adminning a guy who does one helluva job here, and could not conceivably abuse the bit there, unless he's got multiple personality disorder... Riana ⁂ 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I think my rant below may have gotten a little off-track at the end but I will leave it as is because obviously I feel strongly about this.

I agree that "clear need for the tools" or "clear commitment to do a lot of admin tasks" is not necessarily a requirement for adminship. I agree that an RFA candidate might learn to use the tools over time.

However, "some understanding of what the tools are and what the relevant policies regarding them are" IS, IMHO, a strong requirement. Many "responsible" drivers get into trouble driving a car because they don't know how to drive the car (for example, on an icy street in the dark). This is what driver's ed is for. I wouldn't give someone a power tool unless I had some sense that they knew how to use it.

I would similarly feel nervous about giving someone the ability to block others without feeling that they know policy around when blocking is appropriate. Yes, most admin actions are reversible but the damage caused by wheel warring is not reversible because people get pissed off when they are blocked. I fully believe that a fine, upstanding Wikipedian could get into trouble with the use of blocking. The whole "pedophilia userboxes" mess seems to have been a case of admins trying to do "the right thing".

Nobody has bothered to ask me in my RFA about "when it is appropriate to block an established user" which surprises me because this used to be a standard question on RFAs. I have read far more RFAs than I have expressed an opinion on. And I have read a bunch of RFARBs. All that reading has taught me that wheel warring and blocking of established users is a difficult minefield to navigate. It's an easy question to get wrong. I would not so much look for a candidate to give "the right answer" as I would look for a candidate to know what the issue is and have thought about it. Cluelessness about the power of an admin to block is a bad thing.

If you're not aware of the dangers of misuse of the blocking capability, I don't want you to have it.

--Richard 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought from WP:AN/I

This was a response I made at WP:AN/I in regards to compromised accounts:

I also think 3 months is too short a time (a summer vacation, or military duty, for example). Let's make it a year. And we can even use a recent Arbcomm ruling in addition:

• All admin accounts which have been inactive for a year may be immediately desysopped, and since they were desysopped "uncontroversially", they may be resysopped upon request automatically, without need to go through RfA.

I'm trying to think of any examples of how this could be seen as controversial, but I can't think of any. Anyone else?

I realise that desysopping of various types has been a perennial suggestion, but I think that this is fairly straightforward and would seem to me to be rather uncontroversial. What do you all think? - jc37 10:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See also commons:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship and m:Administrator on Meta#Policy for de-adminship. It seems to work well enough for them. --bainer (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'd comment about "great minds think alike"... Except that I have a feeling I've read the meta policy before, so perhaps I was sort of remembering it. That said, the above is even "looser" (sigh @ the grammar). A year of no edits, rather than none in 6 months+10 edits in the last year. This is starting to sound like it could use a consensus discussion "somewhere" in order to be implemented. Since stewards do the desysopping, maybe someplace on meta, with nav links from the Village Pump and here? - jc37 13:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally on board. We don't indef-block inactive users for fear they might come back and vandalize, but we've seen enough problems with admin accounts to justify this very reasonable solution. YechielMan 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons' policy deals only with inactivity, Meta's deals with both inactivity and a form of reconfirmation. Your suggestion is closer to Commons', since it only deals with inactivity. Note that Commons also has provision for planned periods of inactivity (eg, holidays). --bainer (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference here is that they can re-receive the tools on request, so that (planned periods of inactivity) shouldn't matter? (Besides, unless the discussion happened in email, declaring a vacation would seem like providing a guilty opportunity for WP:BEANS.) - jc37 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just a question of not bugging the stewards :) --bainer (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If we give the stewards a list of administrators and an automated tool, we'll all be none the wiser. (Or so we hope.) Sean William @ 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If they can just ask for their bit back, a usurper can do the same. I oppose the idea of expiring inactive admin accounts. ^(H) 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I never thought of that, H. If the person knows how to get around Wikipedia, they may know where to go to get the account that they hacked resysopped. Unless a confirmation e-mail was required or something. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 21:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Committed identity and Category:Wikipedians with committed identities. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah...I forgot about that (I'm already in that cat). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate thought

Personally I think admins should have to go through peer review every year of 18 months, just to have someone else take a look at what they've done. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which greatly inflates the importance of being an administrator. You think someone's doing a good job, a bad job, tell them on their talkpage. If it's a really good job, give them a barnstar. If it's a really bad job, and talking doesn't help, open an RfC. Peer review should be an ongoing thing anyway. I certainly have a reasonable expectation that some people are keeping an eye on me some of the time. Riana ⁂ 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel like doing it, everyone's contributions and logs are available to everyone else. If you find something alarming, ask the person to explain or report it somewhere. Actively checking all the millions of edits all the admins have made would get old pretty fast. Personally, I think you've got it backwards, and would more likely be getting useful results by looking at special:contributions/newbies. - Bobet 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(Originally written in response to Rianna, but Bobet jumped ahead of me b/c this took too long to type)) Yes, however I doubt people have commented on your talk page now about administrative actions you took a year ago. For instance, say that yo blocked a user for vandalism, but after you did that others thought you did so too soon. However, if that same users continues to vandalize and get blocked, people might applaud you for taking the action you did, even though they felt you were wrong before.

That might be a little confusing, but the essential reasoning behind an all-inclusive peer review is that it would allow additional perspective into your actions by people who have dealt with less often. An admin might have a tendency to too allow more incivility or edit warring than other admins, and this would determine that.

I also don't think that my proposed peer review should be a way for an admin to be desysopped. It would only be used to help the admin. However if other admins felt you could be desysopped, they could then take you to the Stewards, ho would then judge you.

And in the interest disclosure, I am not an admin. In fact I have only been a contributor here since mid-April. But please don't judge my proposal on that fact. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe admins should be subject to peer review every 18 months. When admins get the mop, they have to make tough calls, make decisions that upset people - it comes with the job unfortunately. An admin who is doing an excellent job will no doubt make quite a few enemies which would take any opportunity to take a swipe at that admin during peer review, possibly leading them to lose their bit. Don't forget as well, bad things that people do get remembered, the good things don't - 1 bad call could overshadow all the good stuff that an admin had done. It's the whole reason why the requests for deadminship proposal didn't start up. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I had the plan though out in my head, only admins would be able to comment at the peer review. That would hopefully keep disgruntled users once blocked from commenting. This would be different from the deadminship, as an admin could not be desysopped as a result of it. However the arbitration committee (what i was referring with the word steward) would be able to look at the peer review if the administrator ever came before it for desysopping. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I refer you back to Riana, who explains the procedures we currently have in place such as RfC for bad admins, that's technically a peer review, and if an admins doing a real bad job, ArbCom can get involved. Remember, we assume good faith, we don't try and fish for faults which is technically what a peer review for every admin would be doing. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We have about 1200 administrators (and growing fast), of whom maybe 800 are currently active. If we reviewed each one every 18 months, that would be about 12 per week, which would take a lot of time and effort, and not be a good use of resources. So, a reasonable idea in theory, but I don't think it would be worth the cost. Newyorkbrad 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It would be a project probably bigger than WP:RFA itself, and would continue to grow as the number of admins does. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 03:04, 16 June 2007 UTC)

(I hate threading... this is in response to Black Harry's original response to myself/Bobet) - The times that I have screwed up, people have immediately called me on it, be it on-Wiki or off. And these are times that I myself have known that I might be doing something a bit iffy. Trust me... people keep a closer eye on each other than you think! :) A formal peer review would take up too much time, too much effort, and what would be the result? If someone doesn't pass peer review, what do you propose we do? De-admin? Propose sanctions? No... it would be a waste of resources. As Ryan says, some truly excellent admins do not always play by the book. Sometimes they tweak the rules to get the results they want, and the results are good. And sometimes it's too hard for people to understand that after, say, a year, when the spirit of the block/deletion isn't there anymore. Riana ⁂ 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN

Both the reconfirmation and de-adminning proposals are covered at WP:PEREN#Administrative. These are both dead proposals. --Durin 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In reading over Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Demote_inactive_admins, I think that things have changed, or at least have been clarified to be different than apparently presumed by the PEREN point. (the non-controversial removing and regaining the mop, being a major one). - jc37 11:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Many people hate these, but would a straw poll be a good way to start finding consensus? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another RFA straw poll?! *Commits Hara-Kiri* bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, before stabbing myself to death as Bibliomaniac suggests, I'm curious to know what issue you're hoping to find a consensus on! Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought maybe he was asking for a nominator to request adminship on his behalf, since that's what RFA is... a straw poll! -- nae'blis 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not looking for a nominator right now, (I am currently being admin coached) but as for the poll I was just throwing an idea out there. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• It wouldn't help, since we don't make policy by voting on it, and crats/devs/stewards are hardly swayed by such. The problem with "demoting inactive admins" is that you're taking something that isn't actually problematic, and suggest a solution that doesn't actually affect it. It doesn't actually help anything. It may seem that way, but if you think about it (or ask the devs) it doesn't. WP:PEREN explains this further. >Radiant< 12:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

I need some help here; ANNAfoxlover has created my second adminship nomination, and I do not want it. I told ANNAfoxlover before posting here that I don't want the nomination; also, I was not informed at all prior to her creating the page. I do not wish to accept the nomination for the following reasons:

1. I am the nominator of two active RfA's, one of which is highly controversial.
2. Somebody else has offered to nominate me, and was going to create the page at a later date.

Can the nomination page be speedy deleted, or do I have to decline it and put it in the unsuccessful RfA's archive? I'm asking because I'm not actually sure what to do. Acalamari 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

done. Agathoclea 22:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll go tell ANNAfoxlover then. Acalamari 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record: declined nominations should be deleted if they didn't start running (and archived as unsuccessful if withdrawn while they were running), as far as I know. --ais523 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was the case, I just wanted to make sure. I didn't answer the questions or accept for my reasons listed above, so the nomination was never a failure because it didn't even begin. Acalamari 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Counter updating

I know that updating the counter is not a big deal, but many people, after casting their !vote, do not appear to care to update the counter. It constantly annoys me that counters, across pretty much every single RFA, are never/very rarely up to date/accurate; I am a perfectionist, when I see things like this, I have to fix it, even though I despise doing it. Is there some sort of way the counter can be made auto-updating? Anyone? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 10:40, 17 June 2007 UTC)

What are we counting? I admit that I never update the AFD counters anymore because I don't think they matter to anyone but the closing bureaucrat. We don't maintain counters on other !votes. OTOH, out of date counters are worse than useless. Maybe just drop them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. This post was just concerned basically with the fact that I'm sick of updating them. Therefore, I see three options: 1. Somehow make sure everyone is aware that the counter needs to be updated. 2. make them auto-updating or 3. Drop em. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 11:21, 17 June 2007 UTC)

I never update the counter, though I know it is there. The reason is that who are the counters helping? If your answer is the b'crats, I think those counters (and the bot) should be removed ASAP, as the crats are supposed to judge consensus, not find if the support was over x%. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Drop them please! They're a complete and utter waste of time and space. And while we're at it, get rid of the numbering too, since it isn't a vote. Thanks in advance! :) Majorly (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess when I see these, I can see whether or not consensus seems to be being reached at a first, quick glance. I know they're not votes, but it can sometimes give one a general view of how and RfA is going. Especially when it was mine, I found the tally helpful. Even if there's 2 votes for oppose and 10 for support, if the 2 had a lot of conversation along with them, as well as many responses, it seems like the RfA is failing to less experienced RfA visitors (or the other way around), and a tally helps keep that misconception from occurring. However, if it's gone, it wouldn't greatly affect my experience with RfA's. Maybe it's bad that I check them to see how they're going (especially by the % tracker charts).  hmwith  talk 14:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Updating them everytime is not a big deal, though they are useful when scanning RFA. I generally don't even look at landslides going either direction...it's a nice timesaver. RxS 16:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I only update the counter because it's there. If we have a counter, then we should at least be courteous enough to update it to reflect the actual stats of the RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(arbitary unindent) If you're sick of updating them don't bother doing it then. I pay no attention to them whatsoever, and frankly my talk page spam "thanks for my RfA that passed 62/12/3" etc. etc. is also a big waste of time and more importantly server resource. <sracasm>New admins that send messages that indicate they belive they just passed an election should be desysopped on sight!</sracasm> Seriosuly, Per Majorly ditch them until RfA becomes a vote by policy (i.e. hopefully never. Pedro |  Chat  19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hate to break the news, but RfAs are essentially just votes. This is from the RfA main page; "The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are the main factor in determining consensus. Generally the line between successful and unsuccessful candidacies lies at 75% support, though a few have failed with more support or succeeded with less support." Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BH, that is way to tricky to answer without inciting a flamewar on what RfA is. If you want to go down the !vote / !notvote line I guess it's best to open up another thread methinks. And we both chip in a few quid/dollars/yens/euros in donations for the inevitable cost in bandwidth and new servers that the discussion will take up!!!! I agree it looks like a vote more and more, but I bet there are plenty of people ready to counter that one! Pedro ducks down to miss the oncoming flack....Pedro |  Chat  20:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report to keep track of RFA stats. Any experienced user should know that the counter at the top of individual RfAs is manually updated, but maybe a note should be added to the template to state that it may not be accurate? Carcharoth 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? We all know it's not accurate. We all expect some polite gnome to come do it for us :) Why not just hide it right above the Supports section, if it has to be there at all? That way, you see it the moment you come in to cast your opinion; the perfectionists don't see it each time they look at the RfA; and those of us who dislike the darn thing don't have to see it so much either. Riana ⁂ 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know its not necessarily a big deal, but it is either an annoying small deal or a superfluous one. I think some definite concensus about what to do about them should actually be reached - should we keep them and make sure they are accurate (somehow), or resign and believe that they can never actually properly and accurately depict an RFA, and drop them altogether? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 06:41, 18 June 2007 UTC)

• There has been no consensus. Perfectionists can update them, others can use WP:BN/R, and still others will occasionally edit war over the counter's existence. No point discussing this any further, I think. –Pomte 08:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose I'm sorry for annoying you. I realize the counter is there and purposely don't update it. The last thing we should be doing is forcing people to update it. Leebo ^T/C 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I didnt really mean force. I sort of meant try and encourage people to remember. Oh well, this discussion has stagnated now. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 21:34, 18 June 2007 UTC)

Actually, Riana's suggestion to move the counter to the actual voting section seems good to me. When I vote I always use the edit section button, and I'm probably not the only editor who does this. I'm also not sure it's a huge issue... I've never seen the counter off by more than a handful of votes, and I'm sure the 'crats would notice if it was completely inaccurate. --JayHenry 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Minimum rationale length

How about this as a way to de-votify RfA – impose a minimum length restriction on all comments. That is, the length of each comment in the Support, Oppose or Neutral sections (defined as the number of characters in the comment excluding signature, "#" and any text in bold) must be greater than or equal to a fixed value, else the comment is moved to the "Discussion" section and not counted towards the percentage figure. (Yeah, ideally we'd get rid of the percentage figure too, but old habits die hard, and the bureaucrats have already demonstrated their inability to look beyond the number).

Precisely what the minimum length would be is something that would need to be decided, of course – but even something very small, like 50 characters (that's just the length of this comment in brackets) would get rid of the comments lacking any rationale at all, the "per nom" comments, the "good candidate" comments, and also some other nonsense things like "doesn't need the tools". A further rule stating that no comment may be merely a copy-and-paste of a previous editor's comment may also need to be introduced in order for this to work.

Personally, I feel we should try to encourage contributors to explain their view of the candidate, with particular emphasis on establishing that it is in fact their view, not the view of whoever got there before them, and detailing precisely how the candidate's qualities make them more or less suitable for adminship. With this in mind, perhaps the minimum should be set a bit higher. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, of course, so I have already provided a sample rationale as an indication of the sort of thing we should be aiming it. While the responses suggest it is vastly preferred to the usual unexplained "support"s, several users have completely failed to grasp the point and supported "per" my rationale. Much as I hope it does not become necessary to ban all use of the word "per", too, I fear it may be the only way – Gurch 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How would this devotify the process? People could just add filler crap and inflate their rationale. In addition, why would we want to write something again when the person above us has already taken the words from our mouths? bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't, because it's more convenient to write "per [user]". But I have a feeling that sometimes, if you actually asked someone to explain themselves in detail, it would transpire that their opinion is somewhat different than that of the user they refer to in their comments (especially if said user brings up multiple points, and the user who comments "per" that user actually only agrees with some subset of the points) – Gurch 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your intention (discourage "drive-by" voting, encourage explanations), but I don't see enough benefit to outweigh the instruction creep. This would simply turn the "per X" comments into virtually identical paraphrasing. Chaz ^Beckett 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, instruction creep. Make it as hard as possible for the candidates, but as easy as possible for the voters. Yeah, I'm with you. (You people have got to stop taking my ideas so seriously). Oh, while I'm here, here's another thing. Remember when a high edit count in a short time used to be seen as a good thing, and now it's taken as little more than obvious evidence of a sockpuppet? I made 8,000 edits in a month long before I was nominated for adminship, and I wasn't a sockpuppet of anyone. Don't you think it's amazing how "some candidates with high edit counts might be sockpuppets" turned into "all candidates with high edit counts must be sockpuppets"? – Gurch 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. Most people will still unquestioningly vote for someone with enough thousands of edits; people mention minimum edit counts in their rationales like 3500, 5000, or 7000; and we haven't even seen someone with an edit count < 2000 apply recently, so I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that editcountitis and editcount inflation are cured. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

... or am I, too, taking you too seriously? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea, theoretically, to have a minimum length restriction for the oppose and neutral comments. Support comments? I don't see much point, funny though Gurch's monologue was in Cloudnine's rfa :). I see RfA as primarily an elimination process and thus I don't see the point in everyone saying "Not incivil, not stupid, not disruptive, not going to take over wikipedia, etc." as a support rationale. - TwoOars 21:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Most attempts at requiring reasoning fail. For example, in my university, students may appeal their grade if they give a reason for it, the most common reason is something along the lines of "I think I deserve a better grade". However, a good rationale tends to influence other contributors to the same RFA more than a simple "vote and sign" will do. Don't think that writing a good rationale is a waste of effort. Keep in mind also, that there are few or no policy reasons for why a person should or should not be an admin, so consensus is pretty much all we have to go by. (This is in contrast to AFD where policies like WP:V and WP:NOR temper the raw consensus when determining the outcomes.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK to express an opinion (support/oppose) BEFORE an RFA goes live?

I have been hanging around here for many months but I don't have a clear recollection about this question. I am still answering the standard questions for my RFA and yet three editors have already added their expressions of support to the draft RFA. I have a vague memory that maybe some RFA junkies might consider this inappropriate and so I'm tempted to remove those "jump the gun" expressions of support and ask those editors to wait for the RFA to start officially. Am I on the right track or am I just being overly paranoid? --Richard 04:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a few minutes it's probably not a problem, but I'm going to save you the trouble of worrying about it by removing them and contacting the editors who placed them. Good luck when it does go live.--Chaser - T 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it means they've had your (previously non-existant) RfA watchlisted for a while. If nothing else, you can take it as a compliment. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if they're just going to insert the same comment a few hours or a few days later (unless they forget to)... —freak(talk) 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, almost nothing. I only recall it being a serious issue during CSCWEM 2, but I've seen it mentioned in oppose reasons in other RFAS.--Chaser - T 04:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So if people oppose "early" would that be a reason to support? Sounds silly if you ask me. —freak(talk) 05:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When all else fails, RTFM. From Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate...

Do not allow voting or comments to be placed on the RfA nomination page until it has been linked to the main RfA page. This will prevent any controversy or allegations of unfair advertising of a given RfA.

I guess that answers my question. Thanks to Chaser for removing the premature comments from my RFA page. I will be going live with it shortly. I'm reading the FM right now. --Richard 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• That strikes me as silly instruction creep. What matters is whether people trust a candidate, not whether all the proper red tape was followed. >Radiant< 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I agree but I have learned from months of RFA participation that it is not wise to challenge policies and guidelines during one's own RFA. That's a sure recipe for picking up a bunch of "oppose" votes. Follow the rules scrupulously and keep your nose clean. There will be plenty of time to argue about instruction creep later. That's my plan and I'm sticking to it.

--Richard 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't stop me from arguing against instruction creep :) >Radiant< 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You can do it. I can't. At least not by violating the rule during my own RFA. As it is, I've got one editor who thinks that what I wrote above suggests that I'm being two-faced about observing rules during the RFA with the intent of going "rogue" if I'm given the sysop bit. I think I should have been more clear in stating what I meant.

--Richard 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct course of action here is obvious. As with everything else that is not perfect, clearly if anyone votes in the RfA before it has started, the candidate must be punished! Opposes all round! – Gurch 09:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do recall an RFA not too long ago that went down in flames because the candidate struck out an "oppose" opinion that was posted before the RFA officially started. Don't remember whose, though. WarpstarRider 09:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that it should be removed but as soon as the Request is transcluded.. the votes should be re-added to the Request because even though thet voted in advance.. it is allowed..--Cometstyles 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know...I find voting on an RFA not transcluded onto the main page acceptable, as long as the person has definitely accepted the nomination. If they accept it, then you know it's going to go on the main page anyway. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 17:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Add a BLP question to the standard RfA questions?

Some of those here may be aware of this proposed principle at a current ArbCom case, which looks likely to pass:

Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

In light of this, would it be relevant to make a BLP question standard for all RFA candidates, at least asking them whether they would ever intend to get involved in that area of things? I've written more on this here, and have reproduced most of it here: I feel that this change makes adminship a big deal (or bigger than it was before). There are some admins who I would trust to do regular clean-up tasks, but there are some that I would not trust to carry out BLP deletions. There are also non-admin editors that I would trust to properly enforce BLP. I'm all for more rigorous enforcement of BLP, but why focus on admins? This focus on admins being the ones to carry this out is an expansion of the roles of admins that many will not have foreseen. Many admins at their RfA were given the tools by community approval to carry out tasks such as speedy deletions, and determining consensus on AfD discussions. Making judgements on BLPs is a different mattter again. What you will end up with is a de facto group of self-appointed BLP admins, distinct from the rest of the admins (who will either on principle or in fear of getting it wrong, stay away from such actions). The basic questions are ones such as: (1) Are all admins suitable for BLP duty? (2) Should admins wanting to carry out BLP deletions go back through RfA? (3) Is a pool of BLP admins necessary or desirable? There are more questions, but that should be enough for now. Carcharoth 12:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Should admins wanting to carry out BLP deletions go back through RfA?" Um. You are kidding, right? Please tell me you are kidding. You are seriously suggesting we go through another 1,200+ adminship requests simply because ArbCom endorsed a policy (that's right, not even a policy change – just ArbCom endorsement of one). Did we make everyone go through RfA again last time we expanded the speedy deletion criteria? When we introduced semi-protection? When we introduced proposed deletion? When we introduced anonymous-only blocks? When we introduced cascading protection? When we introduced the biographies of living persons policy itself? No, we didn't – Gurch 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is only making adminship a huge deal. The positon to me has always been about a few extra buttons. What such a question will make is that admins are very close to representing Wikipedia on a legal front, and a lot of admins here are under 21, under 18, and some are not even teens. I feel that will cause too much trouble. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great, legal FUD. I can't be bothered to argue against such trash – Gurch 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get you, Gurch... Evilclown93_(talk) 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Gurch, it seems he is annoyed about the recent RFA that foundered on an attacks sites question. I'm not too happy about that either, particularly the subsequent mass banning of IP address. See Gurch's comment here. I'm not coming out with pithy statements like "I can't be bothered to argue against such trash", but I can understand why some editors are stressed at the moment. It seems to be silly season on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I've mixed up two different RfAs there. Sorry. The silly season comment still stands. Carcharoth 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a little confusing there. You've demonstrated quite succinctly just how bad the situation is, though – Gurch 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Gurch, I was kidding. I was not seriously proposing re-adminship and would oppose that myself. I'm just pointing out some of the problems and some of the possible solutions. Please don't pick up on one point and make a big deal out of it. You make some good points about other times when adminship responsibilities have been expanded, but this case seems, to me, to be a bigger expansion into content areas than ever before. Instead of judging opinion, admins are being asked to decide sometimes tricky cases of BLP policy. Personally, I think all RFA candidates should be allowed to say that they have no intention of ever working in that area. Carcharoth 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We have too many "standard" questions, 3 is more than enough. Ask questions if they are appropriate to the candidate, but don't make any more default, please. Majorly (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The current defaults cover the basics well. We learn the candidates' outlook on administrative tasks, their perspective on their contributions, and their perspective on their interactions with fellow users. I don't think there's a need for any specific questions, such as one dealing with BLP issues, to be default. Leebo ^T/C 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If we start adding "standard" questions on specific topics, we'll soon have a couple of dozen standard questions. -- Cecropia 15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been always a believer in that you can answer those question in the nomination statement itself (Self-nom) or in the optional part (not self-noms). We can always put a hidden comment that asks to mention responses to the three currently standard questions instead of stating the questions. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Not to beat a dead horse (such that Wikipedia:Biographies of living horses does not apply), but I think there's no point to incorporate BLP into the RFA process. If I trust an editor in general to do the right thing, I will also trust him or her not to screw around with BLPs. YechielMan 16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no point of added another required question. If you want to know the answer, just ask it yourself on the RFA. And what if the candidate doesn't have a firm understanding of BLP, and because of that, will not be working in BLP at all, but in blocks and xFDs. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Admins are expected to follow policy. I don't see much value in asking if they would obey this particular policy unless the candidate had given cause to believe otherwise. If you want to add a more general question about obeying policies you disagree with, that might be useful. —dgies^t_c 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't proposing to ask if they would obey the policy. If you carefully read what I said (twice) up above, I was proposing asking whether candidates should be asked if they intended to work in this area. Do you see the difference? Carcharoth 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have responded so far. The consensus so far actually reflects my feeling as well. I was merely raising the issue and pointing out some possible consequences, so I hope no-one will misunderstand my position. Just to make it crystal-clear: "I think all RFA candidates should be allowed to say that they have no intention of ever working in that area". I just fear that further down the line, if things get nasty, people will start adding in questions asking every candidate to submit mini-essays on their views on Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, and how they would apply it. Carcharoth 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they probably would. This would be somewhat analogous to the way in which, while Ignore All Rules isn't covered by the standard questions, every candidate nevertheless recieves and is expected to answer a question on it. Users have made a point of asking the same question on every RfA before, and it generally continues until they tire of it. Not really much that can be done about that – Gurch 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no benefit of adding a "standard" question on such a polarizing issue. On the other hand, if a candidate is simultaneously opposed for being "too soft" or "too hard" on BLPs, either he is doing something right or everyone else is just looking for a convenient reason to oppose. —freak(talk) 18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb

It may be a little too early to start the celebrations just yet, but I think this may be the first time an established, useful contributor has actually been forcefully driven from the project by the response to their adminship request. I'd just like to offer my congratulations to all those involved in this exquisitely engineered fuckup, and hope to see more of the same in future. Remember, if you think you're right, this doesn't apply – so keep screwing over those contributors! – Gurch 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to apply this to yourself as well: Remember, if you think you're right, this doesn't apply. RxS 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Um... she was unquestionably blocked from editing, thus forcibly preventing her from editing. I'm not sure how much room for error there is... -Amarkov moo! 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see. So when good users are driven from the project as a result of the way they are treated on their adminship request, I should assume good faith and... what? Take it as a sign that they were no good to us anyway? Please share with me your interpretation of this situation and how this sort of thing is perfectly acceptable and not in any way a sign that things might not be right, because I'm having trouble seeing it – Gurch 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has driven this account from the project. Gurch, you need to stop your trolling and your hyperbole. If s/he wants to stay, all s/he has to do is stop using Tor; or continue using Tor but not apply for adminship; or apply for adminship but explain the reasons for using Tor, in private if it's sensitive. S/he's chosen to do none of these things. You're treating the person behind the account as though they're completely useless; someone simply being tossed around on wild seas with no control. The truth is very different. You also have no evidence that the person has been driven away, just that that account has stopped editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Another industrious checkuser has taken it upon himself to identify and block every IP address I have used in the last three months. I know this because I have read the block logs and noticed that several of the IPs blocked as part of this spree have (oh, shit!) nothing to do with the Tor network." User talk:CharlotteWebb. Not to endorse Gurch's hyperbole, but that statement from CharlotteWebb herself does sound a lot like "driven from the project", actually. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see her penultimate edit, where she states very clearly that her real IP has been blocked too. Thus it would seem that none of those things would permit her to stay. She also makes very clear in that comment precisely what her reasons for leaving are – Gurch 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're deliberately stirring this up, or just not thinking straight. If s/he wanted to continue to edit with that account, all s/he had to do was e-mail a check user, point out her non-Tor IP address, and ask for an unblock. This could have been done discreetly by someone other than the original blocker so as not to draw attention to it. Instead, s/he chose to shout it from the rooftops and act as if s/he was stomping off. People, please open your eyes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) What an embarrassment. I don't know what's worse, the Daniel Brandt fiasco or the de facto indefinite block of a productive user over an issue that's none of my business or yours. Why can't we be friends?? YechielMan 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On balance, I'd say the Brandt incident was worse; that was a monumental screwup as opposed to merely a very large one – Gurch 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I thought we assumed good faith when the checkuser said that he only found CharlotteWeb when he was seeing who had used a TOR IP. But now he's (or some other checkuser) checkusered CharlotteWeb's to find all the IP's she's used and blocked them? If only non-checkusers, could read the log. There's a lot more going on than we know. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can read the block log. I'm not sure you'd be able to get CharlotteWebb to disclose exactly which IPs were blocked, though – Gurch 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So I will go through the block logs and figure out which ones are not tor. FunPika 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I already found a non-tor IP. 83.149.231.20 Of course I am only checking for Tor and not other proxies. FunPika 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's likely an open proxy too; resolves to Moscow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post IP addresses here; given that one of the key issues being discussed is whether or not revealing simply the method of accessing Wikipedia is a privacy violation, I have no doubt that revealing IP addresses certainly is. In particular, you cannot know for certain that this is one of the IP addresses from which CW was editing. Risker 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Although, static IP addresses are placed in suspected/confirmed sockpuppet categories all the time, because of the "abuse" clause in the privacy policy (and the real need to handle sockpuppet cases). However, CharlotteWebb certainly did no sort of abuse, although the policy takes into account abuse by others who have used the IP address. Regardless of these specific rules, it is generally sage to not post IP addresses, especially since in many cases it may be a violation of the privacy policy, as Risker said. Gracenotes^T § 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice to new contributors considering adminship

Don't revert vandalism. Yes, that's right – we've actually reached the stage now where making more good edits will actually decrease the chances of you getting adminship. If you want to revert vandalism, start another account and do all the vandal reverting on that – Gurch 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's diversity, not quantity! –Pomte 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just the continuing decline of the sanity of RfA. It's become a gibbering mass. --Durin 19:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, thanks for pointing at how hard it is to pass and how broken RFA is, while being funny at the same time. :) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny? It's a genuine recommendation. There are many other benefits, too – for example, that account's userpage and talk page can safely endure whatever random abusive gibberish the vandals decide to place there, without you having to worry about reverting it all the time. What's more, you'll be awarded a pile of barnstars which you can shunt over to your other account when nobody's looking – Gurch 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fighting vandalism is an important function at Wikipedia, and it's a central reason for removing the restriction on editors once they have they have become trusted. I would be more concerned that an editor seeking adminship understand vandal-fighting policy rather than to say it isn't important. The removal of two key restrictions on non-admins: the revert button and the blocking function were specifically reserved so that vandalism could be effective fought. If our culture at RfA has come to the point where this important maintenance function is denigrated, we have some problems. -- Cecropia 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A monkey can "fight" vandalism. The article writers are generally those with tact -- and generally they make the good sysops. Most of these "vandal fighters" get mopified and once they've got their "status" stop "fighting" shortly after and go "rouge [sic]" (I can think of one Mighty Morphin Power Ranger right now). Matthew 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it me? Me? Oh please let it be me! --Durin 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Try not to get ahead of yourself. Matthew 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I find that a large and unfair generalization. I do not believe that a monkey can fight vandalism. Dealing with unconstructive editing properly is not an easy task, especially when it comes to dealing appropriately with users whose edits are obviously unacceptable and must be reverted, but which do not fit the narrow definition of 'vandalism' – something that one must be able to do in order for one's time spent watching recent changes to be used effectively. More importantly, though, it is completely untrue that "most" of those who deal with vandalism regularly cease to do so when they become administrators. Review if you will a scattering of recent changes – and note the many administrators we have who also deal with vandalism, some of whom have been steadily doing so for months or even years. Note also that vandals are blocked... clearly administrators are involved in that; they don't block themselves, you know – Gurch 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, I find that comment to be rude, offensive and ignorant in the extreme. I would write more but asumme you will realise it is wrong and that you will strike it. You do many vandal fighters an injustice by making it.Pedro |  Chat  21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys eh?. Pedro's right, you might want to retract that. Cheers.--Sandahl 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You saying he's right... and him actually being right, well, they're two different things. I've no intention of removing my legitimate opinion. Matthew 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross post: Please do not twist my words. I'd be inclined to consider that an actual violation of WP:CIVIL. "A monkey can 'fight' vandalism", there's no comparative there - just a statement of my opinion. For the Matthew, Matthew 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Further cross post. How am I twisting your words? Please provide diffs and substantiation. There has been no twist at all. Put an ape in front of a keyboard and it will probably beat it up - see this for example. If you really believe that the good work reverting vandalism by numerous editors and admins is a hum-drum affair that only an ape would do I sugest you re-evaluate this project and your reason to be here. In an ideal world it would be about article creation, but sadly there's a lot more to it than that. If you are being facetious see WP:SARCASM. I'm sorry but your accusation back to me is unfounded and I would appreciate it if you would actually review WP:CIVIL before spouting it back to me. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Off subject but refering to the above Copy of dialogue refering to the above (unindent).

I've no intention of posting any diffs. - you may read message #1 you sent to me, if you desire. "Put an ape in front of a keyboard and it will probably beat it up", teach it to use the keyboard then. "[G]ood work", right... I'm sure using automated scripts is a challenge. This is an encyclopaedia, end of. Matthew 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew I am way out at sea here. You refer to my first comment though I have no clue why you are putting G in brackets? And I assume your "automated scripts" bit refers to TW or AWB or similar - neither of which I use for vandalism. "Using automated scripts is a challenge" also seems a bit of beat. Cummon mate, you are a respected admin but this seems way out of character. Pedro |  Chat  22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is particularly different from the challenge of writing automated (and semi-automated) scripts. I doubt a monkey could do that (exception) Gracenotes^T § 05:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're under the impression that vandalism is dealt with using automated scripts, I'm afraid you are mistaken. All but the most obvious vandalism is too ambiguous to be accurately detected by a computer program without an unacceptably high level of false positives. There is one bot which reverts vandalism, yes, but this is only the most blatantly unacceptable stuff (e.g. replacing an entire article with "penis") – a minority of all vandalism. The rest of it has to be found and dealt with by humans, manually. (We also have to go round after the bot correcting its mistakes, too...) – Gurch 11:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that, if you use an alternate account, you absolutely must slap people across the face with {{User Alt Acct Master}} or else you will be immediately community banned, despite WP:SOCK#LEGIT not saying anything about it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"What's more, you'll be awarded a pile of barnstars" - I actually laughed. This is so true it's unreal. I've noticed this before. "Promote me to admin, look how many barnstars I have". --Deskana (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say this: Qxz got more barnstars in one day of vandal fighting than Gurch got in 15 months, including 6 months as an administrator – Gurch 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. --Deskana (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The barnstars part is not necessarily true... I'm not complaining, but what I have is a "random smiley award, a "smile" and the RickK... from a banned user since March, when I got addicted. Evilclown93_(talk) 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Top tip for barnstar goodness: focus on reverting other established contributors' userpages. That usually gets you a "thanks" if not an award of some kind – Gurch 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And that's why I nuked mine. Evilclown93_(talk) 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you did that to be an annoying little so-and-so, and irritate anyone who clicks your name. :) Well, possibly not, though I would welcome a ban on arbitrary cascade-protection of one's own userspace. Just redirect it to your talk page like the rest of us – Gurch 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I just like it better as being no-existent. The redirect for some reason annoys me. I prefer tp see a the redlink. Then it doesn't exist, and with the redirect I admit I am mildly dazed with redirect. Evilclown93_(talk) 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mildly dazed with redirect"? Yeah, I think I know the feeling... – Gurch 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This chat of usernames does remind me of a certain RFA... bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway. Sorry for causing a mess and, er, trolling, if indeed that is what it is. I had a bet going with myself that I could increase the size of WT:RFA by 10Kb before the day was out, just about got there – Gurch 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a new IRC room for RFA or for you to use #wikipedia-social. FunPika 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly, that's the off-topic channel. I'd be kicked for talking about RfA in there! – Gurch 11:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw one admin candidate recently who wasn't just a vandal fighting bot but did lots of real edits. Well one night he did a Mel Gibson, got drunk, yelled at somebody, and this was many months before the RFA and that one diff haunted him in his RFA and people rejected him because of it closing at 61/31/1, which is ridiculous. There was one admin who was always cussing and rude and later resigned; his adminship passed at 48/12/1 and there were opposes based on civility but it wasn't one incident but a gradual thing. But what people focussed on with the one who failed was one incident that was really really bad (due to being drunk) with the rest quite fine. SakotGrimshine 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On the whole checkusering of admin candidates idea

I personally think that just getting someone's IP can't always tell if someone is a sock or has a bunch of admin accounts. They can use AOL, a different ISP, or just some big ISP that lots of other people use. They don't need Tor or proxies. Also IP addresses never tell people things like with the whole Essjay scandal, they never revealed that. So basically people can lie about anything unless they're checked out. I mean I stumbled on some sites recently that said people were even lying about what gender they were and these weren't mere admins but people very high up. Basically, I think maybe the foundation should do better background checking than just bothering with IP addresses. I remember reading something about the Runcorn socks thing and they said something like "even if we got 10 different pictures of 10 people holding up signs saying they're different, and their driver's licenses, and they came by in person we still couldn't be sure." SakotGrimshine 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we now checkuser all candidates? What's next, drug test? ~ Wikihermit 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well remember, a recent candidate got sunk for a comment made while drunk... Captain panda 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't officially or require a checkuser, but it could be/is happening for all we know. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That would violate the privacy policy though, surely. --Deskana (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's happened to CharlotteWeb after Jayig brought it up. Whoever checkusered Charlotte herself and blocked all her IPs. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts) I'd think so. Look at the checkuser codes. Code A is attack account creations, not admin candidates. ~ Wikihermit 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Code A isn't attack account creations! FunPika 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes?Request to identify and block the IP addresses responsible for blatant vandalism and attack accounts... ~ Wikihermit 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe checkusering of admins would fall under "G" for "Great violation of privacy." Incidentally, it's the miscellaneous category. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Code — for "because I can". ~ Wikihermit 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, H would be so screwed... EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? I don't think I'm getting your humor :) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. See also: My Wikipedia name HighInBC is a reference to my enjoyment of hiking the mountains and valleys of British Columbia. :-) ~ Wikihermit 01:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The only purpose I see behind CheckUser on admoms is some vague identity check that at best hope could keep people from farming admin accounts. I had kind of said earlier Checkuser may not really be that helpful in determining identity or even if a candidate is farming admin accounts. Also the essjay scandal is an example of how a lot of people even high up don't get much of a background check to determine who they are. There's a service by verisign called ID verify that maybe the foundation could look into for board members, checkusers, oversight people, etc. SakotGrimshine 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Except it wouldn't keep people from "farming" admin accounts. (Not that I seriously believe anyone ever has or ever will do such a thing). It would only detect people foolish enough to create multiple accounts, edit with them all through the same IP address, and try to get two of them promoted within three months of each other – and frankly, I think anyone who put that much effort into something and yet made such basic mistakes wouldn't be able to pass one RfA, let alone multiple ones. All it would actually do, in practise, is violate the privacy – and possibly even lead to the desysopping/banning – of any administrator and adminship candidate who happen to share the same IP. (This may seem unlikely, but bear in mind most of our administrators are young adults, many in higher education, and that many educational institutions use shared IPs; the probability of coincidence falls greatly, and indeed I'd be surprised if we don't currently have at least one pair of administrators whose edits primarily originate from the same IP.) – Gurch 11:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia, Jimbo, Angela... everybody that controls WP on a more legal front will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, approve of this, mark my words due to privacy concerns. It's not going to happen. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thing is, if there is any benefit from Checkusering admin candidates, it can be done through other, more reliable means of identity verification, and if identity verification finds problems it can be dealt with in a private manner and not someone popping by and blabbing about what the results find. SakotGrimshine 12:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The random application of checkuser to admins or admin candidates is a poor solution. Bayes' theorem predicts that if you start checkusering people randomly (instead of applying it only where there is a high pre-test probability of sockpuppetry), you'll get many more false-positives than true-positives. If the fundamental concern is Trojan-horse admin accounts, then the answer is to be more discerning when !voting at RfA. The recent sockpuppet admin accounts had some fairly clear hallmarks; let's learn from that. If the fundamental concern is open proxies, then block the open proxies on sight - in this case, though, I was hearing, "Oh, we saw CharlotteWebb on open proxies before but didn't do anything about it until s/he applied for adminship." If the policy is inflexible, then enforce it upfront. If it's flexible, then it shouldn't be whipped out as a bludgeon at RfA time. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another idea: Although we'd probably have the state of Florida hunting the Foundation down, the CheckUser policy does say that they're allowed to CheckUser if given permission by the person being CheckUser-ed. We could make it policy to "voluntarily" submit yourself to a CheckUser before being allowed to post an RfA. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, who would want to take the trouble of "voluntarily" checkusering themselves? RFA shouldn't be a Gattaca-style process. Most people nominated for RFA have earned a sufficient amount of trust; to scan them and banhammer them down if their violators is violating that trust and results in the loss of a contributing user. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 02:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature

I am currently requesting adminship and I am wondering if putting a neutral notice in my signature would be pushing the canvassing guideline too far. I feel that it would attract the best people to comment on me as the have seen me before the RfA and they may have had positive or negative experiences with me. This would be the signature I would have: Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • RfA)}

Thanks! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • RfA)} 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't do it. I think the whole canvassing thing gets taken out of proportion, but it's not particularly important that everyone should know about your RFA. I assure you that you will have no trouble passing regardless. YechielMan 02:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems with it, but I won't do it. ~ Wikihermit 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it done before, but like the others have said, you run the risk of someone thinking you're canvassing. People will find the smallest things to object to when you are up for RfA.. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't. I'm supporting regardless, but RfA's have failed because of this before (although in the case I can remember, the link said "Vote, Vote, VOTE!") G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While a notice in your signature is obviously objectionable, I don't think that anyone would mind if you put a notice on your user page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, consensus does not appear to be against that. Quite the opposite. Gracenotes^T § 05:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether or not it's "allowed", I'd advise against it because it draws whomever you happen to be in conflict with at the moment to your RFA. There are quite a lot of semi-unfriendly users who focus on one particular group of articles or whatnot that don't know much about adminship and don't come to RFA, that might if you use a sig link. This, incidentally, is why canvassing is so distortive. >Radiant< 09:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Signatures and RfA don't go well together – by far the best thing to do is not to use a custom signature at all, as if anything you'll be opposed for signature length. (Though now there is a limit on signature sizes, the biggest abominations have mercifully disappeared...) – Gurch 11:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My advice on this: don't do it. Right now, the community is really nitpicky about canvassing, resulting in the aforementioned TfD. A notice on your userpage is enough, but my philosophy says that you should be in RfA if you can pass without any outside attention through canvassing. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Length of time between a user's RFA

Looking at some of the recent/current RFAs, I have noticed that some people are opposing because, in the opposer's opinion, the candidate has had a previous, recent RFA which did not succeed, or that they have not waited long enough? What is everyone's opinion on this? How long should a candidate wait before taking a shot at the tools again? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 08:26, 20 June 2007 UTC)

For however long it takes them to review the comments made at their RfA and address any issues / concerns raised. It's partly a time thing and partly a contribution thing but mostly it's a learning thing. When the candidate feels they can demonstrate that they have addressed previous (assumed valid) opposes then they should go for it. An arbitary "make 500 more contributions" or "wait another month" does nothing to help the candidate demonstrate they have addressed perceived short comings. Pedro |  Chat  08:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If a user fails RfA, they should accept their fate, leave and never contribute again. After all, they're clearly unfit to be part of the community. As we've seen, the checkusers are happy to give those who don't leave of their own accord an extra push... – Gurch 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be sarcasm, I hope. Wikipedians do not give an extra push just because someone fails their RfA. If they fail, they ought to correct their mistakes and get more experience. If they are really determined, they would try again and again. I hope that RfA candidates try their best, and try again if they fail. After all, its only a matter of experience. And determination. No offense to anyone. Cheers!!! -Zacharycrimsonwolf 12:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Gurch is refering to this as per his talk page. If I'm wrong on that Gurch please feel free to strike this through. Pedro |  Chat  12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because Gracenotes didn't leave (though I daresay he felt like it at times). Here's someone who was, effectively, blocked for requesting adminship. Checkusers are meant to be run only in cases of abuse; in this case, one was run as a result of the candidate requesting adminship, and every IP the candidate had used (yes, that's every IP, open proxy or not) blocked. Clearly requesting adminship = abuse, because checkusers are never wrong – Gurch 12:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, what about candidates who fail because they simply "haven't been here long enough"? Do you think that they should be able to reapply eventually?  hmwith  talk 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes – Gurch 12:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the accepted minimum time to wait to me seems like 3 months after you've failed an RfA, but many users wait around 6 months, but the promotion rate is around 90%, I'd say. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

People have succeeded with less than 3 months between nominations. The minimum is closer to 1 month. The important things are "don't appear overeager" and "fix the things that people have complained about", not the exact amount of time elapsed. Kusma (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Three months is safest, IMHO, and through observation. A lot of RfA's have imploded because of multiple RfA's in less than 3 months. I would personally suggest redoing it before three months. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's polite not to run every month until you win just like it's polite not to AFD an article every month until it dies (like some that finally died did so after more than 10 keep AFDs and I don't mean BLP articles). Daniel Bryant ran once and failed and he said on IRC he was going to wait 9 months or so and he did wait quite a while (I forget how long) and then when he ran again (or someone nominated him I forget) he won. It's also different if it's a self-nom or someone else. I'm tempted to nom a whole bunch of people I've met but they'll often either say no or just don't wan't to run until later. SakotGrimshine 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest Sakot, why is it different if it's a self nom? Pedro |  Chat  13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think three months is considered standard. I also think three months is the de facto minimum before a new user can successfully run for adminship in the first place - though there have been exceptions to both rules of thumb. I think the two scenarios are related. YechielMan 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone nominates themselves every month until they win, that's arrogance. If someone else is nominating them or multiple people are co-nominating them and not them, then it means people just like them. Of course the candidate has to accept, though. SakotGrimshine 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

People don't "win" adminship and I'm concerned that some people view this as a game to be won. – Chacor 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk

Has there been more than the isolated case or two where someone who nominated her/himself obviously misunderstood the purpose of an Admin bit, & this led to serious problems? I admit that I don't follow the discussions (the principal reason is that almost all of the people I would vote for/endorse would becomes Admins anyway), but from the discussions around the process one would get the impression that as many as 50% of the nominations were motivated by the belief that "real" Wikipedians had to be Admins. -- llywrch 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:RFA

I put up a request for adminship about a day ago (look here), and it hasn't come up in the list of nominations. Is there something I should be doing that I missed out? -Zacharycrimsonwolf 12:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to transclude it on the main Rfa page like this:

{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zachary crimsonwolf}}

Evilclown93_(talk) 12:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been done. Experience has shown that if you need to ask how to transclude an RFA, you probably need a little more typing typing mindlessly like an infinite monkey before you can destroy other people's work. YechielMan 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC) I intended the comment as a joke, but in the interest of peace and welfare, I have crossed it out. YechielMan 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please redact the attack on 'monkey' editors and the comment about destroying other people's work. 64.126.24.12 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

64.126 etc - WP:SARCASM probably applies. Pedro |  Chat  15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome... that may be the first time anyone except me has referenced that essay. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I have to agree with the overall concept that Yechielman so delicately said. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow...the RfA only lasted 8 hours. Maybe YechielMan was on to something :p G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting the most from RfA

I've started an essay at Wikipedia:Getting the most out of a request for adminship. I'd be interested in thoughts on this, and for other editors to improve it. I'm aware that there is quite an overlap with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, and it may be appropriate to merge some or all of the content into that essay, but I've tried to address the issues in a different way, giving examples, and looking at how some of the less helpful comments are based on solid reasoning which needs to be expressed, while others are based on a lack of understanding of the process. Warofdreams talk 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good! I think the examples are especially excellent. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very Valuable. I'm not sure every bizarre objection at RfA can be covered, but this is shaping up into a valuable tool. I will review further and would be pleased to provide input on the talk page. Pedro |  Chat  18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't even realise we have this. Nice work, WoD, but there probably is an overlap...maybe merging your colorful examples with the random pictures of beans and anime? That would make the ultimate essay ;) G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've now merged the essay into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Warofdreams talk 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) You did well. Acalamari 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Jimmy Wales wouldn't pass

It seems to me that it's becoming harder and harder to become an administrator, for example if you look here (a bit of a joke) you'll see that Jimmy didn't do that much. I understand that you have to trust people before allowing them the privileges of adminship, but have you ever tried to find out exactly when they are trustworthy, for example you could do a study where you follow the contributions of people who failed because of a lack of trust and see for how many that lack was justified. Hope this is helpful to Wikipedia, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trustworthiness is subjective, with different people having different standards in order to attain their trust. Some may use experience, ideology, or simply the time of the month (sexism not intended). —Kurykh 23:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite true that he wouldn't pass RfA. As he is an administrator now, this is no concern. Of course, that is not what you are talking about. You are saying that RfA fails too many good candidates. While I thank you for your opinion, this has been discussed many times previously and no effective solution has been found. Also if Jimbo Wales had an RfA, I would not support it because I think that I should hold him to the same standard that I hold every editor who wishes for adminship. Perhaps I am a fool, but I do not to be seen as a hypocrite in my RfA votes. Captain panda 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone tried my example, where you follow people to see if the lack of trust was justified because it makes sense to try this. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

All oppose comments are by default subject to close scrutiny. What you are proposing to do has been done since the beginning of RfA. —Kurykh 23:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I think it's an interesting exercise to look at some of our more troubling admins, and those who have desysopped, to see what patterns are evident in their RfA's (if any). I think this is the best way to inform your decision-making when !voting at RfA. As far as following people forward from a failed RfA, that takes a lot of concentration and follow-up time. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My recollection is that someone looked at this a couple of months ago for some recently desysopped admins and found there were no warning bells in their RfA. It would be an interesting exercise to give the buttons to 100 random users who had been here at least six months, and follow up a year later to see if their performance was markedly different from the current admin pool. Raymond Arritt 00:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pick me as the first of your 100 random users, just don't look at my time-related userboxes Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for being power-hungry and for falling for the trap. :)—Kurykh 00:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Jimbo is the reason we are all here. He's the exception. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this tell you more about Jimbo than it does about RfA? –Pomte 05:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section is total and utter claptrap. Anyone seriously suggesting the point fails to understand what (i) User:Jimbo Wales is and (ii) RfA. As you say, if your 'standards' would lead you to oppose that user, then they are indeed foolish and hypocritical, and the fault is entirely yours and not anything to do with RfA. If you are going to try to break RfA, then it's actually just your use of it that is broken. Splash - tk 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No one here is attempting to try to break RfA; it's breaking (has broken) itself quite nicely, thank you. Raymond Arritt 15:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA is only as good as the people who participate in it. It's not like people make inane decisions at RFA because the templates took over their powers of reasoning. if RFA is broken it's the participants that continue to keep it broken. --W.marsh 17:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and the author of this section was pointing out how ridiculous people's standards are. --Rory096 12:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he was demonstrating how ridiculous his own standards are. Leave the rest of us out of it. Splash - tk 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between being trustworthy and being trusted. A good admin must be both. Trustworthy so they don't go rogue, and trusted so people will accept their decisions. While you may disagree with people's judgement as to who they trust, the fact that they don't trust a candidate is a reason to oppose in itself. You can't get more people promoted by "fixing RFA", you need to actually get people to trust candidates more otherwise the candidate will become an admin but will have every single decision appealed. --Tango 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it has become ridiculously easy to game RfAs. We need to make it tougher by prioritizing character and maturity, but the people who participate in RfAs don't want that. They want to promote candidates who've reverted 10,000 times. As W.marsh said, RfA is only as good as the people who participate in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, but isn't the question more about a general shift in Wikipedia? I recently came across the account of User:Caltrop which features this edit count. Would xe ever get the tools today? —AldeBaer (c) 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of us seem to agree that WP:RfA is broken, or at least severely damaged. Having said that, it does appear to me that admins promoted over the past six months (which, yes, does include me) have been working to the advantage of the project.

It would be possible to make some changes in RfA, although I will have to duck behind the parapet after I detail them.

1. I would suggest junking the standard questions. Anyone who knows their way around can research perfectly acceptable answers.
2. I would suggest the substitution of a mandatory statement from the candidate detailing why s/he wishes to be an admin, and what s/he believes s/he can do for the encyclopedia.
3. I would urge the retention of optional questions, as now.
4. I would suggest that the community accept that WP:RfA is, in reality, a vote. But I would wish to give closing bureaucrats discretion in apportioning a positive or negative weighting to the votes of new users and of senior editors. Before anyone asks for a definition of these terms, I already said it was discretionary.

Now I am going to go and hide. Please don't shout at me.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think these are very worthy suggestions, especially the getting-rid-of-standard-questions bit. Or alternatively, structure the questions so that the candidate must provide specific examples of their work as part of the answer to each question. Although on balance I still think a portfolio system, in which the primary onus lies on the candidate to demonstrate a respectable and diverse body of contributions (and the community's vote is then focused on the contributions thus presented), is the way to go. -- Visviva 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

People oppose for having too cookie-cutter responses to the standard questions, so I don't see why they should be removed. The endless chatter on RfA reform that's been going on for years is funny to me, since if the people proposing all the reforms participated more in the actual process and followed their own advice, they could make RfA more in their own image. ("It's only as good as the people who participate in it" is a good mantra.) RfA is not broken. Grandmasterka 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with chucking the standard questions. As an RFA veteran, it just gets boring after a while, and there are other ways of finding out how the user would perform as an admin (e.g. check the user talk page and the contribution log - the standard editor review techniques). If I ever run for RFA again (and please don't hold your breath), I would strongly consider just blanking those questions, which I've answered twice already, and writing something else as a candidate statement. YechielMan 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, some of you agree that RfA doesn't always give the answer you think it should. Substitute "is broken" for the latter part of that if you can't think of anything else. To take your point (which I've taken the liberty of numbering):

1. If you don't wish to read/answer them, then don't. Meantime, their long standing strongly suggests that there is still utility being derived from them by some people.
2. The candidate always makes a statement of exactly this nature anyway. That statement is typically forensically exmained in what follows. This suggestion seems redundant to me.
3. All the questions are optional, so you've suggested retaining the standard questions, too. Your suggestion #1 seems redundant with this.
4. As you say, it is discretionary in a particular way. That particular (peculiar) type of discretion renders it not a vote, as trivially evidenced by looking at any RfA where the candidate is not a no-brainer. (And if the candidate is a no-brainer, then let's just minimise the energy spent, nod them through and carry on. By way of fairness and familiarity, we do that the same way as for more controvesial candidates. That's no trouble).

Splash - tk 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the "RfA's are so much harder than they used'ta be" sentiment, mostly 'cause I passed my RfA unanimously not more than five weeks back. That said, if it weren't for the whole "founder of wikipedia" thing, I wouldn't proll'y vote for Jimmy. Experience is a necessity, I think, and of course others disagree. But at this point, it's kinda a moot point. David Fuchs 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Commenting at RFA during one's own RFA

Bah! Typical! Evilclown93 has been nominated. Now I really respect this editor and was kind of expecting an RFA sooner or later. However I have deliberately avoided any comments at RFA in the past few days whilst my own process goes through. Normally I like to comment (even on obvious WP:SNOW cases to provide moral support) but I've resisted temptation on the premise that this could vaguely be seen as "I'll support you - please support me back". As it goes Evilclown's RfA looks rock solid to pass at present, but I'd still like to add my opinion. I've seen no policy on this but should one bar one's self from commenting at RFA whilst one's own RFA is in progress as a matter of wikiquette? Pedro |  Chat  18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I neer hought of this actually. I commented on RfA's when mine was going through without a second thought. Then again, NYB and Daniel had RfAs up at that time, so of course I was gonna vote, but still. I doubt people wil hold it against you if you vote, but i might be wrong. Wizardman 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I take part in pretty much every RfA I run across, have been doing so for quite a while, and I didn't see any reason to stop during my RfA. I think I may have even opposed someone during the run :) Riana (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD slays the beast of WP:CANVASS I guess! Thanks! Pedro |  Chat  18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this RfA. I strongly opposed it and had a massive argument on it at the same time, and this was whilst my own RfA was going on! But in today's climate, I'd recommend nobody do that ;) Majorly (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest in the interest of the greater good that you comment away. Your RfA is no big deal (remember?!) and if anyone had any issues with anything your have to say about fellow RfA candidates then that's up to them. Do as per Pedro, be bold, comment away. The Rambling Man 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I both supported and opposed users during my own RfA, without giving it much thought. I don't think that any of the candidates I voted for/against later participated in mine.  hmwith  talk 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it. !vote away. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. Also Pedro, thanks for your analysis of my RfA... Evilclown93_(talk) 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You should not worry about how you vote during another's RFA while your own is going on if you can express what you feel tactfully and with minimal damage. If you have grounds to oppose someone and can present an argument as to why, it is better than just a per above or I do not feel confident in the candidate. If the user you oppose cannot handle constructive critiscm and in turn opposes you solely for that reason, at least you'll have the knowledge you took the higer road. --Ozgod 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure not to oppose your own RFA by accident. That would surely raise some eyebrows!  :) --Richard 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to RfAs recently but at about the time of my own was most amused to see how most candidates rushed to support most others. Luckily I didn't want to oppose any; most I'd never heard of but some I knew and wanted to support. The atmosphere of mutual backscratching seemed ridiculous and so I didn't even support my chums. Indeed, I didn't even support the RfB of a hugely energetic and (I thought) eminently suitable fellow, a theologian whose activities were later even covered by the New Yorker. -- Hoary 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. I'm not one to comment on the 50/0/0 landslide RFAs, but when I see an RFA getting opposes for silly reasons, I am certainly going to say something and I think there were two that I commented on during my own RFA. --BigDT 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's safe, but certainly if a candidate feels "wrong" about it, it's their prerogative. David Fuchs 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems consensus is comment if you wish to, which is a good thing IMHO. I solved my own problem so now I can !vote without fear of retribution! Ha Ha! Pedro |  Chat  15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You were around 80%. You would have passed. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're too kind. But Ryan highlighted an area of policy I was wrong on, and considering that it was in my self-proclaimed core area of vandal fighting that's a big black mark. In addition there were some opposes coming out based on 'popularity contest'. Now I don't want to use this thread as an examination of my RFA so let's not get side tracked, but I guess that popularity and this thread do link in a way. I have commented about it to this user and I really felt that it was a bit of a mean rationale to oppose - not mean to me - but at other editors who supported, as it implied that was the only reason for their support. Pedro |  Chat  16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Make Closing Rationales Mandatory

Okay. I'm just bringing this up again: Many times, people always wonder why x's RFA was closed as failing or passing. They then go to either this page, or to the closing b'crat and ask why. Hopefully, they don't reply with "They had y number of support votes, so that's consensus." What about making it mandatory to give closing rationals. For a clear cut passing RFA, it could be as simple as "Only two oppose votes for trivial reasons. Neutral vote doesn't have a good argument." For a just passing RFA, or an RFA which you would normally expect to fail, (i.e. Ryulong) a length reason (one paragraph or a little less) would be needed. A little more of a description would also be needed on failing ones that aren't obvious (and by obvious, more opposes then supports, etc.) A longer rational is especially needed on RFA's which are closed as "consensus not reached", which apparently are between failing and passing (ex. if you count the votes [oh no! vote counting! :)] and it's about 60/30/2.) Having b'crats write a little would explain a lot to people, and make RFA a little less a vote. Currently, we don't know if when the crats close an RFA, their rational is that their magic 8 ball said yes. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the b'crats have enough other things to worry about most of the time. The problem is that Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats (shameless plug for my essay).

I'm afraid this may become a perennial RFA proposal. I see the reasoning behind it, but I would not expect the current system to change anytime soon. Shalom ^Hello 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? All it takes is the crats recognizing that closing rationales can't hurt anything. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Friday (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take much, makes RfA less of a vote, and lets the people understand why a certain closing happened. What isn't there to like? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we have mandatory closing rationales for XfD's? Sometimes it's just obvious that consensus approves of a candidate. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be good also. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd support you on this one, but they only really need to be given in cases where the result isn't obvious. If the RFA is an obvious pass or fail (its a vote so percentages tell the tale) I don't see a reason for an explanation. However if it falls into the descretionary range, a simple explanation should be given. This is especially with failed RFAs as the reasoning could with any future RFAs by the candidate. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) (Go RED SOX) 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• In hotly contested cases, I can see this making sense and a good bureaucrat would take the time to explain the rationale rather than be mute on the subject. However, in less contested cases where certain opinions were given less weight than others, the resulting controversy would create a constant hail storm of complaints. There's little need for this. All it does is serve to give a platform for complaints against the evaluation of consensus, which is always subjective and subject to interpretation. --Durin 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durin. For example, do we really want to know why the narrow Badlydrawnjeff 1 didn't achieve consensus? Closing comments would benefit a review process similar to DRV, but that doesn't exist. In those truly controversial cases like Danny and Carnildo, bureaucrats are already giving explanations. Requiring this is just WP:CREEP when 'crats are already doing them when appropriate.--Chaser - T 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean you don't want a rationale in close circumstances? Interesting. --nae'blis 21:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present)

To put this into the damned numbers we always end up talking about, I don't want a rationale in the traditional field of bureaucrat discretion (75-80%). I do want it when it's below that percentage.--Chaser - T 08:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral on an opinion on this but the thought occurs that if a close rational is provided that will immediately give both supporters and opposers (depending on the close decision) further cause for debate post the RFA. The moment a rationale is given by the 'crat someone will find a reason why it's wrong, and therefore only create more debate. Are we going to have WP:RFA MARK II deliberate redlink for hotly contested closure reasons? Pedro |  Chat  20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro. To be honest, 'crats are 'crats for a reason - to be 'crats. They are 'crats because the community trusted them to be. If we can trust them with 'crats tools, then we should be able to trust them when they close RFAs. Just my opinion. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what 'trust/' and 'top secret' have to do with each other in this context. If we trust them to be judging consensus, they should be able to explain their rationale when asked. Making it mandatory in all cases might be overkill, but anything that requires discretion/draws question would benefit from an open approach in my opinion. --nae'blis 21:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present)

And regardless of whether closing rational should be given, I think the candidate has a right to know the reason if he/she wants to know. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thats just it: the rule should then be - no reason given unless candidate asks for it. How about that? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

BH makes a good point actually - sometimes it would be just nice to know. I guess Anonymous Dissident is right, though I can see people only really requesting a rationale in the event of not passing. I guess it would have to be a case that a rationale can be supplied on request, but that the closing 'crats decision was binding for that RFA and the only route to "contest" the rationale would be another RFA, not a debate on the reasoning. Pedro |  Chat  08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets be honest here - what has one really got to gain out of a closing rationale? It should be obvious why an RFA has not been passed, when one takes a hard look at the amount of opposes (and the reason for these oppose !votes) and the 'crats often reiterate some of the opposes as rationales anyway. Obviously, a message on the user talkpage for encouragement and maybe a way to look at the opposes is nice, but there is really no need, as far as I can see and am concerned, to make a fuss over a 'crat giving or not giving a closing rationale. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Which reflects my comment above - there's not a lot to gain but plenty to loose i.e. giving a rationale only creates more debate. So whilst it might be a nice thing it's probably best avoided. I think most/all 'crats place pleasent and encouraging notes on the talk pages of editors with failed RFA's at this present time, and that would really seem to me to be sufficent. Pedro |  Chat  09:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's green week!

Username S O N S% Ending Duplicates? Report Mattbr 23 0 0 100% 3 July 22:37 No Details Andrew c 45 0 0 100% 3 July 03:37 No Details FisherQueen 56 0 0 100% 2 July 15:46 No Details Evilclown93 70 0 2 100% 30 June 17:51 No Details Jreferee 79 1 1 99% 29 June 23:42 No Details Sanchom 40 3 1 93% 28 June 09:48 No Details VirtualSteve 79 1 0 99% 27 June 15:08 No Details Last updated 14:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) by Tangobot

Yay! --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So much for the old multicolored week! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Has there been a red\orange week? Simply south 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. The users would probably be SNOW'd or withdrawn if that happened. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Even "yellow week" would be unlikely, since about 1/3 of all successful RfAs are close to unanimous. Leebo ^T/C 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were to look back on last week/very very early this week, you would notcie that we were looking very yellowy-orange at RFA actually. Its also important to note that there are only six or seven candidates at the moment. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point - we could use more candidates :-). We should all go find someone to nominate! WjBscribe 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, my RfA is not unanimous; it does have one opposer. However, I'm taking it as unanimous in spirit... -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, axe-grinders don't count. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I guess. —Anas ^talk? 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well now I really hope mine goes well - I'd hate to mess up this monochromic event. --Milton 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Milton. I hope you dont change the trend. I bet you do too. :) Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Motion for the RFA board to be placed on the official RFA page

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

I think that, to make monitoring RFA, from the RFA page, easier, that the RFA reportboard (see left) should be added somewhere to the official RFA page. What do people think? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not against it in principle, but I'm worried that 1) It makes RFA look more and more like a vote (that old argument!) and 2) It may encourage "pile on" support or oppose without editors actually making an informed decision by reviewing contribution history/ answers to Q's etc. Just my two pence. Pedro |  Chat  07:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In reply to that: Its a matter of making things easier. I dont think it will make a difference, its a matter of ease. if someone wants to, they can apply it to their page, its no big deal. It just makes the results seem more sure and clear. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(arbitary uinindent for readability) Yeah, that's true. I'm still worried about the tally looking like a "vote" board but that's another debate. I'm really not that fussed either way. I suppose it does provide a quick reference without having to scroll down the page, so that's a bonus. Pedro |  Chat  08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure I see your point, but it just makes it so much easier to see how Rfas are doing. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

THREE RFA'S WITH 100% SUPPORT', I've got to find a good reason to oppse! :) --Chris ^g 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok... :) Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• This motion has been proposed before. It's not just a weak argument that "well, it sorta kinda somewhat does support the idea that it's a vote" This report is absolutely meaningless, and counter to what RfA is about. To push it onto RfA makes RfA worse. I'd rather see it deleted entirely, with just a report to RfB indicating what requests are past due. That's all the use this report serves. Those of you who think it's a convenient tool are entirely missing the point of RfA. --Durin 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nooooo! Never shall this board be placed on the main page. --Deskana (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)