Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 02:19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

In case people are interested, we've had 743 admins in December 2005; As of May 2009 we have 1660 admins. How about trying to answer this simple question, do we have enough admins or do we need more? South Bay (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering there are plenty of inactive admins and backlogs that do nothing but grow, I'd say we need more. — Σxplicit 06:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quantifying need for administrators is probably futile. One might attempt to measure it, by proxy, by comparing the ratio of admins to backlogs in 2005 and 2009, adjusted for article/editor inflation. The obvious answer is that the encyclopaedia always needs more good administrators, and therefore there will always be a use for processes such as RfA. Dougstech, in his selective and qualified application of the celebrated "too many admins" rationale, recognised this.  Skomorokh  06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RIG. But that doesn't disqualify the reasoning, "we have plenty of admins so we can afford to be selective." However, the number of admins itself doesn't tell us much. We would expect it to continue growing since few admins ever lose their adminship. A better figure might be the number of admins who edited this month compared to the number of regular users who did. Andre (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We need more admins. We need to be selective. We need to be not so selective that people who would do fine are rejected due to some sort of editcountitis. Dlohcierekim 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better measure would be size of backlogs in different areas, compared to backlogs in non-admin areas (like RC and new article patrol). More pertinently, what about the backlogs in really tough areas of adminship, like WP:AE? It's not so much about raw numbers of admins, it's about having fresh troops trained, ready and willing to replace the ones out on the front lines... Franamax (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When I started, we had less than 1,000,000 articles. Now we have more than 2,000,000. There just aren't enough admins around to have a chance of making sure of them. The quality goes down through sheer volume. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt whether most admins know where the articles are kept. "Making sure of them" falls to the regular editors who have them on their watch lists, not to administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We have less admins than in those times thanks to improved vandalfighting tools, where some work can be rather laborious. Rollback is available and Huggling/Twinkle can be installed at a moment's notice. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true Mailer, but anyone who uses automation gets opposed for it in RFA. Rather discourages anyone form bothering, I'd say. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As Franamax said, the test is whether there are enough admins to do all of the admin tasks that need to be done. My impression is that backlogs and unaddressed issues come up pretty frequently. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though at least there's some precedent. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, one thing that would help generally would be preparing candidates better, both for adminship and for RfA. We've got to keep trying to improve that. I've only come across Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching today, but I think this sort of thing needs more support from experienced admins who are good at that sort of thing. And as well as strengthening existing ones, we should always be looking at new ways to help prepare candidates better. Rd232 ^talk 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly something I need to do. Dlohcierekim 21:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We definitely need more admins. Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What to learn from the FlyingToaster affair at RfA

Now that the FlyingToaster debacle is sufficiently over, I think it is time to reflect on how the RfA process can be improved. In my opinion:

• Do not support a candidate just because you recognize and like him or her. Check the contributions. Click through the contributions list, pick an article and check it. This takes time, I know, but there are a hundred of us voting in each RfA. If everyone check at least something, any major problems will be discovered.
• We must be able to discuss more than 1-2 aspects of a candidate. FlyingToaster's RfA was almost entirely about her CSD work and IRC. Reading though the oppose votes and deciding whether you agree with them or not, is not a good way to vote. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't read the administrator's noticeboard pages, I have no idea what this 'debacle' is all about. Could you provide a link for the curious? Robofish (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BN#Flying_Toaster_RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If I learned anything, it is that we probably don't need another FT thread. Law _{type! snype?} 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, having just read through the extensive arguments that have already occurred, that seems to be the case. Sorry I asked! Robofish (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link Juliancolton, I should have done that. This particular episode is all but over, but it shows deeper problems in the RfA process. If we sweep it under the carpet we re doomed to repeat the mistakes. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever RfA process you use, you're going to have some spectacular ones. I think the conclusion that there are 'deeper problems in the RfA process' is based on UNDUE emphasis on a FRINGE RfA. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 10:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No process is perfect. The fact that some admins eventually get desysopped doesn't per se mean the current process is broken. I don't mean to be blase about it, but if adminship is no big deal, then neither is losing it. The area we should focus on for improvement is making sure that admins do not abuse admin tools. Generally the community manages to do this, because sooner or later abuse is spotted and complained about and eventually dealt with. Perhaps we could try harder to make sure genuine complaints don't get ignored (because of the volume of nonsense and judgement calls), but other than that, I'm not sure the processes are doing that badly compared to feasible alternative processes. Rd232 ^talk 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it bears repeating (and yes, I've beaten this horse too much) that FT didn't abuse the tools. I know we've had situations where new admins were soon found out to be hiding poor behaviors resulting in removal of the mop (uncovering one that was an extensive sock master a year or so ago comes to mind), and while there was a missed behavior on FT's part that clearly would have garnered further oppose votes, I still think the end result here was much more a case of inter-clique antagonism than an actual failure of RfA.

The problem with RfA is, and always has been, that the standards to pass are neither static, nor even evident. What is the bar for number of edits? What is the bar for content contributions? What is the bar for area of Wikipedia touched? What is the bar for talk page contributions? What is the bar for AIV contributions? What is the bar for speedy tags? What is the bar for being blocked too many times? What is the bar for finding consensus on what the bar is? If everyone says 1000 edits are the norm, but I start voting for candidates with at least 36 edits, my vote is legitimate so long as I explain it, no matter how patently stupid that vote is. There are no standards, and until there are standards you cannot hold someone accountable for failing to meet standards that do not exist. This is a clique driven process. Nothing more, and nothing less. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that it is just the supporters who need to learn from this and other RFAs. Whether you are supporting or opposing please give clear, civil and ideally diff supported reasons why, this isn't just to try and make it more of a discussion, it also helps the other participants to know what sort of things you have or have not checked. Please remember that we are deciding whether or not a particular fellow editor should become a sysop - it does no harm when opposing to also mention good things about the candidate, and it can be perfectly legitimate when supporting to point out flaws you've noticed that in your view don't merit an oppose. If Flying Toaster's RFA had not been treated by some as a skirmish in the IRC/anti IRC dispute then I doubt that tempers and stress levels would have already been so elevated when certain issues emerged afterwards. I also think that the whole process would have been far less stressful to the candidate if it had been more civil, and if the RFA had been more focussed on the candidate's editing. Also it pays to keep tabs on RFAs that one has !voted in - I can remember one RFA this year which ended with half the !votes in one direction being per a !vote that had subsequently been withdrawn by the !voter; If the issues that lead to FlyingToaster resigning her bit had emerged late in the RFA I could well understand something similar happening (though I hope that if those issues had emerged at the very end of the RFA the crat would have put it on hold whilst the candidate responded to the new issues, or used their discretion to close as unsuccessful an RFA despite it having way over the 70% - 75% support level where crats normally exercise discretion). ϢereSpielChequers 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a glance at my suggestion for updating the RfA template [below] with this in mind Hiberniantears? --Childoftv (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

More discretion for bureaucrats after an RfA closes as successful

I have a specific suggestion I'd like to make that would alter the RfA process, or at least its aftermath, in certain specific circumstances. Apologies for the length but I'd like to lay out the full case at the outset and let the conversation proceed from there. What I'll put forward is basically an amplification of something User:WJBscribe suggested here (full disclosure in the interests of utter transparency—WJBscribe nominated me for adminship over a year ago, though that has no relation to why I am suggesting this). I first asked about this on the bureaucrat noticeboard where it was suggested this should also be placed on our centralized discussion template, so I will be doing that in order for this to receive a broader review.

This suggestion comes out of the "FlyingToaster affair" as it is called above, but I really would like to avoid lingering on the specifics of that and instead think of this proposal in more abstract terms and as a way forward. I see this as a possible way to avoid the kind of situation we just saw.

Simply put, we don't really have a good way to deal with situations where, in the immediate aftermath of an RfA, brand new information comes out that would likely have completely altered the vote. This is a rare occurrence of course, but recent events have demonstrated that we flail about a bit when it happens. I think we can expect it to happen again at some point, and should therefore think of a better way to deal with it.

WJBscribe proposed language as follows, which I would suggest be added to the paragraphs on "Decision process" in the section About RfA.

“ Where evidence comes to light after an RfA has been closed as successful which seriously undermines the basis upon which community consensus was reached, the closing bureaucrat may for a period of [X] days after closing an RfA request that a steward remove the admin access of the successful candidate and reopen or restart the closed RfA. ”

I think that's pretty well worded, though obviously it could be fiddled with. The main issue is what "X" would be. It would have to be a fairly brief period, say a week, or it could be left a bit more vague but still be quite limited in duration, something like "immediate aftermath," that provides a bit more flexibility but still shows the period is not at all indefinite. I'm very open to different possibilities for determining "X," but it needs to be a time not long after the RfA closed as successful, at least in my view.

I think there are obvious scenarios where this language could help us, such as the following. An editor passes RfA, but then two days later another editor (who did not notice it) draws attention to an interaction that s/he had with the new admin which no one noticed but which is incredibly problematic (but not so egregious that it's cause for an emergency desysop or a ban), and which causes many (but not all) support !voters to regret their vote. It is suggested that the new admin resign their bit, but they refuse to do so, and there are a number of editors who continue to support the new admin in their stance, while others are angered by it. An RfC is opened but has no conclusive result, and the situation ends up in ArbCom where it draws on for weeks and takes up a lot of community time.

Instead, under the proposed language, soon after the new information coming to light and significant opposition about the new admin being expressed, a bureaucrat could decide that consensus had been undermined and re-run the RfA, asking for the bit to be removed by a steward in the meantime. No doubt the RfA would be drama-filled (the situation described is inherently drama-filled), but it would likely save us a lot of time and effort.

I would point out a couple of things about this proposal before concluding. 1) Obviously this would only be used in exceptional circumstances, would never be used because I few editors showed up angry that they missed out on a vote for RfA, and could never be used months or even weeks after a successful RfA (anyway "new information" is most likely to come out right after the RfA closes, probably because someone was on break or just missed that the RfA was open). 2) All we would really be doing here is giving the 'crats more discretion, and the community has already decided that we trust these folks to make smart calls. Presumably there would be times when editors would claim, without any real justification, than an RfA should be re-run, and 'crats would simply say "no, request denied."

The general point here is that, if there is a collective "buyers' remorse" in the immediate after a successful RfA, there should be an easy way to address that, and right now there isn't beyond ArbCom, which seems unnecessary for cases like these. The important thing in the end is to get it right when it comes to giving the mop to folks, and this proposal would let bureaucrats help us do that in certain exceptional circumstances where the community might have trouble doing that by itself.

Unfortunately I might not have much time to participate in this discussion (assuming folks care to respond to this), particularly if it goes on after tomorrow since I'm going out of town after that, but I want to get the ball rolling on this since there might be some energy right now to make a change along these lines. If I don't get to say much more I leave it in the hands of the community to decide whether or not this is a good idea, but I support something along these lines being added to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is just another bad idea masquerading as a good idea. For several reasons: It'll dilute the RfA process itself - hell, why bother researching when eight days later you can just take everything back; What if buyer's remorse hits on the X+1st day? Will we have another discussion on whether the probationary period should be extended to X+1 then X+2 then X+3 days .... We'll have trepidatious admins hanging around in limbo for another X days (X is just an instance of X) when the RfA period is stressful enough already. The reality is that we've had exactly one RfA where this immediate expression of buyer's remorse seems to have occurred. I see no reason for reinventing the world based on this one instance. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If the community wanted to change the role of crats so that they're seen as elected representatives who make the decision who passes, then maybe I could support this proposal, but as long as crats are charged with determining consensus rather than making the call, then this proposal isn't consistent with the role of crats. An analogy: right after a student receives a PhD degree, some problem is exposed. Either cheating was exposed ... the person didn't do the work they claimed to do, or they cheated on the test ... which should go to some disciplinary committee (ANI, RFCU or ArbCom, for Wikipedia), not back to the academic department, or else the problem was that the committee didn't ask the right questions, in which case, the committee should get their act together next time, but that's not a reason to take back the PhD. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RegentsPark I see your point and have thought of that, I would personally prefer more open ended wording like "immediate aftermath" that leaves it up to the crats discretion, rather than making X a specific number. Ultimately this is about putting more power in the bureaucrats hands so that would make sense to me.

And Dank I don't quite understand your first point about "determining consensus" vs. "making the call," but I might be misinterpreting it. I would argue that this proposal is still about determining consensus—after the fact 'crats would determine that consensus was "seriously undermined" as it says above. As I said maybe I'm missing your point but I don't think anything here gives crats the powers of "elected representatives," it just says they can essentially undo their previous judging of consensus for a brief period after the RfA closes. And I don't think your analogy to PhD programs is apt. Individuals who get PhDs present certain work and then are judged on that by a panel of about five professionals based upon certain standards within a discipline—it's a rather exacting process with very specific requirements, and it's about entering a field as a professional (supposedly). Here we give some extra buttons to a volunteer, and the decision to do that (or to take them away) is (or ideally should be) based on a general community consensus. RfA is (or should be) a great place to determine community consensus, so I don't see a problem with sending it back here. I just think you're talking about two totally different situations because RfA is not analogous to a dissertation committee, rather it's far more analogous to a group of activists operating on a consensus model who decide to take one action (block traffic to protest the government!) but then change their minds 24 hours later, which is easy to do so long as there is consensus for it. In that analogy, applied here, 'crats are more like "facilitators."

Regardless you're both welcome to continue thinking of this as a bad idea obviously, I'm just responding to the concerns expressed. Also I'll be going offline now just FYI. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think most voters see the role of the crats, and I know the crats don't see their role, as deciding who passes. What they decide is whether there was consensus that the candidate should pass. And I also don't think anyone sees the crats as a disciplinary committee, in charge of deciding whether there were infractions and handing out appropriate penalties. For that, we muddle through with ANI and RFCU, if they work, and go to ArbCom if they don't work. I don't think that's a job that crats are comfortable with, or that they were elected to perform. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• No Every single one of our current 20 odd crats have been "promoted" on the basis of the abilitiy to judge consensus at RFA and in recent times to add bot flags and change usernames. To add to their rights the ability to caveat a promotion by removing it through their own request to Stewards is not what they where asked to do. Not only do I personally not trust a number of our current 'crats with the +sysop button, I trust almost none of them with a backdoor desysop. If you want local desysop fine - but that's another issue. If the community cocks up then that's our issue and we have many avenues to rectify it. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Pedro on this one. FT was our fault, and the avenues to address it simply were not followed. FT just got hounded off the 'Pedia because some people blew a gasket. Any number of civil options were available to deal with this, even though that may or may not have lead to a desysop. She would have posed no immediate threat to the project while things were hashed out. As for a hypothetical situation, I think it depends on the nature of the infraction. If someone is discovered to lack of full grasp of policy that is considerably different than if someone is discovered to be leading an Evil Sock Army. Truly bad discoveries would be grounds for an immediate block anyway, whereas policy deficiencies can be dealt with in many different ways, some formal, and some informal. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This would save our embarrassment in the rare cases where a problem is found just after the RfA closes, but it does not address the underlying problem that we didn't check properly during the RfA. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This sounds at first like a nice idea, but I agree that it has too many problems to work; in particular, it confuses the role of crats. At the moment, their job is to determine consensus at the end of RFAs and virtually nothing else. I don't think there's support for considerably broadening their powers in this way - probably not even among the crats themselves, who I imagine don't want to have to put up with the inevitable requests to reopen every time they close an RFA. No, if this (new evidence emerging right after an RFA has been closed) really is a problem - and I'm not convinced it is - then the solution isn't to change the role of the bureaucrats so drastically; the solution is simply to extend the length of RFAs. (But given how stressful they are at the moment, I can't imagine there'd be much support for that either...) Robofish (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is a very silly idea, not least for the reason that the bureaucrats are chosen for their ability to blend into the background, not for their ability to make value judgements. Which is more or less what I think Pedro was saying. If you want bureaucrats with balls then you have to start again, with new bureaucrats and a new method of selecting them. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Giving 'crats a do-over button isn't the answer. A workable community-based de-sysopping process is what's needed. Majoreditor (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bureaucrats are elected to judge consensus, not make their own judgment calls. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per solution in search of a problem due to a "one-of" incident. I also concur with many of the valid arguments above as my back-up secondary reasoning. — Ched :  ?  02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• note my IMHO should not be construed in any fashion to be a slight of any sort to the highly regarded User:WJBscribe, or my highly esteemed colleagues supporting this proposal, I simply feel that this individual suggestion, after due consideration, offered in the context of open communication, is not the best path to proceed along at this time. — Ched :  ?  02:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yowza. While I certainly didn't expect everyone to jump on board this thing, I'm a bit surprised by the depth of the opposition. I don't think it would be a very dramatic change, but obviously others construe it differently. Quite frankly some editors seem to be reading a great deal more into the proposal than what I have in mind, since this suggestion does not give 'crats any additional power other than undoing a power we already give them (i.e., judging consensus at RfAs). There's nothing here, at least as I read it, about "handing out penalties," "deciding who passes," "mak[ing] value judgments," or "making their own judgment calls," but most likely the confusion stems from a lack of clarity in the proposal itself which is my fault.

It's worth pointing out again that the original idea came from a (now retired) 'crat, while another (active) 'crat found it a good idea, so I don't think it's nearly as off-the-wall as folks seem to be suggesting, nor something that utterly confuses what bureaucrats do (though one or both of those editors might well not endorse the way I presented it here). At the heart of it is obviously a slight expansion of the power of 'crats to (un)judge consensus such that a new RfA would be run, and as such objections that "this is not what 'crats do" somewhat beg the question—obviously it isn't now what they do, which is why this would have been a change.

I guess this proposal could be boiled down to the suggestion that 'crats be given an undo button that they would use in the rarest of circumstances and only at their discretion, and the basic response here (at least as I read it) is that they should definitely not have such a button (though the reasons why vary).

Regardless, it's quite obvious there's not going to be any consensus for this and I don't think we need to prolong matters. Unless this discussion veers off somewhere useful, I certainly have no problem marking it resolved (although if people want to continue to comment I have no problem with that either).

Finally I agree with Majoreditor that what we could really use is a "workable community-based de-sysopping process." This proposal was very minor compared with that, obviously, and was intended to maybe help us deal with a tiny minority of cases, given that we don't seem very close to putting together a community-based de-sysopping process at this point that would also be able to address the hypothetical scenario described in my initial proposal. Thanks to all for your replies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

BTP, I do truly admire your goals here. In theory, the +sysop bit should be "easy-come, easy-go" as in "No big deal". I think the problems here attack that idea from a multitude of positions. While the bit itself is no big deal, the possibilities in regards to mis-use of it are. I've read through uncountable threads and archives which centered on the removal of said bit, and while community claims that they want that removal to be readily available, consensus on how to do it has never been remotely approached. Be it those that are mired in the status quo, or those who cling to a perceived "power base" - there is just so much resistance to the idea that it never seems to gather enough legs to get off the ground. I think your idea of running with Will's idea has merit. I also believe that the wording of it is the fundamental key to this idea. While I think that the 'crat approach will never work given the skeptic views so many users have of that group, I think the core idea you're offering should be discussed further. My guess is that a RFC/desysop thing would have many supporters, but I also think that it would face the type of protracted discussion that WP:Fiction has. I have no idea personally on what the best approach would be, but if you truly believe in this, I would encourage you to not give up too readily. If one idea does not work, fine, step back, and approach it from a different vantage point. There's a lot here in the whole +/- sysop idea - the trick is to work out a commonly acceptable approach. I know that's not help where you need it, but it is encouragement - for what little it's worth, considering the source. ;) — Ched :  ?  06:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you're not a reliable source? Because I was just going to cite you in a bunch of articles about trees and physics and France and stuff (basically I was going to cite you at random). In seriousness, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think part of the issue here is that I had no idea that many users have skeptical views of 'crats as a group. Indeed you can tell me that and I can see people say that above but I still have no idea why, though I'm sure I could guess some reasons. I hardly ever look at, much less comment on, RfA and do not really understand the culture here (though when I stop by it often strikes me as rather dysfunctional, for several reasons - no offense to anyone who is a frequent commenter here). So the proposal is coming from a major outsider to this talk page, and perhaps me not being familiar enough with the goings on here is part of the issue. Or it's just a dumb idea.

To the larger point, obviously I'd love to see a community desysop process (it's the only way I can get rid of this damn bit!) but like you have no big ideas there, which is why I went small bore on this page. Probably the biggest barrier to such a process is, shockingly, administrators. Maybe the rest of the community should have a conversation about this without us admins in the room—several thousand regular editors can sneak into WP:OBSCUREPARTOFPEDIA after all the admins have gone to bed and have a nice chat—since we'd no doubt muck-up the discussion at some point. I can't imagine that idea will go over any more than would a lead zeppelin, but it's an interesting thought (for me at least). All I know is that it's fairly absurd that, on a project based so heavily on consensus decision making processses, participants who are literally described as "janitors" essentially have the status of American Supreme Court Justices (albeit while generally lacking imposing black robes and regular checks from the Social Security Administration). In practice ArbCom members, because of elections, are vastly more accountable to the community than admins and that's kascrewy, at least to the extent that the thing I just typed was even a word.

I'm going on vacation (you can tell from the devil-may-care tone of my comment here) so I'm afraid I have to "give up" on this for the time being, but maybe after I finish driving across the damn country I'll have an answer. It's a serious issue, and I think we'll see increasing calls for ways to make admins more accountable to the community, without simultaneously making it impossible for them to do the needed work they do. There's the rub. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've thought in the past that one way to make a recall procedure less problematic would be to limit !votes to admins. Procedures could be opened and comments submitted by anyone, but limiting recall !voting to admins would avoid the problem generally ascribed to a recall procedure, which is that admins would then either be recalled frivolously by people they've pissed off or would self-censor to avoid it. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would seem to implode any RfA it was applied to, no? Admin _____'s RfA is yanked and revived with obvious and overwhelming attention and major drama ensuing. Even if it did ultimately pass it would seem the newly admin would do so under a cloud of suspician. There might be a better solution but this would seem to cause more problems. -- Banjeboi 07:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my opinion, this process would inevitably turn into a blow-out valve by which discontent or anger at the RfA process can be directed towards the 'crats; every controversial RfA will be followed by a week of continued barrel-scraping in an attempt to find enough grunge on the candidate to compel the 'crats to reopen the RfA. We get enough of that drama around open RfAs already. We do not need it persisting for weeks after the event. Happy‑melon 09:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hard cases make bad law. Rd232 ^talk 10:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, exactly per Rd232. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. You all thought I'd support, right? Right? Not for the hard case makes bad law avenue, but just because this kind of fluke really is a one-off. If we started having RFAs like this once a month, maybe then it would be worth considering. rootology/equality 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea to have a buyer's remorse out. When a jury makes a wrong decision, it's not the process that's broken, it's that the jurors made the mistake. FT voters didn't do enough research -- that's not going to be rectified by another rule. Law _{type! snype?} 11:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Law worded my thoughts perfectly. The process itself is not broken. hmwithτ 12:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Law hit the head of the nail on that one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The Bureaucrat's role here is to judge consensus in an RfA. What happens after that promotion is not in the Bureaucrats' hands. If a new admin goes postal, any number of other admins can block him/her, and any editor can summon a Steward if need be. If new evidence appears post-RfA, the matter should be taken to ArbCom. Like it or not, ArbCom is the most fair venue for such an appeal. Bureaucrats do not have any procedures for such instances, while ArbCom does. In the case of FlyingToaster, the matter should have been taken to ArbCom in a mature and calm manner. What happened in actuality was appalling. Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I view bureaucrats as a administrative position. What the proposer said belongs to judiciary position, which is ArbCom's job. Wikipedia really needs separation of power.SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Closure

I am delisting this from WP:CENT as an evident lead balloon. No shame for proposing it, of course, but as ever, hard cases make bad law. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding and correcting mistaken "promotions" to admin

A couple of proposals aimed at reducing the risk of further disasters:

• To reduce the risk of mistaken promotions, we need a Devil's Advocate in the original sense - someone whose job it is to present reasons for not making someone an admin at the time of the RfA. The Devil's Advocate should do independent research as well as scrutinising claims made by the nominator(s). Naturally the Devil's Advocate would have to be someone who understands policy well and can present evidence objectively, without any emotion-laden language. The obvious objection is that, if the nomination succeeds, the nominee will bear a grudge against the Devil's Advocate - but in that case the nominee would be unfit for adminship.
• We need a recall procedure that works as a reverse RfA. We currently have something called Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship but it's unsatisfactory, because only admins, Arbitrators and Jimbo can take effective action. Arbitration cases are typically long and complex, which creates two problems: Arb may be slow to deal with an admin who is guilty of repeated misconduct; Arbcom seems to have enough work already. We need to wean ourselves away from dependence on Jimbo because he's human, so there's no guarantee of how long he'll be able to function as the final court of appeal. Admins have opposed an effective Requests for de-adminship process, but unfortunately they have lost the trust of a large chunk of the community in cases where the conduct of another admin is concerned. The obvious danger is malicious, frivoloous or just plain stupid nominations for removal of admin privileges. Any attempt to judge whether individual nominations are without merit would just create a mess: on the basis of recent events, admins would probably take a more hostile view of nominations than the wider community would; ArbCom does not have enough time to take on such cases;etc. I suggest a simple rule: no-one may nominate more than one admin for de-adminship per 12 months; nominations that break that rule are kept as a matter of record, but dismissed after evidence of a recent nomination by the same person has been attached; 3 or more nominations in 12 months by the same person results in a block. --Philcha (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with much of this.

Firstly the idea of a Devil's advocate. It's the job of every participant at RFAs to act as Devils advocate in the sense of looking for flaws in the candidate, but as we saw with Flyingtoaster it becomes counterproductive when Opposers act as a Devils advocate in the sense of talking up and overemphasising reasons for oppose, and even opposing for things unrelated to that individual candidate's suitability, such as too many admins, or I don't like IRC.

Secondly the statement "Admins have opposed an effective Requests for de-adminship process" this implies both that a workable process has been proposed and that admins collectively opposed it. I'm sure I'm not the only admin who would be happy to see a fair and effective deadminship process introduced, if such were proposed.

Thirdly the idea that if someone nominated three admins for deadminship in a year they should be blocked. Some such nominations will be good calls, whether the result is de-adminship, a good explanation or a less drastic result. Some will be bad calls. If someone legitimately and reasonably nominated four or more admins for de-adminship they should be complimented for diligence. If they nominated one simply as an attack they should be treated accordingly. ϢereSpielChequers 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "It's the job of every participant at RFAs to act as Devils advocate in the sense of looking for flaws in the candidate", that plainly has not worked, so we need an alternative. I said the Devil's Advocate wold have to be thorough and objective - and that implies presenting evidence in the form of diffs or historical versions of pages. I agree that some embittered opposers will continue to rant, that's the price of free speech. But a well-researched and well-presented case against will often make such opposers look stupid and over-the-top, and possibly swing a few votes in the candidate's favour. "Too many admins" is just a running gag and shows no signs of becoming a meme, thank goodness. I'm less aware of "I don't like IRC" as a common reason for opposing. If it is, it suggests widespread distrust of admins. While there are plenty of admins I like and respect, I've seen enough evidence that admins treat offences by other admins much more leniently than similar offences by non-admins. The only counter to distrust is greater accountability of admins to non-admins.

I'm sure Ϣere is not the only admin who would be happy to see a fair and effective deadminship process introduced. However every time I've seen this mentioned, the majority of admins who contributed opposed, mainly on the not unreasonable grounds that vexatious proposals for de-admin would clog the system. That'swhy I proposed a means of at least limiting such abuse.

Judging whether a nomination for de-admin is sensible or without merit would require another process, and then we'd need to wensure that that was fair, etc., i.e. we'd go around in ever-decreasing circles. That's why I proposed a very simple measure to limit vexatious noms of re-admin. If you think one a year is too low, perhaps 3 per user per 12 months would be better. --Philcha (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure most admins would oppose a desysoping system that they saw as flawed, and a system that blocked someone for reporting a sock farm that included three admin accounts would in my view be flawed. The fact is that we have various system for giving feedback on admins, and we've just seen one admin pressured into resigning the bit. If you think an admin has made a mistake raise it with them - you may be surprised at the response. I believe that widening the admin pool and improving admin training would reduce distrust of the admin cadre, I'm not convinced that a better desysoping system would, though for other reasons I'd happily support reforms If I thought they'd work. ϢereSpielChequers 12:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - I hate those): Ya know, BTP mentioned something (and have a great trip by the way BTP) about admins leaving the room. I'm not sure if it was implied, or that I inferred the thought - but it brings to light an intangible idea that there is a "divide" between editor and admin. Plain and simple ... that should NOT be! We are all editors here .. the fact that user:abc happens to have a couple extra tabs that will do block/protect/delete functions should not be a source of separating us into 2 distinct groups. Perhaps it does in actuality, but it really shouldn't. user:Rootology has been trying to say something very similar to this I think with his WP:EQUAL proposal. Perhaps I'm the only one who finds a bit of irony in this, given his beginning history - but from the masses comes great strength. I honestly do understand that editors work long and hard to achieve the respect, and trust required from the community to achieve passing marks in an RfA. But, the fact of the matter is, that achievement should never be viewed as a completion of a goal. An achievement to be proud of surely, but it should only be taken as a step along the way, not an "I got it" accomplishment. Sometimes people need to take one step back, in order to move two steps forward - but how do we get everyone on the same page on this? — Ched :  ?  09:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched, in principle no there should not be such a divide between admins and other editors, but a gap exists and is widening. Ever rising expectations by RFA !voters combined with decreasing civility at RFA has resulted in a year long drought of new admins. Combine that with resignations and other attrition and we have a declining core of admins to share the admin workload. The larger their proportion of time spent on admin work and the less time spent on non-admin work the less engaged admins will be with the community. Take me for example, since getting the mop I've practically disappeared from FAC as so much of my wiki time is spent at CSD. I would like us to be in a situation where all experienced civil editors were admins, and any admin spending most of their time doing admin stuff was seen as unusual. But that would require a step change to the system, such as for example a boost to the wp:new admin school with admins only allowed to use parts of the toolset for which they had passed the training module. ϢereSpielChequers 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Spiel, how you doin? Yea, I did kinda notice that I tend to often echo your sentiments on various issues. Hopefully it's not in a parroting manner. ;). And I certainly agree that a perceived divide certainly does exist - although it really shouldn't in practice. I'd seen passing mention of the separation of tools here and there, but I don't recall a serious discussion on it to any great length. I'd imagine that there actually are a few, probably at the Pump. I have no idea what would be involved on the /dev side of it, but it very well might be worth exploration. I know the thread started with the concept that 'crats retain a "revoke" ability on newly passed RfA candidates, and I find the drift in this direction interesting. Not that my "typing out loud" actually adds any value to thread - but it probably would benefit me to research that a tad. Kind of "extend WP:UAL" if I'm following you on this. Hmmm, yea, I'll give that some thought. — Ched :  ?  16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched, yes there have been several threads about dividing the tools further, as I remember they usually founder on the remaining tools needing access to deleted contributions; and the need for people who get that right to be vetted by RFA or similar level of check. I think I'd also oppose such a change because it might make the remaining Admin role even more selective and hard to get - as I fear was the result of unbundling rollback. I believe that boosting the new admin training system would reduce the number of admin mistakes and thereby reduce distrust of the admin cadre. It would also enable us to re-focus RFA on the key issues of trust, civility and clue; give us a way to handle admin mistakes and reintegrate admins returning after extended wikibreaks without the dwama of deadminship. ϢereSpielChequers 08:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with things like "reverse rfa" and implicit oversight is that they seem redundant compared to WP:ARBCOM and good 'ol fashioned observant editors. At least with the arbcom folks, you have a lot less shallow "per nom" votes and a bit more investigative detail to go with each case. Neither system is perfect, but I do not see a reason to compound the bureaucracy. Look... lets say the concern is a clever vandal passing at WP:RFA. After passing, an editor discovers the sock. Now, the moment he announces it can be compared to throwing a fishnet on a large animal. Will arbcoms temporary injunction to remove powers be slower than a week long rf_da? Will the response by the cornered vandal be less profound with his fellow editors calling for blood compared to the even-handedness of the arbitrators? I don't thing anything needs to change after the "incident" in question. Let us admit that we can make mistakes sometimes and dial up arbcom when we can't deal with discovering them. ZabMilenko 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Updating the RfA template

I was wondering if there would be any support for updating the standard RfA template to include some mandatory stipulations of the community to help ground debate and focus !voters?

The items I was considering include (I'm no expert so please say what would be better than these):

1. Created Articles and Other Types of Page - Statistics and links [auto-generated preferably]
2. Content Compliance by Random, Auto-generated [and tamper-proof] sample - This would be a sample of the editor's created articles which would need to match all basic guidelines including plagiarism copyright etc. !Voters would be able to confirm for each article that each guideline was met and state so under the link.
3. Evidence of Policy Application- The candidate provides [up to 10?] examples where they have brought an article not created by them into Conformance with Wikipedia Policies
4. Evidence of Collaboration - The candidate provides evidence of working on large articles collaboratively with success
5. Evidence of Resolution - The candidate provides evidence of a multi-party conflict which was resolved properly through their input.
6. and maybe also [though not mandatory] GAs and FAs - Auto-generated statistics and links seems this one don't fly --Childoftv (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The rationale behind this is to provide a medium body of work for people to check before they feel they can support. This should be helpful in encouraging people to trust each other's opinions and hold a well grounded dialogue about the candidate. I should think "support due to having checked standard compliances, read candidate responses and also xyz" would become common in RfAs

I think that candidates would be happy to do more objective work towards their RfA for the gain of greater, less chaotic convergence of opinion during the RfA process. This would hopefully result in less frustrated debates and fewer accusations. Encouraging all parties well before, during and after to focus on first hand objective assessments through community mandated, practically manifested guidance should ground the context of the important subjective debate that needs to occur.

I think discussing what these numbered principles would be, even if people disagree that this is a good suggestion, of some worth. --Childoftv (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Outright oppose. First, the candidates are tipped off to crowd into wikipedia: space to rev up the count, now they are tipped off to punch something into FAs just to make the stats... These look like rules written to be gamed. And where is the logic of connecting large articles with collaboration? How can anything auto-generated check compliance with "each (sic) guideline" ? (incidentally, the most "auto-checkable" guideline, MOS:NUM, is also the least stable).Misunderstood your proposal, strike out Etc, etc. RFA voters are all different and everyone looks for something different. There's no need to force candidates to heed all of them, no one is perfect. NVO (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NVO, I think the GAs and FAs might not be good as stipulations so I've left them in as less important. What do you think would represent a minimal set of stipulations? Surely there are some complex but always necessary requirements with regard to plagiarism and created articles etc? --Childoftv (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism? What is plagiarism? apart from blatant copypaste, the answer isn't straightforward. Can you examine me for plagiarism unless you have the same set of books on your desk? no. Created articles? What about folks who salvage articles created by others? etc. Any attempt to impose mechanical rules will be followed with a mechanical compliance. Anyway, if you wanted my opinion on a "minimal set", I don't have one apart from irrational trust ("I know it when I see it"). I have no reservations voting for huggle-fighters or project coordinators with meager mainspace contributions, and I don't want to set artificial obstacle courses in front of these fellows. NVO (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose All these are distractions that risk reducing the time !voters spend looking at the candidates contributions, and if we want to learn one thing from the flying toaster incident its that we need to focus more on the candidates contributions. An FA or a GA is not an audit of the candidates contributions, but an audit of an article that they have contributed to and will usually be the main author of. However if another author has done the 5% of copy editing needed to remove spam, plagiarism, POV and abuse then an article could still achieve FA status. If you want to add anything to the template I suggest diffs for recent warnings posted to the candidate's talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 13:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:Copyvio and WP:PLAGIARISM cover the definitions somewhat. Doesn't focusing the !voters encourage them to actually check the candidate's articles, which is clearly what's important rather than trust other people checked and then accuse people of lying or being sheep? --Childoftv (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd rather that !voters were assessing the candidates contributions themselves rather than focussing on the ones that the candidate considered their best work. So take a candidate who edits football articles, all their articles on former players of their team are excellent well researched and the photos were taken by them. I'd still oppose if their deleted contributions included attack pages on the ref each time their team lost a match. ϢereSpielChequers 13:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree WereSpielChequers, so isn't there a way for an automatic system to pick a random sample of contributions for RfA focus, so that all candidates will need to make all their work compliant in case the random sample includes something bad. The status quo is that candidates just take short-cuts where they don't think/don't realise people will check [whether intentionally or not]. Very little gets checked this way because the task is so unfocussed and so !voters, seeing that other people's samples checked out ok, don't bother seeking their own sample of the candidate's work. More would be checked if there was some guidance ..no?--Childoftv (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We have copyvio bots that flag articles and template authors where copy violation is suspected. If someone can write a bot that spots plagiarism then I'd rather it ran across the whole of Wikipedia not just a random sample of an RFA candidates work. Editors are allowed to delete warnings from their talk page and trawling through talk page history is time consuming, so I think that a report showing warnings issued in say the last 6 months or 5,000 edits would be useful. I agree that RFA can seem unfocussed, thats why its useful for !voters to say what they have checked. I would like RFA to become a bit more like wp:FAC, as if someone whose judgement I trust says they've checked x then I will tend to check elsewhere. Perhaps we need a system similar to new page patrol whereby editors who are checking a candidates contributions could green flag edits they consider good and red flag edits they find concerning. That way we could reduce the repetition of fifty editors looking at the candidates last fifty edits, twenty looking at the first fifty and no one noticing the newby they bit 1100 edits ago. To my mind the point when a certain recent RFA went awry was when one editor described the candidates contributions as appalling without saying why. If the reason that !voter thought the contributions were appalling was that he had spotted the plagiarism, an oppose of "comparing this diff with this source the candidate appears to have committed plagiarism" would have torpedoed the RFA and saved the community much angst. ϢereSpielChequers 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For years I've had in the back of my mind the idea of some kind of editor "trust" rating system to make it easier to review edits. Could be done well or badly, and in an enormous number of different ways (eg public Ebay-style, or just private; based only on each editors' own ratings of others, or some kind of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon social web), but done well it could be an enormous asset. Most straightforwardly, it would start with flagging edits, and list for each editor (privately, to each editor doing the flagging) the number of edits approved and rejected or modified. Rd232 ^talk 10:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Private, anonymous rating will be a disaster. There are too many cleavages and warring factions reflecting real world conflicts (Jews-Arabs, Evolution-Creation etc etc.) to assume AGF for anon ratings. NVO (talk)

? private, anonymous variant is contradictory. If it's private, only each editor knows about the ratings they make of others, no-one else. Rd232 ^talk 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose if for no other reason than because my own RfA would have failed a couple of those items (I had/have no multi-party dispute resolutions, created articles, or the incredibly vague "conformance" item). We don't need to force RfA candidates into specific roles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  Let me just clarify...while an anti-plagiarism bot would be cool, I'm not proposing that. I'm saying that if you give people at an RfA a sort of "where to start checking out this candidate" or "at least check here" then people will check more and their !votes will be made on better grounds and everyone will respect each other [if only a little] more. Clearly which articles are chosen for "where to start" must not be prejudiced by a person, so a machine should randomly select them, fairly.--Childoftv (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  To this very day, I have absolutely 0 created articles to my credit. I've done significant content work on a whopping two (Zombie Survival Guide and Hannah's Gift), both of which were done before my RfA; the rest of my mainspace edits are of the wikignome variety (fixing formatting, chiefly), as well as the usual anti-vandalism stuff. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, your ideas seem very good WereSpielChequers. I posted this because I'm interested in what kind of system would solve the 'focus' and 'credibility of my his !vote' problems [and also hopefully help define the necessary but not sufficient conditions of adminship]. More particularly I'm looking for a system which can do that and one which people would get behind with enough consensus to make the change.--Childoftv (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per most of the above. While I'll certainly agree that the more we vet the candidates, and the better prepared candidates are, the result is a positive in respects to the community. (yea, I know, very poor sentence structure on that). Anyway, to me it sounds too much like an attempt to force people into a groupthink mentality. Different people bring different skill-sets to the table, so I think it's best to allow each to play to their own individual strengths. — Ched :  ?  16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If the reason that !voter thought the contributions were appalling was that he had spotted the plagiarism, an oppose of "comparing this diff with this source the candidate appears to have committed plagiarism" would have torpedoed the RFA and saved the community much angst - so somehow that needs to become a norm, which is sort of the central reason I proposed this. How do we make that the norm, particularly if people have strong emotions about a candidate and what they represent? It's about encouraging legitimate claims and discouraging ambiguous emotionally loaded claims [which often don't break WP:CIVILITY ]. I think letting all sorts become admins is great, but !voters often seem to reject the theory that there are no objective necessary conditions of adminship--Childoftv (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose; many of these criteria bear no relevance to whether or not someone could make a good admin, and in any case, many RFA contributors may not hold any or all of them valuable. It would also make RFA into a box-ticking exercise. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose any arbitrary criterion. Do we trust User:X to not go nuts with the tools? If so, give him a mop. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, that is how I gained it, after all. Xclamation point 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton, while I personally agree with you it's ever so clear that there are lots of people who don't. There seems to be an issue here of a set of individuals saying "I don't make this acrimonious, let's not change it, because I don't feel my attitude is to blame" but what emerges out of that is a highly ambiguous, unfocussed debate with nobody agreeing on what it is to be an admin or even what it is to constructively contribute to an RfA. Bad things will come of this frequently as it is highly anarchistic. Across many RfAs People will get offended, blocked, banned, many will lose friends and sleep and some will leave the community for good. Much needless debate about credibility of the candidate, !votes and particularly wikipedia policy will be done over and done over again because the community refuses to come together to better specify what it wants out of RfA. The status quo is tedious and full of millions of faulty assumptions and expectations which can only be subjectively bickered about. Is there nothing that can be done to improve this pointless waste of time and make RfAs respectable, well defined processes with dignified and adhered to norms of credibility and focus? --Childoftv (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, though establishing a set of requirements—some of which are more-or-less irrelevant to adminship itself—is not the right answer in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So if RfA stipulations are not the way to do it [and if they are but my headings are wrong, what should the headings be?] then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Childoftv (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also "my RfA wasn't based on this" isn't the right way to evaluate the merits of this proposal. I genuinely want an open discussion about objectivity and "grounding" the process. Just because your RfA wasn't frustrated and acrimonious doesn't mean that those which are aren't a problem, or that there might'nt be further benefits to better specification. It's about the right balance between enough grounding to make RfAs work better but not so much as to make them mechanical, arbitrary or wrongly restricted.--Childoftv (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New Question

I was thinking about a new question for the candidate - "If this is not your first RfA, how do you feel you have improved since your last RfA?" Any suggestions or thoughts? -download ׀ sign! 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people use that question all the time. I'm sure everyone would approve of it.--(NGG) 00:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not me. Completely pointless making it standard, when it doesn't apply to many RFAs, only retries. Really, the standard questions are fine as they are. It should be up to the voter to decide whether the candidate improved or not. Majorly talk 00:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the only time I generally ask that question is if *I* haven't looked at the candidates history in too much depth or am missing how the candidate has addressed the issues raised at the first RfA. If the candidate addressed the issues, then it should be obvious from his/her contributions---and a wise nominator/candidate will address that in their opening statements. No need for a question.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's typically the sort of question that's raised in the nomination statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that as compulsory it is unnecessary. If it needs to be asked, because it's not already covered, it will be - and regualrly is. In fact, EVula is right in suggesting that the candidates try to cover it themselves, isnce one would imagine they've asked themselves the same question re: why this RfA would pass when the last one didn't. It's a very important question, but it doesn't need formalising. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contribs point above, I do think there might be physicological aspects that would be helped by direct reply of the question, but that's nto really what is being discussed here. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question, but standardized questions should be applicable to all candidates. Law _{type! snype?} 09:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BexterSindicate

I was reading Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox when I read an oppose vote signed by Bishonen, and the oppose's contents made me suspicious enough to check the page history, and when I did, I saw that the vote was made by an account signing as Bishonen, most likely to paint her in a bad light. This user's only edits are both the vote, removing SineBot's edit to their vote, and they've welcomed themselves. I was tempted to block them, but I decided to bring it here instead for a second opinion. Thanks. Acalamari 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing; it's pretty clear this is a sock. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Haha, I was just about to note your block. :P → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh...thanks: I was obviously too nice. :) Oppose indented. Acalamari 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I just paying more attention because it's me, or is it rather unusual to have 3 separate incidents like this in one RFA? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is rather unusual, this could be some sort of record. Useight (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the last time was I saw so many neutrals either... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because so many people really really respect your work here Beebs. I think a lot of folks would really like to support, and just can't bring themselves to oppose because of a flashing red-light oopsie. Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That does seem to be an accurate assessment of the situation. I never thought an edit summary would end up torpedoing my RFA, but hey, live and learn. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm ... well, I do find value in evaluating how people deal with the inevitable mistakes they make too. I think the "learn" part of "live and learn" is important. ;) — Ched :  ?  11:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on process

A multitude of recent events, including brief discussions with User:WereSpielChequers, User:Majorly, and various other items I've inferred in the past weeks compels me to seek input from those editor who have experienced the RfA process first-hand. I'm hoping to get some input from current admins, and indeed any editors who have been through this, regardless of the "successful" or "un-successful" outcome.

1. How, if at all, did the RfA process affect you views of Wikipedia?
2. Did your editing patterns change after your RfA? .. and, (if yes) how?
3. What do you think the reasons for these changes were?

kthx — Ched :  ?  23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are you wanting responses right here? Well, I hope so cuz here they come, even though mine isn't over yet I think it's fairly clear I'm not gonna make it this time.

• My view of Wikipedia hasn't actually gone up or down as a result of this. I fully expected my edits to be closely scrutinized and I fully expected that once something was found there would be numerous "per" votes. I've watched RFA a lot more than I've participated in it, so it's not that surprising to me. What I didn't realize until after I transcluded it was what had just happened with FlyingToaster. Not that it changes or excuses my own error, but I think everyone is being extra-cautious right now because they don't want to "accidently" vote for the wrong person again. The sad thing about it is that a lot of RFA regulars apparently don't dig too deep before voting, but just wait for someone to make a point they can agree with so they'll know which way they want to vote. I repeat, though that I saw all of this (except the part about FT) before I ever nommed myself.
• I doubt my actual editing pattern will change one bit as a result of this, but I will obviously be more careful with the summaries. Hardly anyone has even brought up my actual edits, or even my answers to the RFA questions. The few that have mentioned that they'd feel better if I had GA or FA articles, but I'm not willing to completely change my focus to something I might enjoy less just to pass an RFA. I also think that would be just the kind of RFA "gaming" that should be avoided. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Very sensible of you. RFA has its fads and fashions and as someone who occasionally reviews at wp:FAC I do hope that "must have an FA or GA" remains a minority view that doesn't stop good candidates passing. Having said that, if I spot a reason to oppose I don't see the point in doing a full review, except to sugar the pill by bringing out points such as Civility, FAs or a clean block log that show the candidate is a valued member of the community but either not suited for adminship or not yet ready. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review. Under the "Question" phase there are all sorts of people who answered those questions and others. The process itself stalled out - the primary user involved, Gazimoff, got pretty busy after he became an admin and it doesn't look like anyone else took up the mantle. Nathan ^T 14:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's retired. It's interesting - he started in Feb. 08, became an admin 6 months later in August, and retired 6-7 months later in March. He posted a note on this page awhile back that he had changed jobs and also felt like Sisyphus pushing the review process alone. Nathan ^T 14:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

/me duely notes coldly. I was not aware of that page. Thank You. — Ched :  ?  16:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that initiatives to change RFA have gone nowhere... we can't all agree as to what the problem/s is/are. And even where we might agree on issues, we don't necessarily agree on solutions. For every proposal, there have been a score of reasons to resist/oppose.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WT:RFA. Maybe that should be in the front matter or something. Useight (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, personally, when I see somebody wanting to make change, I've reached the point where I roll my eyes and groan. Gazimoff's project highlighted the impossibility of meaningful change.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OH .. it wasn't that I was wanting to make changes, I'm just wondering how the whole procedure affects those who have endured it. How does it affect editing patterns and the view of WP. There is no way to suggest change until I understand how it works, and what results come about from an RfA. Does it make people bitter? .. do they retreat to secluded areas to edit? .. do admins. get pulled away from areas that they care about because they feel a sense of duty to maintenance task? ... that kinda stuff. — Ched :  ?  17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't foresee it happening to me, there are definitely users who have retreated into the shadows or even quit entirely as a result of a failed RFA. However, the reasons for this are probably as varied as the users themselves. Some were probably ashamed of themselves for failing, while others found out what they were doing here was not as valued as they had imagined, and some people just can't accept it when things don't go their way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I really can't understand why someone would be ashamed of failing, or even if it's right to call getting less than 70% of the popular vote a failure at all. I've "failed" twice, but I'm not in the least ashamed by it, rather I'm amazed at the community's stupidity in not recognising an excellent candidate when presented with one. ;-) Would I stand again? Not in a million years. Will it make me leave? It probably will eventually, or at least it'll be a significant contributory factor when I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I never felt as though I was being judged against any type of objective standards, so I just tweaked a few habits to mitigate two areas of complaint which helped sink my first RfA. First, I just stopped using all caps in my edit summary when trying to get administrator action on cases that are not receiving administrator action. Then I used twinkle to run up my edit count. Then I passed my second RfA. Admittedly, I think I improved quite a bit between my first and second RfA, and that is reflected in the results of my second RfA, but again, I did not find the process terribly meaningful in judging my abilities as a sophisticated user of Wikipedia, so much as a sophisticated diplomat. If you fail an RfA, but have two or three things that people widely say you need to change before they'll support you, then just change those few things for a couple of months and you'll pass RfA. It is that easy, because it is that arbitrary. I actually got a lot more value out of Ryan Postlethwaite's admin school, as well as learning from my own mistakes. RfA used to be just a question of whether or not we trust someone to handle the responsibility. It is still that at the core, but with the addition of all kinds of individual litmus tests being applied by various individuals, which just allows a failing candidate to game the system by "meeting the goals" the next time around. Doesn't mean you have a bad admin, just a bad process for picking an admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tech question: {{rfatally}}

Is this functioning properly? For example it's only registering supports at CactusWriter's RFA. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the only opposer, does it really matter? It's not like your vote will affect the result. It's not supposed to be numbers anyway. People pay too much attention to the tally as it is. Majorly talk 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. You'd be best off asking X!. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot only updates every 30 minutes, so it takes a while for new !votes to register. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's spelled R-Fatally, go figure. NVO (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the real reason here is the bot appears not to register single votes that don't have anything below them. The bot recognized the oppose after I added this. Left a note at User talk:X!#RfAtally. –xeno^talk 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just wondering. And Majorly, calm down. I was simply asking a question, there's no reason to hyperventilate. I know my oppose will not change the outcome, but I saw what appeared to be a technical glitch and inquired about it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. And don't worry, I'm not hyperventilating :) Majorly talk 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Your pC02 is still too high. Can somebody oppose the candidate on the basis of his/her favorite color to correct this? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I figure I should actually get this, but I am lost :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the scientist in me : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you were trying to say carbon dioxide, you should have them subscripts or no one will understand :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very true, but I can be insufferably lazy. I was going for "the partial pressure of carbon dioxide". Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys, calm down. I've solved this problem. It was actually fairly simple. When Tangotango was writing this library, he made a typo when he wrote it. The problem code was supposed to ignore lines with nothing in them, it ended up ignoring sections with only 1 item. Xclamation point 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A Question that has probably already been discussed to death

Since the early days of the project, RfA standards have risen exponentially. In 2004, for example, promotions with less than one thousand edits were quite common, see ChrisO, Noldoaran, Isomorphic, Pfortuny (and many more) and contributors with only 2 or 3 months of experience were routinely promoted. An editor was promoted to bureaucratship after about 4 months of serious editing, which many people now consider too little for an admin candidate, much less a 'crat. Indeed, after looking through a large number of RfAs from 2004 and 2005, if those candidates ran again today (with the same level of experience), I would expect less than 1/3 to succeed, and probably somewhere around 50% would be closed within 24 hours per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Yet, very few admins from the early flamed out and were de-sysopped; they didn't ruin the wiki; and many of them are still around today.

So here's my question: Why have standards risen so much? Why do people expect a minimum of 3k edits today and 5 or 6 months of editing? What was wrong with the days of "700 edits and 3 months, sounds like a good guy, let's promote"? I know that some people will say that back in the day the wiki was smaller and people knew each other better, so not as many edits were necessary, but that's not really the issue here. If 500 edits were enough for someone to be known in 2004, then couldn't we get to know candidates today by carefully looking at a record of 500 or 1000 edits? Cool3 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, analogy time. Someone sets up a small cornershop in the middle of a small village. They sell the best buns in the world, and everyone queues up to buy one. He is known throughout the village and unsurprisingly becomes major (of the village... pfft, whatever.) The same man, in a parallel history, sets up a small cornershop in the middle of New York City. He still sells the best buns in the world, but people walk past a barely notice the man. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't become major, and is confined to selling buns the rest of his life. See what I mean? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the rise in standards is almost unsuportable - and surely must be overdue to level out in terms of edit count and tenure. I do find some editors standards of expectation at RFA to be incredibly high. To play devils advocate however, and noting some RFA's from the early days, let us consider an older motor car as an example. It moved us from A to B. It worked. It was brilliant by the standards of the time. Now we expect anti-lock brakes, 50 to the gallon and 100 mph plus from our vehicles. Increasing expectation of the highest standards is not all bad.... except when our expectations deprive us of acceptable if sub-optimal solutions. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I object to your calling Ferrari "highest standards"! :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I take your counter point, and accept the error of my assertion :). Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see some currency in weburiedoursecretsinthegarden's explanation, but I think there's more. Automated tools, countervandalism, mass minor copyediting, and changes in the corpus of the wiki ("Africa is no longer a redlink") have led to an increase in the average number of edits before editors ask for and obtain adminship. There's some chicken and some egg there, but I expect that standards in particular have increased because people lump every candidate into the same modern understanding of editing with automated tools, etc., so they simply expect more of everyone, even those whose individual edits are more extensive, and whose contributions are poorly measured by their edit counts. While that may not be fair, it's led to a large increase in the minimum number of edits that are expected, with a somewhat smaller consumate increase in the number of actual editing hours expected before adminship (after-all 800 non-automated, substantive edits in 2004 probably required more time than 6000 edits worth of countervandalism and spell-checking today).--chaser (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Change happens.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's called group dynamics, as groups evolve so too do the expectations. I joined a group a few years ago that was a council of a larger national group. According to the larger national groups standards, in order to hold executive positions with the group you had to have met certain experience requirements within the group. Because the council I belonged to was new, that expectation was waved. Not only that, but I was invited to represent our council at the state conference. Today, that same council would never let somebody hold that position. Then think about American soceity. My grandfather was a Colonel in the Air Force. He had a HS degree. Today, you can't be an officer without a college degree, heck senior enlisted personell are expected to have college degrees today. My Dad was a Lt Colonel before retiring, he had a PhD. In order to make it to Colonel the expectation was that you had at least a Master's degree. Today, the expectations are even higher... but this is the norm for EVERY organization and every culture. As they evolve expectations naturally increase as the rules and formality increase. 5 years ago, the rules at WP were nothing ike they are today. A person could learn all they needed in a shorter period... the number of vandals were also nothing like they are today... the prestige of WP is nothing like it is today.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is of course one major flaw (Major Flaw geddit?) in your argument, which is that unlike your own antecedents administrators never die. Would the US still be happy to have your grandfather as a serving member of the Air Force today? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that after five years on Wikipedia, administrators who stuck around are (hopefully) still capable of performing their administrative tasks. After fifty years in the military, an individual would not be capable of performing at the same level they had previously. It's going to be nigh impossible to find a perfect analogy. Useight (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are no doubt aware that wikipedia is approaching the stage where around 50% of its administrators are inactive even by the very loose "official" definition of that term. So it's not a matter of "sticking around". Still, let's not get bogged down in facts, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am aware of the high turnover, which is why I used the qualifier "who stuck around" to indicate that I was referring to the small minority with a long tenure. My statement was comparing what would be a very long tenure on Wikipedia (five years) to what would be a very long tenure in the military (fifty years). Useight (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The best answer is that standards across Wikipedia have increased in the same way over the same time period. Look at the evolution of Featured Articles over the same time period; early FAs wouldn't even merit B-class under todays classification system. As Wikipedia as a whole gets better, the standards rise with it. I would expect that the ratio of admins-to--active-editors has remained roughly constant; its just that as Wikipedia has become a larger population, we have raised the standards for the leaders of that population. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why guess? Why not look at the figures and see if you're right? And please, can we just drop the hollow pretence that administrators are "leaders"? I thought they were janitors? Or is the hollow pretence that they're janitora? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm...dude, are you talking to yourself?--(NGG) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the only way to get a sensible answer around here, as you've just proved once again. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was just looking for someone to continue this thread but all I kept seeing was your response getting longer. Lol, sorry.--(NGG) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(response to Malleus) Here's what I found. Today: 158,060 active users, 1,656 admins (approx 100:1). May 2004: 2945 active users, 260 admins (approx. 10:1). Problem is, the 2004 source uses a different metric for "active users": 5 edits in the last month instead of the current source's 1 edit in the last month. So these stats are pretty useless. -kotra (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You just need better stats: Wikipedia:Editing_frequency  ;-) Dragons flight (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Neat, thanks (I noticed that in Category:Wikipedia statistics, but thought it was something else). In that case, switching out the May 2004 active users figure (5664), it's 95:1 now, and 22:1 in May 2004. Now my obsession with useless statistics that have little bearing on anything is momentarily sated. -kotra (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

←Warning snarky comment coming: re: "Still, let's not get bogged down in facts, eh?" ... certainly not, we are an encyclopedic effort after all ... lol. Sorry Mal, I just couldn't resist ;) — Ched :  ?  03:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Jayron is on to something. As any population increases, in a Darwinian sense, those who were once Gods will again become men. The above average go back to mediocrity. With ever increasing numbers, there is a better genepool to select from, so standards naturally shift to those with the perceived talent. The college you attend today most likely has stricter standards than it did 20 or even 10 years ago. When God invented microbreweries, Coors just wasn't cutting it for me anymore. Law _{type! snype?} 04:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Works fine for closed systems, through in emigration and it's not so rosy. NVO (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly not an empirical approach or I could have contradicted myself with US presidential candidates over the last 50 years where one could argue that the system has become so watered down that it is impossible to distinguish any one individual as being exceptional. Law _{type! snype?} 06:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a divide at RFA between those who consider that all civil, experienced editors in goodstanding should become admins, and those who consider that admins should be some sort of elite uberwikipedians. If like me you tend to the former group then having less than a thousand admins amongst our 158,000 active users is deeply troubling. If you belong to the latter group then please consider; What happens when the standards at RFA rise to the point where most wikipedians are unlikely to meet them during their wiki career? How do we keep our dwindling number of active admins as part of the community if they have to spend an increasing proportion of their Wiki time doing admin actions? And remember, since there is no consensus as to what an uberwikipedian looks like, even candidates that you support may still be rejected. ϢereSpielChequers 08:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one has considered the issues related to reducing the risk of ill-considered admin actions and correcting as quickly as possible those that occur - i.e the need for a swift and fair appeals system and and a swift and fair recall system. Without these, it's quite reasonable for editors to want to front-load all the safeguards into RfAs. --Philcha (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PEREN#It should be easier to remove adminship Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that the "Reasons for rejection" at WP:PEREN#It should be easier to remove adminship lead with "Rejected by admins". I suggest the fact that admins give much greater weight to the views of other admins is a another reason for "ordinary" editors to be hyper-cautious at RfA. --Philcha (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason actually given is "Many admins object that a system like this would be too open to abuse by editors who have been disciplined by admins for violating policy." Which is I've suggested (in passing, never tried to make a proper proposal) that a recall request could be made by anyone, but this would be ignorable unless a number of admins support the recall, and then it would be taken to a formal Arbcom-like (if not actually Arbcom) procedure. Rd232 ^talk 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems a little to me like the referee of a football match having to get the agreement of a players' teammates before being allowed to send the player off the pitch. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No. A closer analogy would be requiring the agreement of all footballers in a league before a player can be banned from playing. The alternative we're trying to avoid is letting fans vote on the issue. Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like Malleus, I think requiring others admins to approve a recall would not solve the problem. I've suggested elsewhere that a fixed number of recalls per 12 months per editor (not accounts, you don't get extra tries for sockpuppets) would be a simple way to control frivolous or malicious recall motions. Or perhaps a system like challenges in tennis - each challenge substracts from the quota, but each successful challenge adds to the quota. --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Any system would be better than none. Why would admins approving a recall not work? At least it's fairly simple and easy to understand, unlike whatever it is you're suggesting. Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well someone's got to be the first to say it, so here goes. Would turkeys vote for Thanksgiving? The lack of trust in the administrator corps from a significant and I dare say increasing, number of regular editors would make any proposal that administrators themselves have the last say in approving a recall a laughing stock. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm pretty sure that trust issues relate (a) to specific admins and (b) to a failure to have a better system for reviewing controversial admin actions, not to lacking trust in the "admin corps". Second, do we allow the general population to vote on whether individual cops should get sacked? No, we have internal investigations, and perhaps some external body to handle complaints and do investigations as well. As long as admins have a police function, letting the people they're supposed to police judge them is highly problematic if it isn't filtered appropriately. Rd232 ^talk 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The analogy "do we allow the general population to vote on whether individual cops should get sacked" is both invalid and unreassuring. It's invalid because, at least in theory, cops are accountable to elected representatives, whom the public can vote out. It's unreassuring because there are too many police scandals of both commission and omission, and they mostly get away with it even when there's clear evidence of wrong-doing. --Philcha (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an invalid analogy. Arbcom is elected, and can throw admins out after investigation. The problem is that there is no working equivalent of internal review or internal investigations, which to mind would exactly involve admin discussion, based on evidence from anyone. Reminder: currently there is no process, apart from Arbcom (which is and should be a last resort). Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Err, just remind me. How many members of the present ArbCom are not administrators? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your point being? They're elected. If people objected that much to them being admins, they wouldn't vote for them. Frankly, I'm starting to think you have issues with admins that derive from bad personal experience, in which case, again, if there was any misbehaviour or misjudgement by an admin, that doesn't mean you should treat the class of admins as a political cabal. Rd232 ^talk 18:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care what you think; the only thing that matters to me is what I think. And I think that when you stick your head in the sand your arse makes a very good target. How many of the active editors voted? Who had the final say in who was elected? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone had the option of voting. It was advertised to all. It's like people who complain about Obama who didn't vote either way... except on Wikipedia, one vote matters even more, because there's much less people. hmwithτ 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What, we don't even get a 3/5th compromise?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice try SchizoI'm Spartacus!. For a 3/5th compromise on WP the analogue of slaves would be non-admins. Get real :-) Philcha (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not based upon what MF wrote, he wants to disenfranchize admins.... now the notion that non-admins only count as 3/5ths of an admin in building consensus, I could go along with that :P ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

MF's did not say that, he said, "would make any proposal that administrators themselves have the last say in approving a recall a laughing stock". My intention, and I think MF's, was that admins get the same voting rights as other registered users. --Philcha (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To draw some of these ideas together: adminship offers access to more powerful tools than it did a few years ago, and WP is generally more complicated. So RfA standards should have risen, and did. The pool of qualified applying candidates has also grown (as the community has grown), but not proportionally. Two problems I see. First, the continuing lack of a workable desysopping procedure, or even a system for monitoring the behaviour of new admins (developing Wikipedia:Administrator review?), which makes RfA such a painful crunch point. (There's a reason it's a perennial proposal.) Second, the range of tools and experiences candidates and admins can have is now so wide that it makes it very difficult to establish a clear relationship between a candidate's experience and the admin tools they'll have access to and duties they'll be expected to be capable of performing. Short of finding some way of making specialist admins (formally or informally), or breaking away some of the tools from adminship to separate roles, I can't see a way around that. Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I expect the RFA standard to grow even higher because of the growing popularity of en.wikipedia. We will have more people running for adminship in future. AdjustShift (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick eyeball of the figures does not appear to support your assertion that wikipedia's popularity is growing. Quite the reverse in fact; it appears that the peak number of active editors occurred about two years ago, and has been in steady decline since then. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Popularity in terms of usage may still be rising, but new editors are not joining us in the numbers they once did, or at least not as fast as editors leave. I fear that overzealous new page patrolling maybe partly responsible for the loss of editors. I'm not aware that the tools are any wider than they once were - if anything the unbundling of rollback and account creation have reduced the number of admin only tools. ϢereSpielChequers 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussions like this one always stall because very few seem quite certain of what they want to achieve by them, or can even agree the premises on which they're based. For instance, Probably everyone would agree that one active administrator per 100,000 active editors is to say the least a little on the low side, but would everyone agree that one active administrator per five active editors was too many? One per two editors? What would an optimum ratio be? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the general view was that there was no optimum ratio of admins to users, only of admins to admin workload. Rd232 ^talk 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Admin workload" is just busy work, a lot of it created by an unwillingness to grasp the nettle and make a few changes that would eliminate much of it. The number of janitors an institution employs doesn't depend on the size of the institution (the "workload"), it depends on what use is being made of the facility. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes such as? Anyway that's irrelevant to the point. It may be we can reduce admin workload, but admin workload is still the reason to have admins. Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes such as flagged revisions, semi-protection of BLPs ... have you been living in a cave for the past few months? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, I think standards with regards to experience have risen too much. I got my tools without much drama after my account was 3-4 months old and had made about 3000 edits, but a record like that would probably be NOTNOWed in short order. Regarding edit counts, the presence of automated tools has made inflating the edit count total easier, and that may account for the higher "average edit count for a new admin" figure we have today, but it doesn't provide an adequate explanation for why a candidate with 2000-4000 substantial non-automated edits should fail. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

People tend to look at the numbers and not how good the edits are. That may explain why an RFA candidate with 2000-4000 substantial non-automated edits may fail. AdjustShift (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, that is why they may fail, but it doesn't explain why they should fail. Your observation that people look at numbers rather than the substance of the edits is right on the money, unfortunately. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They shouldn't fail. An RFA of a candidate with 2000-4000 substantial non-automated edits shouldn't fail. But the RFA regulars have the habit of looking at the number of edits, rather than the substance of the edits. If an RFA candidate has contributed to difficult subjects like differential calculus, done very little automated edits, and knows about the WP policies, his RFA should pass. But he may struggle to pass because of the low edit count. AdjustShift (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for "Immediate Aftermath" scenarios

In some parliamentary procedures, anyone voting "yes" on an item may "move to reconsider" the item within a specified time of its passing. The motion to reconsider has to be approved before the item can be reconsidered.

Now, an RFA is not a vote. But there is a general minimum level of support below which a 'crat will not promote, and a higher number where he will almost always support. In practice, each 'crat has his own range and each RFA is unique.

How does this sound:

• If, within 7 days of a successful RFA, the closing 'crat receives enough "withdrawal of support" or "now opposing" notifications from people who the 'crat counted as supportive that the person no longer meets the 'crat's minimum criteria for support, the closing 'crat may, at his discretion, ask the opinions of other non-involved 'crats and if they collectively may declare a do-over of the RFA.

Why 7 days? Because that's the time period of an RFA. I'm not married to it but it sounds rational.

While I'm not entirely happy with the power this gives to the closing crat to sweep things under the rug, I think we can trust the 'crats to use good judgment and not abuse that power. If we can't, we've got bigger issues.

A little disclaimer: I would be happier if all admins were either term-limited like arbitrators or at least subject to recall, and that no doubt colors my views on this issue.

Here's some advantages and disadvantages I see over the current system of "once you are in, you are in:"

Advantages over status quo:

• Solves the "supporting early with incomplete information, but didn't check at the last minute" problem.
• Adds more encouragement of full disclosure. The current long time window already does this so this is only a small advantage.

Disadvantages over status quo:

• Introduces more politics, as people may game the timing of the release of unfavorable information to disrupt the RFA process itself and waste people's time.
• More opportunity that a 'crat or the 'crats as a whole may be accused of favoritism or picking on someone if he makes a close call to uphold an RFA or take action in the face of post-close changes.
• More work for 'crats, as if they aren't busy enough as it is.

By the way, while I favor this over the status quo, given the few number of people who would be affected by this I can live with the status quo.

What are your thoughts on this?

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia is not a Democracy and the above is promoting a vote system by making the current vote system "better". If people want to put forth one statement and then change their mind later, chances are they should never have put down the original statement. Until people put more thought into their statements (especially when many support without rationales), then the system wont be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support, it sounds like a good idea to leave RFAs open for a couple days longer in case a pile-on of opposes surface ... but the moment a problem makes it past that few day period we will be right here again. ZabMilenko 23:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. There has to be a time when the promotion is confirmed, and you could extend it forever like this. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose We already have processes bureaucracy for dealing with this sort of thing. RFC. ArbCom. We don't need to make things more convoluted. If you feel you were mislead and want to change after closure, you need to follow the dispute resolution processes. per above as well. Dlohcierekim 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose A user should either research better before commenting or follow the proper processes. I don't see much to gain from doing this, and I see a lot of problems that could arise. hmwithτ 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 2 for "Immediate Aftermath" scenarios

I. Extensions of RFAs: In the event of clear changes from support to non-support late in an RFA, 'crats may extend the RFA by up to 3 1/2 from the time unfavorable information becomes part of the RFA.

II. All new administrators will be subject to recall during the first 7 days in office. If a recall effort is launched, the recall must be concluded within 7 days of the start of the recall effort. Any such recall effort must be based on verified information not known during the RFA and the recall effort must be supported by at least one non-involved 'crat and at least one person who supported the candidate during the RFA.

Again, while this pair of changes is better than the status quo, I can live with the status quo.

What are your thoughts on this?

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there an ongoing problem this is trying to fix? RxS (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is vastly inferior to getting a working system of desysopping or at least of review of admin behaviour. Rd232 ^talk 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't need the process becoming more hopelessly bureaucratic than it already is. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support part I - a no-brainer; assumed crats already had this discretion (though to clarify, it's 3 1/2 days, correct?). As for part II, what sort of recall process are we talking about here? A "do-over" RfA, or something else? -kotra (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (struck support as per own comment below) -kotra (talk)

  Recall always carries with it an air of ambiguity and consternation, since there's no way to really enforce it. My guess is that it's reconfirmation proposal. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Wisdom; we don't need any more bureaucracy. Let the 'crats use their own discretion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly - the first part would simply be done on a case by case basis, which is implicit anyway. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  I see we already allow for this (and have allowed it for a while): "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer." (WP:RFA) In that case, I agree that further detailing it is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. Support struck. -kotra (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless I miss my guess, both proposals seem to be tailored to address a problem which arose shortly after a recent RfA. I'm not convinced that we need to add a lot of complicated bells and whistles to the RfA process in order to deal with something which is apparently a very rare problem. We already have Arbitration to deal with revocation of admin privileges; there's no need to generate an entirely novel process in response to cases which are exceedingly rare.

Of course, if we really wanted to avoid this sort of last-minute, after-the-fact, I-need-more-time, surprise-witness, this-changes-everything, October-surpise, request-a-recess, the-first-voters-don't-know-anything futzing around, there's a very simple and elegant fix. Put the review period at the beginning of the process, not at the end. Open the discussion five days before the voting starts. There's time for evidence to come forward and for people to let things percolate. There's no need for the heat-of-the-moment arguments and edit conflicts, or the threaded bickering in the numbered votes lists. The candidate isn't trying to desperately answer questions while the votes just keep rolling in. Add the usual five days for voting, and we get ten days of candidate review — including five days of pure discussion. It's been proposed before (not by me). Maybe someone would like to take up the torch again? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

that sounds very sensible to me - discussion before voting. Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, although 5 additonal days may be too much. 1-3 days of Q&A and "facts only please, no supports, opposes, or neutrals" information-gathering could be useful. It would also allow people to point out to obvious "not now's" that they should withdraw gracefully without a "tally" showing. Discussions before voting won't solve 11th-hour or post-!vote issues, by definition, they arrive at or after the 11th-hour. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Experimentation can be a good thing, but the only example we have of holding off on voting for a few days was Ironholds (in December if I remember right?), and the results weren't good. I'm fine with trying it several more times, just to see. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"The results weren't good."? Can you be more specific please? Rd232 ^talk 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-10-13/Experimental_RfA :) ∗ \ / {talk} 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. If an admin doesn't voluntarily recall then a temporary injunction by WP:ARBCOM will be sufficient until they can sort out the details. ZabMilenko 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• The first one is probably okay, but the second is pointless (as per my oppose to the option above. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose "Scenarios" - the plural implies that this has happened more than once in the past and is likely to happen frequently enough in the future to need its own policy. I don't think that that is the case. Part one is overly restrictive - the crats have discretion to extend RFAs when needed for an appropriate amount of time and have used that appropriately in the past (though it clearly wasn't appropriate for FlyingToaster's RFA, and I don't remember anyone suggesting that that be extended before it closed). Part two is not worth considering unless someone can produce another example from the last 500 RFAs where that might have been invoked for good cause. In the event of part 2 going ahead anyway we would need some way of avoiding spurious and malicious recalls, and if we can come up with that then we might as well implement the recall system for all admins not just those in their first week. ϢereSpielChequers 10:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose We already have processes bureaucracy for dealing with this sort of thing. RFC. ArbCom. We don't need to make things more convoluted. If you feel you were mislead and want to change after closure, you need to follow the dispute resolution processes. per above as well. If the RFA is ongoing, Crat's already have discretion on closure/extension, as happened with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2, where the RFA was extended to "solidify the community consensus". Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I stated at the above proposal (diff). hmwithτ 14:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Some perspective

We've had exactly one RfA where support seems to have dwindled in the immediate aftermath of the RfA. Is that a problem that needs fixing? No system is going to work a 100% of the time.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Hopefully we're talking about the same items. I can only speak for myself, but I'll admit to becoming overly critical in the aftermath. I felt that I failed to check things out as well as I should have, and my desires to support RfA 1, led to my decisions in following RfAs. I got caught with my pants down, and I over-reacted because I felt a sense of guilt, meaning I thought I let the 'pedia down. In one case, I actually went back and changed my !vote because I felt I was being excessively demanding in regards to my own standards. While adminship isn't supposed to be a big deal, the use of the functions can be. Perhaps unfairly, an Admin is looked to as some "all-knowing guru", and that really isn't fair. Of course they are viewed as role models, but perhaps perfection is asking a bit much. As far as what needs fixing? .. I don't know. I can only say that I'll try to look, to make sure. that a candidate is fully aware of our policies, and that they are civil in the treatment of others. Then I'll try to !vote for what's best for WP in the long run. If nothing else, I learned something over the past couple weeks. — Ched :  ?  02:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly would be very unfair if administrators were regarded as "all knowing gurus", not to say criminally naive. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Boy, one might be able to infer a lot of different things from that one Mall. I know that out there in the real world, many cultures hold ignorance as no excuse in regards to breaking the law. (mine included). I don't know if "criminal" is an aspect that I look for by default here, but I will admit that WP:COPYVIO has to be taken into consideration at all times just because of the legal implications. As such, I have learned to look for the signs of it, and I'll adjust my viewpoints accordingly. I'm not willing to pick up my torch and and pitchfork simply due to one not being aware of one of our policies. I'd hope that a polite 'Oppose would suffice, rather than echoing any chants of "off with her head". In regards to the WP:Plagiarism guideline, perhaps the fact that it became a guideline only after the fact, is an indication that we failed as a community, almost as much as any individual who errantly missed that point. I think I'll stop here, as I may well be traveling a path that wasn't intended to be highlighted. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An aside about the plagiarism guideline — I would caution that while the plagiarism page only recently got the official {guideline} imprimatur, that newish template should not be misunderstood as meaning that strict opposition to plagiarism is a novel attitude on Wikipedia. As with many of our policies and guidelines, WP:PLAGIARISM is simply an attempt to codify preexisting best practices and concisely summarize information that used to be spread out over a number of other documents (particularly WP:CP).

Plagiarism never has been an acceptable way to add content to Wikipedia, and editors who get into the habit have been routinely cautioned and (if necessary) blocked until they mend their ways. Regular readers of AN/I probably see such cases every couple of months, when a persistent plagiarist refuses to be guided and needs to be banned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, without a doubt I agree with you Ten. It simply occurred to me that some editors may only glance at the title and a few words of WP:COPYVIO, and not make the direct connection of plagiarism being a form of violation. And while I'd don't recall ever listing anything at WP:CP, if I did notice something, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to make use of that process. I believe that as the WP:PLAGIARISM becomes more popular, well, strike that ... more prominently known and understood, it will help in easing the burden of those who are most active in that area. I'll admit, I've seen posts from time to time in regards to the issue at ANI, and it always amazes me that some folks just won't get it. As you suggest, it's definitely something that has to become part of WP:CLUE. — Ched :  ?  15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 3

Wikiversity has a probationary/mentorship period for all sysops (see v:Wikiversity:Custodianship for full details, which I'm not going to retype). I'm not altogether certain it would scale well, but it could address some of the concerns we've seen recently. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Partially covered at WP:PEREN methinks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As one of the staff at Wikiversity, I would recommend not having such a system here. We are a learning project. Wikipedia is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm all for mentorship and growing into a job, I fear this may suffer from the same bureaucracy creep as the other proposals. At some point, we all must use the common sense the good God gave us. Dlohcierekim 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

I've read in yet another RFA that terrible things go on there, and that actions there are grounds to oppose RFA's here. Can others please inform me and dispel my ignorance? I never go there. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, from my experience, people merely discuss users/events at Wikipedia without the civility rule there. It's like a pub if this is a workplace. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever's said on WR isn't secret or unlogged, as on IRC, so why not go and take a look for yourself? Nobody will bite you. Even jimbo posts there occasionally. You might even learn something. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true actually. I've posted there and been treated pretty well... which is odd, considering I'm not as mature as most of the users there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When you say "mature", I guess you mean "old"? I'm never really sure what the wikimeaning of "maturity" is supposed to be. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well...yeah. I'm sure there are more mature teenagers than myself. :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a great many who would say there are a lot more mature teenagers than myself too, but I won't lower the tone by telling you what I say to them in return. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why my being treated like, well, an adult surprises me so ;) I don't mind if you think less of me because of my age, don't worry yourself. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There are quite enough people trying to put words in my mouth without you starting as well. Obviously I wouldn't support your RfA because I know you're a teenager, but I can asure you that it's nothing personal, and that I don't think any less of you because of your age. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucky for WBOSITG, he's an admin already ;) Nathan ^T 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Phew much ;) That's good, Malleus. I can understand that its only a blanket view and not a personal thing (I'm guessing that if your best friend was running for Prime Minister on a party you didn't agree with you would give him your vote, it's the same idea.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't vote for prime ministers, they're chosen by whichever political party wins the election. So to put your question in a UK political context: "Would you vote for your best friend if he stood for a political party you didn't agree with?" The answer is a resounding NO, I would not, and I wouldn't be shy about telling my best friend why. To do anything else would be dishonest. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well I'm not old enough to vote though, am I? :P That was what I mean like, cheers. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, Jimbo posts there? Since when? I know there are a few people that post with names that mock Jimbo, but not he himself. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[Re to Malleus Fatuorum]: That is not entirely true. Not everything said there can be seen by all people. Wikipedians cannot see all threads about themselves without joining and making a certain amount of posts (is it 10?), and not everyone can get an account there (some people don't have an email address that will be accepted). hmwithτ 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WR is a warning bell/a red flag, it COULD be a negative and grounds for an oppose, but it isn't in and of itself evil. You have to take it on a case by case basis.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WR's remit, as I understand it, is to be critical of wikipedia, which is an entirely healthy goal IMO. Particularly as criticism is so often stifled by the dead hand of consensus and perennial here on wikipedia. WR shoould only be a "red flag" for those who feel that critical debate needs to be stamped out as a "dramah". One very good recent example is the exposure of ArbCom member Sam Blaketer's deception, something that was clearly kept hidden here on wikipedia until exposed at WR. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not healthy when a majority is vitriol. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a majority "vitriol"? Is criticism always vitriolic in your eyes? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between healthy criticism (which definitely can be found at WR, too) and "Let's get rid of Admin X"-threads (which aren't nearly as common anymore, but they do still happen). --Conti|✉ 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That "exposure", if and only if it was true, was a call for personal information to be revealed about the actual person and had nothing to do with sock puppetry. One of the members claimed to have an idea of who his previous account was, but they didn't bother to reveal it. So, that undermines any claims that the site can be used for the good. Instead, it was to compromise privacy and privacy only. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...or to expose conflicts of interest that were being swept under the carpet around here. The Register has picked up the story now. I don't agree with much of the ideology of WR regulars, and find many of them to be nutters, but as long as there are people like the one exposed in this article, and people like you who defend them and attack those who blow the whistle on them, there'll be a need for sites like WR. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interests like User:Moulton, who knew Rosalind Picard, and his edit wars and attacking those involved with the article? And then using Wikipedia Review as a means to attack and criticize anyone who tried to work on the article that put anything beyond what specifically he wanted and was unable to compromise on the issue? Wikipedia Review has just as many conflicted editors, and we exposed and handled many of them here on Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, some of the stuff discussed on that site is useful but some of it is total nonsense. So it's quite like #wikipedia-en-admins or AN/I. I have an account on Wikipedia Review... not that I do much with it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite. It would be very easy to characterise many of the threads at AN/I as "let's get rid of editor X". I imagine that the concern though is that WR focuses its attention on administrators, not lowly editors. Hence by definition it's "vitriolic". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

yuppers... too much time at ANI could also be a red flag/warning bell ;-) post at either is not, by definition, grounds for opposition. It is a place that you might want to check. Similarly IRC is an area which garners a fair amount of opposition, but being involved with IRC is not grounds for a default oppose.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Review is a site whose administrators are either banned Wikipedians or those that support banned Wikipedians that either do whatever they can to disrupt and get revenge on those that banned them, or are busy using alternate accounts to get around our rules. While some on WR might use it for honest discussion, for the most part it is used to canvass attacks on various people or issues. Many RfAs here have canvassing from Wikipedia Review members and mostly to the negative. This canvassing is normally followed by lies or smears, which means that it is canvassing of the worse kind. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed] Viridae^Talk 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"C'mon guys, don't we all hate this guy? (Shameless canvassing, I know.)". Do you need more? How about where Somey directly lied about my interaction with BLPs? Or do you want to get into which moderators at WR are banned? We can go through that list. Plus, Moulton's revealing of all of my personal information to the WR administrators via email did give me quite a few of their original Wiki names, and a conversation with a few Arbitrators revealed that they were banned, so, I can point out which aliases are actually banned users too. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• One might argue that the real problem with WR or IRC is that you are assembling people who already spend way too much time on Wikipedia, and encouraging them to spend their time away from Wikipedia discussing Wikipedia. Not a well balanced lifestyle, though there are no doubt less healthy things one can do with their spare time. Personally, I view a lot of the threads as little more than the rantings of disgruntled fanboys. Posting about Wikipedia editors on a webpage they neither belong to, nor follow, is just cowardly behavior. If your argument is not gaining any traction, then perhaps your argument lacks merit, and if you feel hounded for expressing your views, then perhaps you are simply thin skinned. Wikipedia has a lot of problems, but discussing them elsewhere will not get them fixed here. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • IRC rarely has known banned users in the Wiki chats nor does it condone the use of sock puppets. They also don't support stalking on IRC. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • ...because banned users should be Orwellian Unpersons, suppressed from all places where Wikipedia is discussed, and probably whited out of documents and photographs where they appear or are mentioned. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Because banned users are those that have committed huge offenses with the purpose to disrupt and are not here for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not need anarchists that want to troll this site in order to get digs against Jimbo and others that they feel are the "man" simply because their mothers didn't hug them enough at night and they can't deal with others properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Because nobody has ever been unjustly banned, and no banned user has ever had anything truthful or meaningful to say about anything remotely related to Wikipedia, so any forum where any of them can be found ought to be cast off the edge of the Earth. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
          • That is one of the falsiest arguments ever. If they were unjustly banned, they wouldn't be seeking revenge and trying to disrupt. They also wouldn't make the kinds of attacks they do. They wouldn't hold multiple accounts and brag about it. They wouldn't put websites compiling personal data or mocking WMF members whenever something happens. These are the actions of the innocent. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Like rock'n'roll, BADSITES hysteria will never die. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Personally I will look at offsite links that are posted in RFAs, but I'm conscious that different sites have different rules. I don't think it relevant if a candidate who is civil here is incivil on a site that allows that. There are things on other sites that I would consider relevant for an RFA, for examples taking part in offsite canvassing to influence Wikipedia results and confessions of Wikipedia misdeeds. ϢereSpielChequers 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, at least this kicked off some navel gazing here and at WR! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's supposed to be the job of the United States Navel Observatory! *Dan T.* (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Review was (and still is) notorious to certain members because it houses a few banned users who has the fanaticalism similar to wanting the destruction of Israel. Even though there are reasonable critics and civil discussions that form the bulk of the forum, it is far too easy for anyone to accuse any contributor there, however reasoned, some form of such association with the banned users just by the mere act of participation. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• WR is like communism - an idea that lost sight of the end goal. Reviewing Wikipedia in a harsh light is an entirely good idea. Regretfully the idea (like communism) that seems so good on paper fails in practice (the 5 year plan if you will). Writers get slagged off for wasting their time on a doomed project. Admins get slagged off for their admin actions. Vandal fighters get slagged off. Someone who does a bit of everything gets slagged off ("What do these admins do all day" was one thread I recall). Let's face it people - whilst we've got Eric Barbour desperately imploring you to read his blog, Kato doing endless "round ups" in the hope of getting noticed and HerschelKerdojaymaflip moving posts from forum to forum to stave of either boredom or insanity does anyone honestly think WR is going to achieve anything more than WT:RFA........(i.e. precious darn little) Pedro :  Chat  19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read the link provided above wherein WR has taken notice of this thread. Again, I am not about to judge or condemn the site wholesale. I think you have to look at what is actually said there. But I found this comment on WP Review highly entertaining, Since Alex/Majorly is possibly the blandest contributor here. I know that it was intended to convey the message to the WP readers who were reading the thread there that Alex/Majorly is not as vocal as some people there, but the flip side is, that if you accept the arguments in the oppose camp that Majorly is drama driven, immature, vindictive, etc; then you really have to wonder about the rest of WR! If Majorly is one of the most bland WR's, and is anything but one of the most bland WP's, then where are the rest of the WR's on that scale?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can show you some emails from some of their more outrageous users. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is valuable because it's one of the only places outside of Wikipedia where people get together regularly to discuss Wikipedia. That said, some of the moderators are jerks, and I don't contribute much anymore. Sole Flounder (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true. There are many blogs, chatrooms, messenger systems, and the such which have active discussions by Wikipedia members in good standings that critique various items and the rest without resorting to personal attacks, stalking, and other such nastiness. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you rack up hundreds of posts there? Sole Flounder (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I believe he was banned from there from reasons I cannot explain without being banned from here. Peter Damian (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That there are things you can't talk about without risking getting banned is a flaw of both places, but at least, with the set of bannable things being different in each place, the existence of both gives a greater degree of free speech to those like myself who are willing to go back and forth. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is well known that I was banned from Wikipedia Review for nothing more than my blatant criticism of their methods and their actions upon their website and their hypocritical inability to accept criticism. Before any political related topic, I was restricted to posting once every 24 hours because Somey thought it would be a hilarious way to try and get rid of me without anyone knowing that I would be banned. Why was I critical? Because they were attacking Wikiversity time after time, spreading lies, and fueling Moulton's massive sock puppetry on that site. Then there was their constant spreading of personal information and allowing him to use the site to keep up the very attacks that got him banned from Wikipedia. If you think revealing personal information followed by malicious attacks is "criticism", I really want to know what dictionary you use. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a familiar irregular conjugation. I'm banned because the site has a hypocritical inability to accept criticism. You're banned because you act in an uncivil manner. He's banned for making malicious attacks. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was banned for suggesting that it was a bad thing that it was set up by a neo-Nazi as a forum to bash Wikipedia's Jews, Dan. You could do with stopping the whining about BADSITES, btw. It's so dull. Why should a site like Wikipedia tolerate another site that has among its purposes trying to get its contributors sacked from their jobs, harassing them and generally slagging them off left, right and centre? Even if the Holocaust deniers have now moved on, it's still a place that largely focuses on the negative. I wouldn't let someone who shit-talked me post on my blog (you're welcome to comment though, mustn't infringe poor Dan's freedom of speech in any way -- although there's a good argument that freedom of speech is not licence to run one's mouth off wherever one pleases), so I'm really struggling to see what the big issue is here.Grace Note (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's about time you showed up... an anti-WR whinefest wouldn't be complete without you going on with your usual nonsense about WR being a bunch of Nazis. You could do with stopping this; it's so dull. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The irony of your comment is that the only whining going on is in the form of "wah, they are correctly identifying our troll site as a hot bed of incivil canvassing and created with the purpose of causing disruption in order to get rid of Jimbo and other WMF individuals that offended us years ago but since we have nothing better to do we live solely for that purpose." Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the thing - I bent over backwards trying to help Moulton correct his mistakes and do what was necessary to get unbanned at Wikipedia en. Near the end, he stopped caring, starting posting people's personal information left and right, and started sending Jimbo harassing emails. He was warned and continued. See, people like me at Wikipedia try to -help- users and get them to satisfy their desires in a manner that is suitable and best for everyone. Wikipedia Review just supported Moulton in his attacks and encouraged him further. They didn't want him unbanned. They wanted him completely banned so they could have another reason to justify their broad attacks. Moulton had a chance to be redeemed and he was corrupted to the point that was unacceptable. That wasn't enough for them, and they corrupted another member in trying to help him in his attacks and the rest. They cost Wikiversity two members in their petty desire to attack WMF for whatever petty reasons and caused us over 7 months in having to clean up constant attacks, trolling, and sockpuppet abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, awesome. Another page for Ottava to spout off his tripe about WR. The misrepresentation of your ban from WR is a nice new addition, though. You weren't banned from WR for criticizing them. You were banned for trolling incessantly to the point that you'd annoyed pretty much every active member. As far as Moulton, did you miss that whole situation where he was unbanned by a member of WR? Did you miss how that went down and how he behaved following his unban? Did you ever ask Moulton if he wanted to be unbanned? I don't think you did. And, if you did, I think he told you he wasn't interested in an unban, because he maintained that pretty much from the beginning. Any crusade you decided to start wrt Moulton was of your own volition, not a desire to help someone who'd requested it. لennavecia 03:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You speak with such authority on the matter. Are you an admin on Wikipedia Review, by chance? How would you know? Were you given the private messages from Somi or from the others by chance? And Jenna, you really have no clue about my involvement with Moulton or with any of that, so don't pretend to know. Alison knows part of my involvement. The staff at Wikiversity, Jimbo, and Cary know part of it also. And my own volition? I was approached by Moulton, Rosalind Picard, and two members of the community asking for a neutral look at her biography and try to find a compromise between both sides. When Moulton was at Wikiversity, I was approached again and that was why I was brought into Wikiversity and what was going on there in order to try and create a neutral and objective system to deal with it. You, however, were not privy to any of it. Your post here represents one of the fundamental problems of WR - you are poorly informed but you make up for that with malice. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope she was just repeating what a mod had said. If you don't believe that here it is from the mouth of an admin: "Well, I'm an admin here on Wikipedia Review, and I can say with total assurance and authority that Ottava was, indeed, banned for trolling incessantly to the point that he'd annoyed pretty much every active member. Jenna/Lara is 100-percent correct about that." No wonder you are sore about WR, you are one of a handful of people to have ever been banned from there, a forum that does its best to accomodate everyone. (interesting the other person frothing at the mouth with animosity towards WR and its members in this thread is Grace Note - another of the handful of people banned from WR because their behaviour was so intolerable) Viridae^Talk 08:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Nope she was just repeating what a mod had said" And there we have it. Wikipedia members that don't know for themselves and just repeat what a group of banned users say. This is exactly why Wikipedia Review is a problem. Remember, these are the same mods that claimed I was out to destroy BLPs and the rest without any proof. Its called smears, and Wikipedia users are treating their smears as truth. That is intellectually dishonest in every possible way. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And one must always ignore anything a banned person says, because banned people were banned for a good reason no matter how much they may foolishly protest that they were unfairly banned. But one must listen to what you say, although you were banned from WR and claim that this ban was unfair. How self-serving. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is nice to see that Dan is unable to understand that if you are banned, you are capable of conducting yourself respectfully and don't actually have to resort to using a forum to constantly attack the people that were involved in your banning, calling for personal information, and promoting the creation of multiple accounts and vandalism in order to seek petty revenge. See, there are many people that were "banned" and acted correctly and were welcomed back. These aren't the people attracted to Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Look in a mirror; you were banned on WR, and you're using this site as a forum to constantly attack the people that were involved in your banning. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please link to where I created pictures of Somey's head comparing it to planets. Please link to where I outed Gomi's personal information and made conspiracy theories about it. Please link to where I have canvassed for an election happening at Wikipedia Review while saying "we hate this guy, don't we?". Please link where I have accused their staff of promoting child pornography or bestiality. etc, etc etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How am I repeating what I mod has said when the mod names me as being 100% correct? Unless I'm psychic, I don't think that's how it went down. I was there for Ottava's trolling, I seem to recall participating in a discussion about his potential ban, then he was banned, after he'd sufficiently annoyed everyone there. I made my comment here, Somey read it and posted that. THUS, I did not repeat what a mod said. A mod agreed with what I said. Glad we got that cleared up... Ottava got banned for trolling WR with extreme religious views, among other things. لennavecia 19:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So, apparently, Jenna has confessed in the above that she gets her ideas from no where and then sees if people confirm. That is, unless Jenna wants to admit that the only original source would have been a moderator and not her imagination as she seems to claim above. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people will oppose on ostensibly other grounds, but actually oppose because of WR. Personally this isn't hard to spot; they usually pull some oppose reason not in line with their general personal trend. This is quite a noticeable phenomena in general. In 2006 I said that because there are only 1-2 close RFAs per week it would hardly be too hard for the crats to have a look as to whether a lot of people have abnormally moved their "bar" for a certain a candidate. I got told to get stuffed mostly, but I know a lot of people get opposed for only being around 2-3 months, except in one case a person who was here for 7 weeks got over 100 supports, because of social reasons, and those who supported often opposed others who had been around for 3 months. In some cases it simply bad-faith retaliation, eg, opposing people's RFAs because they opposed another's FAC or GAC etc (I know one admin who used to always abuse another guy, and when the other guy ran for RfA, he opposed, simply saying <2000 edits, although he always supported with "no big deal" on everyone else including guys with less than 1000), but sometimes it is simply a lack of objectivism and favouritism. Most people said that my proposal was unworkable but you don't have to count up everyone's votes; if you look at RFA regularly like I used to, you can easily pick up what ideology every regular is and where they fit in the spectrum.

I would not be surprised a lot of people oppose because of WR and say some other uncharacteristic reason (ldeliebratly). For FAs, there is more consistency because there is a set criteria, but even then, some people have different bars for "good prose", which is fine, but some people apply different standards to different articles, sometimes supporting any articles by their friends/countrymen regardless of large swathes of unreferenced material or whatever, and then go and object to those they had a previous dispute with, using a high bar, eg saying that 90% reference coverage is not good enough but supporting their mates/allies articles with 30% ref coverage. Some of this is good-faith non-objectiveness, some bad-faith, but anomalies need to be ironed out. I know some articles with about 25-3 support that had to be rejected etc. When I close WP:FAR I have to take into account opinion irregularities for borderline articles, else a poor article could be kept because of biased voting (I know one FAR where about 6 people wanted to keep and 6 wanted to oppose; all the keeps were from people from the same ethnic background as the article subject, the removers were all outsiders. The article was littered with broken English, 50% unreferenced etc. People from that wikiproject always vote "support" on all their articles, regardless of lack of sourcing; after that one of them FARed an article that was copyedited by a guy who did 100s of FAs, and they suddenly showed a sudden concern for the enforcement of good English, said that 100% of the article needed to be sourced etc); if people want RFA to be consistent then the crats have to do the same, because RFA people can be even more inconsistent with their personal standards than at FA; I've seen instances where 25% of the votes were flagrantly bad faith and scuppered an RFA of one candidate; their profile was entirely consistent with many others of the same interests/outlook/method that passed 95%+ YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Opposing a candidate just because they may participate in another website that is critical of some aspects of the Wikipedia makes about as much sense as fans who are voting Manny Ramirez into the all-star game. RfAs, like baseball fan ballots, have devolved into contests of popularity rather than of merit. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#Off-wiki activities? Sometimes I wish that was a policy and not just an essay. RFA would be much more interesting then if people suddenly had to avoid ILIKETHEM- or IHATETHEM-!votes ;-) SoWhy 08:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WR's freedom from civility

It's not the fact that they participate that I believe is the issue, it's how they conduct themselves on the site. One of our most respected administrators (Newyorkbrad) remains stellar whenever he posts to WR and I don't think one person could fault him for what he does there. Other regular WP contributors give less than ideal performances when they go to WR - they use it as an excuse to flaunt the lack of civility policies and generally use it as a forum to slag off people they don't like here, rather than do it to the persons face (we expect discussion with a user who you have a problem with here, rather than running off to another forum). So to reiterate, participation at WR isn't inherently bad, but conduct there can have an impact on how people view your overall demeanor and suitability for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

...because over here if you offend the wrong people you're likely to get blocked or banned. This can make other sites attractive as a place to let your hair down and/or blow off steam about your frustrations here. *Dan T.* (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in why people go to WR, but I am saying that an attitude like the one you're alluding may mean affect how people perceive your attitude to adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like political correctness to me. If someone follows the NPA rule on Wikipedia, but doesn't follow the NPA rule off of it, what's the problem? Or should I ask, why do you have a problem with it? Cla68 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness? That is an odd take. I guess its really hard to ask people not to childishly create pictures comparing people's heads to planets, to not constantly accuse others of bestiality without evidence, to not call for personal information of people you dislike and then post it everywhere you can, etc. Free speech and the rest is something that Malleus commits on Wikipedia now without any major problems. What has happened at Wikipedia Review for years is all out hate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia Review in general. I've supported plenty of people who post there when they've run for positions of trust on Wikipedia. I do have a problem, I guess, with people who are superficially polite here on Wikipedia while simultaneously going off at Wikipedia Review. It's hard to respect people who are polite to your face and badmouth you behind your back. I wouldn't call that "political correctness". MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm of much the same view. i make it a rule never to say about anyone—either here or on WR—anything that I wouldn't be preapered to say to them directly, and ideally have already said to them directly. But the atmosphere on wikipedia discourages that kind of honesty in anyone who wants to be popular and succeed at the RfA game. If you don't want dishonesty then don't create an environment that encourages it. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Free speech and the rest is something that Malleus commits on Wikipedia now without any major problems." I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I get some clown from the civility police knocking on my door every few weeks or so, occasionally dragged to WQA/AN/I, so I find it very easy to understand why anyone would feel under pressure to remain PC on this site but to let their hair down on another. Free expression of unpopular opinions—just look at the recurring "agism" nonsense for instance—is certainly frowned upon here, and ultimately suppressed by whatever means are necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you didn't cuss, attack, or really say much of anything, you probably still would be dragged there just as often. Therefore, its not actually what you say or do. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more about some people being overly sensitive to comments. I, for example, don't say anything on WR that I wouldn't say to someone directly. Of course, you also have to keep in mind that someone people don't want to be engaged with criticism anyway. They may bitch about it; but when it is brought to them, they then ignore it. It's important to keep in mind that the majority of comments on the site are viewable to the public, and if you can read the comments others are making about you, then you really shouldn't consider that talking behind your back, particularly if you are a member of WR and are known to read the site. And, yes, Ryan, I'm addressing you specifically. لennavecia 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If the above was true, why even bother doing anything but saying it to them directly? Apparently, you -wouldn't- say it directly. Furthermore, if you are upset that people can't take criticism, why are you offended by criticism of Wikipedia Review? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer surely is obvious; critical comment directed towards another editor is a "personal attack". (And no need to say it, I know, "Don't call me Shirley;") ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, so? If you are willing to, then you would. If you are worried about being criticized as incivil, then you wont. She made the claim that she would, and if that is true then Wikipedia Review would become redundant. So, there is a simple choice - WR is necessary to make attacks you do not feel you can get away with here, or WR serves no purpose as there is no difference from here. Jenna needs to pick one to overcome the logical incongruities of her claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Pretty scarecrow. I think I just noted that some people do not want to be engaged with criticism, thus it is pointless to even attempt to do so. The problem is that you can't grasp the obvious, Ottava. Being willing to say something directly to someone and choosing to instead voice your concerns or opinions elsewhere is perfectly acceptable. Take an example: A mild comment is made on WR. As is so often the case, an over-sensitivity to criticism leads to the characterization of the comment as a personal attack. The "disparaged" party then expresses disappointment that such a comment was not brought directly to them. When, then, it is brought directly to them, as initially expected, nothing is discussed. It is simply ignored. You see, Ottava, one can make their critical comments on WR without negating the fact that they are willing to make those comments directly to the subject. Additionally, a preference to avoid the drama from Civility Police on Wikipedia does not force one to use WR to make their comments—clever you attempting to label any criticism on WR as "personal attacks"—there is always the option of IRC or email. لennavecia 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Before tossing out rhetorical dodges such as "strawman", please actually do research and find out what one is. A strawman is something that isn't being discussed and is something that no one would agree be defending. However, the above is directly what you stated. Now, if you want to say that your response above is the equivalent of a strawman, feel free, as it only shows that you are only capable of empty words. See, you posit that you need WR because they allow you to speak. Then you posit that you would say anything there to a person's face. Apparently not, as these two are directly contradictory facts. You are either a coward afraid of reprisal, or you are tough enough to not need such things. Which is it? We already have you admitting that you have no knowledge of a situation above but take the word of the admin there, so lets see if you are willing to be so forth coming about your true reasons for being on the site. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're misrepresenting my argument, Ottava. To say that making a comment on WR is the equivalent of being too coward to say it directly to someone is just stupid. I brawl with you here on WP because it's fun. When I have serious criticism for someone whom I take seriously, I make a choice between taking it to them or not. The specific example above was my expression of an opinion. I did not feel compelled to discuss it with Ryan because there was no desire for discussion on my part. I had all the information I needed to draw the conclusion I did, and I stated that on WR. He commented on IRC about it, someone told me about it and I went to him, as requested. He ignored it. So, clearly, Ottava, I'm not afraid of reprisal, I merely don't always feel like going through thousands of kb over everything. Additionally, clean your specs, bud, as I stated above, it's backward to state that I'm taking the word of an admin who's post I supposedly took the information from includes his agreement with my statement on the matter. How possibly can I draw a conclusion from a post made after my own comment? He confirmed my version of events as I witnessed them. لennavecia 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to misrepresent when there was a simple binary put forth. You are just unwilling to come forward. You still never answered why you promote Wikipedia Review as being a site about criticism but can't take criticism of that site. I think your dodging of both of these points is very telling. Oh, and a final note about your above - you claimed to have information that only admins would have. You throw out the statements. Then you say you were verified by them saying you were right. There are two options: 1. you were originally told by them, which means you trust them, or 2. you completely made it up and were told you were correct after, which means that you make things up. Either way, it looks really bad for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Where the hell are you getting this shit from? What admin-privy info are you referring to? I stated why you were banned. That's not admin-privy. It was noted when you got banned why you were banned. I simply detailed my opinion of the situation, and Somey, the site admin that kicked you to the curb agreed with my summary. Going back to your first point, I don't view your comments about WR to be criticism. It's just drivel. Plenty of people criticize WR with legitimate concerns and I discuss those concerns with them. You, however, are just on a bitter rampage because you got sent on your merry way. I like how you keep framing the whole thing like I wasn't there. It's not like I'm basing my comments about the situation solely off of Somey's comments, though I do trust him. If I didn't trust the mods at WR, I wouldn't be a member there. لennavecia 04:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenna, everyone for the past two days has seen you make claims about why I was blocked at WR. Only administrators would know the actual answer. This was pointed out. As such, I stated that you took the administrators at their word. You have dodged this point for two days. It is blatant that you actually believe what a series of banned users that have been revealed to support sock-puppetting, stalking, and some of the worse behavior, has to say about users. This is a serious problem. The fact that you spent the past two days dodging from this shows that you realize this is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't dodged anything. You just have a serious inability to grasp my words, apparently. The only serious problem I see is your obsession with WR... and everything else you comment on lately. I presented my opinion of why you were banned, Ottava. Scroll up and read again. I was there when you went batshit on WR, and I, along with everyone else, was pretty annoyed. As much was expressed at the time. So, when you were banned, which almost never happens on WR, it was pretty clear why. I stated my opinion here, Somey read it and he confirmed it. That's not taking an admin's word for anything; but again, I do trust Somey... much more than I trust you, in fact. لennavecia 16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"You just have a serious inability" another deflection. I guess this will go into day three with yet another set of squirming. And I am glad that you admit that you trust Somey. It really puts some perspective on your rabid defense of Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I'd already stated that before. But, like I said, you have a serious inability to grasp my words. Projection, Ottava. You should do less of it. Such a waste of time, just like religious debates. Wholly pointless. لennavecia 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Much as I'm enjoying this discussion, I do worry sometimes that perhaps the most productive part of it is behind us. Could it be laid to rest, perhaps? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenna, admitting that you have trust in anonymous users that seek to destroy Wikipedia was only half of it. The other half was your flawed argument that you would say things to people's faces and yet you hide on a noticeboard. Both of these two points really makes you look really bad, and your rabid actions and hypocritical claims that criticism of WR is bad and awful makes you look even worse. You have basically proven yourself as a puppet to their games, as was pointed out when you took up their canvassing request and started disrupting BN and AfD to make a point. Then you hypocritically ignored another case of plagiarism at an RfA because you really didn't care about anything but trying to make people at Wikipedia look bad, of which are not connected to the current RfA. That is really sad. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, Ottava. You misrepresent the point of WR, and you misrepresent my position. You cast aspersions on my intentions, and I am completely confident that you can't support your laughable claims. There was no request for anything. A link was posted and I, being a BLP advocate, picked out the BLPs in the list. If my goal was simply to disrupt processes and make someone look bad, I would have gone through the entire list. However, as pretty much everyone knows at this point, my focus is on BLPs, another reason I wasn't spending my time cleaning up the plagiarism issue. Also, I believe it's worth pointing out that two of the three BLPs I nominated for deletion were deleted as a result of those discussions. The one that was kept was only kept because FT found sources, although she only added them to the AFD rather than where they belong, which is in the article. SheffieldSteel is correct, however. Debating with someone who uses the tactics that you do is counter-productive and I have more important things to work on. لennavecia 19:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I misrepresent WR? Really? I take it that you are their new representative? It would explain the hostility towards any negative characterization or criticism of the site. My my. I love how you just sweep under the rug the constant attacks and hate. Hell, you would think that all the members of WR were not banned users, don't talk about how they have sock puppets, don't constantly attack Jimbo and the WMF, and other problematic things. You would also think that all of that canvassing there didn't happen, and that you were innocent of following that canvassing. You make a lovely propagandist. Perhaps all of these dodges and hides are just a sign of fear that you know that you are operating in something that is wrong and you are desperate to hide from any consequences. If WR is such a great place, why are you acting so guilty? Such an odd reaction. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking to what Ryan was initially talking about. I'm not a WR user, but I just searched on my name and came up with a comment in this thread] where User:Peter Damian disparages one of my posts on Wikipedia with "vomit". He could have easily expressed his displeasure with me here, but he chose to do it on a site that I don't frequent. This is important because he was engaged in the conversation on both sites. In my book, that is d-bag behavior. See what I just did there? He insulted me on one site, and I insulted him back on another site. Aside from the fact that this is lame, it is also inconvenient. If someone has a problem with me or my ideas, they shouldn't be so chickenshit as to take it up somewhere else simply to strut around with their chest all puffed up, mainly because that simply ensures that the debate on said ideas never takes place. So the problem isn't that WR exists, or that people post on it, or that people talk about Wikipedia on it. The problem is that people take d-bag cheap shots on WR at Wikipedia editors with whom they are speaking to on Wikipedia at that moment in time, while running parallel threads that guarantee everyone is just yelling into an echo chamber. If you want to have a thread on WR about how "Hiberniantears is a gigantic moron", I don't actually have a problem with that, because it is a stand alone topic not related to an issue currently being discussed on Wikipedia. But if you need to have a split personality conversation on Wikipedia and WR, then you have serious issues, and knowing that about someone would definitely weigh into whether or not I make a support or oppose vote on someone's RfA. It wouldn't be enough to sway me one way or the other, but it would definitely carry a lot of weight. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if anyone on wants to know why I did something on Wikipedia, they need to ask me here, not on WR. To answer the question posed at WR that could have been asked here, I've read several RFA's where there were charges and counter charges stemming from actions on WR-- like I said at the top. The latest is Majorly's RFA. People complain about distant, unapproachable, unresponsive admins. I certainly am not one of those lofty admins that is too perfect for others to initiate a dialogue with. Thanks to all who have opined under this section. I certainly have a fuller understanding of WR now than I started with. Dlohcierekim 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

State of the Project-- the Badsites epilogue

Like rock'n'roll, BADSITES hysteria will never die.

*Dan T.*

Dan, you made me smile ridiculously, and it was definitely quotebox worthy. Fortunately however, I think you're wrong. Not only will the BADSITEs hysteria die, it's already got one foot in the grave. I can't remember the precise count, but some ridiculous number of our arbs were elected despite WR participation.

Ultimately, I think the project has made it to point where we recognize that guilt-by-association isn't a good litmus test. If you go somewhere and converse honorably, you'll be treated with respect. If you go to some message board and behave dishonorably, then people are going to take that into account too. But I'm very very happy to see that, as a community, I think that whole BADSITES is behind us-- whether "BADSITES" refers only to the damnatio memoriae policy of striking badsites from the encyclopedia, or the BADSITES-related view that that guilt-by-association-with-a-badsite is a simple litmus test for a person's character. A few extremists will always argue those points, but the community as a whole now seems to have firm rejection of both of those.

And now for something completely different-- As for the cause célèbre that faces the community now, I think the biggest problem we face is how to deal with admins who, it turns out, don't have the knack for resolving disputes between established users. Right now, the only way to go from admin to editor is through a huge and adversarial ordeal. If could make a wish for the Wikipedia community now, it would be that we could find a way to "honorably reassign" admins who do excellent work for the project, but probably would be better off without being in charge of inter-user conflicts-- which are arguably THE most difficult task on the entire project.

Semi-protecting a page is one sort of job that just takes trust. But playing referee to a dispute between established users is a very difficult task-- good faith isn't enough to do the job, you need to actually have a knack for it. I wish there were a way to, without insult, recognize that not everyone is good at the latter job, but that doesn't mean they're a bad person, a bad wikipedia, or anything negative. Unfortunately since desysopping is so intense and violent and "scarlet-letter-esque", it's reserved only for really bad cases. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In what I remember, only one Arb, One/CoolHandLuke was supported when it was revealed they had WR work. The others like FatMan and others failed their ArbCom runs. Most of the ArbCom later created names to deal with criticism against them. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

I am requesting administration powers on the basis that I have helped Wikipedia with many minor edits to English pages as well as a few major edits. I am requesting powers to delete articles and protect disputed articles. I also plan to block vandals accounts and tackle the ongoing crisis of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe that I will not abuse my powers and use them for the good of Wikipedia and all other users of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan.tang (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Since you posted here, you have also shown that you have not read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which is a good indication why you are not ready to become an admin. You might want to read Wikipedia:Not now which offers helpful tips in case you want to try again once you have gained more understanding of our processes. Also, please do not forget to sign your messages like this one. Regards SoWhy 12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I offer advice here that might be useful. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wording change

I find the following wording in the section on expressing opinion very disturbing, and unneeded

"There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for whatever reason. This more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is often perceived as disruptive, is discouraged, and is perceived by some as "trolling". A common piece of advice when dealing with these edits is "do not feed the trolls." While it may be true that, in a community of this size, someone will react to the troll's posts, others maintain that ignoring such posts, whether or not they constitute "trolling," is the best response. Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. In particular, they know which votes to ignore."

This wording seems to indicate that if you are opposing many of the canidates that you are trolling. Perhaps you just have a different standard, and don't place your trust in that many users for whatever reason. I find this wording completely unneeded, but I suspect it may be in there because of DouglasTech, but it paints too broad a brush and can be considered offensive. Why should we be discouraging users from opposing frequently? I move we strike all mention of which way the frequent edits go and just have a broad statement on not feeding the trolls. Afterall isn't RFA about gaining trust, and some people just don't give out their trust that easily. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording isn't targetting people like DougsTech and KMWEBBER, the wording is there for the people who respond to the likes of DougsTech/KMWEBBER. The community is currently endorsing DT's right to !vote, despite some people seeing his !vote as trolling. The goal of the above it to limit the unnecessary discourse that often accompanies DT's !vote. By itself, DT's !vote is not nearly as disruptive as the flood of posts that seem to condemn him for his !vote. Some believe that DT/Kurt did their posts more to set off the expected firestorms that followed their votes than to actually oppose. If you have another way/wording that might discourage people from feeding them, we're open to hear it. Again, the above is not addressed to the voters, but rather to the people who want to challenge !voters they see as trolls.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If the goal of the above is not addressed to the !voters then the wording should be changed, because it say "This more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is often perceived as disruptive, is discouraged, and is perceived by some as "trolling". This wording would lend credence to those condemning his ~vote, since it says that pattern of !voting is discouraged. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for whatever reason. Although the community currently endorses the right of any Wikipedian with an account to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections , this more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is perceived by some as "trolling". Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

What are others opinions on this wording change? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Endorse change. Shorter and more concise.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the changes [1]. If you feel this is premature on my part please revert. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

RfB standards

Disclaimers: I have no plans to run for anything, I'm not encouraging anyone else to run for anything, and if I did run for something, I would wait until I expected it to be drama-free. We've had exactly 2 promotions to crat in the last 8 months, and RfA has changed a lot in 8 months; has RfB changed? What are the expectations? I can think of 6 or 7 people who I think would make great crats and are likely to get support, but FUD about the process might put them off from running. Looking over past successful nominations, it seems to me people are looking for roughly 18 months of admin-quality work (not necessarily as an admin), and roughly the edit count that you'd expect from that (not counting "quick" gains ... there's nothing wrong with quick gains and relatively mindless editing, we need it, but edits that involve taking responsibility for making things work and engaging people count a lot more). Is that about right? What specific skills are we looking for at RfB these days, other than what we're already looking for at RfA? - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bibliomaniac15/A_history_of_RFA#RFB makes for some interesting reading. It seems the standards for RfB have become slightly less strict over the past several months. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

RfB is more of a popularity contest than RfA. At RfA many of the people who !vote for you don't know you. When you run for RfB, virtually everybody who votes knows you. Thus, it is less about "does he know the policies" and more about "do I like/trust" the guy. Some people have standards, but like all standards, those are subject to whom you are dealin with. The only general standard requirements are that you have to have been an admin for at least a year and have experience at all or most of the 'crat areas.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the unwritten one-year rule is less-strictly enforced than it once was; for example, very few of the opposes at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/X! brought it up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is just some extra buttons. All I'm interested in is when someone started acting like an admin. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, we definitely need more Bureaucrats, so some nominations would be nice. Kingturtle (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I know of two who have asked me for pre-rfb reviews... but both were thinking about the end of summer...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I divide my time between disagreeing with consensus at RFA and disagreeing with consensus at CSD. As a politician, I'm an idiot. But one of these years, I'll probably settle down, stop making waves, and then I might run for something. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cover? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that Kingturtle? I've seen it written quite often that there is no great need. An insider's perspective could be quite instructive. Regards,  Skomorokh  17:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we've lost 4 crats since December, and only promoted 1.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Where's the problem? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We've promoted two. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not an official rule, so I ask, has there ever been a successful promotion to bureaucrat on a user who was not an administrator? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to do technically, as OverlordQ found out when a crat clicked the wrong button at his RFA, but no, no user who was not already an administrator has been directly promoted to bureaucrat. MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No - in the very, very early days the old crats were given the "extra bit" from a developer - they were already admins. There used to be a link to one such conversation on someones talk knocking around. Technically still possible to "go straight to 'crat - do not pass Go" but unlikely. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For a while there was a user who was a bureaucrat but not an administrator: User:RobH. He was a developer, and as far as I know, gave himself bureaucrat right for some technical reason. That said, MBisanz is right, no user has ever been promoted to bureaucrat before being an administrator. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here are the RobH log entries [2]. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm also interested as to why Kingturtle states we need more 'crats. I was under the impression the crat backlog had diminished (specifically usernames though I know bot flagging has some hold ups at times)? I guess my fault for making assumptions - when a 'crat makes that kind of statement then surely we need to listen (note - not me - I'd fail RFA let alone RFB but I can think of some who might pass if the appetite is there)Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked the numbers for kicks. RFB candidates currently have a better pass/fail ratio than we've had in five years. In the last twelve months (June '08 - May '09), RFBs have been 6 successful, 6 unsuccessful. The four twelve month periods before that were: 4-21, 2-17, 6-17, and 7-10, respectively. The only other time there has been a 50%+ pass ratio was the pre- 6/2004 period when the bureaucrat position was new. Does this mean that it has become easier to become a bureaucrat? And/or does it mean there have been fewer unqualified individuals submitting RFBs? I also note that it was once common for several editors to RFB in a single month, but there have not been 3+ RFBs in a calendar month in nearly a year and a half. My assessment is that the number of nominations has dropped dramatically. Can/should this be rectified? That seems debatable. Useight (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• We could always use more 'crats, so the ones we have don't get burnt out (bureaucratship is an extention of adminship, and while not necessarily a challenging job, doing a ton of renames/bot flags over and over again can still wear away ones patience). I'll never buy the argument that we don't need any more 'crats - if somebody is qualified for the position then they should be allowed it, regardless of the circumstances not pertinent to the candidates themselves. Just as a side note; Pedro, I'm curious why you feel you lack the community's confidence should you ever run for bureaucratship. I can't speak for everybody, of course, but were I personally to see you applying for the position, I would support you as having the experience, aptitude, and knowledge to be an effective 'crat. You're one of the first people to come to mind when I think of editors who would be good for that role. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Generous indded, but "rude to the point of breaching CIVIL", "curt", "doesn't edit the main space even vaguely enough", "opinionated", "tempramental" and "process driven" would be six good arguments against me. Thank you fo rthe kind words though! Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal take is that RFB is often seen as "hat collecting" - I seem to recall that one major wikipedia (.es ?) has all admins as crats anyway - probably unworkable here I guess. I think the issue is that some members of the community view crats as "above" admins on the basis that admins are "above" editors. Pretty distasteful, IMHO, but it is what it is. Many admins close contentious AFD's and are expected to divine consensus - yet RFA is 97% pressing a button. Bot flagging is based on technical advice and renaming / usurption simply following a process. Frankly the +crat flag is way less of a "big deal" than +sysop yet some people seem to think it's a holy grail and accordingly set their standards very, very high. Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Bureaucratship is nothing more than a few extra buttons, so I've never understood the nearly unattainable standards that RfB candidates are held to. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)