Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Village pump (RfA))
Jump to: navigation, search
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 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 11:19:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Purge this page

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Uebelhoer RfA WP:SNOW 13 Jan 2018 0 8 0 0
Cameron11598 RfA Withdrawn 2 Jan 2018 20 23 4 47
Muboshgu RfA Successful 29 Dec 2017 193 4 1 98
Power~enwiki RfA Withdrawn 16 Dec 2017 3 21 4 13
Joe Roe RfA Successful 30 Nov 2017 169 2 7 99
TonyBallioni RfA Successful 19 Oct 2017 224 3 2 99
Rickyc123 RfA WP:NOTNOW 18 Oct 2017 3 13 4 19

Didn't help much, did it?[edit]

A few months ago I suggested that the RfA page be put under extended-confirmed protection, in the hopes that it might help to prevent unqualified candidates from posting bungled or hopeless RfA requests. The suggestion was accepted and the EC protection was installed. So far, in the first two weeks of this month there have been three requests by grossly unqualified candidates. (Two of them don't show up on the list because they didn't figure out how to transclude.) Of course, there may have been other people who WOULD have posted a request but were prevented by the protection. But overall it looks as if that addition of protection didn't accomplish much. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The only reason this one showed up on the list was because someone else transcluded it for them. Probably not the best idea seeing as the result was obvious from the start. In any case, I never thought ECP would help anything. It just gives people the impression that extended confirmed is the level we are looking for. We weren't drowning in inappropriate RfAs before anyways. We aren't going to be drowning now either. ECP or not. --Majora (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Which was exactly what I said would happen before. You restrict the overeager from applying, they'll apply the first opportunity they get. Esquivalience (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, these weren't editors who are just barely over 30/500; all three have been here for 3+ years and two had thousands of edits. We simply can't know how many non-EC have tried since the protection, so it's impossible to know if it actually helped or not. ansh666 05:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that a couple of months is enough of a time scale to judge how effective applying ECP was, especially when we can't measure blocked actions. But some of the points made above - especially regarding the rarity of RfAs before and after - may well be true. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea, but at the end of the day, RfA have become so rare, it's not really a problem to nip these things in the bud on a per case basis. There are plenty of people watching and it doesn't need an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • As usual, Kudpung has a valid point regarding RfA's. I also have watchlisted the RfA page, so whenever someone tried to transclude, I see it in watchlist. I reverted Uebelhoer's improper transclusion, but it was later fixed and transcluded. There was no point in letting that RfA run even if it was transcluded properly in first go. I tried to close it as soon as I saw it transcluded again, but as I had no experience with closing RfA, and I was on a laptop with 256MB RAM, everything went slow, and there were 7 more votes. I think the same: a lot of people watch the page, so if there is an inappropriate RfA, it can be removed quickly, even by a non-sysop. But again, I think there is no harm with ECP either. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Nobody ever claimed that extended confirmed protection would dissuade people who were already extended confirmed. But it self evidently has stopped anyone who isn't from applying and getting burned. If we now get a steady flow of people applying when they've reached their 500th edit then we'd have created a new problem because as I think we all know the de facto criteria for adminship are much higher than ECP. But clearly that isn't the case yet, though I'll keep my fingers crossed for a while in case we do actually get a rush of people who barely qualify for Extended Confirmed. The first month after ECP we had just one unsuccessful RFA, things have got a little busier since then, but we are still in the expected range for unsuccessful RFAs - we had 20 in each of the last two years and it is simply too early to say whether this year will be lower or higher. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's much to worry about. The only thing is of course that since it was agreed to heavily publicise RfA, a lot more people are watching who are not the ideal kind of voters and they are always poised with their mouses to get in quick with a vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Call me an optimist, but I'm delighted to see dozens of extra !voters at RFA, my hope is that after a while more of them will decide it is time to run. I don't have a problem with the tendency for new RFA !voters to pile on for uncontentious candidates, we all have learning curves, and last years new RFA !voters could be the admins of tomorrow or at least of my dotage. After a few !votes my hope is that the more clueful of them will start checking the candidates' edits and pointing out things that make for a good admin, or reasons why this candidate isn't ready or suitable. ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh the horror! Somebody who was obviously unqualified slipped through and got an RfA up. And it actually survived for not quite a half hour. Well that cuts it. We need a select committee composed of ARBCOM and at least half of the Crats to figure out what is to be done so that this never, ever, happens again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Well... you say "composed of ARBCOM and at least half of the Crats", but I think prior to anything like that there'd need to be a series of widely publicised RfCs to gain consensus on this approach, or at the very least determine which half of the Crats. It's no good just rushing into these things, you know. Do you think we should suspend the RfA process entirely until this important issue is clarified? -- Begoon 03:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. And we need an RfC to come up with a suitably impressive name for the committee. It's important that people know we are serious about this problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That is a tricky one... "Committee Regulating Administrative Permissions", maybe? Just an initial thought... -- Begoon 15:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Just the "Regulatory Committee" would be pretty good..along with the Arbitration Committee and the Mediation Committee. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Not fancy enough. How about "The First Grand Regulatory Committee of the Rogue Admin Cabal for Matters of Highest Adminship-related Matters Working for the Benefit of the Proletariat Editors" (or FGRCRACMHAMWBPE)? Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 16:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it was just an initial thought... -- Begoon 16:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah perfect; when are you going start the RfC to name it :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
We never actually did update the message that non-EC users see. While I think @Force Radical:'s proposal has promise, there are some issues with it (calling a failed RfA a "mishap", using constructive buttons for links to read a page, which isn't a constructive action, etc). Since there were no specific objections to the latest version of my proposal, which is designed to have the least amount of change from what non-EC users currently see, I am going to put it in place for now, but I have abslutely no objection to a more radical (no pun intended) redesign once there is consensus around it. --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I've fixed those parts and I'm open to more suggestions. The proposal I have should be sufficient enough to replace the wait! box for non-ecp users and may be displayed alongside the wait box for ecp users . Ideally we should have a broad consensus before adopting any of edit notice that is widely different preferably in a rfc style discussion where a wide spectrum of editors can comment. — Force Radical∞ ( TalkContribs ) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Erm, where is that proposal being discussed at? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think an RFC is needed, given the relatively low level of comments so far. Let's just put something up to which no one has major objections, see how it goes, and revisit it later if needed. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
usernamekiran-It was discussed here before dying down and getting archived [here] — Force Radical∞ ( TalkContribs ) 04:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard question from RfC at WT:Admin[edit]

The close of the RfC at WT:Admin states that this should be included as a standard question

"Administrator candidates must disclose in their RfA whether they have ever edited for pay. This question will be required as one of the standard RFA questions."

I'm not sure I'm in the right place to get this done, but if anybody wants to let me know, please do.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so the template is Template:RfA - so the question can be added there. Based on ivanvector's suggestion and the wording of WP:PAY:

Have you ever received or expected to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia?

Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This formulation actually includes participation in competitions which offer prizes, and I am not sure including this was the initial idea of RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Just took the wording from WP:PAY which kind of defines paid-editing..if that prize was say money then even say defining it as payment would be problematic too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I once received a 25-pound (if I remember correctly) Amazon voucher for winning Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. I also got some (non-monetary) prizes for winning in Wiki Loves Monuments and Wiki Loves Earth. If I go to RfA and see the question "Have you ever received or expected to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia?" I will have to answer "yes", because I did participate knowing that prizes (goods) would be awarded (though I made clear I would never accept monetary prizes). I am an opponent of pay editing and would not in any situation can be called a paid editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and added the question (and the explanatory note) per the Rfc. Lourdes 17:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd have to answer "yes" to this question, as I received travel support to a conference from a WMF affiliate that had an on-wiki application process (e.g. a "contribution"). Can we word this better? ~ Rob13Talk 17:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Surely. The words in the explanatory note are picked verbatim from our paid editing policy. The question "Have you ever edited for pay?" is picked verbatim from the Rfc. I added these to fill in the blanks. Improvements are always welcome. Lourdes 18:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I would leave it as is. Rob, I wouldn't read it nearly as broadly as you do, but if you felt it applied to these circumstances, you would simply answer "I've received no compensation for any article edits or other actions I have taken. I have received travel support to a conference from a WMF affiliate that had an on-wiki application process, but other than that which can be found [here]." No one would hold that against you. Lourdes' statement is simple, in line with the RfC, and the explanation matches the TOU word-for-word and is in line with the definition of paid editing found in the Mister Wiki case: The core definition of "paid editing" includes an edit made, or an on-wiki action taken, by an editor in return for payment to or for the benefit of that editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
While improved wording is always welcome, I'd caution against spending too much time with over-elaborating on fine details. "Yes" with an explanation is a reasonable answer, and "No" with someone later bringing up a corner case that has no practical conflict with Wikipedia's goals isn't a problem. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would answer yes to such a question because I have attended editathons at which food, accommodation, wifi &c. were provided. Travel expenses may be provided at such events, but I've not had much need of them. On the other hand, I flew to Hong Kong at my own expense to attend Wikimania and the amount of the time, energy and expertise I have spent upon Wikipedia is quite large and so the net cost has been high. The great Dr. Johnson averred that "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money". It seems unwise to remind editors that they are foolish to work here. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What Lourdes linked to is fine, per what TonyBallioni and isaacl already said. It's not a pass-fail situation; just like Q3 if someone just answers "yes" they're going to be asked to explain further in a follow-up question. Loading up the templated question with qualifiers just opens the door to gaming its intent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems a little strange to me. It's a policy, after all, to declare all such edits. Should we be asking candidates to declare their allegiance, known or otherwise, to all other Wikpiedia policies one by one during the arcane, drawn out and thoroughly tiresome RFA process? Is it now a lie-detector session? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    All part of the moral panic surrounding paid editing. Not saying that I support paid editing, but some measures (like this one) are clearly out of proportion. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Along the same lines, I was thinking the standard question could be "Are you now, or have you ever been, a paid editor?"--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    And while I understand the sentiment, I'm not sure I really know what we'd gain from that. If they have been and haven't declared it, they won't say it at RFA. If they have been and have declared it, it's a non-question. If they haven't been, it's a non-question. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    TRM, it's tongue in cheek, based on similar questions once asked, notably in the 1950s.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, I got your reference, I'm still asked similar when I'm being vetted, but the point I'm making here is that why would we mandate a question that simply benefits no-one? If we discover later than an admin is or has been a paid editor without disclosing, well Arbcom dismissal is the way. And that would be the case whether they declared it at an RFA or not. This is patently stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    I wonder myself. Is this intended as a final settlement of the paid editing matter? Or is it just one slice at a time towards a complete paid editing ban, and we'll have another RfC without a real reason for it in a few months time?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Do we ask candidates "have you deliberately vandalised Wikipedia?" or "have you made a direct personal attack on another editor?" No, so why do we cherry pick other concepts to quiz people on? This is not going the right way for Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Some people are bringing up editathons and other forms of WMF support. I wonder if we could just exclude WMF compensation from the question? (Or ask it in a subquestion?) That way, the most interesting case (someone receiving compensation from someone besides the WMF) can be asked as its own question. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I still disagree with this decision, but so be it. However, the question was to ask if they have edited for pay - asking them to disclose is a separate problem. If they have edited for pay since the ToU was changed, then they should have already disclosed. However, if the editing for pay was prior to the change in the ToU, then asking them to disclose could put candidates in a position of self-outing by revealing their employer or may simply be impossible due to contractual arrangements. Could we simplify this to just ask if they have edited in return for payment, so as to avoid these problems? (I note that Wehwalt is proposing the same change). - Bilby (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • How does the lie detector work here? Confused.png
    I dont think the bad guys would confess. I missed the RfC. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think we've gotten off the point. All you need to do is disclose whether you've ever edited for pay. The answer could be a simple "yes" or "no". It is not a question that is meant to disqualify anybody, but I hope it draws out the candidate's views on paid editing. For example, if a candidate had done paid editing before the ToU change, or accepted airfare from the WMF, or won a contest - they could simply say that in one line. And then they could declare why they don't think that is a problem and maybe even what type of paid editing they consider to be a problem. So I'd change the current wording

"4. Have you ever edited for pay?

A: Admin candidates are required to reveal whether they have ever edited for pay. List clearly any employer, client, and other affiliations with respect to any contribution for which you may have received compensation." to:

"4. Have you ever edited for pay?

A: Admin candidates are required to reveal whether they have ever edited for pay. You may also wish to explain your interpretation of paid editing rules."

Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I like the simplicity of this, although I think asking for an interpretation of paid editing rules is something perhaps best left to questions from the community. - Bilby (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The question is simple, and I think this is being overanalyzed: I don't think we need to be counting angels dancing on needles here, which is what the conversation has started to become. I do not consider any of the things brought up a form of compensation for editing: food for attending an editathon is a minimal consideration for the labour performed by being a trainer, a scholarship isn't a form of compensation as no labour is performed in exchange for it (scholarship/grant reports are not a form of labour), and a travel stipend that you had to apply for on-wiki is not something that is in exchange for edits (you have to edit to get it, but they are not paying you to make the edits, they are paying you to travel). An Amazon gift card is a prize that you are not guaranteed and you can't even reasonably be said to anticipate at the beginning of a competition.
    If someone feels obligated to disclose those, they can, and no one would care. I've never done any of them, but I wouldn't disclose any of them if I ran at RfA today because I honestly wouldn't consider them compensation or pay. If someone asked me about it later, my response would be "None of these were given with consideration for on-wiki actions or were reasonably expected to be received for on-wiki actions. Here is all the other things I've done. If I've forgotten anything, let me know." For all the talk of moral panic about paid editing, it is those who are opposed to regulations that seem to be panicking, at least in this case. There was community consensus for this. If it causes issues later, we can adjust later, but for now, keeping the wording uniform between all our different documents on this makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)