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 22:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 23:49:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Purge this page

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Amortias RfA Successful 19 Feb 2017 147 23 10 86
Lourdes RfA Withdrawn 9 Feb 2017 20 26 4 43
Dodger672 RfA Successful 29 Jan 2017 133 9 3 94
Primefac2 RfA Successful 16 Jan 2017 111 21 4 84
FriyMan RfA WP:NOTNOW 16 Jan 2017 0 4 0 0
Mz7 RfA Successful 13 Jan 2017 127 1 0 99
Cyberpower6782 RfA Successful 11 Jan 2017 181 6 3 97

All Wikipedians welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA[edit]

The page says "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA ..."

However, this isn't true in practice. Only those who use the source editor can do so, ignoring the growing community of Visual Editor users. And it seems that VE users do want to comment (see here).

What's the solution here? Make it possible for VE users to comment? Or update this page (and many others) to say "Only source editor users .... are welcome to ...". Kerry (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, since all Wikipedians can switch to the source editor if they want to (or, if they can't, it's not Wikipedia stopping them), I think the option of updating the page in the manner you describe is not the answer. Now, it may be okay to update the page to keep the current language that says "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA ..." and add some text nearby that talks about the technical limitations on participation, such as a requirement to not use the Visual Editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) VisualEditor is not enabled in Wikipedia space (along with the majority of other namespaces). There is no such thing as a "source editor user" or a "visual editor user"; every editor should know enough source to comment on talk pages until this changes, and asking a question at RfA is more or less the same as using a talk page. Note that the user who put in the report you linked to managed to add a support comment just fine. ansh666 00:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing prevents logged out editors from commenting on RfA's - the native wikitext editor should pop up and let them start editing immediately. — xaosflux Talk 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
We have a growing community of people using VE who probably don't know the source editor. As someone who does training, I know that people find the VE relatively easy and the source editor complicated/impossible. Are these people not part of "all Wikipedians" if they are contributing using VE? I agree that Talk pages should be enabled for VE; previously we were told this was not necessary as Flow was going to rolled out, but this does not appear to be happening. Kerry (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
VE editors are welcome to participate in all parts of Wikipedia. Some areas (such as this page) do not have VE enabled, so "VE editors" have to use a different interface to contribute to those pages (including RfAs). That may change, but I believe VE was created as more user friendly interface for editing articles. It isn't necessarily the best interface for other parts of the project. For example, liquid threads / flow has generally been suggested for discussion pages but its downside as against VE is that it would need to be applied for everyone (not just be an alternative option). WJBscribe (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: Are these people [who find the source editor complicated/impossible] not part of "all Wikipedians" if they are contributing using VE? Perhaps I can draw a parallel: I occasionally make minor edits other-language Wikipedias including those for languages which I don't speak that language (typically fixing obvious wiki-markup problems or, prior to WikiData, creating inter-language links). I am, in theory, part of "all Wikipedians" on those Wikis, and if they have something like RFA which is open to comments by "all Wikipedians" then I am, in theory, welcome to participate. In practice, there are barriers to my participation, not the least of which is the language barrier. Should those Wikipedias (and, for that matter, the English Wikipedia) change the wording of any such statements to say "All Wikipedians are welcome to participate, except for those who can't or won't learn the language?" Of course not - it goes without saying. In the same way, if a person is barred in practice from participating because they can't or won't overcome a technical hurdle, well, that falls in the category of either "it goes without saying" or "it should be said, but elsewhere, not as a spelled-out-exception in the sentence that says All Wikipedians are welcome. If you spend time to think about it, there are just too many such exceptions to list them all without getting cluttered ("all wikipedians, except those who can't access the internet before the RfA closes, or those who are too busy to participate, or those who [fill in rare exception here], ....)." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems the problem has been resolved for that would be RFA !voter. As this is a beta feature there may well be a broader solution on the way. ϢereSpielChequers 16:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
That user has many problems. I have helped with a few more. Any users wishing to participate in the more ethereal regions of Wikipedia should, IMHO, have enough clue to master the pure simplicity of traditional Wiki markup. Either that, or leave back office stuff well alone - especially RfA ! I find it risible that those of us who can remember black & white television, a world without jet airliners or satellites, and beer at 1/9 a pint, can handle it with ease, while newbies who have been spoon fed on IT since kindergarten can't get their heads round it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
What makes you think newbies were spoon-fed on IT since kindergarten? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Younger editors in the affluent Western world generally grew up with many devices to use. (Results may vary in other parts of the world or people that didn't have said devices.) The entire WMF effort to make an easier editing interface is a claim for so-called accessibility. But many of us that used to change the TV channel with a pair of pliers because the knob broke are still able to learn. I have no sympathy with those that purport our current GUI is too difficult. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
All I'm thinking is that not every newbie is younger than 25 year old. I myself, too, started editing Wikipedia at a more mature age, and when it had already been running for a couple of years, and I misunderstood/fucked up a lot. (Though I admit not to have examined these specific complaints thoroughly. So everyone might be justified in ignoring my comments). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"those of us who can remember black & white television, a world without jet airliners or satellites, and beer at 1/9 a pint." – Kudpung. Damn, you're ancient! Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
VE sucks. Direct editing of the pages, old school, is the only way to go. HalfGig talk 03:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm tempted to add and with Monobook or similar not the Vector interface that was designed to be more reader friendly at the price of hiding various editing features. But there is an important point here, we have members of the community who can only use the visual editor. I'm not going to suggest that anyone could be ready to become an admin if they only used the visual editor. V/E is designed to hide some things that admins need to see, and it isn't ready to support talkpages whilst potential admins have to have a proven ability to communicate helpfully and civilly with others, on talkpages and elsewhere. But we have always welcomed members of the Wikipedia community to vote on RFAs long before they themelves were ready to run at RFA. Is there any way to enable that, such as creating a subpage of the RFA for V/E input? ϢereSpielChequers 09:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant, Chris, absolutely brilliant. I thought my Dad who just passed away at 97 was the only one who knew that trick. Of course for many years we didn't have that problem - our first telly was a small, perfectly round, naked oscilloscope CRT with a green screen, roughly mounted in a wooden Corona pop crate with the side taken out. There weren't any switches - there was only one channel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to per se to VE or wiki offering it, but I find it clunky and not full featured, per WSC. As long as I have the option to directly edit I'm fine. @Chris troutman: and @Kudpung:, well said. Wiki keeps trying to find ways to get to editors with gadgets, which is fine, but a better solution would be for wiki and the community to fix all the dysfunction on wiki; which I'm not convinced can ever be totally remedied. HalfGig talk 12:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Clunky? That's putting it mildly. IMO nothing beats the speed of editing in Wiki markup that can be learned quicker than figuring out how to avoid making a Facebook account. What the Foundation should be doing is to concentrate on properly educating new users on what they can and can't write on Wikipedia - to heck with finding ways of making it easier for them to post their vandalisms, spam, and other trolling. If we could get the tools we need, it would significantly reduce the burden on admins and other maintenance patrollers Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Excellent points. But IMHO the petty bickering, infighting, protecting/attacking "rice bowls", atrocious treatment of newbies, cliques, battling over the "correct version", protecting vested contributors, and vandalism are bigger problems. I feel these are the reasons most people leave. HalfGig talk 20:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
At Village Pump: Proposals, there is news about VE potentially coming back, bigger and badder. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • BOT (back on topic), after a couple of days reflection, where en.Wiki is now the only major Wikipedia not to have rules governing who can vote at RfA, I seriously think in all honesty that where VE appeals mostly to new or newer users, anything that deters inexperienced users from commenting at RfA should be welcome. Not having RfA enabled for VE is a positive feature of the process. Especially with the doubling of participation caused by the new rules for publicising RFA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really. You haven't returned to the topic yet. The original topic was about commenting and asking questions while using VE on RfA pages. It didn't talk about using VE to vote until some individuals went off topic. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017[edit]

please change "votes" to !votes because technical (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done That text appears to be on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header, which is not protected. — xaosflux Talk 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
User talk: has now been blocked (twice). From their other edits, they appear to have an intimate knowledge of how Wikipedia works.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Math question vandalism[edit]

Does anyone know what's with recent RfAs being vandalized by IPs who keep adding nonsense math problems to the questions section? ([1][2][3][4][5][6], etc.)
All of the edits have three things in common: first, they add two math questions in the questions section, second, they request unblocks with the reason that they were asking questions to test the candidate's knowledge, usually with poor spelling and grammar, and third, none of them continue to vandalize after their block is over. I've geolocated the IPs, and while most are from central Poland, one is way over in Texas and one is from Oklahoma. Is this just one person who travels while vandalizing? --Joshualouie711talk 21:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Favonian seems to be familiar with this person, see Special:Permalink/765448591#Confused. –xenotalk 21:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
All edits are from the Polish Neostrada Plus ISP, from a long term disruptive user with some very strange ideas, and should be reverted on sight. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)