Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Admin Nominators

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

Invitations

[edit]

Who should we invite to join this project? Suggestions welcome, or just go ahead and invite people! Espresso Addict (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you designed an invitation template? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 18:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No -- I'm illiterate where such things are concerned, I'm afraid. I've just now invited in plaintext all those people who supported/commented on the original proposal, but haven't considered who else it would be appropriate to invite, so if someone could design a simple graphical invitation now would be a good time :) Espresso Addict (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a go at a basic invitation template -- easier than I'd thought:

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

[edit]
Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Perhaps somebody could make it auto-signed? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to do it, but now it needs to be subst'ed. Not sure if there's any way of getting around that? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think substituting is typical for these type of things, but Ryan Vesey is a better person to ask on that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've turned it into a proper template - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators/invitation. It should work with either transclusion or substitution. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that the signature means that it can't be transcluded (at least not without looking a bit ugly). But still, it works. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now we have two! My version is at Template:WikiProject Admin Nominators invitation and Mr. Stradivarius's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators/invitation. Mine includes the talk page heading & Mr. Stradivarius's doesn't, so perhaps we should keep both? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, two is too many. :) I've updated {{WikiProject Admin Nominators invitation}} so that the heading is optional, and I've given the docs a facelift as well. Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators/invitation is now a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's a great help. I really am illiterate with these things. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the image on that template be changed to File:Wikipedia Administrator search 1.svg now as that is the one that's being used on this project's userbox template? Thanks. XapApp · talk · contribs 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Is this any different from Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination? Ryan Vesey 19:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes. That project is a resource for prospective candidates. This one is specifically for prospective nominators. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This came out of the recent RfCs on the RfA process, with a proposal to start a wikiproject that received substantial support there. The intention of this project is to:
  • provide a support network for RfA nominators, new and experienced
  • provide an active forum to discuss all aspects of the nomination process
  • develop essays and other resources on best practice in nomination
  • compile and discuss lists of potential candidates
So I'd say, yes, it is substantially different from "Request an RfA nomination". I'm open to merging with other active projects, or moving out of the wikiproject area, if members think that's appropriate. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A side effect of our RfA process is that the set of nominators is actually quite small because the process is cumbersome, because editors who don't frequent wikispace don't necessarily know how to go about nominating someone, and because an inexperienced (in RfA terms) editor may not know the subjective criteria that helps figure out whether a request will be successful or not. Writing a good nomination goes a long way and a forum where an editor can get help in writing one (critiques, pointers, etc.) is a step in the right direction. And, getting a better handle on the odds of success will, hopefully, make the experience less painful. --regentspark (comment) 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting critiques of a draft nomination is an excellent idea. Once we get a few members I'm keen to suggest that one or two experienced nominators should write a how-to guide to nominating. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination checklist

[edit]

I was inspired by the creation of this project, so I went ahead and wrote Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators/Nomination checklist. Please improve it! It could do with expansion and copy editing, and probably some streamlining of my verbosity. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is looking good. You might add the list of editors by number of articles created, as that's something those of us who prefer admins to have strong content contributions could also be mining. The only other thing I'd query is that asking the potential candidate before finishing carefully combing their contributions seems to run the risk of finding a big problem after having informally asked them to run. How do people handle this? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added. I generally say that I think the editor would be a good candidate, and ask them if they would like me to go through their contributions in detail. I've added something to that effect to the checklist - take a look and see what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a minor addition re article count, hope you don't mind. Re asking, your addition looks good. When and how to ask candidates is a topic that probably merits detailed discussion once we have a few more members. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that's something I should have mentioned. Don't be afraid to make more substantial changes, either - you have my permission to rip it up and start again if that would improve it. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really chary of making major changes as I'm a nominations virgin -- everyone I've ever seriously thought of nominating either turned out to be an admin already or had already refused multiple nomination offers from editors much more high profile than me. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

[edit]

I've dropped a note at the RfA talk page, and the Signpost should be including a brief note under WikiProjects next issue. Should we also drop a note at the Village Pump, to catch those who don't obsessively read the RfA talk page? Anywhere else? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would a watchlist notice be overdoing it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be overkill? -- the number of people interested in nominating compared with the total number of active editors is probably rather low. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I kind of figured it would be overkill. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No to a watchlist notice, but yes to the village pump. We could do with a userbox as well if someone wants to create one. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A userbox would be good -- anyone have any expertise at designing them? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are searching for candidates to get the mop, perhaps we could design a logo that combines the mop logo and a magnifying glass? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Can I persuade you to volunteer as designer? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. I'm not sure I have the resources to do that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 18:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done File:Wikipedia Administrator search 1.svg The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a note at Village Pump -- Misc. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks to the graphical skills of our newest member, The Anonymouse, we now have a userbox! Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user participates in
WikiProject
Admin Nominators.

  {{User WikiProject Admin Nominators}}

Very nice. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like it with the question mark, to make it obvious that we are looking for new candidates, not supporting existing admins. The graphic with the big bold "?" might be a bit overwhelming at the much larger size in the invitation template, though. I don't think they necessarily need to match; one has text to explain the aims, while the other doesn't. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. A new icon with the mop + magnifying glass like AutomaticStrikeout suggested would be better for both places, in my opinion. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new icon with the mop and magnifying glass; check out the new userbox look! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Admin coaching

[edit]

Some of the longer-tenured editors may remember Admin Coaching, which was a well-known thing for awhile, but has been pretty much dead for a few years now. At first blush, this looks like a revival of that. In what ways does this project differ? Have any of the features/functionality/etc from that project been considered for use here? Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't around during admin coaching (as far as I know), but I do believe that a big difference would be that we aren't seeking to coach prospective candidates as much as we are seeking to identify and hopefully nominate them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no element of coaching? If the coaching project has resources relating to selecting candidates suitable for nominating then it would certainly be useful to link those here, but I don't see this project as involving mentoring editors who want to be admins but aren't quite there yet, rather seeking out candidates who are already ready but don't commonly edit in the kind of places where potential admins tend to get noticed.
Personally, I got the impression that coaching sometimes backfired, as RfA participants were somewhat resistant to coached candidates, so I'd be keen not to include any element of formal coaching, but others here might disagree. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so essentially this project is to help editors find other editors who they will immediately nominate for adminship rather than find other editors with whom they will work towards a nomination for adminship. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also to act as a support network for nominators, with the hope of encouraging more people to give it a try, and to work on resources for helping nominators eg to write persuasive nomination statements. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to proceed

[edit]

Are we supposed to discuss prospective candidates here? If so, who wants to start the conversation? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The option I'd personally prefer would be to set up a subpage to the project to keep these discussions together and out of the main discussion area. However, I know some people discussing various options relating to nominations in the recent rounds of RfCs were uncomfortable with the idea of a public discussion, particularly on the assumption that we would be broadening the pool of editors beyond those who have expressed an explicit interest in running. I think it would be ok, as long as we kept our discussions completely civil (which might mean that they need to be lightly moderated). The problem with a private mailing list (aside from the mechanics) is that it might be perceived as even less acceptable to discuss people in private.
Throwing this open to other members' thoughts... Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of that could be okay is perhaps noting a possible candidate here that anyone's not sure of. Someone can do a bit of digging for red flags, and if they're good they're good. (I've found several candidates who seem to only write articles so I've sat on them as a result, for example) That's walking a fine line though. Wizardman 23:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult, isn't it? When I suggested this project back in February, I'd envisaged being able to brainstorm freely, particularly in the context of using some sort of bot to search for potential candidates; however, I can see that it might be upsetting for those whose name comes up, but after discussion are not approached by a nominator. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's relevant, sure! I'd tend to hope that everyone here is already onboard with the idea that admins are people too, though, otherwise we're advocating some sort of a dehumanising process :) Espresso Addict (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an interested passer-by, this project has 2 open tasks of interest. 1. Discuss aims and scope, and 2. Discuss whether a private space to discuss lists of potential candidates should be created, if editors who have not expressed a desire to be nominated are to be included. From what I gather the project is aimed at coordinating / assisting prospective nominators. Some of the discussion on this page gives the appearance of seeking to identify and discuss (potentially in private) candidates. Can I ask, candidates for what? If this project is aimed at helping nominators that is quite a different thing to identifying and discussing potential Admin. candidates. Can you ensure that the ToR are clear, especially where the possible use of private discussions is concerned. Leaky Caldron 09:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leaky Caldron. As I should probably try to make clearer on the project's front page, this project is an outcome of round 2 of the recent RfC on RfA, where I suggested a project for nominators, which received almost unanimous support. My suggestion was sparked by WereSpielChequers's suggestion, also supported, of using an auto-prospecting bot to locate candidates, and my RfC stated that "This proposal could be integrated with the Auto prospecting proposal".
The current aims & scope and several of the tasks are essentially cut & pasted from my RfC proposal, and include the aim supported in the RfC "to compile and maintain lists of potential candidates (this might need a private space, if editors who have not expressed a desire to be nominated were to be included)". Obviously what the group of editors who have joined want to use the project for supersedes the original RfC proposal, and it would be good to get a discussion going here, now the initial adverts have all gone out, on what participants are interested in/comfortable with doing. Once that is achieved then we will of course amend the aims & scope and tasks to reflect consensus here. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current RfA inactivity

[edit]

There has been only one RfA this month and it was SNOW closed. We are starting to sink back into the level of inactivity that has worried so many people in the recent past. I would urge us all to encourage good candidates that we know of to consider running for adminship. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'd like to note, and this is only from my own experiences and feelings. As much as I believed in, and as much as I'd like to still believe in "no big deal" - I would tell any candidate that it can carry a lot of weight in the sense of "responsibility". I know that there are plenty of "seldom seen" admins who live a quiet wiki-life simply tending to quiet areas and articles, but for anyone involved in the more ... ummm ... shall we say "high profile" areas, then I would urge them to think deeply before jumping in. Experience can be a wonderful teacher, but it can also take its toll emotionally too. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful entity, but I do have to say that it is completely different than any other website I've managed. — Ched :  ?  00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Internet communities can be vicious, but is Wikipedia really worse than average? The reason I don't use my real name here is that I was cyberstalked and threatened with violence over an online contest I once ran. I've never had anything similar happen here, even when I was a lot more active. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm almost tempted to start with a "I remember when" comment :) - but "worse than average?" No, not at all. Some of the old Usenet stuff was probably my worst experience. I did ask to have my last name removed from my account a while back, but it was more a precaution than anything. I would say that Wikipedia is without a doubt the most diverse community I've ever been involved with, and as such there is a high risk of offending someone unintentionally. There's also the double-edged sword of younger editors who we want to encourage to stay with the project, but we want to guide them in the right ways too. A "block" can have a very serious impact on an editor; both emotionally and in their future involvement here, and that's something that always needs to be considered. Likewise, deleting an article that someone has worked long and hard on can be very demoralizing, even if it's the proper thing to do by policy. Wikipedia has a wp:notsocial stigma to it that I think sometimes does more harm than good as well. Often if people working on the same article or project take the time to get to know one another, it can go a long way towards collaboration. I'd also say that there have been cases of cyberstalking and threats as well, but those are usually put to rest in short order when they're discovered. Perhaps I've just reached a point of being overly cautious in some respects, but I have on occasion considered the "I don't want to be an admin. anymore" concept, and understand why some people choose to edit that way. For better or worse, I did choose to have a RfA, and I do accept that I made my own choices; and now I just do the best that I can with it. I just think that it's not something to be taken lightly. — Ched :  ?  01:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK .. I just can't seem to resist: I remember when I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. :-) — Ched :  ?  01:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My work here (mostly at least a few years ago now) is the single most reason that I try to keep my real life separate from my online life. I've had several people try to figure out who I was to try to cause real life grief because of the vandal fighting I was doing. Worse than average? No clue. I've been on many sites where people were more vicious in an internet tough sort of way. I've never dealt with anything like Wiki as far as people trying to figure stuff out so they could be RL vicious. --Onorem♠Dil 04:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Onorem: I'm sorry you've had this experience; it's no fun at all. I think the main difference between Wikipedia and other sites where I've had problems in the past is that if someone does try to act in these ways, then there are people and processes to prevent the person from doing so, which do not always exist in other online environments. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Ched: Ah, so you are yet another person whose toes I've inadvertently stepped on it starting this project! Sorry! I'd agree wholeheartedly that adminship isn't to be undertaken lightly, for all the reasons you state. Even if, like me, one chooses not to work in areas of contention, there is always the responsibility to set a good example by working within policy, always being polite & welcoming &c&c. I definitely see it as a responsibility (which often I shirk). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Aims & Scope

[edit]

Now we have some members (welcome everyone!), top of the open tasks is to discuss the project's aims and scope. These are currently pretty much cut & pasted from the RfC proposal, and read (numbering added):

Nominators are an important but poorly supported part of the RfA process. This project was created to support existing nominators and to encourage editors to start nominating. Functions include:
(1) to act as a forum for discussing nomination-related matters, such as methods of identifying potential candidates, investigating potential candidates, writing nomination statements;
(2) to compile and maintain lists of potential candidates;
(3) to inform and encourage editors who would like to participate as nominators, and to recruit new nominators.

The main issue that I think merits discussion is (2). This was a major part of my rationale for my original proposal, but if we are going to do this, we need to think carefully about how best to achieve it. I think the options are:

(A) discuss potential candidates in public on a subpage of this project, probably with some form of moderation to ensure discussions remain polite and positive;

(B) as A, but limiting discussions to editors who have expressed an interest in running for adminship;

(C) set up a private off-wiki space;

(D) abandon (2) as unworkable in practice;

(E) something else I've not thought of -- feel free to suggest! Espresso Addict (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm personally in favour of A, and to a certain extent B. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I understand (2) to relating to potential RFA candidates, not potential candidates to become nominators, I would register opposition to it. To discuss candidates in public would likely become a pre RFA, RFA style discussion and potentially damaging to candidates (who may not even wish to be considered!). Discussing in private is equally inappropriate, IMO. Off-wiki discussion is a divisive issue to some RFA contributors. Leaky Caldron 22:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think (2) is really the point of this project. It is related via a tangent like "Hey, I found User XYZ that I want to nominate, does anyone else see anything I missed in the vetting process?" But that could just turn into a mini-RFA. Kind of like a Editor Review that the editor didn't volunteer for. I don't see that being what this project, as presently written, is about. I think this project is more generic - discussing how/when to nominate and how to know if an editor might be a good candidate without actually discussing specific (potential) candidates. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what Espresso Addict says about it though. They say that is was a major part of the rationale for the original proposal. Leaky Caldron 22:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was a major part of my personal rationale for making the original proposal back in February doesn't mean that we need to go with it here & now if consensus is otherwise. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) seems to be the best option here. The major concern we'd have with openly evaluating potential candidates is whether or not we've received their consent to do so. To this end, I'd add on to option (B) and suggest a subpage be created on which interested editors could make their interest known and allow discussion/evaluation to proceed. With the consent issue addressed, we'll be able to facilitate the dialog between potential candidates and nominators that is the aim of this project. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read the RfC, and I suspect that this is covered somewhere, but I would say that you only create or discuss a candidate after they have given on-wiki approval of the idea. I know it seems like a "common sense" thing .. but there are times I do question what is "common" on wiki. IJS — Ched :  ?  03:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also - if someone would like to ping me when you do have your first candidate - I would like to follow along. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (C). It is the ONLY way that I can see to avoid other editors accusing this WikiProject of being involved with nominees, or having biased opinions. In a trial, is the plaintiff or the defendant allowed to go into the jury room while the jury decides their vote? The answer is an obvious "No". Well, in this case, we are the jury, and we have to find some way to be able to communicate that is not in a public forum in order to prevent all of its members from being accused of being involved with the nominees. Also, if (C) can work, (D) can be avoided.
At this point, the most basic proposition I can make is setting up some sort of chatroom or emailing list, and I prefer the former instead of the latter of my two options since I'd rather not give out my email address. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might create a Wikipedia-only email using your Wikipedia username. That's what I do. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that too: I have an email address I use for Wikipedia only. However, after giving it some thought, (C) might be a bad idea; it gives someone a reason to accuse this entire WikiProject of meatpuppetry. So... I'm running out if ideas. I'm starting to have no idea how the current scope of this WikiProject can work, given these complications; maybe we need a scope change? Steel1943 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you run for adminship so we can all vote for you? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Records" section

[edit]

Hello all,

I just joined this WikiProject. I found out about this project by coincidence due to currently working on possibly nominating another editor for RFA. So far, it looks like this project might be able to improve the lack of amounts of RFAs happening recently. Anyways, I'm going to get to the point of this section:

The "Records" section on the main project page ... could someone create some sort of format for how to add "records"? I know that at least one of the editors in this group might be able to take full advantage of that section, if the format on how to list records was clear. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question would be this: Is the records section for all nominations made by project members over time or only those from during their participation in this WikiProject? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question as well. I propose that a poll be started for your question, AutomaticStrikeout, then the formatting question might be able to be voted on later. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that we should only use nominations made by project members going forward. Prior nominations aren't necessarily related to this project and therefore probably don't belong in our records section. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would question that. Reason being, there are some editors who are part of this project who might have had a history of good RFAs, and might be able to be someone to turn to when trying to figure out a good way to approach the goal of this WikiProject. But honestly, my stance regarding your question is truly neutral, since both sides of the discussion hold the same value. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a list of old nominations could have its uses. I won't deny that, although it could be difficult to complete. My point is that those old nominations don't belong in this project's records as they weren't done by someone who was a project member at the time (as the project did not exist). Of course, we hope that we will one day have a sizable records list, but most people seem to say "No" when approached with a nomination offer. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there and welcome! A nomination would indeed be a very welcome sight at the moment! I'd suggest only starting to record nominations that have already been accepted by the candidate and gone live. Recording all the following would seem useful to me...
  • name of nominator(s) from the project
  • name of candidate, linked to the RfA
  • date RfA goes live
  • successful or unsuccessful, with final tally
  • comment on issues raised, if appropriate (this would have to be careful to be sensitive to the candidate, particularly if the nomination were not successful)
...perhaps in a table? Or is that all too much work? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the big question above is should we include old nomations from project members in our records section? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Automatic Strikeout (edit conflict): I'd suggest we just record nominations going forward from now? Though if someone wants to compile past stats we could certainly find a home for them. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)In regards to how they could be listed, I would prefer a table, as long as the table's page contained very simple instructions on how to add a new entry, probably requiring that the new RFAs start at the top. And most likely, having the instructions either stated or repeated with the invisible text that can only be seen when editing a page. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the rate of RfAs we're getting at the moment, I don't think twiddling with the formatting is going to be a big job... Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Perhaps something like this could be used:

Candidate (RFA) Nominator Date Result (tally) Notes
Example User:Example 02:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Unsuccessful (68/22/7) Many opposes b/c of generic username
Example User:Example 02:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Successful (114/8/3) –

Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty similar to mine. I had both a start date and an end date, for clarity's sake. The "Notes" section might wind up being too controversial, so I hadn't added one to mine, which is on the main project page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest column 1 was the nominator (after all it's our project). I don't think the date needs to be recorded very precisely -- month and year will do, with the throughput we're currently getting. I'd suggest we do have a comment section as it's an important part of trying to build up community experience in what works and what doesn't -- though as I wrote, some delicacy will be needed particularly for unsuccessful runs. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, AutomaticStrikeout put up the chart just before I posted, so we'll go with his. I've gone ahead and commented an example entry on the main page within the chart. As for the comments section, that might be something we can add on an as-needed basis. If it proves to be useful once we get the ball rolling on some nominations, we'll put it in. If not, then we won't. We could probably just play it by ear. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First candidate

[edit]

It seems odd that we have gone almost four days without anyone pointing it out, but BDD is our first candidate, as co-nom Steel 1943 is a project members. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a sub-page on this project where it was discussed? I haven't voted yet .. but will before it's over. — Ched :  ?  18:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there was a preliminary discussion here. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[To Automatic Strikeout:] I think it's ok to announce RfAs here, as long as the announcement is neutral. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next RfA and some issues with the scope of this WikiProject...

[edit]

Right now, I see an issue with this WikiProject that could cause an issue down the line with members' of this project's involvement or bias towards who we nominate. Basically, I already have another candidate in mind, but have no idea how to talk about it in the Wikipedia forum without getting others involved or biased, which could cause issues if this RfA actually happened. I'm trying to think of some way to perform the functions of this WikiProject without issues such as the ones I just mentioned. Any ideas? Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Admans"

[edit]

Greetings from the project's newest administrator! I just came across Wikipedia:Administrators without tools today. Based on its template's transclusions, it's not well known, but I think it's kind of adorable and expresses the spirit of this group pretty well. I thought some of you might want to use this. Best, BDD (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have added the link to the project main page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anyone got one in their pocket?

[edit]

Right now there are two RFAs going down in flaming balls of failure. Prior experience strongly suggests this is the exact right moment for nominating a more qualified candidate. This may seem a bit cynical but if anyone was waiting for a good moment to nominate someone, here it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not intentionally coinciding with the two failures, but I have just nominated someone who I view as a very good candidate. :) Go Phightins! 00:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to get a little quiet

[edit]

It's starting to get a little quiet around here. Perhaps we should try inviting some new participants? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Level 2 protection

[edit]

Just one idea to increase the pool of suitable admin candidates ... there's a subject that I can't be a closer on, Pending Changes Level 2 (or just Level 2), because I've actively opposed it from time to time over the past year, and my views on its potential for making mischief haven't changed (much). But I'm completely open to a trial ... and I'm not just saying that to cross it off the list of things to try, I would like to see the trial succeed ... and my hope is it would be limited to three purposes:

  • My "home" wikiproject is the Military History Project. I suspected Milhist wanted to try something like this, and it turned out I was right: see WT:MIL#Level 2 protection.
  • Also see the closing statement from WP:PC2012/RfC 1, the RfC specifically on Level 2 that closed in September. The closer called for another RfC within nine months, after we had a chance to learn something more about Level 1 and Level 2. We've learned almost nothing about Level 2 since then, although there was an inconclusive discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets and a recent partially related discussion at WT:Protected Page Editor. I think we owe it to ourselves to generate some actual data before the next (and hopefully final) RfC on it.
  • The reason I'm bringing this up here (and at Milhist, and nowhere else at the moment): I'm very concerned about the way that most Wikipedians increasingly feel disconnected from, and uninterested in, admin work; that's part of why we have so few nominations these days. I would really like to see something new, anything new, that gives non-admins a chance to try to think and act in an admin-like role ... but all these recent RfCs strongly suggest that most voters think of anything involving blocking and deletion as "nuclear" options, best left to people who have passed RfAs. Level 2 wasn't my first option (or anyone's first option) for this role ... but it happens to be the only suitable tool that isn't deletion and isn't blocking and is available right now (if people will allow a trial) and isn't hard to qualify for (see "Reviewer" at WP:RFPERM). To be blunt ... in general, without oversight, the risk of using it poorly is, I think, very real ... but I'm quite proud of my homeboys at Milhist, I think they can probably handle a trial without doing much damage, and I'm sure other wikiprojects could too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the original RfC, there was no consensus for the use of PC2, but there was no consensus against its use either. Therefore, it has always been my opinion that local consensus for PC2 should be sufficient to allow it to be used, i.e. if editors on an article's talk page agree to PC2, then it should be implemented on that article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the aftermath of the original trial, I believe if editors try to make use of level 2 pending changes protection solely based on local consensus, there is a high risk of a backlash that would withdraw support for pending changes, potentially for all levels. I think it is prudent to seek broad consensus support for use of level 2 protection before using it. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More is needed to see results

[edit]

We are not seeing much of an increase in activity, if any. In order for the culture at RfA to change, we must have candidates. I don't know if we need to do a nomination driver and try to get about 10 RfA going all at once, or something like that, but we can't expect anything to change if nobody ever runs. What is there we can possibly do to revive the process? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've poked about 10-12 people since this got off the ground, was only able to get one to make the leap. May be time to just start nomming even people we just regularly see and are somewhat familiar with. If they have baggage, we can worry about that when they actually say yes and we look more closely. Looking through the unsuccessful 2012 ones is also an option. Wizardman 02:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I'm starting to wonder if I should run, even though I know how it would turn out. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more eloquent (I hope) way of expressing my thoughts: I have a dream. I have a dream that one day candidates for adminship will be judged based on their trustworthiness and that less significant factors will not be overemphasized. I have a dream that one day we will not care if someone needs the tools, but only if he or she will use them properly. I have a dream that one day all !voters will act in good faith and seek to treat the candidate as they would want to be treated. I have a dream that one day even the RfX process, a experience sweltering with the heat of intense scrutiny, sweltering with the heat of vindictiveness, will be transformed into an oasis of good faith and positivity. I have dream that one day a candidate will work up the courage to run and that this will inspire another and another and another. I have a dream that one day the RfX report will show 10 or 15 RfX all active at once. I have a dream that one day adminship will not be a big deal. It is only a dream but please, don't wake me up just yet. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh heh. Amen! TCN7JM 04:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Rush

[edit]

Since there remains no RfAs (I have one in the tank, but not sure when my nominee will officially post it), perhaps it's time to just start nominating users, just go through users and if any seem good, just nom them. Any day work for trying this? Wizardman 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean just nominate them and then see if they accept? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Wizardman 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that allowed? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating without agreement from the nominee is a baaaad idea. It's not likely to be appreciated by the nominee (e.g. they're not ready, approaching exam/holiday period...) or by those who watch RFAs (when nominee declines nomination or can't answer the "why do you want admin tools?" question). DexDor (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nothing else seems to be working. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think i misworded myself; I meant asking a slew of people, then should a few accept when can then get all the nominations going at that time. Just making nomination statements given the acceptance ratio is too much work. Wizardman 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've thought that maybe could compile a list somewhere of all the people that have been approached about running. I know I've asked quite a few recently. Also, I'd like to see some more participation here. After all, there are 46 people watching this page. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ASO - you've been here over a year, with over 24,000 edits - and over 58% of them to articles. I appreciate you encouraging others - but have you considered running yourself? You certainly have the proper sig. for it. (yes that means I'd consider doing a nom for you myself. Jim Leyland is considered a legend in Pittsburgh after-all) — Ched :  ?  00:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

I've boldly added RfB nominations to the list in the records section on the main page. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone home?

[edit]

This has gone a handful of hours shy of a month without any activity. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it's my position that the big RfC didn't work out the way we wanted it to ... the proposals that got support, including the one that set up this wikiproject, haven't produced the effect they were intended to produce. I'll start thinking about a new RfC, and post my thoughts at WT:RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have two in my pocket to nom in the next month or two. Go Phightins! 14:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still participating in this WikiProject?

[edit]

As a former member of this WikiProject, I do not believe that there has been any recent activity from any of the members of this WikiProject that directly relates to the purpose of this WikiProject. Any activity that has happened on WP:RFA has seemed to have happened voluntarily without the help from/need for this project. In addition, it seems that recently, the most active, and really the only active, member and founder of this WikiProject has decided to go on a possibly-permanent retirement. So, just curious ... is anyone still doing any active work for this project? If not, I move to mark this WikiProject "defunct" per the guidelines in Template:WikiProject status/doc, as well as remove the link to this WikiProject from Template:RfA Navigation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything like what could be expected to exist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Admin Nominators exist anywhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SineBot! -- Trevj (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that there is anything like that in existence elsewhere. But, due to the progression of this project, it seems that there might be a reason why. When I joined this WikiProject back when it started, I was a bit worried that this entire WikiProject's existence was essentially a spiraling conflict of interest. I mean, openly recruiting others to nominate editors for RFA, and then those editors performing nominations could make most, if not all, in that group seemed involved (like an administrator in a closing discussion). I still have that worry, and now, I am witnessing the lack of participation possibly due to nominators realizing that they can take their own path to nominate and not feel like they should be churning out nominations quickly: that could be a bit reckless. Steel1943 (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This conversation has seemed to not get any responses. Since it seems that no one currently involved in the project has provided any feedback regarding the activity in this WikiProject, I will now perform the actions I stated earlier in this discussion: mark this WikiProject as "defunct" and remove its link from the previously mentioned template. If anyone decided to revive this project in the future, please revert these edits. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Wikipedia:Not now

[edit]

Hello everyone. I have just proposed that Wikipedia:Not now be moved to the title Wikipedia:Adminship is not for beginners. I am also suggesting that we use a new shortcut for the page, and that the existing shortcut, WP:NOTNOW be turned into a soft redirect. I'd be grateful if other editors could comment at the requested move discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

[edit]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Admin_Nominators&oldid=1179480724"