Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Huggle

Does editing with huggle count towards anything in terms of vandal fighting claims or is it ignored? PXK ^T /_C 14:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It results in a mixed response. Many people see use of Huggle as a good contribution, but equally users that do little more than revert vandalism tend to get a dubious reception. In general, competent use of Huggle is seen as a good thing as long as you have also made substantial contributions in other ways, although editors who are visibly careless or overzealous with Huggle rarely do well. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

mazca is correct of course, but generally I do not see a reason why it shouldn't. Using Huggle (or Twinkle or other tools) does not mean you are not editing, it just provides a nice interface to fight vandalism quickly. If you wanted to disregard those edits, people would go back doing in manually via Special:RecentChanges, which is more of a strain on the bandwidth but not different in terms of their actual work fighting vandals. And after all, if you use Huggle and make mistakes, you are still accountable for that as well. SoWhy 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Huggle and Twinkle, when run by users that don't know what they're doing, just makes mistakes easier and faster. I'd rather seen a thousand well-thought edits than three thousand Twinkle edits.
As for the "RC bandwidth" thing, that's pretty much bogus; don't worry about performance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct; as mazca pointed out, it shouldn't be all you are doing. But if you use Huggle or similar in a positive way, there is no reason why it should be disregarded as vandal fighting. It is just like doing vandal fighting manually but easier.

And as for the bandwidth thing, sure, we should not worry about it. But that does not mean imho that we should not use less straining methods if possible. Thats one of the benefits rollback for example (or so it says on its page). :-) SoWhy 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bandwidth" in this case is in reference to the end user (as it cuts down the number of pages loaded from three to one), not the WMF servers; you won't cause the Foundation to go bankrupt from webhosting-related charges by not using rollback. Don't worry. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I meant mostly. Because Huggle only shows the diffed text, without all the stuff around it, it makes it for people with slower connections to fight vandalism. Must have been a misunderstanding there, but of course the bandwidth to the WMF servers is a minor point here but still I think there is no reason to use up much more than needed. :-) SoWhy 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: If you're not cautious with Huggle (and it's your primary tool) and commit error after error, you'll suffer for it at the hands of irate users. And forget about an RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're not cautious at all and commit error after error, you'll still suffer for it. In that regard, Huggle/Twinkle/et al are no different from regular editing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am more or less in agreement with you. At RfA, the one thing that bothers me though is a candidate that uses Huggle unilaterally for fighting vandalism - yet that's the only attribute they tout. Regardless, Twinkle is the much safer choice, although it's being rendered obsolete in the fast paced word of Huggle. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I do think the repercussions for misusing Huggle are higher though. The reason is obvious: the speed and quantity of edits. It's all about proportion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My theory is that one can't Huggle their way into adminship, it takes more than that. Useight (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What about this request? A primary huggle user, got 140 supports. -- how do you turn this on 15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy is exactly the difference, and your assumption that he is "primarily a huggle user" is demonstrably false. He sees huggle the right way, as an effective tool, uses it the right way, and doesn't use it when he's not supposed to. It isn't about the "level up" and "editcountitis" that many huggle users ascribe to. He has thousands of non-Huggle, high quality edits. Keeper ǀ 76 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my support on that RFA is a good example of exactly mine and Keeper's point. Useight (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know J.delanoy from a hole in the ground. I'm going off what people wrote on the RFA. There are plenty of people who use Huggle properly and efficiently, but would they get opposed for it? -- how do you turn this on 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all about balance and clue for me. Huggle is fine (actually it's more than fine, it's profoundly effective and has shifted the balance of the editor:vandalizer ratio back into wikipedia's favor) but people oppose for silly reasons all the time. Right now, someone is getting opposed because they put a LOLcat on their self-nom. Egads, that's definitely (sarcasm) someone that's gonna break Wikipedia, right away. Keeper ǀ 76 16:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

People oppose (and support) for reasons that seem sane to them but nuts to everyone else, and 'twas ever thus. I'd like to think we trust the closing crats enough to sort out the stupid opposes from the genuine ones. (One useful byproduct of Majorly's RFA Stats page has been to show that – contrary to "what everyone knows" – successful RFAs below the magic 75%, while not common, aren't wildly unusual; 16 in total, including some "big names" like Krimpet and LessHeard vanU). – iridescent 16:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At one time there was also a concern that someone who is up to no good would rack up a lot of automated edits, get adminship and wreck havoc. Hypothetical example, User:Archcorn signs up, makes a few dozen TW vandal reverts, gets rollback, fires up huggle and gets thousands more. He then runs for admin, passes and goes bat shit crazy. This may be why there are opposes for lack of GA/FA/DYK work.

I myself wonder what's the point. Why go through all that work to pass an RFA just so you can play "dick for a day" with the mop? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah – but ever though there aren't many, there are enough User:Poettransit's out there, that someone obviously does think it worth the while. – iridescent 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? There's no way to dissuade someone from gaining the tools if they put forth the effort that you gave as your example. For an example, see Poetlister (or whoever else you want to call them). But someone that only does automated edits isn't very likely to have an opportunity to play "dick for a day" (which is an utterly hilarious name, by the way) in the first place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fortunate that Archtransit-type people aren't very common, but unfortunately anyone who's willing to put in sufficient work can overcome any trust-based system. There's no way around that, until mind-reading techniques are perfected it's going to be very hard to stop any people truly dedicated to being a dick. And I agree, 'dick for a day' is a truly excellent phrase... need to write an essay on the topic so we can bluelink WP:DICKFORADAY ;) ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That really should be a bluelink. Poof! and it is!!!! (and I fully expect some random admin to come in behind me and delete this, and probably give me some silly warning about wasting time, useless info, and NPA. Meh. Keeper ǀ 76 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the talkpage redirects there with an interesting soft redirect to a commons image. If you intend to write an essay there then it should deal with the short amount of time a newly promoted troublemaker has before he is demopped. How long did Archtransit last, a week? Now please write the essay before I get LARTed for vandalism :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The damage that can be caused by one admin going nuts for a day is minimal. They'll be desysopped and blocked. The damage that can be caused by a sysop making poor deletion and block (and to a lesser extent protect) decisions is much wider but far less measurable. Automated tools are a great thing. But the contributions through autmoated tools do not give RFA commentators sufficent information (IMHO) as to the cluefullness of a candidate. Thus, whilst Huggle, Twinkle, AWB, etc. delivered contributions are welcomed as much as any other, when it comes to granting +sysop their value is considerably less. But only in RFA review and not in any other way. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

extended discussion moved to where?

At SoWhy's RfA, I've just added links to the sections at the RfA talk page to where the discussion were moved. I think such links should always be placed, if only so as to carefully avoid the impression that something is being hidden, and, more importantly, as a basic matter of politeness to those editors whose comments within the moved discussions did not contribute to the disruptiveness which led to the discussion being moved. Everyme 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much standard practice - definitely the way to go. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, not everyone is aware of this hopefully-to-become a standard practice. Everyme 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation

You see guys, when I started editing on Wikipedia, I thought maybe I could be helpful here on the wiki. Numerous times, due to a power struggle, I was turned off. Finally, I decided to take a wikibreak. I left the wiki, and now, I'm halfway coming back. Making VERY small edits here and there. In re to the question above, "what's happened?" its because Wikipedia is such a large community. Editing on the wiki should be taken seriously, but I feel some people take this Wiki TOO seriously. I wanted to become a sysop because I felt I could've been tons more helpful in what I wanted to do, which was close AFD's and watch/assist with RFP and AIV which almost always needs help. I didn't and still don't see why someone would oppose to me being a sysop. I've yet to really do something stupid to show lack of maturity or responsibility on the wiki. It's just.... guys sometimes instead of immediatley responding to something, you should back off for a second and say hmmmmm.... where is this user coming from. Nine times out of ten, you'll be backed up on your decision if you take a second to think, instead of being irrational and getting upset over an edit. Remember, there is no deadline here. Damage can easily be undone. I guess my whole point here is that unfortunatley, many potentially good editors have been harassed over a point of view by saying, well look here and here and here and oobers of other places. Guys, look here and here and here. Sometimes I wonder if Jimbo did the right thing about starting a place like this. When he originally made the sysop position, I don't think he intended it to come to where it is today. Sorry for the soapbox..... I'll let you guys be now. Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason admin applicants get such a hard time is that a large portion of the administrative cadre abuse their power to some extent, because they are practically unaccountable, and the RfA "electorate" contains a large number of people who have either witnessed the results of administrator abuse or are administrator rejects themselves. The disheartenting level of scrutiny is entirely appropriate for a culture of admin-for-life. the skomorokh 16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. naerii 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But damage caused using the admin tools can't easily be undone. On a technical level, yes it can, but the damage that can be caused to the morale of contributors as they see their work being speedy-deleted by a trigger-happy admin on a spurious A7 call, or unfairly blocked, causes more harm to the project than letting editors with iffy judgement gain access to the tools (speaking generally, and not specifically to you) EJF (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, sure pages can be undeleted, users unblocked, but the real damage is the scowling perception that a newcomer has of Wikipedia, or even a long time contributor coming face to face with unjustified admin abuse. Editors are the cornerstone of Wikipedia - souring their disposition is just about the most harmful thing one can do. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOBIGDEAL is more than five and a half years old. I think its use in discussing RfA should be retired. I understand that you may be disappointed with how your RfA turned out, but seriously, I don't think you've brought up any particularly strong points against the existing RfA system. Your comment about taking a step back and considering where the person is coming from isn't bad advice, but it doesn't change the fact that, if the person has no on-wiki evidence of being trustworthy and reliable, it doesn't matter where the person is coming from. We (as editors) shouldn't be gauged by unverifiable real-world factoids; we can make up whatever we want (though I say I'm a male in his mid twenties, I could be a fourteen year old girl for all anyone knows). That's what caused the entire Essjay situation: people relying too heavily on what someone said they were in the real world. (yeah, that's a bit of a stretch, but that's the justification I have for my attitude on the matter) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

EVula, this has nothing to do with my old RFA, just how i feel atm. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned yourself in your opening example; I was just following your lead. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

'Temporary' comments

What is the community's view on support/opposes/neutral(s) which are 'temporary' or for any other reason, not permanent? Should comments only be permitted when the assessors (i.e. the individuals supporting or opposing) have the time to committ to reviewing the candidate? Its just I am seeing more as of late and wondering what the reason behind them really is (which although may be obvious, I don't understand why people don't wait until they can analyse contributions and what not). Caulde 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on your thread here for now, Caulde. I'll get back to you when I've formed an opinion, I need to do more research.  ;-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the exact situation. The people who show up and just stick up "Neutral, will look later", or similar seem to be wasting everyone's time for no great purpose. But the people who do something along the lines of "Support unless someone brings up something bad" are at least providing an opinion. As long as these people generally do return and reconsider their votes, it's not a big problem to me. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mazca that first point you make is exactly what I'm saying! Thanks. Caulde 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So It depends on the exact situation is "exactly what you're saying? Keeper ǀ 76 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but who said that first sentence was a point, I'd say it's just me waffling. :-) ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant the "Neutral, will look later bit". Caulde 19:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just messing with you Caulde. I know what you meant :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the community's view is, or even if it has a consistent view, but as far as I'm concerned all Neutral votes are a waste of space. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. We both know that "neutral" votes serve a very useful purpose.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right; I'd forgotten about your legacy to wikipedia. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Neutral !votes can serve a purpose if they provide some good outlines for the candidate's improvement (ie: "I like your mainspace contributions, but saying 'OMG lol delete' in AfD discussions is asinine"). "Neutral pending an answer to my question" is both unhelpful and as mind-boggingly obvious as saying that water is wet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most of those kinds of analyses can be drawn and left up for discussion in..well..the discussion section. Neutral votes are essentially fluff, even though I've been neutral at times. MF is absolutely right. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My take is that the "Discussion" section is more of a "meta" section; that is, it's discussion about the RfA, rather than about the candidate. Candidate-specific discussion, without choosing a side, is done in the Neutral section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that comments like "I like your mainspace contributions, but saying 'OMG lol delete' in AfD discussions is asinine" are best made outside the pressure cooker of an RfA unless they're part of the justification for an oppose. A quiet word in the candidate's ear from an editor whose opinion (s)he might be inclined to take notice of would be likely to be more effective IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally use variations of "provisional oppose as I can't see any evidence of xxx", if something I'd want to see isn't evidenced but I can't see any fault. IMO, as long you one is willing to change it if evidence does come up, I can't see any problem with this. (There's a fairly good example of this on IMatthew's WereSpielChequers RFA at present – as he hadn't mentioned them in his answers to the questions and they weren't obvious in his history, I'd overlooked his significant article-work). – iridescent 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that both supports and opposes can be as easily taken away as given whether they're prefixed with "provisional" or "temporary" or not, just by making a little edit, had I been concerned as you were I'd simply have raised the issue with IMatthew on his talk page, and then, depending on his response, decided whether to suppport or oppose. But each to his own I suppose. It's the Neutrals I don't understand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A neutral vote should be easy to understand. An Rfa is a !vote, in theory anyway. The closing bureaucrat is supposed to look at positive and negative arguments and not focus on the votes. A neutral vote is a way of expressing concerns and positives about a candidate when an editor finds it hard to decide whether the positives outweigh the negatives. I don't see the big deal. (Fair disclosure: [1].)--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal. I'll believe that bollox when you show me an RfA that passed at less that 50% or failed at more than 90%. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can easily show you many such examples. I'll be back as soon as I finish selling the Brooklyn Bridge. (But, seriously. A neutral is just another statement of where someone is on an Rfa.) --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will always fail to see the point in so-called neutral comments along the lines of "I can't support anyone who uses cat humor in an RfA, it seems like you're not taking the whole thing seriously." That's not neutral, it's a clear suggestion that the candidate isn't taking the RfA seriously. If that's a "neutral" comment then the Pope is my father. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just occurred to me, slow tonight I know, that votes can't be neutral in any meaningful sense anyway. So logically !votes can't be neutral either. Ban 'em I say! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sign me on. As long as I can !vote in both the support and oppose columns! (What gets me is those guys, like this one, who go 'neutral, leaning toward support'. What's the deal with that? Either support or oppose and stop that backboneless leaning!)--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can stop the whole "leaning" phenomenon by adding MOAR levels of response. Why only three? Why not make it more like judging a dance or diving routine? Something out of ten. "8.5". "5.6". 9.9, 1.5, 3.7.... Add em up, and if teh crats have an average about 7.5 or above, they win!!!!. No more leaning. More judgment!!!! It's already a vote, we are only fooling ourselves. I can imagine the whole "badgering" phenomenon will disappear also. Who's gonna argue with a "After reviewing contribs, I give you a 6.8". How could anyone come back with "you SOB! He's at least a 7.4!!!". I think I just solved the RFA problem! Keeper ǀ 76 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I was just reminded of this. Useight (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Did this whole thread come up because of my "Weak Support for now" that I posted 8 minutes before this thread began? If so, I posted that because the tip of the iceberg looked good and I wanted to voice my opinion of that tip but also declare that I was going to look at the remainder when I had more time to do more than scratch the surface. Useight (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was my "Provisional Oppose at this stage". – iridescent 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It was neither of them, in fact. I've just seen it a few times over my 'wiki-experience' and pondered the rationale behind them and whether or not supports & opposes based on an initial impressions and limited time for reading the RfA were acceptable. Caulde 14:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the 2 neutrals in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buckshot06? (which I so kindly addressed :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding canvassing in RFAs

A question regarding canvassing. Would canvassing possibly be regarded as one individual advising another individual to oppose a candidate i.e. User A e-mails User B telling him to Oppose User C's RFA. Would a simple exchange as that class as canvassing? Also, can canvassing just involve two individuals, or would it have to involve several users? D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS puts that behaviour firmly in the inappropriate canvassing camp (Biased, Secret and likely Partisan). –xeno (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In the RFA I'm talking about two users talking over e-mail *possibly* about an RFA and opposing - I have some evidence to back it up. Not quite sure whether this would be the appropriate place to tell all.... any outside party/admin open to an e-mail so I can speak to them? D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best you email the details to a 'crat... –xeno (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I just have to point out that we have a User:B ;) John Reaves 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Policy-based comment: WP:CANVASS says, right at the beginning (emphasis added by me): "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.". Common-sense based comment: If User A and User B know each other, I just can't figure out how this is a bad thing, how it would be policed, and why we would care. If User B doesn't know User A, the proper response from User B is "Go away". If there is a suspicion that this actually isn't just one user emailing just one other user, then that's a different story, but that's specifcally not how the question is worded. --barneca (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, OK fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. D.M.N. (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That really seems like reading the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. While it may not be canvassing on that read if it was just a single message from one user to another, in that case, it's meatpuppetry. –xeno (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

People are banned from discussing RFA's? ;-) Ok, so only RFA regulars will be able to comment on RFA's then, won't they? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They're banned from trying to sway others' opinions about an RfA in their favor.--KojiDude ^(C) 01:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't really banned from RFA. The only things I can think of would be anon user !voting and blatant sockpuppetry. Nevertheless, barneca, you're kinda wikilawyering. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's the first time I've ever been accused of wikilawyering. By two people I respect no less. So, I went back and re-read WP:CANVASS, thinking I might be wrong. I'm not. I stand by my interpretation of both the spirit, and the letter, of the policy. also, note the "common-sense based comment" part of my earlier post. No one is going to tell me what I can and can't email a friend, and I'd love to see them try. --barneca (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I understand where you're coming from, but wouldn't that classify as meatpuppetry..if worded in a non-neutral influential tone? I mean, it seems like vote stacking a small scale. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Telling anyone through any means "You should vote ________ in _______'s RfA" is canvassing. It doesn't change depending on how good of friends you are with the guy.--KojiDude ^(C) 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KojiDude on this one. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, if User A tells User B to do something on wiki, and User B does it because User A said so, then the word for that is "User B is weakwilled". If User A knew this was going to happen, or if User A and User B agreed that they would always act in unison like this, then yes I'd use the term meatpuppet. But if User A emails User B "Did you notice that complete jerkoff User C is up for RFA? You haven't opposed yet.", and User B emails back "Yikes, I'd missed that, I'm off to vote Oppose", then no I don't call that canvassing, or meatpuppetry. I call it "conversation". Same goes for an email "You should vote ___ in ____'s RFA".

It's all academic, though because if it truly is limited to two friends, no one is going to find out. In that case, what name you choose to call it is a distinction with no difference.

And, since my cover is blown anyway, and now everyone knows I'm a wikilawyer, I'm actually curious why people think someone went to the trouble of putting the word "multiple" in WP:CANVASS, if it applies even to a single instance. Is that a new addition or soemthing? --barneca (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

<--This thread is reason #one billion for why I don't have email enabled. Sheesh. Keeper ǀ 76 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually if User A tells User B to do something, and A gives good reasons, then User B should really do it. It's called "good advice" ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. true. Hopefully it was relatively clear what I was getting at... --barneca (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's good advice or bad advice, it's input that User B can consider and act on or reject. In any event, if it is a single one-on-one conversation between two users who know each other, I don't think it is the kind of thing covered by the spirit of WP:CANVASS. It's hard to see how someone sharing an opinion in that case can undermine the RFA process. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

7 admins created in Sep 08. Crat happy to nominate "unusual" RfAs.

The stats at User:NoSeptember/crat stats show that just 7 users became admins in September 2008 and that this is the lowest figure for any month (the stats go back to 2004).

In contrast, during 2007, we twice hit highs of more than 50 in one month.

Admins do become inactive. And the Project is growing larger all the time. So we need you to become an admin.

Therefore, I am posting here to make sure you know that I am happy to consider nominating editors for RfA. But, more than that, and as demonstrated by my two most recent nominations, I'm willing to nominate unusual candidates. Evidence shows (one successful RfA and one on the way to success it would seem) that such noms can pass - and pass well too.

So:

• If you're hanging about waiting for someone to notice you, don't. People may well think you're already an admin, so...

• If you had civility or edit-warring or other problems (even a block or two) early in your time here but an unblemished record for some time since...

• If you've not been editing for a long time, but do have experience in admin areas and are civil and helpful by nature...

• If the chances of you ever producing an FA are not just zero, but actually negative <grins> because you're content as a gnome...

• If you have no enormous "need for the tools" but if granted would use them occasionally just to clear up your own messes like G6 deletions, (so "not adding to the backlogs", rather than "helping reduce" them)...

• If you've had an unsuccessful RfA before, but have demonstrably moved on since then...

• Or you're similarly an unusual candidate...

...drop me a line.

Of course, I also welcome well-qualified candidates! Remember, we (the community) are not good at spotting good candidates - we tend to perceive you as admins already.

Drop me a "warts and all" message, disclosing any skeletons - these are best discovered before starting RfA, rather than being uncovered in the middle. And be prepared for me to lightly grill you before I offer a nom.

I can't guarantee to nominate you; I won't if I wouldn't support you myself. And I can't guarantee success. But please do try me.

Two last tips:

1. it may be worth doing an editor review first, but be polite and review at least one other editor who's been waiting a while.
2. the best admin candidates are those who already behave in an "adminlike fashion". Advice I spotted early in my time here and took to heart.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) PS Please be patient - my editing this month is heavily restricted by RL and that + my other responsibilities when I am "in" means it may take me a while to get to you.

I'd honestly suggest just giving people the mop without running them through the process. Who wants to answer 40 inane questions about hypothetical situations they have no intention or requirement to encounter, let alone deal with? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who does want to answer lots of questions can try RfB. Question City that is. The volume of RfAs is down. I seek to address that. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The questions are (almost) irrelevant. People do take them too seriously. Anyone can learn how to be an admin. The central issue is, does the community trust you? The answer is often "no." Experience is relevant in the sense that it is the medium in which that trust is built, but some very exp. people do not get the bit. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have people tried looking through the list of admin hopefuls for potential candidates? -- how do you turn this on 12:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps talking to admin coaches to see if they think their coachees are about ready? Useight (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely the process of admin coaching involves a nomination at the end? I'm sure the coach would be aware of whether the candidate is ready or not. -- how do you turn this on 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do "Editor Coaching", with no objective to eventually submit an RFA, just to help them out as an editor. Useight (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think coaching was significantly hurt back in Mar-Jun when 15 coachees were clearly not capable and where coaching was poorly done (and I say that as an advocate of coaching.) This gave coaching a bad name and people started to see coaching as bad by default. This legacy, kind of deterred some (including myself) from coaching.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Right you are, coaching took a big blow, I was just suggesting that there are going to be some coachees who are prepared and that finding those individuals would help increase the volume of RFAs. Useight (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just recieved a message from Dweller asking if I would like to become an administrator. My answer would be yes, I would be intrested. Alex (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I do agree more admins are needed. As ever, it's not so much raw numbers but the data behind it. As of now there are just shy of 1,600 admins (1597) yet only 970 are active. A quick look at this history [2] indicates that this figure has fluctuated over the last year but is now almost identical to what it was 11 months ago. So a year of RFA's has resulted in merely treading water in terms of active editors with +sysop. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To echo Gladys j cortez on WP:BN, the biggest problem is retarded opposes. Crats need to be more active and remove ridiculous oppose rationales. RfA is supposed to be a civil discussion about whether or not the candidate should be allowed to receive sysop rights. What it actually is is an oppurtunity for people to beat other users into the ground any possible reason And yes, the link was intentional. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(since J.Delanoy mentioned my comment, I figure it shoud go here too...)Truthfully, I think something that would go a long way toward pulling in more people for adminship would be some sort of boundaries concerning the reasons for which !voters can validly support or oppose. Not that I'm in a position to criticize, since a bunch of the "supports" in my current RfA are for exactly this reason, but "Influential person X likes you, so I do too"--not really valid. Similarly, I've had one person oppose because she thinks I have a "contrived persona" and one opposing because she read my blog, which has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. The sole and only reasons for support and objections should lie in the candidate's ON-WIKI/wiki-related activity (adding the second half because yeah, I wouldn't want an admin whose sole off-Wiki life consisted of badmouthing Wikipedia!). I think a commitment from 'crats to focus the discussion where needed, and when necessary to use their judgement re: which !votes should be considered, would go a long way towards reassuring people. (No, I don't know how this might be done fairly; I'm just putting out the idea. I've seen some truly, truly cockamamie !vote rationales while watching recent RfA's--my own is incredibly tame in comparison.) Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe RFA should be like AFD, FAC, and every other discussion arena on the project. No votes, and reasoned arguments. The bureaucrat has complete discretion, like an admin (and Raul/Sandy) has. -- how do you turn this on 15:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But RfA is that way, isn't it? Opposes without any rational reason are usually discarded by the closing crats or at least they should be. But discussion and "stupid" opposes serve as a good test if the candidate is able to deal with people complaining about unimportant things. But Dweller's comment on WP:BN is true, maybe crats should step in sooner to remove discussions which are completely off the subject (as I can say happened on my RfA quite a lot).

If you think there are not enough candidates, have a look at WP:HOPEFUL. You can pick and choose amongst willing editors there. ;-) SoWhy 18:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, I think that your idea and the motivation behind are both sound, and I commend you for the initiative – but it greatly intrigues me as to how people perceive the RfA process as more likely to be successful ("successful" here meaning resulting in promotion to sysop) if they request nomination by another established editor than if they self-nominate. Surely the sentiment behind both is identical, as in both cases, it is a conscious decision by the administrator hopeful to go through the process? Yet, for whatever reason, it is deemed better to "self-nominate via proxy", as it were, presumably to increase the perceived chance of success. And yet, if a candidate is nominated by another editor without having requested the nomination beforehand, and accepts that nomination, does that not express a desire equal to that of the self-nominator to run for adminship – should that be classed as "prima facie evidence of power hunger" as well? I'm sorry to go into Wikipedian sociology, but like I said, I find the whole aura of hostility towards self-nomination highly interesting. haz (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People should never want to be admins. We should find candidates among the unwilling, and drag them, kicking and screaming, and put them into the position. –xeno (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we force Sandy to become an admin? ;) -MBK₀₀₄ 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Change from vote

Right now RfA's are a vote. We have opposes and supports and neutrals separated out into their own categories. We then keep judicious records of the count in the tally section. We don't do this with XFD, FA, GAR, or any other area. RfA is the only place where we monitor counts like we do. I suggest that we do away with this numbering of comments and break down into separate sections. Have people comment where they comment---break up the "Supporters above" and "Opposes below." Take away this crutch of being able to easily count the votes. Make it a single read, like XfD's and make it more of a "Who has the strongest case?" This would mean that people who have 75%+ are more likely to fail and even the possibility of people with a 70% or less of passing. It would also add strength when issues are resolved or an "oppose" rationale is deemed invalid/outdated.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unofficially and without lots of thought, I support this. Seems chaotic at first, but I bet many of the problems will be ameliorated by this. A burden on the 'crats, perhaps, but thems the breaks. Tan | 39 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to go one of two ways with this - either we call it a vote and stick to a certain percentage or move to an idea like this. I support this particular idea - it goes in line with other consensus based discussions. I actually suggested this about a year back, but nobody liked the idea. As with all discussions, people are supposed to, well, discuss! I'm seeing all to often people getting gunned down for responding to an oppose or a support - the term "badgering" is way overused. People should be free to question what they like to help make consensus clearer and I believe this method would promote discussion. Now, if only we could get rid of the bolded support and opposes then things might be perfect - I guess that's just a dream! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's more to this than the (modest) proposal makes out. Deprecating percentages in favour of substantive analysis would discourage the concept of AGF support (i.e. "Support, no concerns/WP:WTHN") and of endorsing another's opposition (i.e. "Oppose per the very troubling diffs by Example (talk · contribs)"). The likely result would be that people would have to dig a little deeper in supporting, and add a little extra in opposing, which if AfD is the model to go on, would result in much more threaded discussion, which means a lot more "badgering" and acrimony. I tentatively support the idea, but let's not fool ourselves about the radical transformation this would bring. the skomorokh 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like how the heading for this thread is "minor change". Useight (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I pointed out that even AFDs are not supposed to be votes during my own RFA, and part (although far from most) of the opposition to my adminship is coming from this crazy idea I have that consensus comes about through debate and discussion, not by counting votes. I think you will have a hard time going anywhere with this.—Kww(talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats were elected to evaluate consensus. This is what they're expected to do. The problem is with this is there are no policies for adminship. We have policies articles should follow, but we don't have policies for admins. At the moment, people can oppose and support for whatever reason they like, and often for no reason at all. This simply doesn't work in XFDs or FxCs, where comments are evaluated based on policy and not "ILIKEIT" comments, and is strictly not a vote, not counted and tallied up. An admin can easily close an AFD with 2 deletes and 5 keeps as delete without issue. If such a thing happened with RFA, there would be uproar. Either we make it a strict vote, with no comments, or we have bureaucrats evaluate consensus properly, and only take into account standards required for adminship when looking at comments. -- how do you turn this on 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference between AFD and RFA is that an article can be easily undeleted while admins cannot easily be desysopped. Useight (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We aren't promoting admins for the purpose of desysopping them. If they mess up, there are relevant processes to go through already. There are too many good candidates failing for extremely dubious reasons. -- how do you turn this on 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We also aren't deleting articles for the purpose of undeleting them. My point was that one process is easily reversible while the other isn't. Useight (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe we should change that. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just came across this. An RFA in RFC format? Interesting or what. -- how do you turn this on 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember that one, and I participated in it. A novel idea to be sure but I think it wound up causing more trouble than it was worth ... Shereth 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is merely a formatting change. Officially RFA's are already not a vote. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) In other words, if you want to change the layout and remove support and oppose percentages, this is entirely your prerogative.

Well they are a vote, as it evidenced by the fact that the number of RFAs promoted with less than 75% of support I can count with my fingers. Bureaucrats ignore the 75% boundary extremely rarely, and when they do, it causes uproar. It is most definitely a vote. -- how do you turn this on 20:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a very old promise/threat I made, where I said I would shut down RFA if it ever became a vote. O:-)

I propose the following playbook:

• Try and use the proposed layout for the following couple of nominations.
• If the layout is opposed on grounds of style, that's fine, let people improve it
• If the layout is opposed on grounds of "voting is mandatory", we kill RFA
• If the layout goes unopposed. Hurrah! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominations aren't the problem

Nominations aren't now, and haven't been at any time, the limiting factor in this process. The simple fact is that the support requirements have been much tougher, due in part (and this isn't criticism) to the increased participation of the FAC folks. The result is that many candidates that would have passed previously fail now, and nothing is a more powerful deterrent than the strong likelihood of failure. I'm not sure how or if you can fix that, or even if many of the current regular voters would want you to, but I don't think an increase in nominations is the solution. Avruch ^T 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on the very interesting, and to me novel thesis that the participation of FAC folks has had a decisive impact in raising standards? It would be consistent with their impact on FAC/FAR/GAN/DYK. the skomorokh 19:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Their standards are lofty? They feel only substantial article writers would make good admins? I'm just brainstorming, but that's probably what the implication is. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When in perspective though, 1 featured (or good, as has been mentioned in various RfAs recently) article really that much to ask? I don't oppose on content grounds (I have once, in my recent memory, however that was in addition to other aspects I felt needed addressing for sysopping) but I do agree with their sentiment. I must say though, in co-incident with the low pass rate recently there have been 'bad' candidates too; we can't simply 'blame' this on the FAC crowd when all their doing is enforcing their own standards as do others who require 7-8 months participation, for example. Many of the candidacies are simply not good enough, not just because they have low article standards. We need to see more rounded candidates, not just those with high-ranking article contributions. Caulde 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, I was just laying down my interpretation of the original sentiment. I would prefer to see article creation/writing in admin hopefuls. However, nobody should require a set amount of FA or GAs. That is wholly unfair. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally the above would be right, but there were very few nominations, successful or unsuccessful, this month. Wizardman 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there are less nominations because people don't want to nominate candidates who are likely to fail, and people also don't want to be candidates who are likely to fail. The fact that passing is more difficult than it has been causes both an increased rate of failure and a decreased rate of attempts. And, in response to Caulde above, I certainly don't "blame" the FAC folks for their standards. In many respects, they are completely right about what background and qualities make the best admins. But it isn't criticism to cite the effect they have had, and continue to have, on the process. In fact, I think most if not all would be proud to acknowledge that their participation has led to many other editors adopting similar standards. Avruch ^T 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People are hesitant to support requests for adminship because nothing short of ArbCom (and its four month long cases) can forcibly remove a bad admin. How about supporting Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal? This comment addresses the issue of admin recruitment. Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC wonkery is only one facet of the equation. The minimum standards for passing an RfA have simply gone up as time passes. I'm sure there is someone out there eager to jump up and say "Nonono, we don't have minimum standards!" Nonsense. Just because it isn't written "You must have this many edits and that many Wikipedia space edits and this many FA contributions", when opposition is both predictable and regular for these reasons, it's a minimum standard. Is this good or bad? I can't say, I'm not really qualified. But how many of us, who have been administrators for any length of time (say a year) can look back at our successful RfA and say that same RfA would be a success under today's standards? There are probably quite a few of us who would not. As the community becomes more stringent about who they will make an admin, the number of admins is going to taper off. Just a fact of life. Shereth 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree. The number of promotions has gone up and down in the past, but it's never been this low. Earlier in the year, we had more than 30 a month. -- how do you turn this on 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is cyclic. I can't begin to guess as far as exactly why this month had such a low participation in RfA and such a low promotion rate. I think perhaps it deserves a wider look; I may decide to compile some statistics. That said, it is still my observation that the community has become more demanding of RfA candidates and that this will naturally result in a reduction in new administrators. Shereth 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I unique in feeling that the minimum standards have *declined*, and that they have been replaced by arbitrary numeric standards instead? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What more can Crats do to help RfA

I've started a thread at WP:BN#We just had a bad month. Don't be shy, but please stay on-topic. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)