Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship

At Wikipedia talk:criteria for speedy deletion, we find this:

WP:RFA culture now places much weight on accurate C:CSD tagging. So yes, sadly, it has become a race to place the tag first.

A newbie creates a new stub article. Then adds more to it ten minutes later. Then more still after another ten minutes. And so on. Right? Wrong: the way it now works is that the initial stub is tagged for speedy deletion and deleted within three minutes—often within two minutes. The newbie is disgusted and goes away and never comes back. The person who does this to the most newbies becomes an admin. That's how it works. And they don't bring any intelligence to the decision about what to tag for deletion. "I don't understand it effortlessly since I've never studied advanced physics, and it's too much work to think about it for a moment, so it must be crap. Delete! That's how to become an admin. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So sad, and so true. The problem is by no means limited to RfA though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that sad at all. If you actually look at new articles created by new editors, the majority are "Joe is crazy and his dog stinks" or "(Name of editor) was born July 15, 1992 and attends X high school and is really cool" or "Gnarpharg is a sound I make in my throat sometimes." These are articles that the second or third edit ten or twenty minutes later are very unlikely to improve enough that it no longer satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion. Edison (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict reply mainly to Edison) It doesn't just happen to newbies, though, as I found out around 2 months ago. I pointed out to the over-eager tagger that it might be an idea to give more than 3 minutes (the time it was) to allow someone to carry on editing the article, especially since his over-eager tagging had caused edit conflicts that meant I was unable to add sufficient detail to the article because of his speedy deletion tag! I got a lecture back about how to edit an article, which I thought amusing as it meant he had not attempted to look at my editing history at all. However, he did say he would wait 3 minutes which is all he had left anyway, and I had to point out that I said "longer than 3 minutes" and had suggested substantially longer than that. He just replied with "I got the message", but I note that later messages on the editor's talk pages are complaining about the same behaviour, so I guess he didn't get the message after all. I think this borders on the disruptive at times if it is done frequently, and I would certainly not shrink from pointing this out in any RfA.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stretch, please tell me that your initial article, when you first hit the "Save" button, was not equivalent to one of the typical three examples I cited, which represent actual deletions I did in the last couple of days? Say it ain't so! Edison (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I can't recall clearly now, and don't have the time to find it, but it had content, valid categories, a reference, and even an infobox.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how badly savaged RfA candidates get if they mistakenly tag articles for speedy deletion, I'm not convinced that tagging articles for speedy deletion incautiously would be a wise way to try and earn "points" towards adminship. Whilst it is certainly true that experience of tagging for speedy deletion is likely to benefit a candidate, I don't think more tagging equals more support. Similarly, fewer well reasoned XfD contributions are likely to be viewed in a more positive light than simply "voting" delete on hundreds of discussions. Those thinking of applying for adminship should be thinking about demonstrating the sound judgment they propose to bring to that role, not the volume of work they would do if appointed. WjBscribe 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that happens? Maybe you've seen some cases of admins getting "badly savaged", but how do you know there aren't hundreds of cases of newbies going away quietly after there article is deleted, for every one where they complain? Is there any way to even attempt to keep track of this? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If an article is even remotely useful, I am starting to userfy more often. This takes care of a lot of issues at once, and doesn't really piss anyone off. Experienced editors should already know to build their article to minimum standards in their userspace before "releasing into the wild". Tan | 39 01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But experienced editors should not always have to build their articles to "minimum standards" on their user spaces before they start to create them, and nowhere, when one fist creates a page, is there a notice recommending that one should have done this. In the case I was involved in, it was already arguably of a minimum standard for a stub article, dealing with a notable subject (a civil parish in a county within England), complete with references. I think that this option is useful, however, but I think telling people they should do this is not a good way to combatting a trigger-happy reaction to new articles without elementary checks on who was the creator of the new article. Or is this going to be another new means by which suitability for being an admin is to be assessed, without actually giving anyone a clue that is?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the tags are fine to just slap on for most pages, but A3 should be used with caution. That's the one that can stop a newbie trying to create a good page --Chris 02:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As we all know, anyone who creates an article has a bold text box staring them in the face saying, "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted". Fair warning. It's hard to draw the line between overly aggressive tagging and letting no-context articles slip into the encyclopedia, I think. This is veering rapidly into a village pump type of discussion, but I wonder if there's a way to change how articles are deleted under A3. Instead of speedy (i.e. instant) deletion, if they could get a tag that stays on the article for a period of time like an hour or two, then can either have the tag removed or the article deleted. Complicated, but I think Chris points out a real problem. Darkspots (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More new article I see presently added to Wikipedia that time is unlikely to improve. Should RFA potential candidates be wary of tagging them, so they have lots of time to add refs and rise to Featured article status? See The periodic table of elephants:"the periodic table of elephants is a table classifying pachyderms based on their size and plce of origin. it was created in 1920 by renowned german zoologist hans gubenmeister. it today is widley used in most countries in europe asia and africa." It was tagged for speedy deletion one minute later. Bless the tagger. Edison (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin, it's easy for me to say...over aggressive tagging isn't the problem. Over aggressive deletion is. Anyone can tag an article. Only people who have the confidence of the community have the buttons to delete. I try not to tag anything that I don't think qualifies, and I stand by the majority of tagging that I've done. At the same time, I hope that admins deleting pages I've tagged have taken an extra moment themselves to verify that the tags are legit. --Onorem♠Dil 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As a rough estimate, I'd say that 90-95% of tagging is correct. I probably refuse about 5-10% of speedy deletion tags, and I always err on the side of caution. One thing I would say is that sometimes editors are too quick to use the G1 tag when "nonsense" actually has quite a narrow definition. Often such wrongly-tagged G1's are valid A1, A3 or A7's, but many aren't. Anyway, probably veering off-topic here.Black Kite 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)For what it's worth, I do recognize that the tagging itself can be a problem. Even if the tag is removed, a new editor might be lost if they feel that their original contributions are about to be unfairly deleted. --Onorem♠Dil 03:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think articles are tagged quickly because they have to be, or they will no longer be on the first page of special:newpages and harder to find and delete if they are never improved. Useight ( talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not going to deny this problem exists, but just three small points: 1.) Exactly what is the meaning behind the title of this section? Is it a common view that most candidates who are granted administrator status are excellent SD taggers, or is it just obnoxious sarcasm? 2.) Newbies are instructed to develop their articles in adherence to our guidelines before clicking the save button. They are given the opportunity to make a suitable stb. 3.) By far, the most common articles created are absolute trash/nonsense. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat it's not just the newbies... the other day I forgot to write an article in my user space. Saved it. Went in to edit it, before I had a chance to edit it, it was speedily deleted per A7. Needless to say, I was not pleased. A lot of articles do need to be speedily deleted, but not all. Discretion should be used to see who is creating the article (do they have a track record or are they a true newbie) and has enough time passed to give the article a chance.Balloonman (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to get an argument from me about that. The tagging has become rampant. Goodness knows I've tagged rapidly a few times. In order to curb the problem, I suggest the following: 1.) Check the history and identify the author, check their contributions. 2) If you have any doubt when tagging for A7, don't (contemplate the relevant notability tag). 3.) People need to stop tagging every short article as "no context", as the subject can easily be ascertained. 4.) Add a stub template for short articles and add helpful article templates to identify potential problems. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just my two cents, and more than likely written in the guidelines. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think there are 2 types of CSDs. One would be attack pages, blatant spam and copyvios, and genuine nonsense. But then there are the notability and context CSDs, which are an entirely different animal. I wonder how fierce the opposition would be to a 1 or 2 day PROD for all notability based deletion propositions? MBisanz ^talk 08:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's kind of what I'm talking about above. I think it would still need to be under the speedy rubric rather than PROD (PROD tags can be removed by the creator), but we could require that A3 and A7 tags to be placed on articles for a period of time before deletion. OR strongly suggest to administrators that any article with the remotest hint of merit be given a period of time for development (6 hours? 24 hours?), because there are plenty of A7 articles that probably should be deleted on sight. Darkspots (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

These two are very good ideas. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that far more often than formerly, I have recently seen good articles tagged for speedy deletion by people who were unwilling to know what the articles said before they tagged them. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and these are the people who eventually have failed RfAs because of overzealous CSD tagging. It's a problem, unfortunately, and when admins are asked "why did you delete my article" for the 50th time that day, we/they need to remember to be civil/polite. It's only fair - we were all newbies once too. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion really is getting into something that is more relevant to the village pump. Per the original poster of this topic though, bad CSD taggers tend to not pass RfA (don't know whether I was lucky or not :p). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem has to do in part with the understatement in the first paragraph of WP:PATROL#Patrolling new pages. Is it meant to be an understatement? I guess that a lot of people don't read it as one and believe that tagging Crustaceans in Byzantine hagiography 15 minutes after its creation is OK if they have followed this process. Unfortunately this means that its creator, after a 2 hours' absence for breast-feeding, nappy changing and a few other household duties, will learn that we don't want her expertise.

There is also a psychological component. If someone patrols an article, they want to feel that they are being useful. They want to click a button. Not being allowed to press the "patrolled" button because they don't have the necessary knowledge to assess an article no doubt creates frustration in some editors. (This paragraph is speculative and based on introspection when I just patrolled a new article for the first time in my life.)

We need to change the process. Blatant nonsense and attack pages need to be deleted immediately. Other CSD articles need to be deleted before the author has invested too much time, to avoid drama when it is finally deleted. The current process is skewed towards the first problem and to radical concerning the second. Perhaps the ideal solution would be a technical one supporting a second stage of new pages patrol. Instead of marking a page as patrolled, it could be marked for repatrolling. This would occur, say, after 3 days or 10 edits to the article, whichever happens earlier. It would be inserted into Special:NewPages at that stage. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...and now I just found the article titled Bochica. User:Excirial tagged it as patent nonsense. Then User:SatyrTN deleted it, saying there was not enough context to identify the subject. I'd never heard of the subject, but I identified it in seconds using Wikipedia and Google. Clearly these two users couldn't be bothered. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly resent being singled out for your example. The version I deleted was one sentence, thirteen words, some of them spelled wrong. It didn't qualify as a stub, didn't assert any notability, and was labeled by another editor as "patent nonsense", which it certainly seemed. Futhermore, it had been tagged for three hours, plenty of time for the article's creator or anyone else to have removed the speedy tage, added context to it, anything to make it suitable for keeping. I may agree with your arguments, but this is the wrong article to use as an example. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen words with clear meaning doesn't qualify as a stub? Being a god of a culture isn't an assertion of notability? There are two types of patent nonsense, and the article was neither. It already had context, all anyone (including you) had to do was correct the typos and wikilink the relevant words. The fact that you've never heard of the subject means that you should look it up, or else refrain from taking any action. –Pomte 18:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The typo "mitology" was particularly unfortunate there, since it does make the article incomprehensible. I have to agree with SatyrTN's deletion.

We've known even before the Mzoli meats incident that every new stub should have at least one reference or external link to establish notability. The message presented when a new article is created directly asks the author to add references, or else the article may be deleted, so nobody should be surprised. Personally, I haven't had trouble with people deleting my stubs, even on highly esoteric subjects. [1] [2] [3] [4] — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the thirteen words, two were spelt wrongly, but their meaning was clear, within the context of the article using the word "god". Consequently, I do not accept that it rendered the article incomprehensible. Although I have only involved myself in nominating deletions occasionally, I thought it was only polite and sensible to do a web search, etc prior to nomination, just in case it was more a problem with my own knowledge rather than the article itself. I'm surprised that this elementary precaution is not almost universally done, and I suggest some appropriate guidelines be edited to include this advice, if it is currently absent from them. If the web search threw up references, then I would simply add them to the article in order to start it off with a good track record with referencing, but I am sure this is also not a universal strategy. Indeed, I've just added one! I think this particular case was unfortunate.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate. But I don't think we can reasonably expect people looking at CSD backlogs to research each article before deleting it, especially since by all accounts 95% of the articles tagged as nonsense really are nonsense.

The 'nonsense' criterion has to be read as referring only to the literal content of the article, not to its possible content. In this case, the article was, for all reasonable purposes, indistinguishable from a random "Earloben is the god of corn, well known in Iowa" article. Did anyone ask the creator (politely) why he or she didn't heed the advice to add a reference? Maybe if we follow up on some of these problem articles, we can find a better way to inform new users about our requirements. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carl, above, that spelling "mythology" as "mitology" made the original article incomprehensible enough that SatyrTN's deletion is acceptable. I don't want to call into question the experience of anyone participating in this discussion, but Special:Newpages is simply insane. Like tryin' to drink from a firehose, as the saying goes. We need to support new contributors, but watching this page for an hour or two justifies speedy deletion policy in a visceral way. If anyone here hasn't done this, please do so before singling out individual administrators for criticism. Darkspots (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Incomprehensible"?? It should have been obvious to anyone that "mythology" was intended. I saw that instantly and I'm as far from an expert as you can get on that subject. Obviously a non-native speaker of English wrote the article, and the misspellings were easy to fix, including that of "mythology". Michael Hardy (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it is often a difficult job, given the amount of rubbish one sees being added or created on occasion. I would think enquiring why the person did not include a reference would be useful, especially since I found one which was very simple to add in virtually no time at all. However, along with improvement in the behaviour of article creators, there are two more stages that need to be mentioned and clearly separated, since they can be mixed up together in ways which might hinder any closer examination: the first is the act of adding the Speedy Deletion tag to the article; the second is the action prompted by the placement of that tag. It does not take an administrator to add the speedy deletion tag to an article, and so perhaps we should encourage more responsible people to take their turns at the first stage or task, emphasizing that looking at some articles with a view to tagging them for speedy deletion might just mean spending short amount of time improving them. As for the second stage or task, if the workload is too much, then there probably there is a need to be able to create more people who can make decisions about speedy-deletion-nominated articles (as far as I am aware, one must be an administrator to be able to do this.) This need not mean creating more administrators if appropriate changes could be made, but it could mean this. And that brings us back to the issue of being able to better specify the characteristics of good behaviour one might be expected to see in good administrators. "Point scoring" on the basis of number of successfully nominated deletions, etc may not be the best way, if we think there is something at fault in the present process, for example.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating in user space

I have just one comment: People should not have to create pages in their userspace, to prevent them from being deleted. This is a wiki. A wiki is most beneficial when people can collaborate on articles to bring them up to speed.

Let me repeat the key phrase: People should not have to create pages in their userspace.

Did I mention that the moment people start creating pages in their userspace... that's a really really bad sign, and whatever the cause is must be eliminated asap?

So you're saying CSD tagging is encouraging people to create pages in their userpsace first?

Ok, then let's kill CSD tagging. (Either that, or put a time delay on the CSD tags, so that they don't show up for admins until hours or days later... hey wait... isn't that PROD? Maybe other solutions could work too?)

Could I see a quick show of hands of people who create pages in their userspace?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I create articles in my userspace, because as an experienced editor I know that I need to satisfy wikipedia policy/guidelines. Although collaboration is what a wiki is about, if people come across an article that could be deleted, they are welcome to either improve it or tag it. You just have to rely on there being good admins who would choose to reject the speedy. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 13:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I often write new articles on my own computer and then copy them here once I am sufficiently happy with them, but that's mainly to try to avoid inflating my edit count fixing all the errors I make when starting an article. I think that creating articles in userspace, rather than mainspace, is a practice we should discourage. Having the page in userspace has the effect of preventing others from improving the article, and goes against the point of a public wiki. If experienced editors feel they need to to it because of overly hasty CSD tagging, it's a sign the CSD system needs changed. I have advocated for a long time that the CSD criteria concerning importance, rather than spam, nonsense, libel, etc., should have a time delay like the image criteria do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't create articles in userspace. I might have once or twice, but I have no clear recollection of doing so. I certainly hope that does not become expected behavior for newbies or any editors (except perhaps for reprobates attempting to salvage their reputations). And I might note, the problem with CSD is not only with newly created articles. On more than a few occasions, a vandal defaced an established page, someone else came along and tagged it for speedy deletion, and another editor comes along and "poof" no more article. In some cases, I happened to notice the vandalism or CSD placement on my watchlist and was able to rescue the article in a timely manner. In other cases, it wasn't until some time later I notice a redlink that I knew should have an article and looked into the history. What is worse, when I pointed out the faulty deletions to the editors, I got snarly responses, as if it such accidental deletions were acceptable collateral damage in the war against vandalism and spam. I think such editors have misplaced their priorities. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I create articles in user space in order to avoid conflicts. This is based on what I heard and other people's experience, not my own. I don't mind doing it: Normally I only create articles on topics that I strongly care about, and I want to get them right before anybody else messes with them. I know this is not a good attitude, and I wouldn't do it that way if I didn't have a rational argument. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I create in my userspace for two reasons. One, I tend to write slowly, finding one source one day and another other days. So rather than put something live that isn't obviously notable, I hold off until I have something that seems to be good enough. Two, DYK's are based only on new article expansion. So if it took me 2 weeks to get an article from an unsourced one line stub in my head to something sourced, with formatting, etc, in the mainspace, it would be ineligible for DYK consideration. MBisanz ^talk 14:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I create in my sandbox because I like to get it right before I release it. I fix my typos, insert formatted inline references, edit copy, add categories, etc. Then after a few hours work I put it into article space. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I make my own sandboxes and lists of templates and to-do lists. I work from home, from work, and from cafes with wireless. Having these auxiliary pages helps me keep organized with my wikipedia work. They also help me work on articles not ready for publishing. Kingturtle (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am curious what your question has to do with adminship. Kingturtle (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Experienced editors should already know to build their article to minimum standards in their userspace before "releasing into the wild" was actually used above in rebuttal to the complaint that RFA favors rabid deletionists who, following an easy promotion, gain the ability to more efficiently and more assuredly alienate the contributing poplace.
Of course the real issue is a vast fundamental disagreement as to what "minimum standards" are, and what a reasonable timetable is for achieving them. — CharlotteWebb 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of minimum standards, we can look at notability; experienced editors do know what needs to be done before submitting an article to mainspace. But in terms of a page created by a new editor, if you delete (on grounds of notability/advertising etc), I'm of the principle that you should be willing to explain to the author why you deleted. A friendly welcome note and a helpful explanation can reduce the BITEyness of a page deletion. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 23:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do it (in my sandbox) for the same reasons as Sbowers3. I just keep it there for a few hours while working on it. I also do this if I'm extensively changing an article. Both of these times, I do it when I need/want to make frequent saves, and that would needlessly clog up the page's editing history. нмŵוτнτ 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rarely, and then usually for my own nefarious reasons rather than a concern about speedy deletion. I don't need to worry too much about <redacted> <inaudible> <redacted> tagging my work: it's marked auto-patrolled (and like rollback, I'd like to be able to add all clueful editors to the auto-patrolled group). If it's going to take a while, I always slap {{underconstruction}} on it, which should scare off a great many NPPs. But what annoys me most is not tagging per se, but things like the sorry history of Jane McAdam Freud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the messages left for the creator. Oh deary me! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar problem: I have had to switch to creating templates in my user space and keeping them there for several days until I am sure I have tested them enough and thought enough about them that I am not that likely to do more changes to them. The reason is that admins have often protected the templates while I was still working with them and before they were deployed anywhere. It is very frustrating to not be allowed to finish ones work. Admins should use "semi protect" more and "full protect" less.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally blindsided

Here's what the article said:

Bochica is the protecter god, social planner and benefactor in the chibchan mitology.

It was completely irrational to label this article "nonsense" and to speedily delete it, but the person who deleted it is saying that the misspelling of "mythology" made the article incomprehensible. I was just completely blindsided by that claim. I would think that anyone who in those circumstances failed to understand that "mythology" was intended would be embarrassed to realize he had done that. Yet he's saying that in his defense. I am as far from an expert as you can get in the topic, and it was obvious to me that "mythology" was the word intended. I can understand it not being obvious to someone whose familiarity with the English language is limited. I can understand it not being obvious to a sixth-grader in at least some cases, even if the sixth-grader is intelligent. But when an admin asserts that he can't see such an obvious point, that makes it really difficult to sympathize with him. A person who is that mentally challenged shouldn't be trusted with an adminship. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but the above example is fairly ludicrous, and, frankly, alarming. The nomination is one thing, but the deletion is quite another. I'd say that an administrator that robotically deletes such articles should just be reprimanded (not with sanctions), but more of verbal admonishments. I'm sure after a few complaints, they'll start to pay a little bit more attention. No need to assert that they are unfit for adminship. Sometimes people get lazy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To Michael Hardy: I do see your basic point. I've pulled A3 tags off of enough articles myself to appreciate your frustration. I'm not saying that the article was incomprehensible to a careful reader, just that it was at that point incomprehensible enough to make deleting it understandable. I do think that calling a specific editor "mentally challenged" is not acceptable. Darkspots (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you commented first, Darkspots, as I've already left a note with Michael expressing my dispointment regarding this overall thread and didn't want to stir the pot, as it were. However, the "mentally challenged" statement is right in the zone of WP:NPA and frankly we are probably only giving lenience because he is an admin - which is upsetting and wrong. Other users have had final warnings for less. I hope Michael will be revisiting this and redacting that comment with due apologies. Unbecoming of any editor of this work. Pedro :  Chat  22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

fictions posted in this thread

Someone wrote above:

by all accounts 95% of the articles tagged as nonsense really are nonsense

I think that is fiction. How does anybody know such numbers? An admin asserts that he's speedily deleted lots of articles and he's had only one complaint of an error. One out of hundreds. That's his failure rate. Pretty good. How does he know that? How does he know there haven't been hundreds of cases where he's deleted things that shouldn't have been deleted? The newbie user goes away in disgust and no one ever hears about it. How can anybody know?

Is it possible to look at an admin's deletion logs and see which items he's deleted? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Go to Special:Log/delete and fill in the admin's login. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to make this more conspicuous. On an admin's user page there should be a conspicuous button labeled "User's deletion log" or the like. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat (with additions and modifications) what I wrote down below in the next section, since it is relevant: The difficulty is that 95% is a nice round percentage, comfortably close to 100%. I imagine that it was chosen as almost a figure of speech for "large amount" or "almost all, but not so much as to be easily and quickly challenged". I don't criticize the person who first used "95%", or the others who restated it, as this is something we may all do to varying degrees from time to time. But it does not represent the product of hard and good critical thinking about what we are doing here. I do suspect that it was not chosen as a result of some survey that counted and classified such instances. This is a pity, because unless we are careful, this discussion is likely, in my experience and opinion, to become bogged down because it will be based on suspicions, hopes, desires, etc, rather than being based on empirical facts. In these kinds of cases, we need hard facts and data order to get a sensible grip on the existence and scale of any problems so that we can then decide whether and, if so, how much effort needs to be placed in finding any solutions (that is, if a problem is found as a result of collecting the information.) Furthermore, it is not really up to those who question the figures to go away and try to find the evidence to support them, because that way gets the burden of proof completely the wrong way round. If someone asserts that 95% is an accurate figure, it is up to them to provide the evidence in its favour, and it would have to be free from any reasonable alternative explanations (in terms of bias, etc), of which Michael hardy is pointing out one such example.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2

I brought this up on the bureaucrats noticeboard, but here might be appropriate to. Even though Mr. Kurt has invariably made it clear that he is going to use levity in his ironic self-nom, I feel that perhaps many of the comments being made are unacceptable and frivolous. I realize it's just light hearted banter and what not, but if it's an authentic/genuine nom, then this is going to be make it insufferably difficult to sift through. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, nevermind. I forgot the date. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It can probably be userfied (or speedied if noone wants it) once the day is over. Orderinchaos 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the funniest thing that could happen today. Useight (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When I discovered it was a joke, I busted out laughing - and it's 3 am. I think I woke my family. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only 1AM here. I'm going to go toilet paper the apartment of these girls I know here pretty soon. Useight (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, I !voted in the MFD that this was not disruptive, but I guess now I would have to modify my opinion. Sad panda. Yngvarr (c) 12:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2 is funny and all, but can we keep it off of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship ? Kingturtle (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that now a serious (i.e. real) RFA has been placed above it, it could be time to move along. Pedro :  Chat  13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it because I don't want Redfarmer or any other new RfAs to get hit accidentally with any Kmweber 2 crossfire, but Kmweber 2 still lives here in Talk:. Kingturtle (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That was by a mile, the funniest RfA opening statement I've ever read, and the best self-parody I've ever seen. Movie references in parargraph 2 even! I was crying when I discovered it, an office mate thought I had lost it finally...I've added it to my personal humor page, may it never be a red link. Congratulations go to Kurt. Simply outstanding humor. Outstanding!. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. After today we should tag as historical for preservation. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA is still open -- or maybe it never really closed. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had so much fun on that page. You can find my contributions if you look carefully. Enigma ^msg 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question for RfA 2

Greetings. Is a few months from now a reasonable time to make request 2? Anything else besides the information at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching that I need to know for RfA 2? After my RfA 1, I needed to know what nominees are expected to have read. Thanks very much to the people who helped answer that question here. They also helped me not to quit Wikipedia for better or worse. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is my non-binding, unofficial opinion, but you need more edits and discussions to places listed in Template:Editabuselinks, WP:DR, and WP:XFD and edits to things like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and creating content that is listed on WP:DYK or is WP:GA and/or tagging content related to WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, & WP:PROD. MBisanz ^talk 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, maybe I ought to have quit. Just kidding, but I asked for tools so I could do the news template. Like in the RfA, sounds like some people have other roles in mind in which frankly I have very little interest (like blocking people with my account that is a real name). Interests change but that list sounds like zero fun to me and much more work than any administrator requirements list I have seen anywhere here yet. Thanks anyway. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You generally want to wait 3 months between RFAs. Being that your last one was 2 weeks ago, no, it's not time yet. Useight (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged. You don't actually HAVE to do things like block people, you just need to show you know what those tools do and won't abuse them. And also I am known as a tougher person in what I suggest for RfA prep. Keeper76 (talk · contribs) tends to have more reasonable guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You calling me a slacky? I'd block you, but you'd just wheel war over it... :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You've both answered my questions. If there is more to study besides RfAs and admin coaching, I would appreciate a pointer. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Susan, if you ever have any questions about anything, my talkpage is always open. I believe we are in the same state even, so ya, you know, no big deal, eh? Nuttin formal or anything, gees. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As for blocking... I've been an admin for almost 9 months now and have only blocked about 25 people---all of whom were chronic vandals on pages that I watch. I've deleted about the same number of pages. Being an admin isn't about the tools, but rather about the trust and commitment to the project. But in order to gain that trust of the community, you do have to jump through some hoops---I compare it to applying for a job. You may never need a certain skillset, and having the skillset may not really help you do your job any better than a person without the skillset, but if you don't have that skillset people are looking for, you won't get the job. So sometimes, you have to venture into uncharted territories to show people that you can do something you may never do in the future!Balloonman (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Susan, off of the Admin Coaching main page is link to the RfA criteria of about 10-15 people. These criteria are subject to change and are not official policies, but should give you an idea as to what people are looking for as does the summary on the AdCo main page.Balloonman (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I saw the criteria and am pretty sure if I didn't meet them the first time then I can meet them next time, she says like everybody else at RfA N. :-) You know, if admin coaching is a center of information that might be indicated a tad more on the RfA nomination instructions. It is one among a bejillion links there, maybe I can reword it sometime. Peace. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do it! Update the page! The beauty of a wiki. Anything controversial, go to talk first, anything helpful, make it better!. unless its protected. Is it protected? Cripes, shoulda checked that first... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Admin coaching is there in one of the three spots I used, Wikipedia:Administrators which explains Becoming an administrator, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Maybe I'll wait a bit first and come back to this. Good luck with your essay and other things in progress. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76, hi, nice to meet you too. Thanks, ordinarily yes I would for sure "be bold" but this is wee out of focus even here in adminland. Maybe in the future, though, yes indeed. -21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching is an area that was essentially dead for the longest time. We are trying to revitalize it... and in some ways, we've done too good of a job. Suddenly everybody wants a coach!Balloonman (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A coach recently. How good it will be at getting you into the cabal is another question.

That explains why I came through RfA Navigation (in this page) and RfA documentation without ever encountering more than one sentence about coaching. And now I see it is probably that way for good reason. I've changed my mind and think adding a layer of complexity for everybody is counterproductive. People who need and want it ask for help. Thanks again for the replies here and good luck to you. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. MBisanz, the suggestion above, which was added over and above admin coaching, that I should make more "edits and discussions to places listed in Template:Editabuselinks, WP:DR, and WP:XFD and edits to things like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and creating content that is listed on WP:DYK or is WP:GA and/or tagging content related to WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, & WP:PROD" is unreal, even if I hadn't worked on GAs and DYKs before. I waited a few days and see it went without comment and forgot to say this because nobody said whoa. Whoa. -Susanlesch (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How to nominate somebody for an RfA

I've been playing around with the idea of writing up a how-to on how-to nominate somebody for adminship. But I never got around to it, then today I read Useight's nomination of MrFish where Useight wrote, "I don't give the best introductions, so I'll let his contributions speak for themselves." This got me motivated to write my essay, my essay. I was hoping you guys could take a look at it and let me know what you think. (Feel free to make any obvious changes---especially gramer and spelin.)Balloonman (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You may find the nominations at User:Pedro/RFA of interest. I used largely the same format for them (except Barneca). Instinctivly, people like brevity and bulleted lists. It makes it easier on the eye and therefore they are more likely to read it. Of course a good nomination should "sell" a candidate but a gleaming nomniation from an "RFA Regular" is still no excuse not to review a candidate properly. And of course my 100% sucess rate is down to the quality of the candidates and not the nomination! Pedro :  Chat  11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good questions and common sense. I think for an essay, it is very good and that it will help some people. Where would you like to see this "write up" linked and who is expected to read it? From what I've see so far, some admins who make nominations will eat up and follow every word. Others will never see it and other will not look for it because they do things to their "own drummer" (their own internal guidelines). -Susanlesch (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The place I was thinking about posting it was over at Admin Coaching. I want to revamp that process a little better because I think many people don't know how to do the coaching and what is expected of a coach. (Then there are my coachees who probably complain that I am too brutal and expect too much ;0 ) But if you are referring to your comments/thoughts on the essay either here or on the essay talk page would be fine.Balloonman (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the brevity and bulletted lists offered in the nominations in User:Pedro/RFA. Pedro's style of nomination can save time for voters trying to research the candidate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't particularly care for Pedro's format. To me it doesn't say much as it comes off as a checklist without any substance. But that may just be me. There is no correct/universal way to nominate somebody.Balloonman (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It is largely a checklist. But it works though! Pedro :  Chat  22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think use of the word support above implied some sort of endorsement of one particular style over another. This is just discussion filled with our meaningless opinions : ). I like the ordered structure of Pedro's, but, Balloonman's taste lie with an essay format. Fine by me. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, not a bad (I'm assuming first draft) for an essay on RfA nominations. I like paragraph number four in particular. That is vital. Whether you are being nominated by another editor, or you are self-noming, it is imperative to divulge weaknesses or areas that require some improvement. No one is perfect and I strongly feel that the community will view forthrightness favorably than surreptitious nominations. Good show. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also want to commend Pedro for his very structured and organized nominations. Very easy to read, and extremely informative! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh! Thanks Wisdom. You're only being nice because you want me to write yours too .....soon I think.... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Soon, yes : ), but my compliments are purely neutral. Seriously! I like the ordered layout. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, I know Wisdom, no worries my man! I guess I just like the flattery so I thought I'd comment! In seriousness, and thanks as well to EdJohnston, I do quite a bit of wordsmith stuff for a living (probably why I don't do enough on WP!) and it's a simple fact that lists, consistency in headings and short punchy sentences are more readily received by the reader. The old mantra is : Tell 'em what you're going to to tell 'em. Tell 'em. Tell 'em what you told 'em. Mind you the number one element to a good nomination is this; pick a decent candidate in the first place! Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that... or run them through the wringer in Admin Coaching until they are good ;-) My coachees know that I won't nominate somebody until they convince me that they can pass my standards!Balloonman (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching seems to be becoming more and more frequent. Maybe that's why I can't find anyone to outright nom, they're either not ready or a coach snags them :P Wizardman 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Wizardman comment. :) — Seriously though, admin coaches are the future of nominations. :P Rudget (review) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh, looks like I'll have to retire from RfA nomming then. I'm just not a personal fan of coaching, mainly since none of my admin choices have run into any trouble. I obviously see the good in it, it's just not something I do, per se. Wizardman 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Me too. Wizardman and Rudget retiring from noms. :O Rudget (review) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You best both be joking. Nomming still works, and sometimes, coaching does not. Keep the noms comin'. Keep the coachin' comin'. I'll even take a few self-noms right now, seeing as no one likes standing alone... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Meh: I'm not retiring from nominating people: I'm adapting. :) Acalamari 16:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The way I see it, if someone is ready now, why delay it 2-4 weeks by asking them a bunch of question they're going to be asked anyway? That's just how I see it, anyway. Wizardman 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Agree, if they are ready they are ready. Coaching should NEVER be required. I see coaching for the person who is getting close to being ready for a nomination but not quite there... or for the person who isn't close to being ready, but can be with some guidance.Balloonman (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wizard, there are a bunch of people at Admin Coaching who are interested in becoming an admin... you could take a look there to see if anybody is ready... or coach them to get to that point ;-) Balloonman (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the above: I mostly agree with what was said. Coaching is an aid that is available thanks to the kind coaches that put in the work. Many users do not need or want coaching. Offering to nominate editors that you find particularly helpful to the encyclopedia should still be encouraged. Maybe they would never find admin coaching on their own. The growing popularity of admin coaching simply means that you may not find as many suitable candidates who aren't tied to coaches. Enigma ^message 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lull

There is a possibility that Wikipedia will go through seven days without promoting an admin. Since 24 December 2004 this has happened four three times (as far as I can tell). The first three two times were way back in the Dec 2004 - Feb 2005 era.

1. 31 Dec 2004 to 6 Jan 2005
2. 13 Jan to 19 Jan 2005

   #22 Feb to 28 Feb 2005

3. 1 Dec to 7 Dec 2007

There have been a mere handful of six-straight-day streaks. So, a seven-day streak is something of note. What it notes, I don't know. I just find it interesting. Kingturtle (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

that we scared everybody off?Balloonman (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I actually wouldn't mind becoming an admin. My big problem is that I was indefinitely blocked a year ago for legally threatening Yamla. This was brought up in my previous three RFA's which all miserably failed. I might go for another run in a few days. It's not like I'm bad as such, I've had 10,000+ edits, it's just that the block log stands in the way. I think for many people it's like that, people tend to sternly look at the blog log. If enough people willed me on, maybe I should, seeing as the current run of people having RFA's is so low. D.M.N. (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Prior to a review, but based on our conversations today, I feel a support coming on from me. Perhaps we can discuss this elsewhere DMN! Pedro :  Chat  17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DMN, your unsuccesful RfAs aside, you jumped on the fake XfD bandwagon for April Fool's Day and that will be brought up quite quickly, even if it was a "joke". Considering the quality of some of the candidates who have failed this week, I don't think now would be a good time for you to go for your 4th attempt. Gwynand (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

$5 on the red. Oh wait, wrong forum. Yngvarr (c) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

According the user right's log, you are mistaken about streak #3. Cecropia promoted Jimrollpickering on February 25, 2005. Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic, of the number of people I approached over the past two weeks, all but one demurred the offer for a nominations. Only User:Seraphim Whipp was gullible enough to have accepted :(. We have to keep combing the lists and trying to find suitable candidates, I reckon. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but myself and I'm sure many others don't believe that a slowdown in admin promotions is definitely a bad thing. It certainly has implications for the community and could be bad, but I don't really see any problem with it currently. Gwynand (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't either, leading up to this lul week we've had a large number of candidates who passed. Plus, RedFarmer is still in there...Balloonman (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We definitely won't have another admin by April 7, because Redfarmer isn't due to be up until April 8th. With that in mind, we have promoted 88 admins in the first 98 days (1 Jan to 7 Apr) of 2008. That prorates to 328 for the year. That will be by far an all-time low (389 in 2005, 353 in 2006, 408 in 2007). Kingturtle (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Of many factors, I believe that the evolving perception/interpretation of WP:NOBIGDEAL is a major reason for this.Gwynand (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

History of promotions

Well promotions can be a spurty thing (i.e. image at right). However, I also suspect that the decline in Wikipedia's growth rate during much of last year has probably led to fewer qualified candidates percolating through the system during the first part of this year. We saw a 30% decline in new account registations per day from January 07 to September 07. Dragons flight (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, rollback will destroy that chart. A 30% decline... Does that correlate with a similar decline in anything else, like edits, edits from IPs, new articles, etc.? Avruch ^T 18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most metrics of activity either leveled off or declined during the first 2/3 of 2007: User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis. Dragons flight (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment about rollbacks is a good one, many people who are primarily vandal fighters are no longer as motivated to become admins because they can get roll back without becoming an admin. I'm also not too worried about the annual trend. The summer is where activity has increased in the past---the first few months appear to be slow months.Balloonman (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the "vandal fighters" are unmotivated to be admins, persay, just that they are resoundedly rejected as candidates as being not well-rounded, and other such commentary as "what, that's all you do is revert?" Why go through the head/heartache? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Why go through the heartache" is right. I've read through about a hundred RfAs (mostly old ones, although I have voted on about 6 in the last two months) and it's an intimidating process. WP:NOBIGDEAL is long gone, in my mind. You see a lot of RfA frequenters who have strict requirements for admin candidates. It's almost a given now that an admin candidate should be involved with GA, FA, or both. To me, the qualifications for being an admin are roughly as follows:

• Civility towards all users and politeness is a must. Assume good faith, naturally.
• A willingness to learn and adapt.
• Evidence of good judgment in the user's contributions. I've seen numerous admins who would fail one or more of those categories, but they've gotten promoted. Why? Maybe they made significant contributions to certain articles to help form an impressive résumé. Maybe they made other contributions that were viewed as significant.

I think there is a basic failing in what RfA regulars are looking for. I've even seen someone recently who is deciding to preemptively oppose RfAs because of... <end this. I can't really expand on this, but I've seen some very troubling behavior and comments recently.>

I often get comments asking why I'm not an admin, or when will I be running, or would I like to be nominated. As I've said on my talk page, I welcome comments about my editing (I intend to submit myself to Editor Review shortly), but I don't intend to attempt an RfA for a few months because of my concerns about the process. If I enter the arena, I'll have to be well-prepared and armed. Enigma ^message 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've stated before and I shall state it again: The process is a load of shit. People who are trustworthy should get the bit. Trustworthyness should be decided by people who actually know the candidate (on wikipedia not IRL). There should be no rfa regulars, no one should ever vote on a candidate with whom they are not familiar with. That's my opinion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure enough of a discussion would congeal if it was solely based on editors whom have interacted with the candidate. Afterall, the tools permit a new admin to affect a wide part of the project, and thus community scrutiny is probably the best course of action. Not to say that the process is perfect. It's not, but a massive overhaul doesn't appear to be in the future. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the support votes without research are higher in amount and much more disturbing than oppose votes. However, I agree that there is a serious issue of voting and commenting without either knowing the candidate or taking any time to research their edits. Gwynand (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, which I think is part of the reason why a super majority ca 70-80% is expected. The opposers tend to have researched candidates a little better and generally give more concrete rationale for their oppose.Balloonman (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll stand behind Theresa's assessment above. To make sure my position is clear: I'm not an admin, have no desire to be one, and if asked, would turn it down. But I'm watching these RFAs, participating in a few, and come back with a distinct impression that, regardless of your service, one mistake will be held against you. And I'm not talking about blocking or vandalism, but incorrect CSD tagging, or a slight difference of opinion in an AFD discussion (or even a difference against the majority). Someone recently posted a statistical analysis of a candidate with a significant number of contributions, where the opposers were pointing out some insanely small percentage of error, it was like 0.0with a few zeros on top of it. Those who post their opposes early lend an unintended weight to their arguments. One wonders about the feasibility of a secret ballot, where your position can be stated without giving undue weight? You'd still want some sort of centralized discussion, so now you have this vicious circle.... Yngvarr (c) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there problems with the process---definately. Not only would limiting it to only people who know the candidate never fly, but it should never fly. Just like any other area on wikipedia, there are regulars who care about the subject and have learned about it. It's up to the regulars to help ensure consistency throughout the process. Without it, you would end up having a meaningless process---you know like the criticisms often levelled at GAC. The nice thing about wikipedia is that one's edit history is in full view. I don't have to know a candidate previously to research their contributions and to find out what kind of candidate they are. I can read their contributions and assess them without having ever seen them previously. In fact, the very fact that I don't know the candidate makes me a more neutral party than a popularity contest which is what it would be if "only those who know the candidate" could !vote.Balloonman (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that being a regular at RFA makes one an expert on adminship? Because I don't think so at all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Gwynand: There's an expectation that people should adequately explain Opposes, possibly due to WP:NOBIGDEAL. I believe that !votes from editors familiar with the candidate are more helpful, and that everyone should give a good explanation. There are many more Supports without any real comment, but I don't view those as that troubling. The nominator and often the candidate themselves attempted to explain their good qualities, their contributions, and why they should be given the tools at the top. If you disagree, I think it's reasonable to ask you to explain (using the general "you" here), and without resorting to stereotyping or other nonsense that I've seen recently. Enigma ^message 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr, are you referring to MFC's RfA, possibly? Enigma ^message 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, took me some time to find it, I had forgotten the relevant discussion was moved to that talk page Yngvarr (c) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, I believe Balloonman is saying that RfA regulars ideally should be experts on adminship and should be unbiased. Too often, unfortunately, that's not the case. Enigma ^message 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he is saying they are experts on the proccess of getting adminship which IMO is worthless. We are supposed to judge "can they be trusted not to abuse the tools" This is not what happens though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Enigma: I don't mind explaining. The many minimalist support votes don't often bother me, because I do like to agf. Also, because of the high threshold needed to pass, even if many of these votes are frivolous, the editor often won't get through anyways if they indeed have problems. My concerns start arising when I see the little comment with the support vote that reflects a total lack of effort in the RfA process. It's enough for me no longer to assume good faith as I see an example of laziness. For example, I see in many closer RfA's: "Support -- Absolutely no reason to distrust". These votes often come after many diffs have been provided showing serious judgement problems. And I'm not talking about a single CSD error that was made 8 months ago, but real issues. Then there are the supports with "User:x is so friendly, will be a great admin!" This is not a problem if it turns out to be entirely true... but these votes are again often included in RfA's where there a lots of civility diffs provided. If one is supporting because of WP:NOBIGDEAL and maybe they once or twice worked with the Requestor pleasantly, but has done no other research of the user's edits then I see this as disturbing. And I see it happening all the time. As an after-note, my statement here is not discussing the many many problems with oppose votes who see one diff out of 8,000 and immediately vote oppose--also a huge problem. Gwynand (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

These problems are caused by allowing people to vote on people they don't know. Perhaps reorganising the page into

• Do you trust the candidate with the admin tools? y/n , why?

with an expectation that people should answer both pars of the question might work. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but one doesn't need to have personally interacted with the candidate in order to determine whether they can trust then with the tools. This isn't about whether we think a potential admin will intentionally abuse them, but whether lack of experience, judgment errors, and and issues with incivility give us pause about whether a problem will rise up in the future. "Do you trust this candidate with the tools?" "No, I feel they might make broad spectrum errors due to lack of experience." Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing about personally knowing the candidate is that one can make an overall judgment of their trustworthyness based on a number of their edits taken as a whole.If you know the candidate you judge them as you find them. If you don't the temptation is to scan their edits and look for reasons to vote no.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the requirements that some people have for RFAs are ridiculously high, but that is not what is being discussed. I agree with what Yngvarr said about one mistake costing you. I speak from my experience on RFA. A few stupid CSD tags late at night or a answer to a question being misunderstood is enough to cost you. If I have no reason to suspect they will go on a block and delete spree and I feel they have a moderate understanding of policy, then they meet my requirements. Obviously I'm in the minority. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If everyone thought the same way as you, more good editors would want to run for adminship. The eternally increasing requirements (a year ago, a candidate would be asked less than half the number of optional questions asked today if any if I recall correctly) of RFA are driving potentially good admins from nominating themselves or accepting nominations. FunPika 21:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me sum up the "ridiculously high" admin standards in my view. It's how much policy knowledge you have and how much perceived experience in admin-related areas you have, and other people's interpretations of what judgment you have shown - that is the "standard" that gets you the mop. If I am wrong in my interpretation of such, please let me know. ArcAngel (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that, on this rare occasion, I disagree with Theresa Knott, an editor I respect a great deal. Theresa, you seem to base your entire criteria on a candidate being "trustworthy" and commentators "knowing" (in the wiki context) said candidate. I'm afraid there are a number of editors who I have collaborated with and trust not to do something stupid with admin buttons (a block spree etc.) who I still would not support. Editors who are real assets to Wikipedia - as editors - but as yet still have not demonstrated sufficent policy awareness or discretion to be granted the buttons. A well meaning, civil, generally lovely and fluffy editor who gets admin tools and then starts pouding C:CSD with poor A7 calls is just a liability to other admins. The same lovely editor, who (as an admin) blocks sleeper page move vandal accounts for 1 hour, to "give them a chance" are also a liability. To be trustworthy is a fundamental thing, and if you're not trustworthy you won't get very far on WP as an editor. To be competent with using admin tools is another thing entirely. Adminship is no big deal. Admin tools are. Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This just goes to show there are far too many rules around here. If an admin is really that bad, they will get desysopped. Majorly (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Theresa. Unqualified fly-by votes are what destroy RFA. Have a look at RFAs back in, say 2004. People who voted on them had actually heard of the candidate (mostly) and seen their work. Nowadays, it's an urge to vote on every single one. There's no way you'll know what someone will be like by counting the edits in each namespace, and looking at their edit summary usage. You have to actually be familiar with the way they work, what they do and how they do it. The fact RfAs are ridiculously huge are because of fly-by vote-on-every-RfA users. Over on Meta-wiki, and Simple Wikipedia, every person who passes RfA does so with the agreement on pretty much the entire community. This isn't possible here, obviously, so the next best thing is to have users who are actually familiar with the user to vote. And this brings forward the idea that, yes, canvassing IS good. Majorly (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That assumes, of course, that WP:NOBIGDEAL is no big deal. If WP:NOBIGDEAL it were a big deal, a sufficient number of edits to judge experience, and a reasonable examination of the talk page history would show whether or not someone were qualified enough. All you need in an admin is someone who won't go off half-cocked on a whacky crusade. (With apologies for the confusion of negatives!)--RegentsPark (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You know they could easily be de admined very quickly? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An RfA regular waiting patiently for the next RfA. Would this be a Lull-cat? --barneca (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My optimistic assumption would be that nobody wanted April Fool's Day to happen smack in the middle of their run for adminship. My pessimistic assumption is that growing editcountitis has limited the people who can become admins to a slowly-growing minority of users who spend large amounts of time making semi-automated edits, and we've used them up already. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, there are plenty of users who spend large amounts of time making semi-automated edits who are not yet admins. Enigma ^message 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And are these the users we want as admins? It seems to me they way to become an admin is to make large numbers of edits, keep you head down, never say anything controversial, never voice an opinion rally, never joke, never make even one error ever. But do the kind of peole who are able to do this make the best admins? I'd say no. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No big deal? Yeah, right.

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but we really should stop deluding ourselves and say that yeah, adminship is at least somewhat of a big deal. It's not something you can impress your friends with (well, not unless they're really geeky, in which case they're probably admins anyways...) but it can be a big deal - blocking the United States Congress, for example. Thoughts? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Big deal. Read the last 100 or so RfA's as verification. That particular essay should be MfD'd. Outdated. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My keyboard is getting bored typing this. 1) Quote = old. 2) Quote = most misused on WP 3) Read quote before discussing this thread everyone 4) Being an admin = no big deal - the ladies (or gents) do not rip your clothes off and force you into bed because of it. No one is impressed by it. 5) Admin tools = big(ger) deal due to potential harm / driving of editors / mucking around with the MW software as seen on April 1. 6) Summary Adminship = nowt. Block, Protect, Delete, Muck up the MW interface = something. Hence RFA. Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a big deal. We ordinary wikipedians quake in fear and immediately fall in line when an admin enters the talk page!--RegentsPark (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude! You forgot the </sarcasm> tag!! Pedro :  Chat  22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be a big deal if you manage to make a catastrophically bad decision somewhere along the line, yes, but the primary point is that the quality that makes someone unlikely to do such things, which is good personal judgment and intelligence, cannot be evaluated via the totaling of brownie points (nor of little gold stars, for that matter). --erachima talk 22:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I know of the technical aspects of the privileges, nothing is catastrophic. Anything that an admin does, either going rogue or just a bad decision, can be undone and fixed. Disruptive? Maybe, but with 1k admins, I don't think someone deleting something in MW would take very long to be fixed. Yngvarr (c) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, promoting someone without that judgment can cause quite a few problems, definitely making it a big deal. Concur with Pedro. :) However, I do think we should make it less of a big deal. I'm not arguing that it should be a big deal, but that it is'. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you guys are going the wrong way with this. What action can an admin take that can't be undone? I don't quite recall who said it, but admins actually have less power now than they once did; images once could not be undeleted, and I believe all admins could run IP checks. I think rather than MfDing WP:DEAL and embracing the rising standards at RfA, we should turn this around and instead make a push to lower standards and start giving the tools to more editors. GlassCobra 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The only truly disaterous admin decision I've ever seen is when someone deleted the sandbox, and that caused everything to break for about 1/2 an hour. But that is fixed now. It's impossible to delete pages with very long histories, so nothing an admin can do can not be easily reversed by another admin. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we petition Jimbo, as Founder and Constitutional Monarch to create a new, wordier quote in line with community conensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the second time that policy has been mentioned here recently. :) Acalamari 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh! I didn't even hover the mouse on the red link until Acalamari comented! It was funny and ironic enough that "community consensus" is a red link ! Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also the "conensus" spelling error, I didn't even realize looking at it that it said WP:PEDRO because the red link made sense :-P Avruch ^T 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GC - the problem is that the undoing of an admin action is often too late - we've already lost the editor through a poor deletion, a bad block or an ill thought out protection. Reversal is academic. Bad admin actions = Loss of new editors. Loss of new editors = detriment to project. Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a little unfair to our current RfA candidates. Why would we assume that a new admin would block where a more experienced admin would not? Also, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't oppose editors who have obvious civility problems or large gaps in policy knowledge. I'm saying that we should not be opposing simply because a candidate doesn't have 10,000 edits with at least half in mainspace and a quarter in WP space, or if they've had one or two CSD slipups. People oppose over entirely trivial reasons. GlassCobra 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Pedro that it's outdated. I've said so myself on several occasions. Perhaps there are still some that treat it as no big deal, but the number of those that treat it as a big deal and have complex requirements* is significant enough to render the essay moot and almost meaningless.

*I was looking for a page in userspace where a user put forth his ridiculous stringest RfA standards, but was unable to find it. I planned to link it there. Enigma ^message 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

nod, if my wife wasn't already an admin when I started editing wikipedia, I probably would have quit when one of my first articles was AfD'd by a CSDer. I wrote the article, went back in, and before I had a chance to save it for the second time (less than 2 minutes later.) It was deleted because the guy who saw it didn't realize that I had messed up on the authors publications. That happened with two other articles I was writing early on before I learned to write in my user space before moving to the mainspace. I think I've become an asset to the project, but CSD'ers almost drove me away.Balloonman (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest what articles were those? And do you think making it harder to become an admin will solve that kind of problem? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Jimbo should just fiat sysop about 30 users; that would shake things up pretty good.  :) ➪HiDrNick! 20:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A new possible not optional question

I am guessing this would be a bad idea to suggest this but if this is going through changes, do you think an important question to be asked on an RfA form or added should be this one although i don't know what it is going to be oh i am just rambling on again and not making any sense so i will start again the important question is "what is an admin?" but then again ramble ramble ramble — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply south (talk • contribs)

The word "administration" is derived from the Middle English word administracioun, which is in turn derived from the French administration, itself derived from the Latin administratio -- a compounding of ad ("to") and ministratio ("give service"). --erachima talk 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And that is one of the best things on this page. Darn good comment erachima. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, so "to serve and protect". :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We should keep that in mind: "to do service", not "lord 'power' over everyone". Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it was probably not the best idea but i was meaning posing it to other people as mandatory question 4, not answering it here...

Cutting all the rambling out therefore i was meaning (cut from top)

"I am guessing this would be a bad idea to suggest this but if this is going through changes, do you think an important question to be asked on an RfA form or added should be ..."what is an admin?" Simply south (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We have more than enough questions shooting around as it is, don't give people more ideas :P Wizardman 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We could always add in the block vs. ban and Cool Down Block questions, since it seems you can't be an admin unless you're able to perfectly define both of them (semi-sarcasm. Semi!). I dunno if anyone would want to though, because the first 3 questions are really general, while only specific questions are generally proposed. I can't really think of any general questions that aren't covered already by the first three, but I'd be interested to here some suggestions. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the purpose of these discussions

The Rfa home page is for letting us know who's up for Administrator nomination. What's the purpose of these discussion though. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is where people discuss RfA, propose new ideas, etc. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, it's for complaints about how RfA isn't working as well as it didn't used to. Along with lots of suggestions that require too much scary change to ever be implemented. --erachima talk 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

..isn't working as well as it didn't used to..?. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a common topic of discussion - how RfA used to work fine (in 2003-04) and how it's a cesspool now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

When I said "as well as it didn't used to", I was joking that a lot of the topics about RfA not working are looking at the past a bit too favorably. We have archives of complaints about the same issues: low pass rates, absurd user requirements, etc. etc. etc. that go back years. --erachima talk 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because no one has ever done anything about it. Although there is much disagreement over how best to judge suitability for adminship there does seem broad agreement that absurd reasons for voting no (or yes I suppose) is a bad thing. We really should get our heads together and do something about this particular aspect of the vote don't you think? Does anyone have any ideas on what could be done? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile! Yep, I've got some ideas. They're called User:Pedro/Net Positive combined with User:Pedro/RFA Standards. But plenty of people will disagree with those as well! Pedro :  Chat  09:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heya Theresa. I think we could possibly set up an alternate route to gain adminship, and gently ween people off of this one? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea at all. Start from scratch with a new proposal, allow candidates to choose which route they prefer.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is at least possible that, given the combined bemoanings that have taken place on this talk page since at least 1861, there do not exist any more genuinely new proposals which could be started from scratch. In any case, the RfALull (not the same as a ROFL) will soon be over and, when about 20 candidates are up, this talk page will go quiet again — especially if most of the candidates look to be successful. Splash - tk 12:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but the fact remains that it is becoming more and more difficult to become an admin and yet there is no evidence that is is necessary or desirable for the project, and no evidence that a higher quality of admin results. Stupid reasons for opposing that have little to do with a candidates likelyness of abuse of the tools are allowed and no one does anything about it despite it being seriously rude and against WP:AGF. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that was tried, as you may remember, at Wikipedia:Proposed adminship. Unfortunately nothing came of it :\ --Iamunknown 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So we should try something else. I don't know what yet but I'm willing to work with people. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently proposed adminship had some issues? Track down the talk page and see what those issues were, and improve on it, then build a new system. We should aim at pressing a new system into service soonest, and work out the bugs on the fly: ready fire aim. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC) ready fire aim doesn't have an article? <boggle>

Iamunknown's link looks very interesting. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool Down Blocks

Copying my comment from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bedford in the hope of some educated discussion.

Hell yes. God forbid he hadn't memorised a policy he'll never need to use. Seriously, what's the sudden lust for CDB questions...why can't we ask every candidate something like "in what order should the relative DYK pages be changed?" and oppose them if they make a typo? Oh, wait. Because that'd probably be over the heads of the vast majority of people who oppose per CDB.

If you do understand how DYK works, don't be offended by the above. But yeah, thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, some questions that some people ask are a bit silly. Even though it is important not to make cool down blocks, it hardly effects a user who is not an admin. As an RfA candidate is not an admin before a successful RfA, it is a bit unnecessary to know in my opinion. Captain panda 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's necessary to know methinks since it could potentially have deleterious effects, however, it gets asked so often during RfAs that I feel it's lost the original intent. Now it's just repetition. No offense to those who ask it though, I think I have too. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's necessary to know, but other questions should be asked so it's not *Look at past RFA* *Copy and paste answer* *Change wording* *Save page* Not sure, but I may have been the original asker. I know that I definitely didn't copy it from another's questions, but looked it up when I was getting policy questions for my admin coaching program. Malinaccier (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I see and understand the point that it was once a relevant a "good" question. That said, I think we should probably ease up on it. It's like that phase we went through were everyone was asked how IAR works in relation to BLP, and it got to the point where copy pasting was taking place. So, any suggestions for a new question-for-everyone? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the questions that get asked on several rfas are pretty bad, since they're so generic that the answer can just be cut and pasted (and even if it isn't, there's usually just one correct answer, which doesn't show much in the way of original thought). The three questions on the template are good, since they at least require some personal insight. IMO the best optional questions are always those that are unique to the candidate, but if you really want a question to ask everyone, go with something a bit more broad than "how do you feel about so-and-so policy". - Bobet 00:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If the answer is right, or wrong, or a shade inbetween, different people will interpret the answer different ways and vote differently. So I guess that which questions they are makes not a whole lot of difference. I would support a "Stump the Stars" area though for admins who like to ask questions to stump each other rather than nominees. :-) -Susanlesch (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How about:

"What is your opinion on re-confirmation RFA's?", "In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not?", "Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?", or "In your opinion, should registration be required for editing? Please explain."

The answers would indicate whether the user had knowledge of policy based on the arguments given, and would require much more thought...Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I like some of those. The reconfirmation one gets asked fairly often, but the others are excellent. Nice job, Malinaccier! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks! Malinaccier (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And despite protestations, the question lives on: [5]. As I've noted before: The only thing the question serves to accomplish is to distinguish regular participants at RFA from those who spend time elsewhere. RFA regulars know that the question has a correct answer, and thus only people unfamiliar with RFA are weeded out. I strongly suggest that these questions with right and wrong answers are unhelpful, because familiarity with RFA is not a useful indicator of success as an administrator. --JayHenry (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As with most RFA questions, it is pretty useless. Along with the difference between blocks and bans, and AOR. Majorly (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. That's funny. Same editors keep cut and pasting the same questions, and the candidates keep cutting and pasting the policy back. the_undertow ^talk 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One somewhat subversive way to stop these questions would simply to be to create a cheat sheet with the correct answers. Whenever the questions are asked, someone could link to the correct answers so that the candidate doesn't get punished for not being an RFA regular and is instead judged on the merit of his work at Wikipedia. --JayHenry (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just thinking the same exact thing - except the cheat sheet is simply the RfA archives. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, a candidate would most likely be crucified for repeatedly linking to the above - especially by users who are unfamiliar with these discussions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I'll create a cheatsheet right now. Hopefully it will put the silly optional questions right out of fashion. I don't mind questions that are actually about or to do with the candidate, but 5 copy and pasted "optional" questions is just stupid. Majorly (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One might argue that questions like "When should a cool-down block be used?" only distinguish those who participate at RfA and those who don't. However, the fact is that the nominees' answers to such questions can say a lot about the candidate. If a candidate can't even spend a few minutes to check Wikipedia policies or past RfA's for answers to these types of questions, then imagine what might happen if, sometime in the future, the editor is confronted with an unfamiliar situation and fails to act according to policies because he/she couldn't bother consorting them first. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But Stephen, my point is that the questions only have this effect if the candidate is not a regular participant at RFA. A regular participant at RFA could, in theory, be completely insane but would answer these questions correctly and it would tell us nothing about the candidate. Likewise, an otherwise excellent user, not aware of the Trick-Question-Gotcha mentality of these questions, might give a really reasonable answer, but happen to have not noticed an RFA where the question was a big deal, or missed that there was a specific provision in WP:WIKILAW about the subject of the question. Thus, the questions demonstrably fail to weed out poor candidates, but demonstrably do discriminate against non-RFA participants. --JayHenry (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that answers to these questions should be the sole factor in supporting or opposing a candidate. I'm just saying that it should at least be considered when deciding to support or oppose. Consider this scenario (which I made up): a new administrator sees two users in constant debate on different issues. The admin decides to apply cool-down blocks on both, believing that it would help calm things down because he/she does not know of the policy on cool-down blocks. The admin might have had good intentions when applying the blocks, yet the fact is that his/her action is against Wikipedia policy and would result in possibly-irreversible consequences (e.g. the blocked users deciding to not help Wikipedia anymore, even though they actively contributed to the project in a positive manner). Any potential candidate must be willing to do extra research if necessary to ensure their actions would not have unwanted consequences, and these questions help establish who possess this ability. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What if your scenario involves the two editors hurling personal attacks at each other? They'll get blocked, and the purpose is in practice still the same, cooling down, it's just worded differently. The whole question is about semantics, and giving a thoughtful answer shouldn't be punished. - Bobet 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My scenario is probably very unlikely. However, the cool-down block isn't my point though. I'm merely using it as an example of how an administrator's failure to consult policies because he/she couldn't be bothered to do so could result in undesirable consequences that might have a negative effect on the Wikipedia project. There are many aspects of a candidate to consider when supporting or opposing an RfA, and I feel that whether a user has the will to consult policies and guidelines should be one of the considerations, along with other ones. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, but asking this question and then putting on blinders regarding the answer is not the correct way to do it. Any candidate can give a much better answer than the regular "never", yet some would feel that shows they don't "consult policies and guidelines". It would mostly show that they don't blindly follow the wording of policies and guidelines without understanding them, which is much better in a candidate. - Bobet 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, answers to these questions are NOT the sole factor in deciding to support or oppose. I would definitely agree that even if a user copies directly from the policies, it does not mean he/she is suitable for adminship. In my opinion, a candidate should be able to fully explain why these policies exist, and if a candidate accidentally slips up on one question but fully explains his/her rationale, we might consider forgiving him/her. However, if he/she repeatedly fails to show a lack of initiative to consult policies he/she isn't familiar with by answering these questions incorrectly, then I do not think the user would be suitable for adminship. We agree that copying these policies are not difficult, so what excuses do candidates have for not answering incorrectly? The only reason I can think of is that he/she could not bother checking. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheatsheet

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cheatsheet. Feel free to add to it. Majorly (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With this page, I hope to eventually phase out stock questions copy and pasted on RfAs. Proposing to ban such questions won't work; this is an alternative. Looking at Bedford's RfA, there's 26 questions added - 10 by just one user. That is one of the silliest things I've seen on an RfA. Especially, as far as I can see, every single question is a "stock" question - it could be on anyone's RfA, and it appears to have been asked for the sake of asking. Please add to the above page, and together we can put these questions to bed. Majorly (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is rewarding somebody who can't even take the time to read WP:BLP or WP:BLOCK, a good idea? Asking about a cool down block may not be the most revealing question somebody can ask, but the "right answer" is stated explicitly within our blocking policy. Anybody who gets the question wrong either doesn't understand the blocking policy, or hasn't read it. Either way, I don't want them exercising the ability to place blocks. Feeding a candidate the "right answer" can only lead to bad things. - auburnpilot talk 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point (in addition to what has been stated) is discouraging questions which are easily accessible, and encourage revealing thought provoking questions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, AP - you think that not reading old RfAs is possible? I'm not saying that admins shouldn't be ignorant, but how exactly is pasting a question on every RfA in any way productive? If the user gets the answer wrong, they can be corrected and will know from now on. With the cheatsheet, they will already know the answer and not get things wrong. Majorly (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And btw, the cheatsheet is the alternative to looking at a successful RfA's answers. I think instead of spamming users with tons of questions that they can copy answers from other RfAs to, they can just read the cheatsheet. Majorly (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AP, I would add to your scenario they either: don't understand, haven't read, or by far the most likely explanation: have read a very large number of our policies, but had not memorized this particular detail, and not being an RFA regular did not realize that some editors believed it to be of critical importance and that once pointed to the correct answer will not make that mistake and thus everyone, most importantly the encyclopedia, wins. After all, RFA regulars have already been fed the answers, so all this does is level the playing field. --JayHenry (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the sheet is a good idea. I'd much rather see an optional question like "What were you thinking with x edit here" or "Have a look at this AfD and tell us how you'd close it and why." the_undertow ^talk 01:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The first one, fair enough. The second is a stock question though. But I suppose there's millions of XfDs out there, they could ask different ones so no one can "cheat". Majorly (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that my second suggestion was a stock question. I was actually thinking that an actual ripened and open AfD would be a great way to see how the admin would handle consensus in a very specific situation. I probably didn't make that clear. the_undertow ^talk 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely think it's possible to pass an RfA without reading previous RfAs, and I'm not sure why you find my comment so funny. I admittedly don't participate in as many RfAs as I once did, but I have never seen a question that couldn't be answered by spending a few minutes reading our policy pages (something I would hope admins actually do). Are our candidates now so dumb they must be fed answers to easy questions? If so, I'm re-upping my participation at RfA. - auburnpilot talk 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, of course. I'm just trying to make it clear that asking stock questions is not the way to go about things. Majorly (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of questions is becoming (at times) pointless. It seems to me that they are an attempted shortcut around looking at a nominee's history and contribs. We're not electing lawyers here, we're just judging general fitness. It's not a matter of them knowing each and every policy but of their judgment. You can find that in the contribs, not in grilling them over policy details. The cool down question is a great example, there's a range of right answers (small but identifiable) but I see people rejecting nuanced answers and expecting quotes directly from the policy page. I'd like to see the optional questions phased out completely. RxS (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Auburn Pilot, are you also concerned that adminship coaching is subverting the process? An admin coach will also feed the exact same answers to the exact same easy questions. And do you really think that Bedford, among the current crop, is too "dumb" to be an admin because he missed this question? --JayHenry (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say it is subverting the process, but I've always found admin coaching to be odd. Post-rfa, I could understand, as it could give a new admin a way to test out the tools in realistic situations, but a classroom approach to passing an RfA doesn't seem right to me. As far as Bedford being dumb, I'd say he actually gave one of the better answers to that question that I've seen. It's not about being too dumb to be an admin (hell, if intelligence was a requirement, I'd have failed) but the general inability to read what is stated explicitly within policy. - auburnpilot talk 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then this is merely odd too, no? It is in its effect exactly the same as admin coaching. The only difference is the format of the Wikitext. --JayHenry (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You and I are either missing each other, or are making points that really have no point. Yes, I think the cheat sheet is odd. Yes, I think training for an RfA is odd. But, I can see a difference in saying "when asked question X, respond Y" and actually giving somebody scenarios and having them respond as if they were an admin. One gives the false impression that somebody understands policy, the other demonstrates actual understanding of policy. - auburnpilot talk 01:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I came to coaching post-esperanza, so I'm not that familiar with its history, but I sort of see it as a personalized extension of all the essays and guidelines on what adminship is. Also, I'll admit that since I've become involved in coaching, its basically been taking what was there already and clarifying and reformatting it. So if there are any directional changes needed in the program, I plead guilty to not making them yet and innocent to obsructing them :) I do wish the program would get some more attention at least in what exactly makes a good RFA, is it performing the tasks that got previous admins the mop (ie. do xfd, rfpp, aiv) or is it more a personality thing. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the BLP, IAR, and AOR questions be put on the cheatsheet. They are definitely not fact-recall questions. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another way

A proposal:

• Adopt Wikipedia:Proposed_adminship per some discussion above. It isn't adoptable yet but it is a formidable start.
• Give each new admin a sponsoring admin—any admin in good standing who can provide oversight. That would put to work the investment in coaching that has evolved outside the RfA process although the sponsoring admin could be any admin in good standing.
• That admin who takes on the role of oversight is responsible for all admin chores performed by the new admin. The new admin's edits within the domain of adminship are on the record of the sponsoring admin for amount of time.
• Make desysopping within that amount of time easy to do.

-Susanlesch (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that would basically mean that admins get secretaries? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting idea. Some initial reactions: I know though that I'd be scared (maybe a strong word), to put my bit and reputation on the line unless I knew the person to the point they'd be a Meatpuppet. And I'm sure Riana (talk · contribs) would be a good person to bring into this discussion. She and Ryan tried mentoring a newbie admin who was making lots of errors. What was his name again...oh right Archtransit. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But what happens when the newb admin does something stupid? The sponsoring admin would be responsible? Tiptoety ^talk 02:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Tiptoety, but maybe you have another idea. People who work together have at least as good and probably better idea of how a new secretary :-) will do than strangers who vote for RfAs, don't you think? -Susanlesch (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but is adminship a sign of community trust, not just a single users. Tiptoety ^talk 02:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Wikipedia:Proposed adminship is a community decision as I understand the proposal. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing it more as a probationary period, so to speak - the "candidate" is able to actually demonstrate their understanding of the proper use of the admin tools by actually using them. I'm concerned that such a "live-fire" exercise might end up causing a bad block or a bad deletion or some such, but such things are easily fixed (except for the bad feelings engendered by a bad block). Have to think on this one... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I like this. RFA could use a tune up, but this is too far in the "less bureacracy, not-a-big-deal" direction. Of course a new admin is going to get everything right when they have someone else (with a vested interest in the person not messing up) watching them like a hawk and they will be desysopped (and unlikely to ever regain adminship) if they screw up. Only an idiot would do anything remotely controverisal under those circumstances. I don't see Proposed adminship working at all either. Its not very often that an RFA can run its full course with zero opposition, and that's bascially what it would require. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree, except to note that any process that weeds out idiots is a process worth examining. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unanimity would have to go, yes certainly (and that isn't a difficult change to make). I thought Theresa Knott, Kim Bruning and Iamunknown were thinking along those lines but in keeping with the sentiments of the hour, fair enough, if the process "ain't broke don't fix it". -Susanlesch (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship from inexperienced editors; especially self-noms

I know we're not in the practice of dictating who can and cannot go for adminship, but wouldn't it make sense to have a strong note on the page before someone creates a RfA about experience and edits? Obviously someone being here a long time and/or having lots of edits doesn't make them qualified to have the tools, but I can safely say that no one who has been here for less than 2 months or has less than 1,000 edits or so is going to pass an RfA these days. I just saw two RfAs in quick succession from new editors like that. One was SNOW-closed and the other will be shortly, I'm sure. It just doesn't seem productive. Enigma ^message Review 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, right now all we have is a suggestion in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#To_nominate_yourself. Making that stronger or adding some warning to page generation field would be good idea IMO. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I added that note to the nomination page back in January, and I hope it's done some good, but it certainly hasn't stopped plenty of folks from nailing themselves up in the barrel and going over the falls. A warning actually in the page generation field sounds like a great idea. Darkspots (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My feeling on the situation is that if the editors don't pay attention to the first couple paragraphs of the page and go ahead and nominate themselves, they are probably new and will fail. This is what happens. This is a regular occurance but not on a major scale; these nominations happen a few times every week/month (depending on the time of year) since the page was created. You really can't help if people read the signs or not, or if they do did they make sense. I don't care for warnings because I don't think a fear environment is welcoming- most users who pass RfA have been around for about a half a year. Relatively speaking, this is still "new" in the context of the history of the project and RfA itself has changed quite a bit in subtle and not so subtle ways over the past ~5 years [6]. In summary: this will always continue to happen, as human behavior repeats itself. Not that big of a deal considering the thousands of new users that we have every month. Keegan^talk 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Like a lot of things, it bothers some people more than others, seeing the newbies fall on their faces. I personally don't like it at all, and I don't think I'm alone. You're probably right that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I think it matters to them.

Maybe the way to put the matter to people about to nominate themselves for adminship is not just about minimum requirements but to say something like "Wikipedia has 25 billion registered users (insert correct number) but only 1500 administrators--the only people who are made sysops are trusted members of the community who have gained that trust by making good contributions for a period of months or years" or some such folderol. Just to rephrase it differently--fools who rush in never think the prerequisites apply to them. Darkspots (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do more to make it clear to inexperienced users that going for adminship immediately is not a good idea. Obviously you can't force people to read signs or directions, but you can make them stand out more, or put them in the right places. It definitely bothers me to see users bitten like that. I know it's their fault, but wouldn't you feel pretty embarrassed and down if you started an RfA and immediately got 10 opposes and then had it closed? I think having those RfAs not start in the first place would be beneficial to everyone involved with the RfA process, and to the future users who would not end up in that predicament. Enigma ^message Review 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in your assessment that pre-pre-mature RfAs often end result in an unintentional form of newbie biting. If I remember correctly, you've participated in the six month long discussion here that pertains to these sorts of RfAs. As you can see, not a lot has changed as far as random new editors requesting adminship, and being shot down in flames. So I think the focus should continue on getting the community to pay attention to how they treat these candidates, rather than the candidates themselves. <edit> Spot checkers, regular readers, regular contributors of RfA should know better behavior than one liners or fierce critique when it isn't even needed. Helping, not hurting. </edit> I don't forsee us ever having a policy on requirements for adminship other than registration, so I really don't think these filings will ever cease. We should play nicer. Bolding Oppose and Support in any RfA is passé these days anyway, IMO. Removing that alone might help. Keegan^talk 04:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a special tool that makes an automated note for topics already discussed 3 billion times on WT:RFA? That'd be useful... We could test it out here... Because this is a topic that has been hashed over too many times to count. General feeling is that RFA is an open process, and restrictions are unfair and would be sketchy to draw up, and that its not too much of a deal to just SNOW close an RFA from a newbie, and that newbies can learn a lot from the opposes in order for them to grow better and have a chance at passing next time. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just about every topic brought up here has been brought up before. That doesn't mean the concerns are not valid or that changes would not be welcome. Enigma ^message Review 05:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, AD, you've got the number of registered users on your userpage! Totally convenient to what I was saying above. 6,833,168. I think saying "we have almost seven million registered users but only 1500 admins so you don't need to be an admin to contribute effectively, etc." does actually get the point across pretty clearly that we don't hand out +sysop with the registration booklet. Darkspots (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I've added some of my proposed language to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate: [7]. A bit stronger than before. Thoughts? Darkspots (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been active for about a year, and have about 1300 edits, and yes, I know that's not a lot. I would not consider myself ready to become an admin for some time, even if interested, since I still bump into guidelines and situations I'm not that familiar with. I really don't think that time spent here or ever more importantly, the number of edits, has a lot to do with how well someone can be trusted with the buttons and the responsibility to make good judgments in contentious or borderline cases. I don't think those metrics measure that kind of maturity and judgment well enough to be used. Granted, there does need to be a minimum bar, but is having a few obviously inadequate self nominations cause enough of a problem for the process that something needs to be done? My guess is no. Some of us know when we are ready for additional responsibility, and will not seek or accept nomination before then. Maybe self nominations should be actively discouraged. I would certainly !vote against someone with two months and <1000 edits, but I don't really know where the bar is. I remember someone having about 7500 edits and there was some concern about an insufficient edit count to win an RfA (it was successful, BTW). I find that rather unbelievable. There's more to being an admin that edit counts, since it's really about being trusted with the responsibility by the community. I'm one of those people that actually welcomes constructive criticism, even when it hurts. One of the concepts I learned was that honest and well intentioned feedback is a gift. So that a failed RfA can be considered feedback, and I see many comments say so. Other's don't, and they missed a chance to provide a candidate with useful information on how to grow enough too succeed. Another precept I learned is that if one acts like an admin, then many others will see that person as an admin. — Becksguy (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Obviously someone being here a long time and/or having lots of edits doesn't make them qualified to have the tools, but I can safely say that no one who has been here for less than 2 months or has less than 1,000 edits or so is going to pass an RfA these days." is what I stated above. Once again, edit counts and time don't make someone suitable to be admin, but a severe lack of experience and edits do tend to make someone unsuitable to be admin, or at least make it impossible for them to pass an RfA. Enigma ^message Review 05:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To Darkspots: I think that's a good start. Enigma ^message Review 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous, Enigma. — Becksguy (talk)

(de-indent) How about this proposal? The RfA gets "split" into two sessions - a question session, and a "vote" session? No voting is allowed in the question phase, and no questions are allowed in the voting phase. This would help avoid "pile-on" votes, IMO, and allow users to make their own judgments based more on the answers to the questions instead of blindly voting support/oppose. ArcAngel (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to design it so that each session lasts a sufficient period of time. Right now you have a week of open debate, so you'd pretty much double that period. Since there seems to be a high level of stress during the normal RFA, would many people want to do that?

If there were a voting session, I would like to see it so that voting is secret, or closed, or such that only the bureaucrats can access the votes. But I don't see how that is technically possible under the current software. There are places only admins or bureaucrats can access, but us mere mortals would need to be able to edit for addition of our votes. Yngvarr (c) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD

Even if not for the right reasons, I feel like MfDing this place. I know, I understand, that no-one is pressuring me into commenting here, or even typing "WT:RFA" into the search. But this place is little more than a coffee lounge, where topics are cast away and then recycled, where speculations on nothing are made, where ideas are proposed and speedily rejected, and generally where people come to make the clichéd whine about our corrupt RFA process. The purpose of this page is becoming useless, and its repetition of topic nauseous. Sorry, just had to say it... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many pages I'd be taking to MfD everyday that look like this one? But yea, I wouldn't mind a radical restructuring now and then. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty darn rude, really. "clichéd whine" and calling discussion of the RfA process "useless". It's not easy to make any changes, but even if changes are not made, I find the discussions here to be generally helpful. Enigma ^message Review 05:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not rude. It's an embittered response to over a year of constantly recurring discussion. And I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Nevertheless, search the archives - you will find plenty of whining, and plenty of aimless talk. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I rather enjoy coming here to find out the latest ideas about RFA. Sure, it will be difficult to change the RFA process, possibly just has hard as doing away with the Electoral College, but talking about it is the first step. Useight (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The first step honestly will never be taken. The same discussions have been occurring over and over for years with no visible effect. -- Naerii 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is a core process of Wikipedia, with a lot of people who are involved and far more who are peripherally interested or have strong views. Lots of people see the same or similar problems and suggest "fixes", but 99% of the time the suggestions don't get enough support to be implemented. So they get suggested again, and again, and again - because folks don't read the archives and think the problem they see is new (it isn't). This isn't a failing of this page, or a reason to have it deleted. It isn't even really a failing - its just a predictable outcome based on the circumstances. If you find its frustrating you, take a break from it. Avruch ^T 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• AnonDiss, whenever you see a repeated thread, you can always add this:

Important Notice
	Everything you could think of saying here has already been said at some point or another, thus all discussion about adminship is futile. Please read through and outline our 120+ archives to understand how the community reacts to certain proposals, and if you're bored, start a new thread to see if they react any differently. Suggested topics: location of the tally; how many RFAs are currently open; omg there's an RFB!!!11!1!; adminship is no big deal; the closure of an RFA you find controversial (please split discussion between the RFA's talk page, here, and WP:BN); new threads stating that these other concurrent threads have been threaded before, how to prevent biting at newcomers' RFAs; the esoteric nature of consensus, !consensus, and variations thereof; people exercising a sense of humor on this most serious process; etc. Thank you for your cooperation.

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth Anonymous Dissident, I have recently had the exact feelings you are having. Every time I come onto this page, I feel that it is rehash of old discussions, and by old I only mean a few weeks. Seeing as you have been active on this page for at least twice as long as me, your frustration must be even greater. I guess the one positive is that it is clear consensus on most issues is not going anywhere. SorryGuy  Talk  01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you think about the questions...

...answering them on behalf of the candidate before the candidate gets to it is a bad idea. First, it is openly insulting to the questioner. Second, it presumes the candidate doesn't know or wouldn't think to look up the answer. Third, it isn't your RfA - the process grants editors the right to ask questions, grants the candidate the responsibility to answer or ignore them, and for everyone else there is a "discussion" section and a talkpage. We're all equally members of the community here, and there is no good reason to nullify a question asked in good faith. Avruch ^T 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ON the other hand....

...I can't help thinking that an editor's RfA is not the right place for pursuing issues like this [8]. Not to mention that it's a multi-part, quite confusing issue with numerous traps (we don't re-open old AfDs, for example). Black Kite 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that (or variants of it) asked on a few RfAs now. The basic question is "Do the ends justify the means?" in various cases where the method was wrong but the candidate may have agreed with the results. Enigma ^message Review 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I bear no personal feelings, this editor tends to support/oppose RfAs based on whether or not the candidate agreed with him on a given set of AfDs. For this particular editor, the question is probably very important. But yes, I agree it's an optional question that I would probably choose not to answer. Tan | 39 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that in EVERY AfD I have ever seen the candidate in, he has voted to delete. In those discussions, I have argued BOTH to keep and delete, but I have never seen the candidate argue to keep in any AfD we both participated in. Thus, I need some reassurance that as an admin they would be willing to close as keep, even if they personally disagreed with the article or consensus and a good way of reassuring me would be if they acknowledge that AfDs that closed as delete in part due to sockpuppetry were invalid. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If they said that in relation to the example you've given in the question, I'd !vote Oppose to their RfA, because it would mean they wouldn't close the AfD correctly; that article is a list with no reliable sources and a clear Delete regardless of any sockpuppetry, and Xoloz's closing remarks were spot on. You need a better example. Black Kite 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective where the candidate voted delete was incorrect, regardless of the closure, and thus for me to trust someone as an admin, I'd rather they be more inclusive. Plus, as we don't have a deadline, any AfD in which sockpuppetry may have played a role (including keeps) should be considered for deletion review as it is important that we have consensus based on as little suspect behavior as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the basis of the question, but I'd prefer it to be slightly more theoretical. Get rid of all the diffs and make it easier for a candidate to give thoughts on the lasting effects of socks and how they can be dealt with. The current question seems like it can be a trap because of the wealth of specific cases it mentions. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I primarily asked it, because I had asked a variation previously to Redfarmer who answered it so well, he actually persuaded me to change my stance. I figure if he could answer one question successfully enough for me to change my mind, it's reasonable to give someone else the same opportunity rather than just dig in as an oppose. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually really like the question, LGRdC, and have used the candidate's answers to your question and its variations in the past to help me determine whether I was supporting or opposing (OMG, don't ask me who, I won't remember...) but I agree with Gwynand's suggestion to make the question more theoretical (less diffs) so as to create less of an appearance of trapping someone (I strongly believe that isn't your intention, FWIW, just that it seems to have created that perception). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the wording based on the suggestions indicated here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that happy about the Q on [List of characters in Grand Theft Auto III] in] that RfA either. It seems to be assuming something about the article in question. And it seems trivial, considering the desired answer is posted on the top of the article. DGG (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Black Kite 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

and I replied there. DGG (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While this wasn't explicitly stated - I don't think editors should oppose based upon a candidate's apparent adherence to quasi-wiki philosophies such as Wikipedia:Deletionism and Wikipedia:Inclusionism. Just because you've noticed a preponderance of "delete" !votes at AfD, it shouldn't really impact your decision - or, at the very least, be the deciding factor. One is not "better" or more desirable than another. It's about policy, strength of arguments, and the ability to communicate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree, because why would I want admins that are likely to disagree with me? If I notice an overwhelming number of deletes in AfDs for articles that I think should be kept or for that matter say keeps for articles that I think should be deleted, then that means that my interpretation of policies and guidelines differs from the candidates and that in my opinion they are misinterpreting policies or guidelines, which would of course mean I do not believe they understand them well enough to enforce them. Some of these AfDs were no consensus or even nomination withdrawn, which tells me that time was in effect wasted nominating and voting to delete articles that could have been spent (as obviously others did in order for the article to not be deleted or in at least one case for the nomination to be withdrawn) finding sources and improving the article. Just going down AfDs, voting (not arguing) to delete does not really help the project, unless it's a hoax, libel, or copy vio (which can be speedied anyway). After all, few articles, i.e. those that aren't hoaxes, libel, or copy vios, cannot be redirected somewhere. By contrast, taking the time to search for sources and to work with others to improve the articles does benefit the project. If I notice "deletes" for articles that there is some reasonable reason for keeping, I just don't see them as helpful as say using that time to improve the article in question or to focus on bringing articles that the account does care about up to better standards instead. Anyway, if I seem to dwell on how the candidates will close AfDs, it's because half of what makes an admin different from a regular contributor pertains to deletion. Admins can block and they can delete or restore articles. Thus, their ability to delete or restore articles is significant aspect of the new tools they're granted by becoming an admin and so how they will use that half of their tools does need serious consideration. It is also important, because contested closures can just result in deletion review or even insulted editors as well as in the case of deletion the removal of potentially a lot of work by many editors. So, again, how an admin candidate will use those tools is arguably just as important as how they'll go about blocking and unblocking. In some discussions, editors focus on blocks and unblocks, but it's a little harder to judge how someone would handle blocks and unblocks barring they have outright expressed as much on ANI threads about controversial blocks. Now with deletion, their participation in AfDs does provide a window into how they might decide to closes AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the whole premise of "Why would I want admins that are likely to disagree with me?" is flawed. I would hope that very few experienced Wikipedians vote in an RfA based on whether they have had some past dry disagreement in policy discussion. You should be looking for admins who will correctly interpret an AfD - an admin has no special place in the discussion itself, except to judge its outcome. That, for a good admin, will happen independently of that admins particular opinion on what the outcome should have been.

• You seem to assume that admins who are more apt to argue for deletion than you will also incorrectly interpret discussions as to consensus - these seem to be two totally unrelated functions, and so I'm not sure why you conflate them. More importantly - what this does argue is that you, personally, would close an AfD against deletion because of your personal beliefs on deletion in general and regardless of the discussion consensus. That you might do this because of your strong adherence to inclusion does not necessarily indicate that others would as well, particularly as such an action would directly violate deletion policy.

• Admins should not be selected based on ideology or adherence to a particular philosophy - they aren't representatives, remember, but functionaries and bureaucrats. Avruch ^T 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I also think closing afd's is more about a candidate's judgement (based on the understanding of policies) and neutrality. There are better ways of evaluating how a candidate would close an afd. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion there's actually a really substantial problem here. LGRdC's question may not be the best way at addressing it, but the amount of deletionist sockpuppetry has gotten really disturbing, inarguably bad for the encyclopedia, and steps are not being taken to prevent this. I recently read a thread on ANI or AN where an editor had provided overwhelmingly obvious evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, but because of inclusionist/deletionist partisanship, the deletionists refused to evaluate the claim because of its source. The administrator who correctly raised the issue was actually called "scabrous" for suggesting it be investigated. A handful of deletionists failed to notice obvious harassment and abusive editing, and once it was revealed that the complainant had been correct all along, not one single editor apologized, either to the victim or to the admin who rightly put in motions the wheels to stop the abuse. This is, to me, clear evidence that the partisanship had gone too far. Stalking is worse than inclusionism and there's something badly amiss if editors are having trouble realizing this. This needs to be fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a bit of a re-writing of that episode. As far as I could see, it wasn't a case of "refusing" to evaluate the claim - editors could see that there was the possibility it was correct - but they objected to the complainant forum-shopping it round RFC, RFAR, AN and ANI when it belonged fair and square at RFCU and SSP. Since a couple of sock-puppeteers have been blocked recently - I even blocked one myself despite the fact they were !voting Delete on an AfD I started - I would like to see any further evidence of any such "deletionist sockpuppetry" taking place that you find out, because there have also been a lot of Keep !votes on certain classes of articles that have aroused my suspicion. Black Kite 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, I do not believe that I am rewriting; it was certainly not my intent. It was reasonably raised at a related RFAR, in which the victim was being harassed. It was arguably outside the scope of the case, so he was instructed to take the issue to RFCU and SSP, which he did. The issue was raised at RFCU and SSP on March 19: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle. Following this, User:Nick following process, brought the issue to AN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive136#Community_sanction_or_ban_for_Jack_Merridew. Although White Cat was correct that he was being wikistalked and harassed, he was criticized for devoting his energy to fixing the problem. Actually Black Kite, you're the one who criticized him, when he was the one who correctly identified an abusive user. I didn't realize you were party to this when I raised the thread. "It would actually be very difficult for Merridew to stalk White Cat at the moment. That's because White Cat has only made 53 mainspace contributions this year; practically all of his other 1,200 edits have been pursuing his attempts to get Merridew blocked. You have to ask - who is making more contribution to the encyclopedia at this point?" That's a rather stunning quote. Another editor said "I don't know who Nick is, but I am disappointed that he has chosen to sanction these scabrous insinuations; I would naturally oppose any course of action that even approximates those called for above as completely inappropriate, bordering on hysterical overreaction." If this isn't evidence of inclusionist/deletionist partisanship going too far, what is? Someone needs to try to fix this problem, and kudos to LGRdC for at least trying. --JayHenry (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My point with that comment wasn't that Merridew wasn't a sock (I admitted that it was very possible) but to drive the point home that White Cat was spending so much of his time (some 1,200+ edits!) on Merridew, and if he'd not spent his time forum-shopping and gone to SSP to begin with, he could've used his time actually working on articles. However his reply was that he didn't want to edit because he feared he'd be stalked. Which is up to him, of course. My other point is that LGRdC isn't choosing his examples very well; there is no point doing a lot of hand-waving about "deletionist sockpuppets" and then giving examples that, when you look at them, would probably have been closed Delete anyway even without the socks. Anyway, this probably isn't the right forum for this particular thread, so I'll stop there. Black Kite 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Probably" is not the same as "absolutely would be". And the fact that the one I brought to deletion review had a large number of supports for overturning and resulted in it being userfied with permission to move to mainspace after revising it suggests that at least some of my examples have indeed been persuasive for others. Also, as a side not, I apologize if my typing is off at all tonight. My father and I both managed to injure our hands during a freak accident while working on his tractor over the weekend. The bottom line was that my left hand ended up pinched between the thumb and pointer finger by a jack stand while his right hand was even more significantly injured as some spring in the tractor malfunctioned causing two pieces of metal to in effect crush part of his hand (nothing like trying to assist someone else when you're simultaneously attempting to deal with your own wounds!). There was so much blood and it occurred so violently, we thought at least one finger would have been totally severed. When he got his hand out the finger was pretty well squashed especially at the base (it's still badly swollen, bled for a long time, even with dressing and ice, and a good portion of his hand is all puffy and bruised; we're still waiting for more x-ray results). So, we had some back and forth emergency room time this weekend and I'm basically relying on my right hand rather than typing the proper way (my left isn't horrible or anything, although bruised and with a nasty blood blister)--all on top of having to have my car's brake's fixed! So, again, sorry for any typos or "franticness" of edits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Again, whether or not someone agrees with me relates to understanding of policies. If I argue a certain way, it reflects my understanding of policy. If some argues a different way, then that means to me they are misunderstanding the policy. Also, I don't "vote" in RfAs or AfDs for that matter. It is my understanding that we come to conclusions based on consensus, i.e. discussions. For that reason I do not just say oppose or support and move on. Rather, I watch the RfA with an open-mind and have on several occasions changed my stances as the discussion progresses. As for interpreting an AfD, if I see someone almost always voting to delete in every AfD I've encountered them in, it very well could indicate an over zealousness to just delete material without understanding when to argue to keep. It's perhaps the only real way we can make any kind of assumption about how they may or may not interpret policy when closing AfDs. Moreover, ideology or philosophy could represent how an admin interprets policy and therefore influence how they close AfDs. I personally have not closed any AfDs and do not wish to do so; I prefer discussing and finding sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but to be fair, LGRdC, you !vote Keep on nearly every AfD you participate in, often with no real policy-based rationale, so any admin who ever votes Delete on an AfD is likely to be in conflict with you :) More seriously, admins are chosen for their judgement, and they're expected not to let their viewpoints affect their actions. As you know, I tend to lean to the deletionist side, but I know that of the hundreds of AfDs I've closed, I've never closed one as Delete when I know I shouldn't. After all, if I did that, I'd be dragged up at DRV every day. Black Kite 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah well, sometimes someone has to assume good faith rather than do a quick google search and write of an article as having no sources, or use the rather amusing and completely undefinable unencyclopedic. As far as closing debates, it is pretty open to interpretation..reminds me of the quote lies, damn lies and statistics really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• I do argue to keep in the majority of AfDs I participate in and I always have some policy based reason (even if I do not provide a policy shortcut), but I have argued to delete more than just once or two token times and over the span of several months (some examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2). Moreover, in most of the AfDs I argue to keep, I spend a good amount of time looking for sources and even in some of those that I've argued to delete, I still maybe at least corrected the grammar in the article in question (I always do at least some kind of search for sources, just to be sure that if I'm going to argue for delete sources really do not exist and it is indeed a hoax article). If I didn't have policy based reasons, I wouldn't have had this amount of support from others (admins and non-admins alike). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was being slightly flippant there (though you do have a tendency to throw in "It's Notable" !votes[9] [10] [11]) but the main point I'm making is that I think if people are being opposed at RFA purely because of their voting patterns at AfD - even if their !votes are in policy - that's a very slippery slope to start on. Black Kite 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well you can rest assured that's not the case with me. It is a combination of things which I have detailed elsewhere ad nauseam. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure it matters so much why anyone supports or opposes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. As I said, there's really two functions that separate admins from everyone else: being able to block/unblock and being able to delete/restore. I find it difficult to really assess how someone will block or unblock. I can however make some impression on how they will delete/restore based on whatever ideology they may ascribe to or their voting/arguing habits. As for the examples, you provided of my arguments. In the Starship troopers case, I provided a link to a sourc search I conducted (hardly a vote) and by the way, I obviously think the close was incorrect (unsourced means no sources whatsover, there were at least primary evidence, you could maybe claim "insufficient sourcing," but unsourced is inaccurate) and editors did assert real-world notability (something that can be seen even in a work of fiction is something that can be seen in the real-world by people in the real world and when it's associated with major franchise seen by millions, it's notable). For the Centaur family, I didn't merely participate in the AfD, I also spent time improving the article under discussion, which I also did for the IQ one. Looking for sources and making attempts to improve the articles under discussion is not merely voting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some specific rules

How about to make some specific rules regarding RfA. For example, an editor will not be eligible for administratorship unless he/she has at least 6 DYKs and created and expanded at least 5 B-class articles. It is upon discussion, but such a minimum level may be needed. Otherwise the support votes and oppose votes often based on the personal criteria of the individual voters. An universal rule will be appropriate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:PEREN. If it's not listed there, it should be. There are several good admins that have 0 DYKs, 0 FAs, and 0 GAs. Nothing wrong with specialists. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You would not be able to get agreement on such criteria for precisely the same reason that we see so many support and oppose votes for a variety of reasons - specifically, people have different ideas about what is required for adminship (my RFA passed unanimously, and I don't meet a single one of your proposed criteria, for example). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

However nothing is stopping you making that your personal criteria. -- Naerii 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'd have to disagree with those standards as well. If those are your personal standards, fine, but people contribute in different ways to the encyclopedia. Not everyone participates in the GA process, the FA process, or even the DYK process. Enigma ^message Review 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A year and five months after my RfA passed, I still have 0 DYKs, 0 FAs, and 0 GAs. I've written all of 0 articles from scratch. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course people will point out that they don't meet those criteria and they're an admin. Almost as if they're willing you to say, "Well, I think you're a shit sysop". -- Naerii 22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

EVula is a shit sysop. So is Keeper (who has less than EVula) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "EVula is the shit". Common typing error. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I was looking at 2006 RfAs, and all I can say is... things have changed. Greatly. Enigma ^message Review 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and if you go back even further, people were getting adminship based on five people saying "He's one of the good guys." Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How many of those from back in the day are still active, or how many of those bred high-quality admins? Has the quality of administrators gone up in proportion with the more stringent process? Be kind of curious to see some rough stats of admins from 2006 compare to today (how many de-sysoped voluntarily perhaps due to retirement, or otherwise due to being rogue; how many still active, etc)... Yngvarr (c) 22:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Very few admins has been desysoped. However, it would be easy to do a quick cross-check of when admins were granted the sysop flag and when their last edits were (or last significant burst of activity was). I'll begin programming a script to do that forthwith. I assume public access is allowed to the records of when the sysop flag was granted? I'll have to check on that. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(several edit conflictsI wouldn't give much weight (yet) to Sarah LN's commentary. It's likely that he/she is a sock (go to his/her userpage). As for the issue, the bureaucrats themselves used to be "promoted" under less stringent conditions, see this for example. Here nor there really. A different time, a different Wikipedia. I support our current system of promotion Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to take my word for it; see some of the links branching off from [12] if you want to see how it was back in the olden days. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent for Keepers comment) I'm not concerned about the sock issue, since that is sort of side-stepping the issue. I am wondering: has the quality of admins increased with the higher requirements now being placed on them? I hear everyone say "that was a different time", but if the quality of the process hasn't improved the quality of the candidates, what exactly makes it different? If an admin from three years ago was given the Ok because he's a good guy, and is still an admin in good standing, how does that compare to the admin who was de-sysoped after recently going thru a process that is supposed to screen such actions? Yngvarr (c) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In my own brief (non-admin) tenure, I think I've only known of two admins being de-sysoped. I know for sure of one, and seem to recall another, but memory fades with age. Perhaps that's not a good query? What about those who have been subjects of RFCs or ArbComs? Not due to their editing, but solely for their admin actions. Yngvarr (c) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, at least regarding the number of articles etc.. Adminship widely doesn't concern skill in writing articles. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) But there should be some sort of activity in logs, even if it is not writing articles. Block actions, deletions, etc, are all some sort of indication of activity. Yngvarr (c) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• a list of inactive admins is available at [13].DGG (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the original question, I do not believe that Otolemur crassicaudatus was saying we actually enact those standards, but that we simply add standards in general. As said above, such simply is not a good idea. As prior discussion has shown, no level can reach consensus so each keeps to their own opinions. Also note that WP:CREEP advises that we leave the process as simple as possible. SorryGuy  Talk  01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break

My objection is that many editors are not promoted to administrators status only with a reason "This user does not have enough contribution in AfD's or in wikipedia policy talk pages". Why this logic is not applied in article contribution? Why talk page contribution is given much importance rather than mainsapce contribution? People get promoted to administrator's status with 0 article building, but no one has been able to become administrator with 0 contribution in AfD or MfD. Both should be treated equally. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new standard question

From my RFA, that User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back asked:

"Please tell us which currently active administrators you respect the most and why."

It just seems to make sense. It's open ended, there is no theoretical right or wrong answer, and it (I'd hope) gives an insight into how someone thinks and views the role of adminship. Lawrence § t/e 23:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. If any question is to become a "standard" question (or at least an often seen question), I think it should be open ended. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - it is absolutely nothing to do with adminship. We should really have no standard questions, and the candidate says everything in a statement, but really, this one is not for standard. Majorly (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What (if anything), Majorly, would you like as a "standard" question, if not an open ended question that "can't be answered incorrectly" (hypothetically)...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The current three are good. They give a brief background to the candidate, and how we should expect them to act if they should be promoted. Asking who their favourite admin is is about as useful as asking their favourite colour. Majorly (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure I like questions like this: there are some admins that some users might think are great, but other users think should be desysopped, and things like "Oppose - candidate respects and/or trusts an admin that <always disagrees with me/blocked me/is untrustworthy/abusive>, and will most likely be like them." come to mind; plus, there's the reverse question to the above to think about as well, and both of these would turn any RfA ugly. I don't think I want RfAs to become like that. Acalamari 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So a user gets on, requests adminship, looks at the last successful RFA and lists each voting administrator as their most respected. I can see this happening over and over again even if on a minor scale. Malinaccier (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like it as a question, but I definitely don't think it should be a standard one. No, not because I don't think I'd ever be listed as a "favorite admin" (I'm not even sure how well known I am around here), but because I don't think the question will give us a whole lot of insight into whether the candidate should be an admin or not. Useight (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it would, as others have mentioned, turn RFA into a "who you know" instead of "what you know." Useight (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw that question, and really disliked it. We want to diminish the extent RFA is a popularity contest. anyway, all it would do is weed out the people who are rash enough to pick someone controversial. DGG (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the best questions are ones where the candidate has to dig through their own contributions to show that they've had experience with a certain area. Tan | 39 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is such a question a very bad idea for an addition to the standard questions, I don't like it being asked at all. If it were worded as "what traits in administrators do you think are most valuable?" or something along those lines, it would be fine as an optional question. But to ask a canidate to narrow it to actual administrators only opens the door for any number of conflicts. SorryGuy  Talk  01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I rarely place too much weight on questions, anyone can cut and paste or dole out pro forma answers, it's their conduct over the previous few months surely? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - contribs are more important and more indicative. Orderinchaos 14:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That sort of question seems awfully loaded and weighted. I would strongly oppose the introduction of such a question as one of the standards. Besides not thinking we actually need additional standard query, I feel that the answer is likely to result in pile on supports or opposes based on the selection of the administrator. I'm definitely uneasy about a candidate lauded an admin whom many have had disagreements with. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, I didn't realize that people were discussing my question here. Generally, I share the concerns of those who opposed adding this to the standard trio of question--an addition I would never advocate (I confess I find the current three questions rather dull, but definitely useful, especially if answered well). My question might have been a tad inflammatory, but it's certainly not useless (give me a break, Majorly--the sort of administrator one aspires to be is a hell of a lot more relevant than asking a candidate's "favourite colour," though I wouldn't be opposed to that question either).

I think many of the comments above reveal a distressing lack of good faith in candidates and in RfA voters themselves. The overwhelming majority of candidates I observe are capable of answering most questions honestly; while any quasi-political forum necessitates a certain degree of caution when answering questions from the "public," I do not believe that candidates typically game and manipulate their responses in a shameless attempt to curry favor with the gullible community. Speaking of which, it is a gross insult to the average RfA voter's intelligence to presume that he/she would would flatly disregard the candidate's contributions and automatically discount a candidate on the basis of the answer to one question. The Fat Man is a populist and believes the community at large can be trusted to make good decisions; my question (which I found interesting at the time) did not impair their capacity to do so.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Probationary adminship

With all of the discussion above, I thought I would throw in my two cents worth.

Usually the best way to learn something is by doing, i.e. on-the-job training. And one of the best ways to demonstrate trustworthiness is to be put in a position of trust and prove to be worthy of it. But safety requires that the apprentice not be put into situations that may be too difficult and that the trust not be wide-open - i.e. trust, but verify.

What I propose is that there be a probationary period for new admins. For three months (e.g.), the admin may not initiate action, may only respond to someone else's request. The new admin can delete pages but only in response to a CSD, PROD, or XFD. He or she may block but only in response to an AIV or AN3, may protect a page only for an RFPP request, and may edit a protected page only in response to an {{editprotected}} flag.

These situations are relatively straightforward and not too difficult for a new admin. He or she will be able to demonstrate good judgment and knowledge of policies and guidelines. By voluntary using the tools only under restrictions, the admin will demonstrate trustworthiness.

Any editor who meets some minimum standards, perhaps six months and 1,000 mainspace edits and 500 project space edits, could be nominated by one admin, endorsed by a second admin, then promoted by a bureaucrat. So there would be three sets of eyes examining the editor before promotion.

After three months there would be an evaluation of the probationary admin's use of the tools, with emphasis on judgment and adherence to policy. The result might be full adminship, continuation of probation, or loss of tools. During the probation period, any serious impropriety could lead to an immediate desysopping.

Having many probationary admins could free up time for experienced admins to concentrate on activities that require better judgment and greater skill. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Couple of problems - difficult decisions could often go either way, and we don't want to scare admins away from attempting difficult decisions or punish them because we disagree.
• Additionally - if we say, don't screw up for 3 months and you'll be good to go... Admins will just steer clear of anything likely to cause a problem for three months, and we'll have all the same problems beginning on day 91 that we might've caught three months earlier. Avruch ^T 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• If this was edited and tweaked, I could go for it. Malinaccier (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One serious issue with the idea is the assumption that responding to reports somehow requires less experience and discretion than noticing something and responding to it. Responding to other users reports often require more discretion because you have to see through the potential bias of the person making the report.

I also don't like the idea of taking the choice of who gets the admin bit away from the community and giving it to two admins and a 'crat to decide. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

zOMG, I can't believe I'm using this twice in one day....

Important Notice
	Everything you could think of saying here has already been said at some point or another, thus all discussion about adminship is futile. Please read through and outline our 120+ archives to understand how the community reacts to certain proposals, and if you're bored, start a new thread to see if they react any differently. Suggested topics: location of the tally; how many RFAs are currently open; omg there's an RFB!!!11!1!; adminship is no big deal; the closure of an RFA you find controversial (please split discussion between the RFA's talk page, here, and WP:BN); new threads stating that these other concurrent threads have been threaded before, how to prevent biting at newcomers' RFAs; the esoteric nature of consensus, !consensus, and variations thereof; people exercising a sense of humor on this most serious process; etc. Thank you for your cooperation.

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is very productive to the discussion. In fact it is in the way. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion on anything except those freaky shocked Wikipe-tans. Please don't post them again, ever. As it is, they will give me nightmares. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I still suspect some idea along these lines will get traction one day. The way we're doing rollback may demonstrate that such ideas are not as crazy as they might sound. Friday (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Until 1=2, for clarity)I agree. My contrib isn't productive to the discussion. But, alas, I also believe the discuss in and of itself, because of how friggin many times it has been attempted and rejected, is unproductive in and of itself. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Friday, though I expect this will result from a need forming that is not here now. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this revised process would change anything for the better. Even amongst themselves, admins can't all agree on what's good and what's not in an admin candidate. What is a deal-breaker for one could be just fine for another; placing the judgement on just two people is a little nerve-wracking. It puts the power in a very, very select few hands. We don't need an admin caste to decide who becomes an admin; it should always be the community's decision, and I would go so far as to say that any plan that didn't have that at its core is flat-out wrong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the goal of all the discussion on this topic? I think it is to find a way to dramatically increase the number of admins. And I think there are two reasons for doing so. One is to help with backlog in various areas. The second and maybe even more useful part is to free up the time of some very talented people to contribute in other ways to the encyclopedia. Let's face it: parts of the mopping are relatively easy and are almost a waste of the valuable resource that is an admin. The majority of AFDs are easy closes; some are very difficult. Most AIVs are easy to handle; some may need more judgment. Having ten times as many admins would free up the time of some talented people to concentrate on the more difficult decisions, or to bring an article to FA, or just to patrol New pages. Do you know that there are roughly 14,000 articles each and every month that never get patrolled? If we freed up admin time from some of the mundane mopping chores, some of those admins might use their skills patrolling thousands of good, bad, or ugly articles.

Tweaking the current process is not going to result in a dramatic increase in the number of admins. So I'm suggesting a big change. To get more admins, tilt toward inclusionist rather than deletionist. Let almost anyone (subject to some minimal standards) audition as an admin. If they do badly, then give them the hook.

As to specific comments above, I didn't mean to put more power in a very few hands, rather to make it fairly easy to get the tools on a probationary status with minimal filtering of e.g. editors with an obviously bad history. I'm sure there is some other way to get the broad community to help with the filtering instead of just admins.

As for editors ducking the difficult decision during the probationary period, I would think that willingness to tackle the tough ones would be a positive factor during the evaluation. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not an argument for or against, but I think it's worth mentioning that the idea of limited access for new admins is listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures. (Full disclosure: I added the bit about new admins starting with limited access about a month ago.) szyslak (t) 06:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the context is entirely different. What I am suggesting is a huge decrease in the "frictional effort expended at WP:RFA". Make it semi-automatic and then let them audition for a period of time. The probationary period is a way to find out whether we can trust them. Sbowers3 (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpler approach?

Here's a quickie stab at a less bureaucratic form of the above. It might require some software tweaks similar to what was done for rollback. Any admin can promote someone to provisional admin, at their discretion- like rollback. If they misuse the tools, we try to nudge them back on track by giving them good advice. If this fails and misuse of tools continues (or, if the misuse was grievous), any admin can remove provisional admin permission, at their discretion. If there is disagreement on this, I suppose we go to RFC to further examine the case. If, after some period (3 months, perhaps?) they've done well, they get the bump up to full admin. All without anything resembling RFA. This appears too simple to fail, to me, so please go ahead and shoot holes in it. Friday (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered the technical danger of letting an admin set the admin bit? A not so clever bot with one admin account can spider out creating more and more admin accounts. If you meant that admins get to decide but crats push the button, that is less dangerous.

Also, once again I don't think we should take the decision when to give someone the admin bit from the community trust and just make it an admin decision. The community has not failed in the selection of admins in my opinion, with few admins turning out bad, and a significant number of promotions. I don't think it should be up to admins to decide when someone gets the tools, this would lead to seniority based authority because it takes the control away from the regular users.

I will also point out that any admin on this probation will be a real target to trolls and anyone who likes to cry "abuse" when there is none. Lots of unneeded drama. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let crats have the technical permission, then. They'd do it at the request of an admin. I consider this a minor implementation detail. Where the community has failed is that we spend lots of time with RFA, and a great many participants are still using completely stupid reasoning in their votes. Look at the obviously unqualified candidates who take up time and still get 50% support. We can't exactly throw people out of RFA for giving boneheaded opinions, so let's make RFA irrelevant instead. The troll-magnetism is a feature, not a bug. For someone to function properly as an admin, we need to know they can deal with completely unreasonable people, while staying reasonable themselves. Friday (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is rather unfortunate that this will never be accepted: such a proposal is simply so far outside of the boundaries the mindset this community has entered into, with regards to the process of gaining the administrator tools. Having said that, I also held doubt about rollback, and it's now been rolled out (excuse the pun) across the community; perhaps Friday's proposal will one day be implemented, and indeed, I hope it does. To elaborate on that, I do, in principle, agree with this proposal, so long as it is the Bureaucrat team that pushes the button to promote to full status. Anthøny 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

:-( This is already the toned-down version, meant to be more widely palatable. My real plan also has a more radical step 2- this is just step 1. I guess it's best that I laid out only the first bit. Can you think of anything can be done to make this more acceptable? Or do we just wait for rollback to exist for a couple years, and maybe by then, the "easy come, easy go" model of permissions seems more sensible and less anarchic? Friday (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the inertia of the current process is simply too much for this (or any proposal) to succeed. However, something you could propose, (which will also no doubt be shot down, but which might at least come closer to succeeding) is that we be daring and actually experiment. Pick (say) 5-10 admins at random, have them choose one person each for provadmin, and give it a whirl. Before a 'crat sysops them, they could specifically state somewhere this is an experiment and they will voluntarily give up provadmin status at the end of the trial period, or whenever another admin believes they've used up their allotment of the learning curve. Then we see what happens, and discuss in a few months when we'll have more hard info, and less speculation.

Getting consensus to make wholesale changes to RFA will never succeed; getting consensus to try a limited experiment or two might, just possibly. --barneca (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So what happens to the 5/10 provsops after the "experiement?" Do they get full 'crat approved admin status, or do they hafta then go thru an RfA? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, I'm not sure which would be best; there's value in both options. But to get consensus for this experiment, I suspect keeping the adminship at the end wouldn't fly. Still, RfA's should be a breeze afterward for provadmins who have proved their worth. --barneca (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA's should be a breeze for any editor that has proved their worth. Adding an "extra step" of provsop (sorry, that's more fun to say than provadmin :-) could be easily seen as cabalism/cronyism if they are arbitrarily getting picked by compadres instead of by community consensus. So, they end up having an RfA (or modified to RfPA, I suppose it could be called) before the provsop access. So what have we accomplished? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What we've gained is the ability to not have to guess. There is no better way to consider whether someone should have the tools than to observe what they actually do with the tools. RFA requires us to guess right now. But, not everyone has to see the value in the experiment. If some people do, and nobody gets in the way, it's a useful experiment. So, the question to ask is not "Do I think the experiment will be successful?" but rather "Do I have a reason to try to stop the experiment from even happening?" We can evaluate the success or failure after the experiment. Friday (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, what we would accomplish is (a) getting information on provship (compromise?) that we can actually evaluate, instead of imagined benefits and imagined costs, and (b) removing one brick in the wall of immovable, unchangeable policy. I'm not even necessarily of the opinion that Friday's proposal is the best, or vital for the future of the project; I just think we should be willing to try things, rather than shoot everything down because 25% of us can always be found to say new proposals aren't perfect as originally proposed, and might go wrong. If it were up to me, we'd try this, and a few other perennial ideas, on a very limited basis, just to get some useful info and to break the logjam. Friday's proposal just has the added benefit of being very simple. --barneca (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent, too many colons for poor keeper...> I'm slowly buying this. My concern with the experiment isn't the experiment itself (seems simple enough), but what happens to the mice after they've run through the maze. Obviously, if they break walls, throw cheese at each other, etc, the solution is easy, don't let the mice run the maze anymore. No sysop. But what if they get to the end successfully? (which is, IMO, ridiculously more likely - every editor can run a maze/act on his/her best behavior for a couple of months). So when they get to the end of the maze, do we give them the cheese or take it away? The answer to that would need to be in any proposal/experiement that would get my support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

At first, we might be stuck putting them thru RFA- making the provisional adminship pointless, right? Well, anyone who did well with it should pass easily. My hope would be that once a few people have done this without burning down the wiki, we can just leave them promoted without causing a major outcry. (Some of this might depend on implementation details. Is provisional admin actually a separate permission that the software is aware of, or does this distinction only exist in the minds of people?) When in doubt, we take it slow, as radical changes are not likely to be easily accepted. Friday (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the easiest way would be to make it a technically full promotion, and a 'crat will just alert the stewards when they need to be demoted. A better system could be implemented after the experiment has run its course. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And what happens if/when the experiment is a success? As noted, it's not hard to act nice while a provop. Will this come with an easier deop process as well? That said, I like the idea a lot. --Kbdank71 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, if this is an actual failing of the proposed system, why doesn't it apply to RFA right now? Isn't it a (theoretical) failing of the current system? If you know you're going to try an RFA in 3 months, in theory you would keep your head down and talk sweetly anyway. In practice, some people get in fights with others and sabotage it... --barneca (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a failing of both systems. Regardless of how we pick admins, we do need a better way to deop the bad apples. I don't think that's a reason not to try the experiment, though. --Kbdank71 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I agree with you 100% then, but that's a whole different perennnial idea. --barneca (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Who picks the mice? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mice, I'm guessing, will be fairly easy to find. What may be more difficult is finding a crat who's willing to be so brave as to play along, and deal with all the abuse he'll get for (gasp!) trying something new. Friday (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's assuming the Kremlin doesn't get them all.[14] EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

EVula is a shit sysop. Oh wait, wrong thread. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic from the above line, but in keeping with the rest of the thread above and in response to Sbowers3 initial thread, wouldn't this theoritical procedure make more people not want to be a sysop? If there is all this red tape around getting adminship, surely less people will apply (or want to be nominated) and then as the community grows, we'll find a slow but sure shortage of active administrators. Rudget (review) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, red tape? No, the entire goal is something more lightweight than the current process. Also, as an experiment, it would be, well, experimental. Nobody would have to do it. Friday (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this isn't the trial run concept but of the idea in general. There's too wide a spectrum among admins (and general editors) as to what constitutes an acceptable potential admin. Because of that, provisional admins will be created that already are not acceptable to some part (whatever size) of the general community, admins or otherwise. So the problems comes at the end of the probation period. At that point there will exist a group of editors that will want to revoke the admin status. The argument will be made that their opposition to the editor becoming an admin was based on the editors history before the trial, and since presumably anyone can keep their nose clean for a month or two, the trial period didn't prove or disprove anything. Furthermore, if a single admin is able to confer admin rights, those admins that have significantly lower standards than the majority of editors will create a class of admins who won't (or wouldn't in a normal RFA) have community support. And since it all boils down to misuse of tools, for this to work there'd need to be a shared definition of what that constitutes. I think it's pretty clear that there isn't (and burning down the Wiki is only the worst case of misuse) and revocation of admin rights will be drama filled and another front in the RFA standards battles that have been going on. I respect the idea, but there's no way it'll be practical without splintering one RFA standards battle into a bunch of smaller probationary admin battles where everyone disagrees about what misuse of tools is. Sorry for the length here, I can never seem to say anything succinctly. But you get the drift. RxS (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, we may find problems cropping up eventually, much like if a particular admin had views on deletion that were out-of-line and he tried to put them into action by how be closed AFDs. I think we have existing means of dealing with this, starting with a couple people saying, "Hey, you, don't do that." Friday (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But it's a little like that old joke, "who's we...?" Let's say an probate admin is a little fast/loose/inaccurate on speedy's. A couple people say something to him about it. Like clockwork a couple other people will show up saying that the speedy's were fine and there is no problem. There's no "we" here anymore...no single voice that can speak to an editor (outside of clear misuse of tools) and say they need to adjust something in their tool usage. It'll just be a case of a group of people telling him or her different things...and at that point it becomes a mini pie fight over deletion policy. The probate admin won't be the central issue. I think revocation is the sticking point here, and the potential source for a roving series of brouhahas and extraneous hoopla. RxS (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people go whoopee at the thought of brouhaha and hoopla. sowwy, couldn't resist :-P.

I guess our system should be brouhaha-resistant and hoopla-resistant (if not -proof). Any idea how to achieve that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the 64,000 wiki question. People are drawn to hoopla like free food. If you mean promoting admins with a minimum of hoopla I think it already is...it's been quiet for a while no with only limited outbreaks of brouhaha, no? Or at least as free most other parts of project space that has a medium to high volume of traffic. It's not RFA that generates it, it's the nature of how we do business here. If you mean fixing it so we promote more admins, then I don't know. Maybe the discussion should be standards? RxS (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to put people through RFA. If we have a consensus that they'll likely be good admins, we can ask a bureaucrat to promote. Remember, consensus has primacy, not % or rules. (there's also some unwritten dynamics that ensure that this would still work, even if there was an uproar. But naturally you can simply give people more than enough time to respond and to be heard and to improve on things, so I don't see that happening. ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to put people through RFA. If we have a consensus that they'll likely be good admins, we can ask a bureaucrat to promote.. Wait, isn't that what RFA is? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Well, yes and no. It's what RFA supposed to be, in our dreams, eh? . Do you see why bureaucrats would have to obey consensus found elsewhere? (preferentially, even! ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think RfA is lacking. Eventually, though, it will inevitably, at some stage of an editor's life on wiki, come down to the other editors deciding if/when that particular editor, if he/she wants it, can have the tools. Consensus consensus consensus. RfA does that, mostly. It's a hack job sometimes. It's frustrating to see how gauntlet-y it can get. But I don't think it should (or even could at this point) get thrown out. (And I don't think that's what Friday is suggesting either). Instead of reinventing RfA with new acronyms and processes, how 'bout overhauling it instead? Make it better. And for the love, don't ask me how to do that. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul? Try do that Simultaneously! ;-) We'll race you. Then we take a time machine to milliways, the restaurant at the end of the universe, and wait to see if you arrive in time for the big crunch ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(Don't tell anyone, as it will get this branded as a radical proposal and thus undoable, but) I hope RFA eventually withers and goes away. But I won't try to kill it- I'd rather have it simply become irrelevant. If we have a way to easy-grant the tools and easy-remove then when needed, what purpose would RFA serve? I'd rather see us spending time discussing adminship when actually needed- i.e. when faced with an actual claim that someone has actually been misusing the tools. Focus the effort on things of practical importance rather than on speculation, as we do now. Friday (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly though? The system you are proposing, although a different name, and with different steps, will eventually be RfA2. It just will. Too many editors. Too much inevitable creep. "Easy-grant"-ing the tools was exactly what used to happen, look at the first RfBs even. When there weren't so many damn editors in so many damn countries with all their own ideas it was simpler. Your ideas are grand, Friday. I support repairing the system we have more than throwing it out though. For example Spending time discussing adminship when actually needed is what RfAs are supposed to be. Fix RfA. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think RFA (and also perhaps DRV and one or two other locations) suffers from -to coin a term- the Esperanza effect. It started out fine, but somewhere along the line it's turned into a closed group resistant to change (who incidentally think they're important to wikipedia). The base realization is that if we delete RFA tomorrow, not only will wikipedia still operate, we will still even be able to hand new people the admin flag. Actually there are two problems with RFA, not one.

1. The first is the Esperanza effect, it can probably be fixed by just deleting RFA and starting from scratch with something resembling the original model. You are right that rebooting in this way is not a permanent solution, but it'll take a while for the Esperanza effect to muddle it up again.
2. The second is scaling issues. A pure restart might not work due to the sheer number of people who get dragged to a single page (scaling issue!) . To fix this, we need to split out rfa's and not use a central location. (for some reason, people who grew up in the 20th century have this horrible tendency to centralize centralize centralize. Helloooo, this is the 21st: web 2.0, wikinomics, webs of information and all that? Adhocratize, Decentralize, Diversifize! Or something somewhere is gonna suffer a meltdown!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the tendency to centralize didn't start with the poor old misunderstood 20th century ;) But if the point is to reduce the number of participants (that at the same time doesn't limit it to the stakeholders), why not think about a jury system? That is if you really think RFA is broken, which I don't. But it's a popular opinion. In any case Wikipedia is littered closed groups resistant to change... RxS (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find someone from the neolithic revolution who is still living today, I'd love to meet them! ;-)

In the mean time, when *would* you consider RFA broken? When we start promoting firebreathing monsters? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this is a great idea. We should spend all this time either writing articles, doing admin work, or (if it must be related in some way to RfA) desysopping people. If we had a system like what Friday proposes, with a community-mandated desysopping procedure (e.g. like RfA...general consensus to desysop means desysopping, much more painless than the recall-RfC-ArbCom-RfC again-ArbCom-desysop route we have now) then I think the encyclopedia as a whole would benefit. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is worth a try after we get the rollback mess is sorted out. I wouldn't mind being a guinea pig for the proposed process. But let's actually do something this time. MER-C 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the person who started the rollback mess. I told them not to, because their chosen procedure was known to be disruptive. They did it anyway, I took cover... ;-) *sigh*. Safely having ignored all that mess, the fun thing with the new code is that we can now deal with other permissions the same way, so maybe we'll be able to no-big-deal-ize the lot :-). Possibly we should just bribe someone to put that live on enwiki, and take on the brouhaha like all bad-tasting-medicine: in one big gulp to get it over with. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Come to think about it, this reminds me of a somewhat informal featured picture delist nomination, which was a rather interesting exercise on my part. To apply it to adminship (a quick sketch): a bunch of established editors/admins get together and recommend someone for adminship, somewhat like this. After the discussion becomes stale, the candidate asks a crat "Can I has the bit plz?" with a link to the related discussion. The crat decides whether the traineeship takes place (and possibly some other details e.g. length). If some established editors voice significant concerns about the trainee then it goes to a formal ratification, otherwise on expiry the trainee becomes a full admin. MER-C 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've thought about that myself...sort of a WP:PROD style RFA. Most/many RFA's succeed without much opposition so there might be some value in short cutting RFA in some cases. You'd request the bit and if there are any significant objections off to RFA you go. But that doesn't solve any of the perceived problems some people see in RFA, or not the most common ones anyway. You'd still have the edge cases and the controversial nominees which is where all the problems come from. RxS (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Piggybacking a bit on that. We already have snow close and obvious fail RfAs. What about snow promotes?. There are currently a couple of ridiculously inevitable promotions that are happening right now. After, say, 3 days, if no significant opposition presents itself, close it. Hole punching begins...now! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm sure candidates can wait an extra four days to become an admin and there have been cases where nominations have downturned swiftly in the last few days. Besides, quite a lot of people don't check Wikipedia every day, and check RfA even less. I don't think getting new admins 4 days earlier at the expense of a thorough review of a candidate and giving everyone a chance to have their say is actually worth it. -- Naerii 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

since it takes only a fraction of the number of opposing votes! to derail an RfA snow promotions would open up many fine cans of beans, it can take a couple of days for editors to look into various actions of an editor. I'd more likely choose to oppose in the first instance where I have a concern rather than take more time to make an informed decision. This would make RfA even more stressful and acrimonious especially in line ball discussions. Gnangarra 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept for one second that the community had failed to handle the selection of administrators. Sure, RfA is a gauntlet, but it should be. The people that pass make good admins, and those that fail do so for good reasons in the majority of cases. Now I have seen some RfAs turn out the "wrong way", but I don't think that can be changed by this suggestion, nor do I think it is all that common. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, I couldn't agree more with this. I see nothing wrong with RFA that compels us to rewire it. Nothing a little good faith and civility couldn't fix anyway. RxS (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, I wish people didn't insist on seeing the current process as completely dysfunctional before they'll consider a refinement. I see obvious value in a process that lets us judge candidates based not on guesswork, but on actual observation of how someone has actually been using the tools. We didn't need to abandon AFD in order to use prod. Friday (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think RFA has to be completely dysfunctional before changes need to be made. But I do think a probate admin process is much more than a refinement. I may be in a minority but I think RFA runs pretty well most of the time. That is, it does a decent job of weeding out bad candidates. Could it do a better job? Sure, and judging candidates on how they actually use the tools would do that. But the devil is in the details, and I think that there are unintended consequences to this particular idea. I'm not trying to be obstructionist, I'm really not. RxS (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my position. I denied it was dysfunctional because people above claimed it was. I disagree with the change not because we are not dysfunctional, but because I think the new system would be less functional, and cause real problems. I don't want to test admins by giving them the tools because when they do a bad block it scares off new users we will never get back. Admin actions can be reversed but they can still do damage to people. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone goes through RFA doesn't mean they won't make a bad block. And RFA will never uncover a situation where you can say "Oppose, he makes bad blocks". So how would the new system be different than what we have now? --Kbdank71 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the "proposed adminship" procedure. I assume that the way most people would handle provisional adminship is to not do anything interesting for the whole time. Admins sometimes have to make bold decisions, enter into conflicts (with the aim of resolving them), skillfully apply IAR, or upset some people for the overall good of Wikipedia. You would probably see none of these during a provisional adminship. If a provisional admin did such things, they would probably acquire enough detractors that they could not keep their admin bit.

RfA has problems, yes, but I doubt this would solve them. I much preferred a small proposed change to RfA that has been brought up at times, but which I suppose isn't interesting enough to get large numbers of people talking about it. That was to have 3 days of discussion (with no voting) followed by 4 days of voting. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Voting?" *Kim said, whilst carrying a big stick* --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, voting. When you count yourself as a support or an oppose, you're voting, by definition. Note that I can make that statement without saying anything about the ideology of RfA, such as how much the result should be determined by counting votes versus how much it should be determined by general discussion or bureaucratic whim; I'm just using an English word the way it's meant to be used. Which is a good thing to do if we're having a serious discussion about the direction of RfA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I use voting as a term-of-the-art on wikipedia. Vote=binding decision reached by show-of-hands-or-what-have-you poll: a view of current consensus (to see if rough consensus has been reached yet)

It helps to use the same terminology. Notably, I've generally promised that if people turn RFA into a straight vote (as per term-of-the-art, not "plain english"), I would start pushing to get it killed off. And I'm not the only person. It's the clear white line test. This is why people all tippy-toe around the word "vote". It's become a bit of a silly game. Even though the clear line hasn't been reached yet, I figure we should just put the place out of its misery anyway. It's actually now *worse* than our widely-lambasted-in-the-press deletion system, can you imagine? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of admins

I noticed that the current number of admins is 1531. But from what I remember there were over 2000 admins last year or so. Is the number of admins falling or is my memory failing me?

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest your memory David! The number of editors with the admin bit is rising. How many are using the bit is another thing again! Pedro :  Chat  11:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, okay. I was kind of worried there for a while. Thought something made admins leave in great numbers. So it was just a case of my bad memory for numbers.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this[15] tells me that the number of active administrators has after an increase in 2007 rather fallen over the last weeks.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we easily create a list of the ~550 non-active admins so we can do so research as to why they are inactive? Kingturtle (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough to create, but what value will it serve? They reasons for inactivity will be variously carved up into "pissed of with WP in gerneral", "pissed off with the abuse" "pissed of with the politics" "got a new boy/girlfriend (maybe both?)" "doing my exams" "busy at work" etc. etc. etc. We can't force people to edit, and we can't force admins to use the tools. We have to recognise that we have less than 1,000 active admins and just live with it (or create more admins, obviously!). Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that if they can't be bothered to edit at all, they should have their admin flag removed, so that we have a more accurate number of actual admins. Majorly (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two such lists that I know of: Wikipedia:List of administrators, mentioned above, and User:BetacommandBot/Admin edits, which βC mentioned on WP:BN a few days ago.

Really, for a project like this, I take a contrarian view: I'm impressed that (based on βC's list) approx. 50% of admins have edited in the last day, 2/3 in the last week, and 4/5 since March 1st. Don't have data on frequency of admin actions, but as far as participation is concerned, that's a pretty good participation rate in a voluntary project, isn't it? --barneca (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the raw data on admin actions, timestamps only(but all of them) in my SQL server... I could answer any specific questions if presented in a form that such a DB can answer. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly above, that if admins disappear for 3+ months, they should have their tools removed. Many of these admins are never coming back (some haven't edited Wikipedia in years). Apparently, though, it's a perennial proposal that has been rejected. Enigma ^message Review 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the point? In the case that the admin does not comes back, stripping them of their tools will have no effect on our articles. If they come back for one single admin action, that is a net benefit to the encyclopedia that stripping would remove. If you want better stats, write better programs, don't disable our valuable contributors. Skomorokh 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a year at least rather than a few months. The way I see it, why have a false number of admins? Wizardman 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. If we know an admin isn't coming back, I'd prefer their account not have the tools, that's all. Look at the number of admins that haven't edited in well over a year. It's staggering. I personally don't feel anyone gone for a year or more is suited to come back and resume administrative actions anyway. Enigma ^message Review 15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed views with removing the tools after a period of time, say a year: on one hand, there is a chance that they may not be familiar with policy when they return, but recently, Gator1 has come back after almost two years of inactivity, and he seems to be doing fine. Would removing the tools due to inactivity have been a good idea in his case? I don't think so. That's why I'm not sure removing the tools after some time is a good idea. Acalamari 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, or at least something worth exploring. If an admin comes back after a year, there could be a simple expedient way to re-sysop them, instead of having to do an RfA again. Tan | 39 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone is de-sysopped for inactivity, that would qualify as a non-controversial demotion in my opinion, meaning that any 'crat could restore the bit. Personally, I'd be fine with a system that removed the bit after a year (give or take) of inactivity, and would restore it to any editor who was active again for a month's time (giving them an opportunity to get reacquainted with the site) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Look at the number of admins that haven't edited in well over a year. It's staggering." Eh? Doing a quick count at User:BetacommandBot/Admin edits, I get about 90 admins that haven't edited in one year. That's hardly staggering. That's an impressively low number, actually. :) --Conti|✉ 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity should not be grounds for adminship removal. Having to re-activate admin tools later only adds to the remedial task lists that we should be working on thinning out. Kingturtle (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone has gone for a year, it'll be very unlikely they'll return (some have, but a tiny amount). Considering the number of bureaucrats, and the tiny amount of users that may return, it's hardly a difficult task. Additionally, there are several users who have gone for more than a year who have specifically said they were not coming back, or were retired. I don't see it as an issue. We're just keeping admins for the sake of keeping them, and I don't see any point in doing that. Majorly (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. How many admins in the history of this site have been gone for over a year and then returned? I'd bet it's less than 10. And if someone leaves the site and says they're sick of it, they're retiring, they're never coming back, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume they're not lying. :) I would fully support this, and saying it's adding more work is not a very good reason. It's very quick, and it's something that very rarely happens. Enigma ^message Review 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if for no other reason than that I find it strange that we don't have an inactivity policy, whereas several other projects do (most notably, in my mind, being Commons and Meta). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as they don't have to go through another RFA if they do come back, I don't see a problem with this. --Kbdank71 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A simpler version could be that inactive admins (who haven't edited in three months or so) are removed from the active list but still retain the bit. That way we don't have the worrying that the admins might come back and then start asking for their bit back (which is already relatively simple, unless in exceptional cases) but the list is more up to date? (Apologies if this has been proposed before). Rudget (review) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Inactive admins are removed from the active list and retain the bit currently. 30 edits in last 3 months required to be "Active. Enigma ^message Review 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rudget just proposed the current system...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

:) Apologies. I don't spend that much time monitoring the list so I don't how that refreshes itself and whatnot. Rudget (review) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed time and time again if we should de-sysop admins for not editing for a period of time and it has been rejected each time. Now I know consensus can change, but that usually coincides with some other sort of change, and I have not seen that yet. For the record, I am opposed to desysoping anyone who has not abused their tools. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OK then, let's look at this. The main reason folks don't want an inactive account with sysop status lingering around is in case someone hacks it (right?) and does something like delete the mainpage etc. Therefore past history should reflect this. Now as far as I am aware, most of the shenanigans have occurred with accounts that have been more or less active until the time they went 'rogue' (?). Ultimately I am not in favour of removing sysop rights from inactive admins as I think it is an extremely rare occurrence. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Other than the minor niggle of having to do a bit of mental arithmetic to workout how many active admins we have, I'm failing utterly to see the value in desysopping. Desysopping for inactivity = more process as a steward will have to check that the admin has indeed not edited and then push a button (yeah, we could get a bot to check the times, but the steward would still need to double check the bot). In the (albeit unlikely) event the admin comes back 'crats have to waste time checking the desysop was non-controversial before pressing the button. Given that the developers have stated that an inactive account is a far lower risk than an active one for being compromised the only vague reason for desysopping due to inactivy is that the admin will no longer be "in touch" with current policy. Given that we select admins for their judgement one would assume a long inactive admin would have the judgement to reacquaint themselves with policy. Essentialy, to argue for a desysopping procedure for this reason seems to me to just add process with exactly zero net benefit, so why even bother? This is all perenial anyway, as noted abovePedro :  Chat  20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Must admit that I cannot see the point in "removing the bit" from inactive admins. They will have their reasons for inactivity, and quite often I'd imagine will come back. I say that as somebody who was inactive for at least 8 months. If an admin truly has had enough and wants to revoke the status then it's trivial for them to do so. There is no harm done whatsoever by an inactive admin bit. Thanks/wangi (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. From what I gather from the discussion above: The benefit of doing this is to make the number of admins posted places more accurate. Well, technically, the number of admins we have posted is perfectly accurate. Leaving doesn't make you not an admin, at least not unless this system is implemented. What you want is the number of active admins, which is easily available anyway. The cost of doing this is extra work, even if minimal, for the stewards and 'crats. I don't see how this makes any sense at all. It is more work for a very tangential benefit that is not particularly helpful. I'm not going to bother refuting the assertion that more admin accounts equals a greater probability that one will get hacked as it is utterly nonsensical.--Dycedarg ж 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead, why not have someone who knows what they're doing create an accurate Template:NUMBEROFACTIVEADMINS, and then the one benefit to this idea would be provided. --barneca (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for joining the conversation so late (it's been a busy day), but I'd also have to agree that it would serve no purpose to remove the tools from inactive admins, it's not like we have a limited number of permitted sysops. However, a list of active admins, as compiled by BetaCommandbot, is quite useful. Useight (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it was not necessarily intended, but this conversation is now being cited as a reason to oppose an adminship candidate who does not plan to be very active. This is a very counterproductive result. Antandrus has observed: "Many people, leaving the project, blame either the project or the people working on it for their departure, rather than recognizing that it is normal in life for one's enthusiasm to wane. It does with all things that we once found exciting. This is neither pessimistic nor tragic: one needs always to find new exciting things to do. All things in life change and end, and this includes one's involvement with Wikipedia. "He who kisses the joy as it flies/lives in eternity's sunrise." (William Blake, "Eternity") Enjoy it while you are here, and enjoy what you do after you are gone." There's nothing more that needs to be said, really, but please don't allow a good candidate to be scuppered for some illogical desire to increase a meaningless percentage of activity. --JayHenry (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this conversation could be cited for that, and please link to what you're referring to. Enigma ^message Review 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly not make this up!  :) See here --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone (e.g Majorly) contacted inactive admins and asked them to consider a voluntary desysop? I'd say chances are some would be willing if you explained to them the situation about numbers and that they could be resysopped anytime, etc. John Reaves 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start on it right away. Contacting Clifford. LC doesn't have an e-mail on record, so can't reach him. Enigma ^message Review 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of them don't even have an e-mail address on file, making it difficult to contact them. Enigma ^message Review 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

None of them have valid e-mails on file. Must've been a different system back then. I tried the ones who've been inactive since 2006 and earlier, and any e-mail attempt results in a "no email address" message. Enigma ^message Review 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Clifford agreed to desysop. He didn't know he still had an account. I guess I'll e-mail a 'crat? Enigma ^message Review 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback , Probationers and Flagged Revisions

I think that is commonly accepted that flagged rollback has been a success (its three month review is up this week). As discussed above in "A simpler approach" sysops are able to grant user rights in a new way. Has it set a precedent? Flagged revisions will be rolled out sometime within the year, beta testing has been going on for months and it is seen as the way forward to keep wikipedia respectable and avoid criticism of it being a minefield of truthiness.

My personal feelings are that users with "reviewer" status (not sure what the term will be) will be another elite handed out by a single sysop to anybody who makes the most convincing argument. Whereby rollback was really no more serious than having Twinkle, flagged revisions are going to be the most important thing that has hit Wikipedia with different levels of who decides what is ok and what is bad.

Rights traditionally have been given by consensus, ok maybe it is time to reform RFA, (no self noms, no project noms being largely overlooked lately). However handing out candy without consensus can't ever be good for the project. Yes editors do consider it as candy, a reward for staying clean of dispute and notching up 30,000 edits in 3 months with 10 GAs they stumbled across at peer review and 15 DYK on articles most other editors would have cleaned without ever submitting. Fortunately we have Rfa to weed out editors who game that kind of system - but can one or two sysops be able to if they are given a choice of x should be able to flag revisions? I dunno. The rollback precedent sucks and must never be used for probationers and especially not for flagged revisions. -- BpEps - t@lk 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Errr... forgive me for not been up to speed here but I'm not sure what you're tring to communicate. "...time to reform Afd, (no self noms...." - I'm not sure why anyone would nominate their own article for deletion? Hardly seems likely! Can you give some pointers as to the thrust and meaning of your arguments, and quite why they relate to RFA; or just hit me with a stick if I'm being thick (probably the latter) Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a typo: "Afd" should read "RFA". --barneca (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)This is true typo Afd -> RFA (Georgia always on my mind) sorry corrected -- BpEps - t@lk 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be more in keeping with the rest of the context!! Thanks Barneca Has anyone got a link to the flagged revisions development? (on meta I think I remember seeing something, but I can't find it) Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I caught that (the typo), however, exactly what are we discussing here...the cynical drawbacks of bureaucracy? As long as there exists a hierarchy of user rights on Wikipedia, elitism will always run rampant - among a select few that is. Rollback was/is a contentious issue, but I don't really feel as though this will push candy feeding wiki policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Original concept is here though there are a couple of others on meta which work much better. If I can find you the others will post. -- BpEps - t@lk 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bpeps Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks an awful lot like an attempt to poison the well after a bit of sour grapes involving rollback. Mr.Z-man 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Z-man has this right. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Z-Man speaketh the truth. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading that at WP:ANI a little while back - it didn't immediately click. I don't want to sound rude, but given what was said ad infinitum in that thread, why is it being dredged up again, and here at WT:RFA? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon this isn't sour grapes - I discussed Flag RB before I applied Vandal problems with inexperienced users and here a "grant" on Wikia and probably a few other times that day. I didn't support it. The reason it is dredged up is because non-consensus decisions are a new turn in the way Wikipedia has operated. It certainly is relevant if ideas like probationers are even considered. -- BpEps - t@lk 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Where are the consensuses formed on WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, or WP:PROD? RFA and deletion debates are the only regular processes that use consensus. Oversight and checkuser are handed out often without even notifiying the community. ArbCom elections are a vote (does voting count as consensus?) but the final decision still rests with Jimbo and the people with the highest percentages are elected, even if that percentage is lower than what would be considered "consensus" on RFA. Almost every software change is made without voting or informing the community. You say that rollback has commonly been seen as a success then basically say that everyone who thinks that is wrong? I would also suggest that you go review the proposed system for flagged revisions. There are 2 levels of flaggers. In the current suggested system, the right to flag a revision as "sighted" (given a basic check, free of vandalism) will be given very liberally, possibly even automatically. "Reviewer" rights will be used far less frequently (if at all) on FAs and GAs. The actual implementation has not been decided yet, but people who barely understand how it works complaining about how horrible it will be (and randomly combining it with totally unrelated adminship proposals) certainly doesn't help things. Mr.Z-man 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has rules who can vote. AIV, RFPP and PROD are trusted to editors who have gone through consensus rigorously to make those decisions. Flaggers and Sighters, who will know the eventual proposal, my argument is that flagged revision rights should not be given in the way flagged rollback rights have been given. Do I have to explain more? -- BpEps - t@lk 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say you don't have to explain more, though that would depend on your goal. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The request number

The previous rfa for Slgrandson was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slgrandson/archive. I thought standard new requests were meant to go as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slgrandson, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slgrandson 2 etc. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

They are. Majorly (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All fixed up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

EVula to the rescue! :) Acalamari 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A bathrobe just isn't the same as a cape... EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I can finally say it. EVula is the shit sysop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that's supposed to be a compliment, but it sure doesn't sound like one. And yes, I've heard the phrase before. Useight (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, see #Some specific rules above; it's an inside joke at this point. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Useight. I shoulda explained myself better. Or completely refrained woulda been a good idea. Or gone to EVula's talkpage. Or put a smiley face in there. I'm the a shit sysop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA process

Good grief. I had no idea RfA's go through this heavy scrutiny. It sure makes me glad that adminship is not taken lightly. Still, I would probably think it over real hard before RfA'ing if I have to go through all this . Thanks to all who take the time to ask, review, and comment on these nominations. It sure does help Wikipedia stay as clean as possible! ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Try admin coaching first. It'll give you more confidence in yourself, and it'll help you develop your editing habits. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

kmweber

As has been confirmed in numerous RfC's, numerous complaints on AN/I, and an arbcom appeal Kurt has the right to to oppose people for whatever reason he choses to do so. His position is well known and the 'crats will apply the appropriate weight to his !votes. The constant harassment of him and others who share his opinion however, is (IMHO) unacceptable. I have seriously considered starting an RfC against people who mock him. His !votes only become disruptive because others make it a point to attack him. Simply ignore his vote and move on.Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, in complete agreement on this "issue". That's what I do, and it works well for me. Though I will say publically for the first time that while I do not agree with his reasoning, Kurt has the right to express his opinion without anyone else jumping his case. ArcAngel (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless it bothers him (or he wants to initiate an RfC), I'd say it's OK. Most of the comments against him/his votes are totally useless. So I agree the comments towards him are wrong, but they aren't "unacceptable", rather, just unintelligent. If any comment harrases or insults him in an extreme way, then it should be handled. A blanket rule against comments against KMweber wouldn't work, and would be impossible to enforce. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. I'll co-certify an RfC even if warranted. Dihydrogen Monoxide has a great essay about this. here. Changed my perception completely (I used to be a mocker). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on my talkpage. :-S Lradrama 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Balloonman in that Kurt should be allowed to comment however he likes, it's been noticed by several people that for the most part, the ones that reply to Kurt are almost always different people. Therefore, leaving a note here, where it's likely going to be unread by whoever next replies to Kurt, is not really all that productive. I'd say we should just give the same amount of attention to Kurt's replies as much as to Kurt himself. GlassCobra 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, sadly. It's a stupid situation that gets generated every time he !votes, and nothing here is going to have any bearing on it. Perhaps a generic "this user always leaves this comment" template, single to {{spa}} (but without the negative connotations), and a strict no-drama rule about responses (ie: anything going "why..." gets removed and let the editor know). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt knows that his opinion is unpopular. While any comments that cross the line into personal attacks or incivility should be dealt with, Wikipedia is not a utopia of niceness where we suppress all negativity. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Kurt himself expressed any sort of offront or defensiveness? I don't think he cares. Why does this issue constantly come up? Just make a mental note and forget it. Constantly trying to defend Kurt when he doesn't do it himself is tiresome. Let people draw their own conclusions about the nature of the responder, we know what the 'crats will do. Tan | 39 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think his April 1st RfA was a spot on response to how he feels about RfA. Read all about it here. Hilarious, I say again! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, good stuff. Really just supports my point though that he doesn't take offense at people "harassing" him about his template response. We spend WAY too much time and effort discussing this. So what if someone says something negative about him? It just looks poor for that user. I think it's exactly this sort of conversation that has made this into such a big deal. Mountain/molehill/etc. Tan | 39 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(2 e.c.) I totally agree with Balloonman. As much as some of us detest his oppose comments, the treatment he gets in return is unnecessary and not AGF'ing. Comments like this are very unnecessary IMO, and like the rest of us, Kurt is entitled to a Freedom of Speech. D.M.N. (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A brief jab with a smiley face next to it? The comment wasn't useful, but that one in particular doesn't even violate wp:civil. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)While I'm sure you mean only the best D.M.N., and while I agreew ith your thoughts, I'm not sure it's fair to single out one response to Kurt's opposes. There have been hundreds of similar responses. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment wasn't done to single out a particular comment. D.M.N. (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At first, Kurt used to bother me, and I've probably stirred the pot a few times myself with the issue, but I agree that something needs to be done. We accuse him of attacking others, when our actions towards him classify as attacking as well. I agree with Keeper and EVula's thoughts. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Balloonman has a fair point. Kmweber's opposes are stupid, basically, but I admit I am one of the people who just make it worse by confronting him. He doesn't engage in discussion on the matter, and doesn't take notice anyway. I do however think that he, rather than us, are in the wrong, because he clearly does not read through the RfAs, but I am now vowing to ignore him in the future. Thankyou Balloonman, this discussion has been most useful. Lradrama 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

His opinion is merely different from others; I don't think that the obligation to ignore that fact is his. It's very easy to ignore someone's comments; it takes much more effort to actually respond to them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lra, this isn't suggesting that making an intelligent comment in reply to his oppose wouldn't be allowed, it's suggesting comments like this are useless and just disrupt RfAs. In it, you take up Kurt as the issue, not the vote, and then you make a blanket statement about him that is in fact false. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with Kmweber's opposes. If that's how he feels, so be it. People should be able to oppose in an RfA without other editors making mocking comments as their support rationales. If you're going to support a candidate, do so because of the candidate's strengths and not because you disagree with or don't like an opposer, just as no one should oppose or continue to oppose to spite a supporter. In any instance in which I have ever opposed, but changed to neutral or support, I did so when the candidate politely persuaded me that they could be a good admin. Sarcasm from supporters does not convince those in the oppose sections to change their mind; it only adds to the wikidrama and sometimes escalates. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)