Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 115

Archive 110

←

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

→

Archive 120

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hornetwoman17

Should this be deleted? I would have opposed, but I wanted to avoid hell. I don't even believe in it, but still, this is pretty blatant POV pushing. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Thanks, Carribean H.Q.! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Tell me this is not a sock of the banned editor, User:Hornetman16? Has he, like, grown up year and changed his sex?? - Alison ^❤ 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I filed a RFCU (wrongly, I bet). Take a look, its Hornetman16_2. ^Avruchtalk 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Alison, he must have. Acalamari 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You must not remember that gender is not genetic, it is a state of mind. the_undertow ^talk 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not! Unless Hornetman has moved as well as changed gender. And remember, we all should applaud her for coming out so spectacularly like that. Mind you, she's still banned :) - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - I'm going to hell! (Or not, Jews are exempt from stuff like that :-P). ^Avruchtalk 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would bet it's an impersonator, not a sock ... just my guess from looking at the (now deleted) RFA - Hornetman16 would know to capitalize God. --B (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep me a place, too, just in case. And if the Jewish G-d was the right one, please put in a good word for me. I'm nice really!! :) - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like an impersonator than anything else. --Deskana (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-Nomination: sahilm

This is a self nomination for the user " Sahilm " to become an adminsitrator for the following reasons:

As we all know wikipedia is a place where we all like truthful information but there are people who like to vandilize the pages. As fast as our current administrators work, when we find a person who, as per looking up history, continues to vandilize after numerous warnings, we want them blocked from editing. As you may know it could take months for the request to be processed and because of that the perpitrator has already caused more damage.

I want to stop vandels and help Wikipedia!

Thank You Sahilm (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand you're desire, but it is with greatest sincerity that I ask you not to consider this. I've had a flick through your contributions, and it's okay but there are only 6. It may also be of use to advise you that requests go on here, but you'll have had to create it beforehand. Rudget. 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as Rudget said above me, this isn't the place to request adminship. You're almost right, as this is the talk page, but you'll want to see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and the place to find the nomination forms is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. However, upon looking at your contributions, I don't believe you'll pass an RfA at this stage: I don't like to editcount, but you only have a small amount of edits: two are to sandboxes, one was a good-faith report to ANI which should have gone to WP:AIV instead, and few are to the mainspace. Before you request adminship, my suggestion is that you edit Wikipedia for a few months first, edit some articles to gain experience there (you can edit whatever subject interests you), participate in deletion discussions, familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines, and continue to remove vandalism. You appear to be an editor who is willing and eager to learn and help out, and that's a good sign. I hope you'll find this advice helpful. Good luck. Acalamari 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Question numbering in RfA

Has consensus ever been discussed on the numbering of "optional questions" on RfAs? I've noticed some that have the 1,2,3, for the standards and then start at 1 again for the first "user question" while others start at 4. Not trying to be petty, but it seems that some editors like to support or oppose based an a particular question's answer and they'll say "per A6" or "Per Q1", which of course can be ambiguous. (Maybe this is coming out of my experience with WP:DPL, I don't know...) So, is the fourth question #4, or is it #1? Keeper | 76 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They should be renumbered for clarity's sake, you're right. Unfortunately, speaking strictly for myself, I never thought to do that until just now. I'm not sure if it would make sense for there to be a section specifically requesting continuous numbering, but the proposal to have such certainly makes sense. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably the main culprit here recently - since I usually always ask the same initial questions regarding things you can't really pick up from an edit review, I've written them into a page and transclude that page. It doesn't seem like its been a real problem, people just refer to "Avruch's #4." If its an issue I can just renumber them when I post them, no big deal. ^Avruchtalk 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If I see it in the future (and I'll be watching you like a 3-eyed hawk, Avruch:-) I'll just change it without fuss, unless of course someone does exactly what you just said, which is say "Avruch's #4". I won't be going around changing anyone's comments, and therefore, I won't be changing the numbering either. A minor issue at best, but thanks for your response/confession! Cheers, Keeper | 76 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Keeper, that for clarity's sake, 4, 5, 6, and so on is preferred. Really, though, it is not a big deal. SorryGuy  Talk  03:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing

Are editors allowed to close RfAs, not just admins?

I recommend early closure of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do not have to be a bureaucrat or an administrator to close a SNOW RfA. However, it's courteous to let the candidate know why their RfA was closed early rather than just marking it as closed as SNOW and not informing them. Acalamari 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for obviously bad faith / bad idea RFAs (ie, a brand new user making an RFA so he can block his best friend), non-crats shouldn't be snowing them. 5-19 is overwhelming, but not so much so that a well-reasoned argument couldn't potentially turn it around. There are occasionally RFAs where the "namespace balance" crowd starts opposing in bulk because someone only has 387 WP:space edits and 387 is below someone's magic number of 400. In those, there is too much potential for it to turn around for a non-crat to make the decision. --B (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: there are some SNOW cases where it was best that a bureaucrat closed the RfA rather than an admin, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov 3. With disruptive RfAs, they are normally deleted. Acalamari 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How long do admin reqs run through before they are closed early? Simply south (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to close Rdgoodermote as snowed? ^Avruchtalk 15:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I feel a great amount of sympathy, I agree. Rudget. 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned RfA

I noticed that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/aezook was created by User:aezook on the 15th, and has not been edited since. It is not linked to from any page, including the main RfA listing. I presume it is an error, edit or template test, or other mal-formed request, but wanted to bring the item here for further evaluation. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are additional RFA's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zook7792, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/zook1992, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aezook, none accepted. The Aezook RfA was created by User:Zook7792, but the questions were answered by User:aezook. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many pages like this. Sometimes people start RfA pages and then decide not to go through with the nomination. They don't cause any harm. Though, this particular person seems to be creating RfA pages frivalously. Epbr123 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion question

Stupid question perhaps - is it really necessary for WP:RFA to have the full text of each RfA instead of the link? I'm sure there was a reason for it initially, perhaps so that you could watchlist the page and get all the changes? I'm just not sure that is really enough reason to have a gigantic page, wouldn't it be easier just to have links to each individual active RfA? ^Avruchtalk 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the full text, as it gives me information about the candidates right there. I guess that's a lame excuse, but yeah, I like full text. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisting the page only lets you know about the addition and removal of transcluded links, and of course any changes to the surrounding text. I like the full text as well--it lets me scan through, pick RfAs to contribute to and watch others without having to formally watchlist individual RfAs. I'm sure I would feel differently if I had a slower connection. Darkspots (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See, since I have a quick connection, I'd prefer the links to RfA's. нмŵוτнτ 00:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a quick connection, and I prefer all of the text in one place. I think it is just easier.   jj137 ^♠ 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I do think the page is teh suck. It's long and I hate scrolling. Someone who's been here longer than me can probably explain why it hasn't changed, but I agree with Avruch. the_undertow ^talk 01:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can find links and status at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. Many users transclude it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dood. That's srsly what the RfA page should look like. Good link. the_undertow ^talk 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got the Tangobot report, I'm just not sure why the state of the RfA main page is necessary. Its huge, its slow for people with slow or medium size connections, and uh, why? But I guess some people do scroll through the whole thing, I'm surprised at that. ^Avruchtalk 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I have a relatively fast connection, and I guess personally, I don't need the entire thing there. Would there be a way to make the discussion section of an RfA it's own subpage transcluded onto the RfA itself, and also onto the main RfA page? Or the other way around, with the nomination statement and question/answer part transcluded, but I think that would be less useful. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I use both Tangobot and the main page. Generally, if I am looking for RfAs which I am going to contribute to, I look at Tangobot (because I generally only comment on the unanimous or near unanimous RfAs if I actually know the user in question). However, I am also like to scroll through the entire list, even if they are RfAs that I do not plan on commenting on. SorryGuy  Talk  03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You lost me there. The purpose of commenting on "unanimous or near unanimous" RfAs is what exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorryguy said "I generally only comment on the unanimous or near unanimous RfAs if I actually know the user in question". I interpreted that as: If the outcome seems certain then I'm not going to spend time investigating the candidate, but I may comment if I already know the candidate and can give an informed opinion without investigating. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, personally, it seems fine as it is at the moment. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA transclusion was added in September 2004. Before that, The RFA's were just added as straight text with no easy way to look up previous nominations. I don't think transclusion was even possible before MediaWiki 1.3 was rolled out to Wikipedia in May 2004. For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the way things are now - I can just use shortcut keys with my screen reader to navigate around the RFA's. Graham87 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PrimeHunter (talk · contribs) - WP:BN is the best way. Rudget. 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, at the moment, there are fifteen RfAs going. It takes some time to load the page. :) Acalamari 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with putting everything past the nom statement in noinclude tags. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

!NoThanks!

I suggest that if you do not wish to receive thank you notes for casting !votes, that you use this page. If enough users use it, candidates will know just what it is for, without causing unnecessary nuisanse to RfA pages. NoSeptember 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Finding this to copy and paste is a lot of hassle to avoid unnecessary hassle. Candidates should realize when their thank-you messages are too devoid of any meaningful content to be worth spamming. –Pomte 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OH, I disagree that the thank yous are meaningless. I always enjoy them. The one's with pictures brighten up my talk page. Checking that list might be a bit cumbersome, though. When I sent out mine, I looked for a hint on the user's talk pages. If there were already thank you's and no message saying not to, I thanked. My civic involvement kind of made it a habit. (If a legislator or powerful member of the public granted us a boon, we were supposed to thank them seven times.) Dlohcierekim 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember guys, once you're sysopped you're allowed to piss people off. That's why you should give out these messages using a bot. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, DHMO, you amaze me with your constant ability to put things in perspective :) - Revolving Bugbear 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

19 current RfAs

Have there been discussions in the past related to possibly limiting the number of active RfAs at one time (or rather, preventing the introduction of new RfAs once a certain threshold has been passed)? It seems to me difficult to get the adequate attention of the community on any one RfA when it is divided 16 (now 19) ways... ^Avruchtalk 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to limit the number of RfAs at one time. Most people don't focus on all the RfAs, and those that do won't be pu off by the fact their are 16+. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

16 is a small amount any way, during October/nOvember '07 is was runnning well over 20 for a couple of weeks. Gnangarra 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An easy way to handle this--if it is in fact a problem--would be to reduce the length of an RfA. Going to six days instead of seven would almost always trim off a couple. Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Or we could get over that stupid canvassing rule and bring more attention to RfAs. Lara❤Love 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe this as 16 concurrent RfAs - that would seem to describe a situation where 16 people ran on the same day. The present ones are quite staggered - the most due to finish on the same day is 4. Even if someone wanted to comment on all of them, they could do so by looking at just 2 RfAs a day over the next week. That doesn't seem very onerous. WjBscribe 17:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, unless you are (for some strange reason!) trying to keep up with the status of all of them by periodically reading through whats going on ;-) (Yes, don't remind me about the RfA report...) ^Avruchtalk 19:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An entire week allows editors plenty of time to read through the RfAs at hand. A day may come in a year or two when the number of RfAs increases to a point that becomes unmanageable. At that point I suggest not limiting the number of RfAs but increasing the RfA nomination period from 7 days to 9 days, giving editors more time to read and decide on the RfAs at hand. Kingturtle (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When I ran, I was the only one. I think fewer at a time is better, actually. Useight (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Another idea would be simply to limit the number of nominations an editor can make in one week. Currently, there are three editors who have three or more nominations on the board. Might it be better if editors were limited to one nomination at a time? Kingturtle (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should we limit nominations? If an editor finds that there are multiple suitable candidates, then by all means the editor should be allowed to nominate all of them. —Kurykh 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Having 19 or 20 nominees at once might not be a big deal. But as Wikipedia grows, can we handle having 100 or 120 nominees at once? Will people have enough time to read all the statements? Will one or two people get through the process who shouldn't? That's what this discussion is about :) Kingturtle (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We can handle that number, though we may have to stop transcluding the separate pages. We might also consider using a rather more efficient process. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Until that actually occurs, your proposal may be a solution looking for a problem, and is hence unneeded, at least at the present time. —Kurykh 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. If you read my thread closely here, I was hypothesizing about solutions down the road, not about what to do about anything now. :) Kingturtle (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. —Kurykh 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two nominations running right now, Jauerback and Stormtracker94, but we just lost User:Rudget and User: Rlevse to retirement, so I'm just trying to make up for that. :) Useight (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope Rlevse and Rudget get things cleared up and make their way back to wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop nominating people if it helps you guys view candidates better :P (actually I wonder myself if I should slow down/stop or not. I mean, I have four up right now.) Wizardman 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats your pass/fail rate? ^Avruchtalk 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was 23 of 28 before January, it's taken a nosedive of late. Wizardman 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Very thankfully, Rlevse returned. Still no sign of Rudget. bibliomaniac15 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

Hello. I know this has beeen discussed too many times before but I just want general, short opinions to the simple question - Why is the standard for adminship so high?. Im not proposing anything. Adminship is a thankless task and not a status. Surely trust and some time on WIkipedia to understand the basics of adminship on wikipedia is all that is required. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you see as "the standard" here? - Revolving Bugbear 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one reason is that the admin tools are very powerful and can do some serious damage, and we really shouldn't just hand out the delete, block, and protect buttons to anyone.   jj137 ^♠ 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Some don't view it as high, but it has to have a highish bar in order to insure that someone has soon to have enough experiance and time to understand our polices and that they will actually help as an admin. We don't want a vandal geting the tools mearly cause they made 2000 good edits. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Its very unlikely that a vandal would bother to make 2000 good edits just to get admin tools. Most vandals are just bored people mucking around. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think the criteria need to be greater than just "not a vandal". There are people who are too belligerent to be good admins, people who have insufficient grasp of policy to do it, people who, while not vandals, are here for some purpose other than building the encyclopedia, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

These days, to be successfully promoted to admin one has to not only have a good grasp of policy, but one has to have strongly contributed to articles, support and promote (and even participate in) featured articles, and be a visionary (none of which IMHO are essential to being an effective admin). Kingturtle (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with your assessment of what should be necessary to be an admin ("not enough mainspace edits" is a rationale you'll never see next to one of my opposes), but I think you're too pessimistic about what's required. My RfA passed unanimously, and I've never so much as contributed to a Good Article, let alone a Featured one. And I have a hard time imagining that anybody considers me a visionary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's encouraging to hear! Kingturtle (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with sarcasticidealist. I as promoted with around 4k contribs and no FAs or GAs. - Revolving Bugbear 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tbo 157 speculates that it is unlikely that anyone would spend the time to make thousands of edits, just to build a record so they could apply for administratorship? Please see KI (talk · contribs)

User:KI was confirmed to have been a sockpuppet of freestylefrappe (talk · contribs).

This individual had multiple sockpuppets on the go, at one time, and was apparently working to get multiple sockpuppets entrusted with administrator authority at once.  :::The Wiki-Id User:Freestylefrappe had two candidacies -- winning administrator authority on the second. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Freestylefrappe and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Freestylefrappe 2. This Wiki-Id was entrusted with administrator authority. This puppet master made two applications to become an administrator for User:KI: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI 2. This puppet master was prepared to devote the time to make almost 3,000 edits -- each--- to provide a credible background for these applications.

I participated in the discussion of the second candidacy of the User:KI account. Most participants either had no reservations about this candidacy, or they thought User:KI would be ready when they had a little more experience as an editor.

Do we know, for a certain fact, that other sockpuppets of this puppet-master did not win the trust of the community to use administrator authority?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is most definitely a fascinating case! Thanks for detailing it. Kingturtle (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That must be a rare case. I don't know why anyone would want to waste that much time trying to gain adminship just to do some vandalism to a website, only to be reverted and blocked after a few edits. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is my bad luck to have the very first {{rfa}} I participated in turned out to be an abusive sockpuppet.

The lesson I took away was that our procedures for choosing administrators are far too lax. I wish I could say I was confident about the judgment or civility of every administrator I have had contact with. I am afraid I can't. In my experience a non-trivial fraction of our current administrators do not demonstrate a willingness to consider the possibility that any of their decisions might have included a lapse in judgment. Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see User:Runcorn... a case where someone apparently did get a sockpuppet account through RFA. --W.marsh 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The standards for admin have increased through the years, and will probably continue to increase. Why this is exactly is worth studying. If you go to Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies you can read nomination discussions of successful requests going back to August 29, 2004. You will see how only two years ago the expectations were a lot less stringent. Kingturtle (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For RfAs going even further back, see User:NoSeptember/RfA chronological. WjBscribe 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard has always been "unlikely to cause harm". It's the standards that judge that that have changed. When I became an admin close to three years ago, I knew 90% of those in the discussion. In a current RfA, I'll know maybe a quarter of that. As Wikipedia grows, the objective criteria also grow. Inevitable, and not necessarily an entirely bad thing. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Standards have gotten high because, despite all the lofty and oft-repeated ideals, there are some admins who behave as governors and gods instead of janitors. Most use the tools as a mop and bucket, but for some they are more akin to machete and bazooka. Requests for adminship is like the immune system of an organism (it's not as if one person or even small group of people has much influence over the whole of the process) trying to stave off illness; the problem is the disease and not the T-cells reacting to it. --JayHenry (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked through RFAs of people who've been involuntarily de-sysopped a while back, to see if any sort of concerns raised at RFA predicted de-sysoppings. There was no correlation whatsoever between RFAs where the main concern was lack of experience or policy knowledge, believe it or not. The only common thread between most RFAs of people who went on to be de-sysoppoed was a concern over civility and related issues. --W.marsh 22:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't actually surprise me. I think it's hard to get desysopped for blunders and mistakes. They just make a lot more work for other sysops. The effect is preventative, in my opinion. - Revolving Bugbear 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have a different way of judging trustworthiness but what is the best way to filter out those who would cause damage. I don't think lack of experienceis a good one to be honest. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Q. "Can you play the piano?"

A. "I don't know, I've never tried."

Lack of experience is one of the best reasons to oppose. Experience of what though, there's the rub. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its not people who can play the piano who we're looking for, but people with the potential to be able to play the piano. Epbr123 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to stretch the analogy probably to breaking point, everyone has the potential to be able to play the piano, but you'd be disappointed to have to watch people learning when you'd paid to see a concert. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if they've become brilliant pianists by the interval. Epbr123 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "watching people go from novice to master in a single sitting" is outside this increasingly stressed analogy. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TOC

The new summary table is nice in principle, but it is a bit ginormous and currently obscures the table of contents. Would it be possible to have a smaller table on the right side of the page, and a table of contents that's visible the moment you click on WT:RFA. Do others agree? --JayHenry (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree having the table here at all. It just reinforces the voting aspect of the thing. The table is to help the 'crats keep a tab on RFA and should be removed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit smaller. Rudget. 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you, a few days ago it sat nicely at the top before the flood. Simply south (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Obscures the table of contents"? What do you mean? It shows up fine on my computer... One sits right atop the other. Are they interfering with each other on your's? нмŵוτнτ 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reduce the width of your browser window. –Pomte 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually just meant that I have to scroll through this enormous numerical table to get to the table of contents. Why can't we put the summary table on the right side of the TOC, like at WP:BN? Or at least put the TOC above the numbers so that it's visible the moment you click on WT:RFA? --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see it on a lot of user pages (mine included). In some cases, it's behind a show/hide link, and that might be appropriate here - it's hidden for those who don't want it here, but can be expanded for those who do. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's too big an issue, but I did move the {{shortcut}} box above the archive section; that should kill at least a little bit of space. Personally, I'd be happy to see the scoreboard go, but that's because I get that information elsewhere, and don't come here for the stats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

19 current RfAs

Have there been discussions in the past related to possibly limiting the number of active RfAs at one time (or rather, preventing the introduction of new RfAs once a certain threshold has been passed)? It seems to me difficult to get the adequate attention of the community on any one RfA when it is divided 16 (now 19) ways... ^Avruchtalk 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to limit the number of RfAs at one time. Most people don't focus on all the RfAs, and those that do won't be pu off by the fact their are 16+. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

16 is a small amount any way, during October/nOvember '07 is was runnning well over 20 for a couple of weeks. Gnangarra 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An easy way to handle this--if it is in fact a problem--would be to reduce the length of an RfA. Going to six days instead of seven would almost always trim off a couple. Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Or we could get over that stupid canvassing rule and bring more attention to RfAs. Lara❤Love 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe this as 16 concurrent RfAs - that would seem to describe a situation where 16 people ran on the same day. The present ones are quite staggered - the most due to finish on the same day is 4. Even if someone wanted to comment on all of them, they could do so by looking at just 2 RfAs a day over the next week. That doesn't seem very onerous. WjBscribe 17:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, unless you are (for some strange reason!) trying to keep up with the status of all of them by periodically reading through whats going on ;-) (Yes, don't remind me about the RfA report...) ^Avruchtalk 19:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An entire week allows editors plenty of time to read through the RfAs at hand. A day may come in a year or two when the number of RfAs increases to a point that becomes unmanageable. At that point I suggest not limiting the number of RfAs but increasing the RfA nomination period from 7 days to 9 days, giving editors more time to read and decide on the RfAs at hand. Kingturtle (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When I ran, I was the only one. I think fewer at a time is better, actually. Useight (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Another idea would be simply to limit the number of nominations an editor can make in one week. Currently, there are three editors who have three or more nominations on the board. Might it be better if editors were limited to one nomination at a time? Kingturtle (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should we limit nominations? If an editor finds that there are multiple suitable candidates, then by all means the editor should be allowed to nominate all of them. —Kurykh 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Having 19 or 20 nominees at once might not be a big deal. But as Wikipedia grows, can we handle having 100 or 120 nominees at once? Will people have enough time to read all the statements? Will one or two people get through the process who shouldn't? That's what this discussion is about :) Kingturtle (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We can handle that number, though we may have to stop transcluding the separate pages. We might also consider using a rather more efficient process. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Until that actually occurs, your proposal may be a solution looking for a problem, and is hence unneeded, at least at the present time. —Kurykh 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. If you read my thread closely here, I was hypothesizing about solutions down the road, not about what to do about anything now. :) Kingturtle (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. —Kurykh 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two nominations running right now, Jauerback and Stormtracker94, but we just lost User:Rudget and User: Rlevse to retirement, so I'm just trying to make up for that. :) Useight (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope Rlevse and Rudget get things cleared up and make their way back to wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop nominating people if it helps you guys view candidates better :P (actually I wonder myself if I should slow down/stop or not. I mean, I have four up right now.) Wizardman 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats your pass/fail rate? ^Avruchtalk 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was 23 of 28 before January, it's taken a nosedive of late. Wizardman 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Very thankfully, Rlevse returned. Still no sign of Rudget. bibliomaniac15 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

Hello. I know this has beeen discussed too many times before but I just want general, short opinions to the simple question - Why is the standard for adminship so high?. Im not proposing anything. Adminship is a thankless task and not a status. Surely trust and some time on WIkipedia to understand the basics of adminship on wikipedia is all that is required. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you see as "the standard" here? - Revolving Bugbear 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one reason is that the admin tools are very powerful and can do some serious damage, and we really shouldn't just hand out the delete, block, and protect buttons to anyone.   jj137 ^♠ 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Some don't view it as high, but it has to have a highish bar in order to insure that someone has soon to have enough experiance and time to understand our polices and that they will actually help as an admin. We don't want a vandal geting the tools mearly cause they made 2000 good edits. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Its very unlikely that a vandal would bother to make 2000 good edits just to get admin tools. Most vandals are just bored people mucking around. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think the criteria need to be greater than just "not a vandal". There are people who are too belligerent to be good admins, people who have insufficient grasp of policy to do it, people who, while not vandals, are here for some purpose other than building the encyclopedia, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

These days, to be successfully promoted to admin one has to not only have a good grasp of policy, but one has to have strongly contributed to articles, support and promote (and even participate in) featured articles, and be a visionary (none of which IMHO are essential to being an effective admin). Kingturtle (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with your assessment of what should be necessary to be an admin ("not enough mainspace edits" is a rationale you'll never see next to one of my opposes), but I think you're too pessimistic about what's required. My RfA passed unanimously, and I've never so much as contributed to a Good Article, let alone a Featured one. And I have a hard time imagining that anybody considers me a visionary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's encouraging to hear! Kingturtle (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with sarcasticidealist. I as promoted with around 4k contribs and no FAs or GAs. - Revolving Bugbear 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tbo 157 speculates that it is unlikely that anyone would spend the time to make thousands of edits, just to build a record so they could apply for administratorship? Please see KI (talk · contribs)

User:KI was confirmed to have been a sockpuppet of freestylefrappe (talk · contribs).

This individual had multiple sockpuppets on the go, at one time, and was apparently working to get multiple sockpuppets entrusted with administrator authority at once.  :::The Wiki-Id User:Freestylefrappe had two candidacies -- winning administrator authority on the second. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Freestylefrappe and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Freestylefrappe 2. This Wiki-Id was entrusted with administrator authority. This puppet master made two applications to become an administrator for User:KI: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI 2. This puppet master was prepared to devote the time to make almost 3,000 edits -- each--- to provide a credible background for these applications.

I participated in the discussion of the second candidacy of the User:KI account. Most participants either had no reservations about this candidacy, or they thought User:KI would be ready when they had a little more experience as an editor.

Do we know, for a certain fact, that other sockpuppets of this puppet-master did not win the trust of the community to use administrator authority?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is most definitely a fascinating case! Thanks for detailing it. Kingturtle (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That must be a rare case. I don't know why anyone would want to waste that much time trying to gain adminship just to do some vandalism to a website, only to be reverted and blocked after a few edits. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is my bad luck to have the very first {{rfa}} I participated in turned out to be an abusive sockpuppet.

The lesson I took away was that our procedures for choosing administrators are far too lax. I wish I could say I was confident about the judgment or civility of every administrator I have had contact with. I am afraid I can't. In my experience a non-trivial fraction of our current administrators do not demonstrate a willingness to consider the possibility that any of their decisions might have included a lapse in judgment. Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see User:Runcorn... a case where someone apparently did get a sockpuppet account through RFA. --W.marsh 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The standards for admin have increased through the years, and will probably continue to increase. Why this is exactly is worth studying. If you go to Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies you can read nomination discussions of successful requests going back to August 29, 2004. You will see how only two years ago the expectations were a lot less stringent. Kingturtle (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For RfAs going even further back, see User:NoSeptember/RfA chronological. WjBscribe 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard has always been "unlikely to cause harm". It's the standards that judge that that have changed. When I became an admin close to three years ago, I knew 90% of those in the discussion. In a current RfA, I'll know maybe a quarter of that. As Wikipedia grows, the objective criteria also grow. Inevitable, and not necessarily an entirely bad thing. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Standards have gotten high because, despite all the lofty and oft-repeated ideals, there are some admins who behave as governors and gods instead of janitors. Most use the tools as a mop and bucket, but for some they are more akin to machete and bazooka. Requests for adminship is like the immune system of an organism (it's not as if one person or even small group of people has much influence over the whole of the process) trying to stave off illness; the problem is the disease and not the T-cells reacting to it. --JayHenry (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked through RFAs of people who've been involuntarily de-sysopped a while back, to see if any sort of concerns raised at RFA predicted de-sysoppings. There was no correlation whatsoever between RFAs where the main concern was lack of experience or policy knowledge, believe it or not. The only common thread between most RFAs of people who went on to be de-sysoppoed was a concern over civility and related issues. --W.marsh 22:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't actually surprise me. I think it's hard to get desysopped for blunders and mistakes. They just make a lot more work for other sysops. The effect is preventative, in my opinion. - Revolving Bugbear 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have a different way of judging trustworthiness but what is the best way to filter out those who would cause damage. I don't think lack of experienceis a good one to be honest. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Q. "Can you play the piano?"

A. "I don't know, I've never tried."

Lack of experience is one of the best reasons to oppose. Experience of what though, there's the rub. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its not people who can play the piano who we're looking for, but people with the potential to be able to play the piano. Epbr123 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to stretch the analogy probably to breaking point, everyone has the potential to be able to play the piano, but you'd be disappointed to have to watch people learning when you'd paid to see a concert. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if they've become brilliant pianists by the interval. Epbr123 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "watching people go from novice to master in a single sitting" is outside this increasingly stressed analogy. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TOC

The new summary table is nice in principle, but it is a bit ginormous and currently obscures the table of contents. Would it be possible to have a smaller table on the right side of the page, and a table of contents that's visible the moment you click on WT:RFA. Do others agree? --JayHenry (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree having the table here at all. It just reinforces the voting aspect of the thing. The table is to help the 'crats keep a tab on RFA and should be removed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit smaller. Rudget. 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you, a few days ago it sat nicely at the top before the flood. Simply south (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Obscures the table of contents"? What do you mean? It shows up fine on my computer... One sits right atop the other. Are they interfering with each other on your's? нмŵוτнτ 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reduce the width of your browser window. –Pomte 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually just meant that I have to scroll through this enormous numerical table to get to the table of contents. Why can't we put the summary table on the right side of the TOC, like at WP:BN? Or at least put the TOC above the numbers so that it's visible the moment you click on WT:RFA? --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see it on a lot of user pages (mine included). In some cases, it's behind a show/hide link, and that might be appropriate here - it's hidden for those who don't want it here, but can be expanded for those who do. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's too big an issue, but I did move the {{shortcut}} box above the archive section; that should kill at least a little bit of space. Personally, I'd be happy to see the scoreboard go, but that's because I get that information elsewhere, and don't come here for the stats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

seth dalorane

have any of you people looked at the page for seth daloane and have any of you tried to put him on the ballot for adminship that is why i think that i should put the link up here so that you people will notice a great canidate for adminship Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seth Dalorane Ryan M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth dalorane (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, at present, that your request will be successful. I also note that the history function of the wiki indicates that almost every edit on the page, including 5 support !votes, one neutral, and one oppose, were all made by you. I don't think it's disruptive, but it does look rather silly, don't you think? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit, however, seems ill-advised, as admin candidates who threaten to destroy the wiki are usually unsuccessful. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused at the DethMe0w !vote, though, have to say. ^Avruchtalk 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Also I might suggest the page and diffs with real name be evaluated for oversight to protect the PI of a probable minor). ^Avruchtalk 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. Its most likely a joke nomination (given attempted fake comments from the user requesting adminship). I have told them that if they really want to be an admin, they have to do things slightly differently. --Deskana (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Only slightly. ;) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I note for the record Seth dalorane's indef block for vandalism, which will put a bit of a dampener on his admin aspirations. Bencherlite^Talk 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

!!Vote

I think the time has come to end the use of the term "!Vote". It is silly and inaccurate. It makes sentences awkward and disguises the real meaning. Instead, I think we should start using the term "!!Vote", pronounced, "Not-not-vote". It's NOT not-a-vote. This is more accurate because, as we all know, while RFA and AFD and ...FD are not a vote, we also know that they are not NOT a vote. Clarity is something we strive for at Wikipedia, and I think this is the obvious next step toward that goal. We might also want to create a task-force to enforce use of the term, user warning templates for those that choose to rebel against this move for the greater good, and an administrator panel to determine whether each future application of the term fits within the given guidelines. Renesis (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just use the word vote to mean what we mean when we say vote, !vote, or even !!vote. People end up sounding really awkward when they avoid or mutate the word. Just document the etymology somewhere so everyone is on the same page. –Pomte 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "!vote" is also employed sort of ironically, because of what you (Renesis) have just pointed out. - Revolving Bugbear 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke. RFA is a vote, and people should just use vote. Instead of making things complicated. Majorly (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the term ¡vote, metaphysically signifying its simultaneous existence as vote, and not-vote. Or, in cases where you really feel strongly about your ¡vote, you can call it a "¡vote!" ¿Bueno?--barneca (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is quite silly, comparable to uncyclopedia:Holocaust denial, uncyclopedia:Holocaust denial denial, and uncyclopedia:Holocaust denial denial denial. bibliomaniac15 21:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget uncyclopedia:Holocaust denial denial denial denial. bibliomaniac15 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've generally found the best words to be "comment", "input" or "discussion" none of which need an exclamation mark in front of them. On a side note I'm !delighted to see Majorly and I are back in disagreement. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I'm not in a good mood for arguing :( Majorly (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The (unblued) point being that you're in a !good mood for arguing. :) Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• I am intrigued by this idea, but it sounds complicated and will probably require the formation of a committee or project to implement. . .not to mention a mini-committee that can settle disputes as they arise (A Mini-Arbitration Committee if you will, aka the Mini-mi). By the way, I have to ask, is there a poll on this idea anywhere? ¡Jokingly, R. Baley (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I !just !shot !diet !Mountain !Dew !out !my !nose. !Thanks a !lot, R. Baley. Keeper | 76 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all here! Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I !agree. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary (decent version) defines "vote" as a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action. It also defines "consensus" as general agreement. At present the WP:RFA header has the word vote included zero times. It has the word consensus twice. If it's a vote, cool, but let's change the header. Until then, we're going to argue semantics. And if it's a vote we also put a hard and fast percentage (it will never be agreed what percentage of course, so I say 79.85555536363554353653% to set the ball rolling) on a pass, we also agree neutral has no value, we also agree "moral support" is either a support or no value, and we also put about 1,000 admins into the Beaureaucrat group, because in the event of RfA being a straight vote the 'crats only purpose will be renaming users and adding a bot flag. Pedro :  Chat  23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the RfA process much more resembles caucusing than voting. - Revolving Bugbear 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument would carry so much weight if you could point to even one example where a candidate passed RfA with less the 50% of the votes. As it is, it's just fiddling with the deck chairs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. Chuck me the diff where I mentioned the 50% thing will you? Athenian Deomcracy and voting aren't the same you know ! Pedro :  Chat  23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said that you did mention the 50% thing. I'm just making the rather obvious point that this pretence of !voting is simply that, a pretence. Being a closing bureaucrat on RfA's is not exactly a very taxing job I'd suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the comment I was to make here to you talk page, as this is clearly not the place for personal disagreements. Pedro :  Chat  00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me there. In what sense was my disagreement with what you said personal? Did I make any personal remarks? As I note that you have now done on my talk page, rather disappointingly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that from now on we use the term VOTE. In other words, I've never felt the need to use anything other than the term "vote" to express what happens at RFA, even though it does not have the normal characteristics of a vote. --Deskana (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. And all these debates about vote/not vote are really getting old. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Deskana, for being !narrow minded. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean NARROW minded? --Deskana (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

!NO, course not. ;D. Malinaccier (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never used the word vote. I've always written it "I've indented your vote comment to the support section of the RFA" or some degree (or try to as much as possible) to remind myself of the quixotic nature of Wikipedia's DDV. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. A rose by any other name. Call it whatever you want. But don't hide it behind the pretense of a discussion. When I'm sitting around, getting hammered with the homeboys/girls this weekend, and we're having a discussion about something, who the hell is going to add 'support, neutral, or oppose'? Discussions are conversations. Votes are Ya's or Na's. Just because you 'per nommed' it doesn't make it a discussion. It's vote - and an exclamation mark is not absolution for you !sins. This user uses the 'vote' with pride and understanding. the_undertow ^talk 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside, I strongly agree with Deskana and those others above that we should remove the stigma associated with the word "vote". RFA is a vote, a vote where the outcome is simply not decided by numbers alone. -- Renesis (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But.... how will we determine just whom it is that will be on the patrolling committee? I suggest we put it to a (*^{!!!Vote/?\}|+)). JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two words... Electoral College. *ducks* UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Now it's time for the cabal to rise and the popular vote to be discounted! bibliomaniac15 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

!Who !gives !a !shit (disclaimer, it's not actually a shit, it's a !shit). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

!yoicks! That was !rude!. Dlohcierekim 05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused, does that mean it wasn't actually rude? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was !very rude. ! :D --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only person in this talk page who isn't mindlessly intoxicated...? — DarkFalls ^talk 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably. By the way, I agree with Deskana. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

O yeah. That's a given. the_undertow ^talk 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DHMO and Deskana. Anyone who has been around long enough to tale part in these discussions learns pretty fast that it is not a simple matter of talying votes, that it is a discussion. However, tradition, going back to changing VfD to AfD is against us. Dlohcierekim 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really; AfD (or VfD) doesn't have a vote counter (or tally, or #, or anything), so there's a greater justification for that rename. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, then you would be able to provide at least one example where a candidate has been promoted with less than 50% of the vote, or not promoted with 100% of the vote. Can you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AHH, good point and good night.05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

<reading out loud>Who... doesn't... not... give... not a .... not shit? Quadruple negative, good job! -- Renesis (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not Not? Who's there? --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather curious

Anybody who speaks Latin know what the following paragraph means?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

It comes from {{RfA}}. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore DHMO's link. The exact translation is as follows;

"And it came to pass that the editor did seek adminship. For it was rumoured that this would bring great gains and fulfilment, and a status exalted above all others save for the mythical beast of 'crat. But the editor had not heeded well words of wisdom. He had mady a dodgy CSD A7 call but twenty seven moons before. And thus his request was rejected by his brethren, and great was his shame and ignomny."

Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  08:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And now I have to change my shirt because I just shot coffee out my nose. !Nice. Didn't know the deadlanguages had a turn of phrase that equals CSD A7... Keeper | 76 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, "CSD A7" was a rather free translation. The phrase Pedro was rendering by "CSD A7", "cillum [...] eu fugiat", literally translates as "the 'zillas will purge it", viz., burn it with fire. In the usage of ancient lexicographers, that phrase referred to a practice more akin to salting than to mere speedy deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for !clearing that up....  :-)Keeper | 76 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Pedro :  Chat  16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I have to clean up the milk I was drinking...it's all over the wall...(pretty good distance through your nose, though...) — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Gesundheit! Dlohcierekim 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean !Gesundheit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, you may want to consider holding your nose while you drink and read Wikipedia at the same time from now on ;) - Revolving Bugbear 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See Pedro, that's why you need to be a 'crat. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the love of spurting Coca-Cola out my nose (which is not a good experience), no. bibliomaniac15 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is why I only drink water at my computer. :) Captain panda 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged canvassing

Earlier today I saw in this RfA what I thought to be some unfair accusations of canvassing. It may well have failed for other reasons, but the accusation certainly didn't help.

But I've been wondering. What is the substantive difference between what was alleged there and placing the {{RfX-notice|User}} on your user/talk pages? Is there any? And why are people just supposed to blindly stumble across RfAs anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is whether one puts a notice such as this up on their own page, or whether they go around to the talk pages of others to put up notices. In the latter case, it's all too easy for a selection bias to be introduced, even if the canvasser is intending to be neutral. In the former case, however, it's all up to whoever might come across the notice. In fact, there might even be a negative bias here, as I know I tend to check out the user pages of people I've had disagreements with a bit more than those I get along with. So one might even argue that someone putting up a notice like this is acting against their own interest. (Of course, this is all based on a sample size of 1, so don't take it with too much weight.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So, as I thought, no difference at all. Just more "happy-clappy" let's do whatever it takes to get those extra tabs.

To be brutally frank, I find the idea of a serving officer in the US Air Force being offered advice on how to conduct himself by a schoolkid to be little short of obscene. Your mileage may vary, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My mileage certainly varies. It is perfectly possible for a school kid to know much more about proper conduct on Wikipedia than a serving officer, and be able to give appropriate advice. If BQZip01 is smart enough to listen to good advice from whoever can give it then he may pass RfA another time. Wikipedia has decided, for good reasons, that canvassing is inappropriate. Candidates are supposed to read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#User notification. If a candidate thinks it's OK to advertise his RfA on selected user talk pages while saying "This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated" [1], then I think he has a poor understanding of canvassing.

Many school kids probably know Wikipedia:User page#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces. Suppose one of them politely advices BQZip01 to remove the false new messages banner, with a link to the relevant guideline. Do you really think that would be "little short of obscene"? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your "I'd have probably supported anyone in the US military" [2], I suggest you give less significance to an editors workplace, as it may have little relationship to their editing. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't verify what editors say about their identity. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the Air Force bit, who an editor is in the real world is 100% irrelevant to how they handle themselves on-wiki. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 8 January 2008

People seem to have drifted away from, or chosen to ignore, the question that I asked at the start of this topic. Curious. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the safest way to go is to do nothing, and say nothing... to anyone, apparently. Hey, I simply put up the standard {{RfX-notice|User}} on my page when I ran, and people objected to even that, somehow! I guess we are just supposed to watchlist the page & regularly check it. However, I've read the Signpost once or twice and seen editors on whom I really would have wished to comment, and be upset that I missed their RfA's. нмŵוτнτ 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have responded to it, but Infophile summed up my thoughts fairly well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as canvassing is concerned, I substantially agree with Malleus Fatuarum. I personally don't think we need to prohibit canvassing in RfAs at all; the people best qualified to judge a candidate are those who have previously worked with that candidate, so I would say that notifying them of a current or upcoming RfA ought to be perfectly acceptable. (Plus, we can't stop people canvassing by email or IRC, so the people who are penalised are those who are honest enough to do it on-wiki.) In a case like this, a few neutrally-worded notifications to other editors are absolutely fine. Walton^One 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some candidates may not canvass those who know them best but instead those who are most likely to support, for example people sharing a POV. Who will be honest enough to canvass somebody who usually criticizes them? And if editors unfamiliar with the RfA process and admin requirements are canvassed at the beginning then an RfA might start with a bunch of supports before anybody has really examined the candidate. Some editors say if they were canvassed so trying to conceal it can make matters worse for the candidate. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing has never bothered me. If the RfA is public, why does the process have to remain a secret? the_undertow ^talk 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Why all the secrecy? Surely the more editors that know about it the better? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the proportion of non-bias voters in an RfA needs to remain as high as possible. If the nominees are allowed to get their friends to vote, the opposers will also be allowed to get their friends to vote, and it will just turn into a battle of who's got the most friends. Epbr123 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So how would be be different to the current RfA process? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. It's true. The consensus is that the only viable voters are those who stumble upon an RfA accidentally. the_undertow ^talk 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside, it will become even more true if canvassing is allowed. Epbr123 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd, isn't it. You tell all your wikifriends - and anyone else that happens to be watching - that you're going to put yourself forwards for an RfA on such-and-such a date. But once that date arrives, you daren't tell anyone else for fear of being accused of canvassing. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, people don't need to be **** and tell everyone that they're going to run for RfA. —Kurykh 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it's interesting how many do. Is that not canvassing? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't a difference between canvassing before and during an RfA. How many have been doing this? Epbr123 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The no canvassing rule really is stupid. In this thing we call life, anytime anyone runs for anything, they're allowed to campaign, no? Not that I want "Vote for X" banners posted, I would like for people I've worked with to let me know they're running for admin. Say they drop a note because they know we share a POV and I'll support. I'm sure people that disagree with that POV will see this RfA alert on my talk page when they come to bitch at me about my POV and then POOF, greater scrutiny on the RfA. The more eyes on RfA, the more that comes out. Personal experience does much more for determining one's qualifications for adminship than some admin-hopeful trolling RfA, skimming contribs, and voting to game the system for their own future RfA. However, more scrutiny would probably just result in more failed RfAs, more stress, fewer applicants, less admins, the destruction of Wikipedia, the end of life as we know it, the sun exploding. A vicious downward spiral of decay. So I guess it's best to leave it alone. Lara❤Love 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Canvassing? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't know my admin request caused such a discussion. I just recently ran across this discussion. For the purposes of clarifying my intent:

1. I certainly did read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#User notification, where it specifically states, "Canvassing for support (asking other editors to vote in your favor) is not recommended." Since I didn't ask for support, this direction does not apply, IMHO.
2. I don't know how explicit I can be. "This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated" pretty quickly shows their support is not the intent of the message. The rest of the message shows gratitude for any positive feedback.
3. As for "I think he has a poor understanding of canvassing." Perhaps you should read WP:CANVASS. It specifically states, "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." This was my intent. This was simply a notification, not an attempt to influence outcome. Otherwise, why would I do this in such a transparent way? I did it almost immediately after submission. Everyone could clearly see that. What happened to WP:AGF?

I believe that those with whom you interact can best help/hinder adminship. There is a very simple way to avoid undue influence on such a discussion, which is what is trying to be avoided in WP:CANVASS: Have users identify when they have been notified; weight on these opinions can be placed accordingly. Would anyone have had a problem if I had stated they should also mention I placed a notice on their talk page?

As for the practical joke, it is humor on my user page. Simple humor is commonplace on user pages and truly disrupts nothing, IMHO. I see no reason to remove it other than to reduce people from whining about some perceived flaw in Wikipedia (truth be told, it has many other serious flaws; to waste time on this one seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill). It isn't the end of the world to have a little levity on someone's user page. This discussion shows how far some people have taken it. No need for such hostility. That said, I simply removed it in the interests of improving dialogue, though I see no consensus for its removal. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are written to reflect what the community thinks. An important part of understanding Wikipedia guidelines is understanding how they are meant and interpreted by the community. Your RfA shows the community (represented by many experienced editors) clearly considered your 14 selected user notifications [3] to be canvassing. Instead of accepting that you continue to do what I will call Wikipedia:Wikilawyering - and that doesn't mean I agree that you followed the letter of WP:CANVASS. You quoted one sentence here and omitted other things speaking against your notifications. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No. While guidelines certainly are supposed to reflect what the community thinks, they should still be clear, precise and fairly applied. BQZip01 did nothing wrong; he acted within the letter of the guideline. If the guideline no longer reflects community consensus, then update the guideline. And I am fed up with people using the word "Wikilawyering" as a term of abuse. In any organised community, it is essential that there should be clear and consistent rules, so that users can guide their conduct in order to comply with the rules. Otherwise we get arbitrary and unfair enforcement. Walton^One 10:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the canvassing rules should be reviewed. I wouldn't mind AT ALL getting a message from an editor that I know or work with that she/he is up for RfA. But I would mind receiving a spam from an editor I didn't know or work with. Kingturtle (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin candidates with a chance have thousands of edits and are probably more or less known by hundreds or thousands of editors. If candidates can choose who to notify then they can pick editors who are likely to support. Who will notify their worst enemy? An RfA often has less than 100 votes (and it is largely a vote) out of a huge number of active editors. It may not take much to skew the result. Some people have compared to political elections where people can campaign as they want, but so can the other candidates. RfA is a yes/no vote with no competing candidate. (I'm not suggesting opposers in an RfA should be allowed to canvass). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I emphasized what I thought were the relevant portions, yes. I hate the term WP:Wikilawyering and it is abused far too often when something someone doesn't like is done, but violates no rule (never mind the fact this is an essay, not policy per se). Why can't clear guidance be available? Why is that a problem? Furthermore, you simply continued the critique without looking at the proposed solution. I liken this to having an election where only people who read a certain newspaper are involved in the votes. Simply informing people shouldn't be a problem, especially if they tell everyone up front that they were notified on their talk page. How about simply allowing them to comment in the neutral section without actually voting? Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#User notification says:

Canvassing for support (asking other editors to vote in your favor) is not recommended. In order to get editors to notice your RfA, you are free to put a {{RfX-notice}} on your userpage. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

I think this is enough to disqualify your messages. Admins are supposed to show good judgement. I (and many people who voted in the RfA where I didn't participate) don't think it's good judgement to read that and post to 14 selected editors, saying "This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated". The first part indicates you may have read the guidance and sorry, but the second part does look like wikilawyering around it to me. Do you think the guidance should be amended to say "(asking other editors to vote in your favor or saying you would appreciate their support)"? That looks like unneeded instruction creep to me. And what if a candidate reads that version and then spreads the message "This is not a request for support, and I'm not saying support would be appreciated, but you can probably guess which vote I would prefer. Wink, wink." Should this be allowed because it doesn't directly violate the letter of the new text? If clear rules are made about everything then they become too long to read. And voters in an RfA can still vote as they want. If you want clear advice for another RfA from me then here it is: Do not spread any message no matter how carefully you tried to formulate it to not violate the letter of canvass rules. An RfA is not a legal case with lawyers studying every letter of the law and awarding people who find loopholes. If voters don't like what you did then they may oppose. Arguing about the letter of the rules is unlikely to change their vote.

I'm also against allowing canvassing while saying that canvassed editors are not allowed to vote. Then candidates might canvass editors who are likely to oppose and would probably have noticed the RfA and voted without being canvassed. For example, self-nominators could canvass people known to oppose self-nominations. If the guidance should be changed then I think it should be changed to say more directly that mentioning your RfA outside your user space may be viewed negatively by some editors. But I think admin candidates ought to realize that already. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of User:Majorly/RfA#On canvassing. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some sensible comments there. I don't see the problem with canvassing either, so long as it's done publicly, in wikispace, where everyone can see it. Rather than IRC, private emails and so on. In fact I completely fail to understand why people seem to be expected to stumble across RfAs "by accident". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this RfA is back up. I think RfA canvassing and vote canvassing in general is a problem because it brings in people whose interest is something other than the process of selecting good administrators. The fact is that the process is not hidden or mysterious, and if you want to get involved you can. The less similar RfA is to a campaign for election the better. On the other hand, since folks disagree with the value of the guideline and whether a violation occurred in this RfA, I've voted support on the underlying facts as it were - no canvassing has occurred seemingly in this RfA, so the process is working as it normally does for all the other candidates. ^Avruchtalk 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)