Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 135

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130 ← Archive 133 Archive 134 Archive 135 Archive 136 Archive 137 → Archive 140

What's with the massive writing

Resolved

What's with the massive writing on some Rfa's? (I particularly noticed it on Avruch's Rfa) I don't know if it's just my PC but the writing is actually partially covering the writing directly below (or above) it. Is it affecting anyone else's lines of text? Besides I'm sure it's going to clutter up the archives and make them look messy. Sorry, if this is a rather whiney post: Feel free to give me slap with a wet lettuce leaf and tell me to stop fussing. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 11:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe some are using <big> fonts to show emphasis in their supports. It does not disturb formatting in my Mozilla the way it does in my employer's IE. Dlohcierekim 12:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just taken a look. They are using the big function like this: <big><big><big><big>. That is why it is affecting my browser (IE). The use of the normal <big> is still displayed correctly. Thanks anyway. --Cameron (T|C) 14:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Those comments must really be well-argued and touch on some important points if they need to be displayed so prominently. - Bobet 14:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think any formatting the screws up the page on a major browser is disruptive enough to be redacted to regular text. 1 != 2 14:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they're eyesores. While I applaud enthusiasim, it comes off as rather obnoxious. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It's just harmless fun. It's not like being a tad silly is a bad thing.--Koji†Dude (C) 16:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's harmless, but hey, it's affecting IE! Those poor people : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Oi! I use IE! I'm not poor. I make---well I'm currently un-employed, but that's not the point! If I knew the link to the noticeboard for Personal Attacks, I'd be filing the report right now. ;-)--Koji†Dude (C) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could just template me. Give me a "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

An alternative RfA approach

I just had an idea that might improve the whole RfA process somewhat. How about a 3 step process for achieving adminship:

  1. A 2-3 day process in which a person puts forward their interests, and are compared against a standard set of requirements (e.g. 2000 edits, 6 months tenure, no warnings etc), during these 2-3 days people can voice only precise concerns, such as indiscretions on the part of the candidate.
  2. If that time passes without a legitimate concern being raised, the candidate begins a one month trial period as an admin.
  3. A 1 week period begins after the trial period with the community discussing how they did, where possible improvements could be made, and wither they should be allowed to retain their admin rights.

Its just an idea, feel free to propose alternatives to the steps or general idea as much as you like, but give it some thought, I recently read a comment likening the process to a Chinese water torcher, which sums up the negative vibe it has fairly well, and I could help but think it can't be improved. This way the admin decision can be made on actual admin activities rather than the hypotheticals that are often raised in the current RfA. I also feel that the minimum requirements I mentioned above can't be a bad idea.

One final thought, maybe we could have both practices and the candidate can select their preferred method. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can fail based on #1 alone. We've never been able to agree upon specific requirements for adminship; not only that, but such a process can be excessively negative (and be even more formidable than the current system). As for #2, who decides what a "legitimate" concern is? The bureaucrats? My own RfB experiences have shown that the community doesn't want us acting as the judge for every !vote. The trial period doesn't do much, either; if someone was going to bananas with the tools, all they have to do is keep their nose clean for a month and then they're in the clear. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A legitimate concern is vandalism or other such breaking of the policys, in otherwards anything not based on ones own opinion. Thats nothing to do with bureaucrats.
True, desiding a standard for application will be tuff, but also a onces off. How is the comparison of the number of edits an editor has made to an agreed standard negitave? Thats mathamatics. (Thats only an example requirement of course).
There not in the clear, I've never seen misuse of admin tools go unnoticed for long periods of time, admins are scrutinised more then anyone, the trial period is to show you know what your doing, not that your not a vandal. Showing weither your a vandal or not would be the job of step 1.☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's going to be extraordinarily difficult to get through step 1. We've tried that multiple times before and we can never get a consensus as to the numbers. That's because there are a lot of other factors besides the quantitative edit count. Useight (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I totally agree, but if we can do this I think the trial period method would be so much more appropriate for admins to sign on ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the current process does a reasonable job of excluding vandals from adminship. The issues we should be looking at are much more complex than vandalism, edit counts, or # of talk-page warnings received. Admins don't get in trouble because they vandalize articles. They get in trouble because they make poor, hasty, or ill-considered decisions and then circle the wagons and react defensively when concerns about those decisions are raised. They get in trouble because they wheel-war first and discuss later, if at all. If we're going to improve the process, we should have a clear idea of what the problem behaviors are, and proceed from there to decide how we can pick up warning signs during the RfA. Practically every admin whom I consider unsuitable (no names) passed their RfA with flying colors. Often, even with hindsight, it's hard for me to pick up an indication of the problems which ensued. A trial period as an admin is not a bad idea, since the learning curve is so steep. In fact, most sensible admins realize this intuitively, and ease themselves in with relatively uncontroversial or straightforward actions before getting into thornier uses of the tools. MastCell Talk 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah the trial period is the center point of my idea. Now to expand the point, the thing that I think is the problem with RfA's is that ones own opinion has to much of a place on the table, to follow my way, there would be no starting questions for the candidtates, instead people would bring concerns to the table, the candidate would then have first response on that concern, and then others would be allowed to voice there opinion. The good bit about that is that if the persons concern is to personal, or doesnt make much sence, the candidate can have there say, and then others could voice there opinion on weither the concern is worth much of the 'crats attention, because of that it would be so much more concensis based, and lets face it, the current one is a vote, in a big way. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing that's in the way to meaningfully fixing RFA is our weird attitude toward crats. We say RFA is not a vote, but then we want crats to treat it (almost) like a vote. We set a high bar for who can be a crat, and then we don't want them using their own judgement. If we were willing to trust the crats more we could probably skip RFA as we know it today. Friday (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Although I continue to self note that my method isnt perfect, thats one thing my proposed method fixes, none of those steps are votes, its basically, "the editor did this, which I think is a no-no to aquire/retain adminship/the trial" and then that point can be discussed. Perhaps the candidate should be entitled to first response on those now that I think of it, just so his/her own opinion is in the center of the discussion. Also that no-no they raise should be firmly based on reality, i.e. policy indescresions etc. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
How would that make it any easier on the candidate (which you've suggested would be a good thing)? Currently, the RFA process doesn't really require much input from any candidate, if they so choose (I made 3 edits on my rfa). And yet you suggest that the candidate should be the first to respond to every piece of criticism. Plus, the three-step process with a trial run just means a longer spotlight will shine on a nominee, which I can't imagine being any easier on honest candidates. I think it's great that people think about rfa reforms, but you don't seem to address the concerns you yourself have about the process. - Bobet 12:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I said that the candidate should be entitled to first response, I don't recall saying they had to, my approach doesn't require any input from the candidate what so ever, they can go about there business for the entirety of the process, which to me indicates not only minimum stress for the candidate, but the candidate can be almost totally oblivious to the fact. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
And like I said, the current process doesn't require any more input from the candidate, they could just accept a nomination and disappear for a week (not that it ever happens). The stress comes from the fact that people's perceived faults are brought into the spotlight, and it's hard for people to just ignore it. This suggestion would keep that spotlight on them for a lot longer, which would increase the stressful part. - Bobet 13:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, perceived faults, where as mine only allows objections and supports that are based on exact instances (i.e. he broke this rule at this diff, or this was a particularly good call, etc). I've seen Opposes based entirely on what user name the editor choice, and other such extreme, and I use the word extreme in its most heavy sence, other such extreme nonsense as that, my approach does not allow for this. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
For that, the problem isn't the process, it's the editors involved in the process, who presumably wouldn't change all that much. People aren't going to agree on what's extreme nonsense, and if they could, you could just fix the current process by telling people to only oppose based on serious issues, and I don't think the solution is that simple. - Bobet 13:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, the current process, irrelevant of what is said about it, is a vote. I can go onto any of the 3 current RfA's and put:
# Support - I Love Cake ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That vote then immediately counts, and the content is only brought into view of the crat if the vote is a little on the close side. If enough people put that down, that RfA passes. My method is a discussion, it requires the crat to read it from start to finish, and promote the editor based on his impression of the editor at the end of reading it, therefore putting nonsense simply doesn't count for or against the candidate. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I should also point out that I'm perfectly OK with dropping the trial run. Although I think its a good idea its not vital, but reform is. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense issues have never been a deciding factor in rfas. If someone opposes based on a reason that everyone else thinks is nonsense, it's not going to affect the outcome of the rfa. If enough people agree with a reason, it stops being nonsense, even if a particular person might disagree with the definition. For supports, the reasoning has never really mattered much, since it's the default choice, and pretty much the only real reason for supporting is 'I believe the candidate will do more good than harm with the tools'. - Bobet 11:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
RfA is a vote, and there have often been votes that don't make much more sense than "I love cake." Enigma message 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it really is, but its not supposed to be, my idea would form it into a discussion, I might put together a dummy RfA to show exactly what I'm thinking it should look like. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<un-indent> - How, though, do you have a discussion with up to 400 participants (eg: DHMO) or even the 100+ that is common in RfAs - in any way so that consensus can be reached. Reaching consensus on something as simple as the correct use of dashes, with only a few dozen participants, is hard enough. Determining from a massive, multi-threaded discussion, that consensus is that the applicant is trustworthy or untrustworthy with the extra buttons does not seem plausible. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it, the section right below this one has a link to the only ever rfc style rfa (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt) which was more of a discussion. The most commented section there was "This method of RFA is so confusing that I am unable to participate", which should tell you how well that went. In case you've something different, hopefully simpler, in mind, it could work better, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. - Bobet 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That example turned into a serious of mini votes that combined into one, which is understandably confusing. My approach is people putting forward points as they did in that discussion (accept mine requires an example diff), and then people discuss weither the view is valid or not, not vote weither it is or not. Its more reading but substantially less mathamatics. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A request for guidance

I just returned today after answering some suspected sock puppet cases last night, and found my user talk page swamped with a pile of new messages, including a request to block a stack of IP addresses, and a note that some guy called me an "incompetent admin." I am very reluctant to try an RFA for a large number of reasons, but I cannot continue indefinitely in my capacity reviewing SSP cases unless I can be given the access to block and unblock users, protect and unprotect pages, and review deleted revisions. I don't need the adminship for status or honor or anything like that. I just need a set of tools. Again, if people would prefer to solve problems without my assistance I have no objection to that, but at a certain point it becomes impossible to act in the role of a sysop without actually being a sysop. I should note, in this context, that I am one of the only users, sysop or otherwise, who reviews SSP regularly, and if I don't do certain jobs, these jobs simply don't get done for weeks on end, and the functioning of the community suffers as a result.

So in spite of my commitment not to reapply for RFA for the next five years after my last request in November 2007, I would like a few opinions as to whether it might be a good time to give it another try. I am deeply committed to integrity, so I would seek an alternative by which I could apply without technically violating the content of the statement I made then. I suggested one alternative when I discussed the matter with Sarcasticidealist on meta. Namely, I would voluntarily offer not to use a certain subset of admin tools. Another alternative would be to appoint another user to request adminship on my behalf as a formality so that I would not be requesting it myself. Still another would be to use admin recall, which I am open to anyway, as a way to say that I am applying for adminship with the possibility of recall and not adminship without the possibility of recall.

Since any real RFA for me will likely generate well over 100 votes, I'd like to get a general sense of whether people think it's okay for me to apply given my commitment not to apply and my generally problematic history. For background on the history, for those who are unaware, please read User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Revelations (March 2008) and User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/RFA review (June 2007). Thanks in advance for your advice. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just redirect the enquiries to the correct board or to WP:AN/I? Dlohcierekim 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Politics not withstanding, and making no comment whatsoever on past history, a request for adminship is a request for additional purely technical abilities on this website to further the aims of said website. Ask for the tools. If the community balances the "risk/reward" properly then the outcome (whatever the outcome maybe) is the answer to your question. Pedro :  Chat  23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Also not commenting on past history, but you are under no obligation to wait 5 years before submitting yourself for an RFA. If you think that you have a need for the tools and that you are ready to use them, then stand for RFA. Otherwise, don't. On another note, I think it's kind of cocky to say that "any real RFA for me will likely generate well over 100 votes." Useight (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pedro, but I have to say that I'm less than impressed by your apparent desire to find a "technical" solution to avoid appearing to have gone back on your word instead of simply saying that you've changed your mind, and here's why. Reminds me of another "technical" solution that I believe used to be popular amongst a certain schoolgirl population: "You haven't had sex unless you took your knickers off." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
<ec> ::Just explain that you realize now that was a silly restriction to impose on yourself and explain how recent events helped you see you have a use for the tools. It's been 7 months? That's a easonable wait. Dlohcierekim 23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dlohcerekim (and with Malleus, although I'd have chosen slightly more polite words than he did), and my offer to nominate you stands - but it will have to be nomination for full adminship, on the basis that you can be trusted with all the buttons. I'm no great prognosticator of RFAs, so I don't pretend to know how yours will turn out, but I'm ready when you are. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I did over-egg the pudding just a little bit, but my basic point was not to look for technical loopholes, simply to come out boldly and say "I've changed my mind". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I will make one comment after a brief review. You've had the honesty to admit your early mistakes and not simply create a new account. That speaks volumes to me. And "Poacher turned Gamekeeper" also springs to mind! I'm not making favourable representation as such (sorry), and this was a brief review, but your honesty and forthrightness does you credit. We all make mistakes, and we all type stuff we reflect on later that we didn't mean. I don't see that you changing your mind on the 5 year thing reflects poorly on you. Rather, it shows you are prepared to admit errors and learn from them - which is a positive. Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Shalom, you know I love you (but not in that way). You know I've always supported you. I nominated you last time and if you'd have me, I'd be honoured to do it again. But my advice, for what it's worth, is that you won't pass. 1) The stuff that killed you last time(s) will never go down in the eyes of some. 2) The more recent Poetlister stuff has made you a lot of enemies in certain factions. As someone who hangs on WR, I'm sure you understand exactly what this means. giggy (:O) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay everyone, thanks for the advice. I'm not in a rush to do this tomorrow, but it will probably be soon. I'll just go ahead and ask for full adminship with no strings attached; that seems to be what everyone here is recommending. As to what I said in November, I think it was a mistake for me to respond in that manner. You will note that I also, in that same statement in November, asked for a certain user subpage to be deleted, but I later asked for it to be restored - so I changed my mind on that, and nobody objected to it. It doesn't detract from my general trend of honesty.

Regarding the statement that an RFA will likely get 100 votes: I didn't say 100 support votes, just 100 votes of some kind or another. My last RFA got about 90 votes, and it was closed early.

Regarding Giggy's concern: if people want to oppose me over the Poetlister controversy, let them. In private correspondence FT2 and I have agreed to disagree on our respective conclusions, and from my perspective the issue ends there. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:Ikf5 may need to be closed or something. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:JayJ47 probably should be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JayJ47. Bebestbe (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking Dlohcierekim 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted under WP:CSD#G6 - no need to close or archive. Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The JayJ47 one seems fine as is [1] although malformed. Pedro :  Chat  23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

I am here to ask a question: in RFA standards, people have been focusing on article writing, and not the normal admin respinsibilities (blocking, protecting, deleting). Since when will article writing make you better at doing those things? Some people may be brilliant writers, but just don't get the sysop tools. And some people (me included) are not very good at writing articles, but have a good understanding of blocking, deleting and protecting. Just raising the question. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Because at the end of the day, the only important thing on Wikipedia is the articles. With no admins, we'd still work (albeit become quite messy); with no articles, we'd be a poor-quality chatroom. Adminship isn't about blocking, deleting & protecting; it's about deciding who and what needs blocking, deleting and protecting, and explaining why to those users - generally perfectly good-faith users, not mindless vandals - who are blocked, have their work deleted, or can't edit a protected article. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. While I don't insist on article writing experience, I do insist that someone who's given the power to delete content has some experience in just how difficult content creation is. Also, admins are (for better or worse) generally the "public face" of the Wikipedia bureaucracy, at least to other users, and I think they need to have shown they understand the process of collaboration in order to explain it to others. – iridescent 00:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said. Dean B (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
With regards to adminship, the reason why people like to see article contributions is a couple of reasons; firstly, they want to know you're here for the right reasons - users want admins to be here to improve the encyclopedia and without article contributions, you have to question their real reason for being here (power?). Secondally, article edits show an understands of our content policies/guidelines. Often admins have to mediate disputes/make calls with regards to content - without article edits, it's hard to show experience that you understand the content requirements. It's also important to have experience in admin related areas such as participation in xfD debates, speedy tagging and reports to AIV so you show you understand exactly where and when to use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was asking because I am not a good article writer (all I have is a couple of stubs). I know that creating content is difficult.
I don't get why people who haven't contributed large amounts of work to articles can't deal with non-admins.
So, to be an admin, you have to have lots of article writing now? In that case, I can throw away my dreams of being an administrator. As referenced here and other places, it's now impossible.
And I also don't get why people can't accept reverting vandalism as the reason you are here. I am here to help write an encyclopedia by cleaning up. Is that unnaceptable? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, you don't have to show an amazing strength at content, just a willingness to actually contribute. If you prefer to do more administrative tasks, that's cool, but you need to show at least a basic understanding of content by contributing to some articles. With regards to it being your dream - that's not always a good thing. We're here to create an encylopedia and that should be your ultimate goal, however you contribute. I personally think that everyone who puts a request in, should want to be an admin, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec with Ryan; too Shapiros10) No. To be an admin you have clue. Telling people you dream of adminship doesn't inspire confidence. To be here to help with maintenance is great, but I (for one) don't feel comfortable giving the blockhammer to people who, after having spent over 9000 hours vandalwhacking, is going to exert rage by blocking everyone. I'd rather give it to an FA writer who appreciates the effort of building content. But that's just me. Ironically, the community's current mood is kinda in agreement with that. giggy (:O) 01:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) If this didn't help, re-read what the folks above - both admins (for what that's worth) said.
My dear sirs, with all due respect, I want to serve Wikipedia as best as I can, and adminship is a way to serve the community. Should I continue doing anti-vandal work, or should I start focusing on article work full-time now? because it seems nobody will care if I revert vandalism, or report users, or participate in AFDs. The reason I posted this question is because I think that Administrator is not an administrative position: it's just a service award for being an Article Writer with some extra tools thrown in. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"it's just a service award for being an Article Writer with some extra tools thrown in" - Yep, that's what it's supposed to be. Because we're here to build an encyclopedia. giggy (:O) 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
And Giggy, that is an offensive stereotype. Not all anti-vandal hunters crack under the strain and block everyone in sight.
I also don't get the point of giving the tools to an article writer when all they'll do is article work, and nothing involving deletion, blocking and protecting. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's about writing articles necessarily; it's about contributing to articles. I've only written one or two articles from scratch but I have been heavily involved with the wikification effort. Articles can be improved through more than just writing. Metros (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well then, if I run for an RFA (which i won't, because it will be snowballed fail since I don't write articles), people will not care. Thanks for listening to me whine. You've made me feel a lot better about myself. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
And that's why purely article writers don't often get the tools. It's all about a mix, but content contributions are important for the reasons above. People don't want anything amazing, just something. Both admin and content related experience is important to show a thorough understanding of the Wikipedia way. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is about whether we can trust the candidate to use the tools appropriately. Very very rarely are candidates opposed for lack of article-building alone; it only becomes a factor when the candidate has exhibited questionable judgment elsewhere. Many candidates can be trusted even though they are ignorant of a lot of policy, because they are adjudged to be eminently trustworthy. Some recent successful RfA's in which the candidates were not very focused on article building but were supported near unanimously include Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xavexgoem, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegship and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Huntster. It is far more common for candidates to be opposed for lack of familiarity with Wikispace activities such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA and WP:AFD. If you doubt that an absence of focus on article writing can negatively effect your judgement, I suggest you try regular new page patrolling, and see how rapidly the trigger-happy urge to delete imperfect additions overcomes you. Then try writing a few; you'll be surprised how much your perspective shifts. Sincerely, Skomorokh 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you want an example of an RFA for someone who hasn't written a lot of articles, your adopter's RFA is quite a good example to show that it can be done. Lara's written very few articles, but by her cleaning up here and there, she's shown that she understands collaboration and working with other people. – iridescent 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, while I don't think "adminship is no big deal" is true any more, adminship isn't any kind of award; it's about whether people think you can be trusted. There are at least two people on this talkpage who are among the best article writers on Wikipedia, but will probably not be admins for a long time if ever because some people don't trust them with the tools for one reason or another. As Ryan says, you need to show an understanding of policy and an understanding of what we're here for; as Ryan doesn't say, you also need to show a reason why Wikipedia would be better off with you as an admin. RFA may be a bad process (it's not so long ago that RFA looked like this), but for better or worse, it's the process we've got.
What I will say, is don't be too keen on adminship. It's not the "superpower" it is on some other websites and gives you no special status; all it means is that you have a couple of extra buttons, and your talkpage will mysteriously double in size every night while you're asleep. – iridescent 01:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sam (Shapiros10), here's some things to think about. I find it rude that a person would not contribute anything and just spend all their time tagging other folks' work. To me its like saying, "I don't do this dirty work, I'll just tell you to go do it". Article writing gives folks some appreciation of sometimes how hard and time consuming it can be to come up with material for an article. I believe that having 'admins' and 'editors' in two camps leads to splits in thinking and behaving that cause problems. All you have to do is look at some of the debates at Arbcom or RfC to see how hugely draining these things are and how much time they consume. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sam, I know I'm normally known for speaking in clipped, formal tones, but I'll try to level with you - I kinda feel for you on this one. You spend a lot of time doing work on the wiki, doing what you feel is both useful to the project and what you enjoy. Hell, I've fired up Huggle myself and clicked through contributions, making a revert here, a warning there and adding the occasional AIV report. The problem is, the tools make it efficient to make quick judgement decisions and if you get it wrong, it's easy to fix. One of the things I find incredibly hard to do is article writing. You know, the start from scratch article writing where you have no idea how it's going to turn out and you're basically following the sources. I think I've created a grand total of three new mainspace articles and they felt like pulling teeth. But I do it to understand what it's like for the other editors, they guys whose edits you watch for a few moments before clicking on to the next one. Every once in a while you have to bite the bullet and do it, just to remind yourself what it's like. One thing you can do to break the back of an article is to do cleanup - taking an article that's been tagged for cleanup for months and fixing it. Sometimes it'll mean pulling out unsourced information, but in many cases it'll mean digging through sources in order to fill in the blanks.
One other thing I'd add is that if you're looking for feedback, ask your mentor. If you want something more, file a request at WP:ER, point me to it and I'll give you my honest opinion. I can understand that you want to help the project, that you feel you could do so much more with just a few extra tools. But you already know that you can do a huge amount with what's already available - you can build articles and encourage others to do the same. Anti-vandal work, deletion debates and so on are just cogs around the edge of the machine.
I'm sorry this has gone on a bit, and that it might be a bit over the top, or covering stuff Lara's already talked to you about. Seriously though, don't sweat it about RfA. As someone once said, it's no big deal. Gazimoff WriteRead 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
From my experience, I am giving myself the challenge of either creating a new article from scratch each day or substantially expanding existing stubs each day. Yes, I am a masochist. But I am also aware that the foundation of this project is the content. As I see it, we are here to build an encyclopedia. For a minute, let’s stop thinking about our internal shenanigans and think about how the outside world looks at what we are presenting. People in the “real world” don’t know about blocking or 3RR or XfD – quite frankly, they don’t know any of us exist. They’re coming to this site to look up an article about a person or topic or whatever. If we are missing information in the articles or if we are offering badly written muck, then our work here is a waste. The vast majority of vandalism to the articles is erased within a very quick moment, and I am glad for those who spend the time protecting the articles. But the core content is our public face, and I think this project would benefit if we had people who are serious about writing. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of admins who couldn't or wouldn't write articles before they were admins. There are plenty of admins who shine in other areas. To have article writing be a benchmark is not useful, IMHO. Kingturtle (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam, this is what your assignments were supposed to help teach you. I asked you before I adopted you to tell me what you thought adminship was. After reading your response, I told you that I'd adopt you and we'd focus on building an encyclopedia. There are plenty of ways to improve content other than writing articles. Copy-editing, reference formatting, MOS fixes, reviewing. These are all valuable and desperately needed. So just because you don't write articles doesn't mean you'll never pass an RFA. It just all depends on where you focus your attention.
To comment on what Iridescent said about my RFA, it actually wasn't unique for lack of article writing. A large percentage of my edits were to content improvement. I had written a handful of articles, including a couple GAs and another in que, and I had heavy participation in the GA project, which is devoted to article improvement. Mine was unique in that I had literally no XFD experience during a time when the trend at RFA required it.
The desire to have content improvement, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the fact that this is an encyclopedia and that is our purpose, as far as RFA goes. I think everyone here is volunteering their time because they want to, and if content writing isn't your thing, that's fine. But, to be granted adminship, I believe there is a need to have experience in article space beyond vandalism reversion. You have to collaborate with others, gain experience with content disputes, and learn the policies that apply to the article space. For me, that's why content improvement is important for adminship. You need to show you understand the goals of the project and that you can be trusted to use these extra tools to protect the project and assist us in reaching our goals. You can't do that when all your participation is reverting edits, warning users and reporting to AIV. That gains you experience relating to the block button. We want to know you can be trusted with the protection and delete buttons as well.
Lastly, let me say that adminship isn't necessarily a healthy goal... particularly when you don't have a strong grasp on what adminship really is. Above all, the key thing to remember is that this is an encyclopedia. Focus on improving it and don't worry about adminship until there comes a point that you feel you need it, or once you feel you've really got a good understanding of policy and could be a greater asset as an admin. If your sole interest is in vandal whacking, don't worry about adminship because mostly likely you'll come to find it involves a lot of stuff you don't care to do. LaraLove|Talk 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had meant writing could include wikifying, finding references etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For my money, editors who aren't massive contributors to articles can still generate trust. They do find it harder, but we have had many such successful RfAs. The kind of things !voters will respond to well is seeing good grasp of the kinds of key policies we normally expect people to get from involvement in writing, such as WP:N, WP:BLP etc. The other thing is that people are a little suspicious of those who contribute literally nothing to the mainspace. From memory, the successful RfAs of those not particularly involved in writing have usually nodded to their gnomish contributions to mainspace. Those utterly uninterested in the mainspace get the "why are you here" question thrown at them, which is difficult to deal with. Note: the preceeding is not necessarily my opinion, but my observation of how !voters respond --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the answers. I was just being scared for the distant future, because I am an awful writer who barly managed to get 6 stubs out there in 9 months. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 10:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with creating stubs. All articles here are works in progress and stubs have the potential to blossom into bigger pieces. Besides, a concise and cogent stub is always superior to a flabby and mediocre article. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
By no means, as others have stated above, writing aren't the only part of contributing to the encyclopedia. A LOT of work is to be done improving stubs and other bad-looking articles. But if you want an idea of how to create and improve on stubs, just click Special:Random in other language Wikipedias. Most of these don't have articles here, so you just try Google Translate and do your best in formatting. With all due respect, I do not think you are ready for adminship until you have several decent monts of mainspace work, not random tagging or Huggle reversions. As an "editor of the wiki", I do not revert 1000 vandals using automated tools (they're usually gone within seconds), have about 3 edits to the AIV, and only participate in AFDs of subjects that interest me or really need it. However, I view my rare occurances of participating in AFDs much better than copypasting "Delete Per nom. ~~~~" all the time. There is plenty of work a lousy article writer can do as long as they show the effort. And finally, while I think that pretty much everyone probably has a dream of becoming an admin here, IT IS THE CONTENT, not these lengthy discussiong or 4,000 edits to the AIV, THAT COUNT. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than try to meet a set of RfA worthy criteria, be bold (make some charts, some categories, some stubs, upload some images), use your brain, and avoid common mistakes. Get to know the place in your own way. Kingturtle (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that would make too much sense. ;} Dlohcierekim 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RfB, RfA prerequisite

The page doesn't actually specify this, but the idea I am sort of getting is that since Wikipedia:Bureaucrats have superior inferred abilities and superior inferred responsibilities to Wikipedia:Administrators/SysOps, should it be noted to avoid the hassle of users nominating themselves/others directly to that position that only current Administrators can be nominated for election as a beareaucrat? Considering how powerful the position is, I don't think there's much trouble with requiring going through the process twice. One would expect someone to serve as an Administrator for a while to gain experience before advancing anyway. I think by mentioning it as a prerequisite on this page that it would get rid of a lot of hassle and would make sure that people don't confuse the election process because they'll know to apply for Administrator first. Tyciol (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this solve a problem? My involvement has been pretty low lately, has there been a rash of drive-by RfBs by non-admins that this will address? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, solution in search of a problem. I don't think there's been an RFB by a non-admin in recent memory. –xenocidic (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It does say at WP:RFA that "Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here." This lays out that bureaucrats have to be administrators first. Rudget (logs) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that necessarily says that. You might take it as implying that, but a Bureaucrat being a type of administrator (high tier admin) doesn't say at all that you need to be an admin first to become one. It's important to clearly explain the process. Tyciol (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
[ec] Can't think of an RfB by a non-admin. (though, really, I don't see a specific reason that we'd restrict bureaucrat candidates to just admins: the tasks they perform are very different) Not an actual problem that needs addressing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it did happen and quite recently in fact. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/I'm On Base. It's deleted now, so only admins can see it, but it happened in early May. I guess I just pay too much attention to what's going on here on the RFA page. Of course it was snow-closed, but my point was that there was an RFB by a non-admin. Useight (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed the closed RfB mentioned above. It doesn't seem to have caused any disruption or grief. I'd tend to lean towards avoiding instruction creep here. Just my opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Especially considering that was a disruptive user anyway. –xenocidic (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that RFB came and went pretty quickly. I, too, think we'll be fine without the instruction creep, I was just pointing out that there was, indeed, a RFB by a non-admin, since others above were wondering whether or not there had been one recently. Useight (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh, an RfB by a sockpuppet[2] isn't the most compelling piece of evidence. :) I was talking about an actual request, preferably one that ran for at least a day. To the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to provide evidence, as that implies that I'm trying to prove someone's point. I was merely giving an example of a recent RFB by a non-admin. Useight (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still think my statement stands, however, as a sock-RfX doesn't really "count" as an example (since socks usually don't follow logical behavior anyway). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
From the way I read it, EVula was saying it was not a problem because people should be able to apply directly to be Beareaucrats as they perform different tasks. Not because no one had tried to do it. In this case, a disruptive user sure but if they are indeed so different and there are advocates for making the jump directly then I think having the issue brought up would be good. I wouldn't call it intruction creep to add one sentence saying either "only admins can apply to be bereaucrats" or "both admins and established users can apply to be bureaucrats". Very short and concise. Tyciol (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anybody's ever specified a rule about that, but any RfB by a non-admin would likley get shot down. Quickly. A SNOW NOTNOW close would be almost inevitable.--Koji†Dude (C) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Adding something like that Tyciol imo would only likely increase the amount of snowy RfBs put forth. I think it's fine the way it is now. While you don't *need* to be an admin to apply for bureaucratship, it's doubtful one could make the jump from user to bureaucrat. –xenocidic (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
A parallel can be drawn between this and any prerequisites for RfA. All of us here will readily admit that there are certain criteria that a candidate should make sure they reach before running (chiefly: if someone has 500 edits, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell). But is it an actual prerequisite? No. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
True. It's a prerequisite, but if we told people that, it'd be too bitey. They have to learn the hard way, so everybody opposing can share the blame for the inevitable bitey-ness of the experience.--Koji†Dude (C) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Dagoth Ur, Mad God just had a non-admin RFB. Snowed, and I filed a WP:RFCU on the basis that User:Edward Smiley's only edit was support. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Current RfB

When I undid this edit, I meant its the wrong request, not the wrong spot. Clearly this user shouldn't have an active RfB (they aren't an admin to begin with). Any takers? — MaggotSyn 12:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just Snowball closed it. BG7even 12:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
it looks like he socked a support vote. Check it out at WP:RFCU. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 12:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
If it turns out to be a sock, the whole damn thing can just be deleted under G6. We should save actual requests, not bogus "hey, let's screw with everyone!" requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you (that was actually my reason for posting it here). — MaggotSyn 15:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avruch

I untranscluded this and marked as final an withdrawn by candidate. I think the candidate closed it. Listed under the unsuccessful RFA's. Don't remember the other place to list. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody wanna add the poor guy to WP:100?--Koji†Dude (C) 00:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) is the other place. — MaggotSyn 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks done. Dlohcierekim 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. — MaggotSyn 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Enigmaman/SNOW :) Enigma message 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting situation

Resolved
 – The Rambling Man took care of it. Enigma message 05:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mark_t_young, a user cast a rather harsh oppose without evidence, and was indefinitely blocked for harassment soon afterwards. User has received increasing blocks from five different admins. Is making a note below the vote enough? I'm not sure if the closing 'crat will see the note, although it is at ~70% right now. The RfA closes in a few hours. Check oppose #21. Enigma message 16:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it's acceptable to de-number indefblocked users voters, and even strike them out if they're disruptive. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Wizardman 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The note was sufficient. Dunno if I'll be back in time to close it, but I certainly wouldn't pay it much mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about indenting or outdenting or what not. I think just a comment is probably sufficient as well. The question one would need to ask, since it's obvious that the !vote (which gave some detail/rationale) was cast before the block, was whether it was in made in good faith. The user may have temperament issues, but a valid rationale. Look at the reason, not the user in other words. Sockpuppets notwithstanding. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've struck the comment since the user has been indef blocked. Despite this I found no true consensus to promote although it was tight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought what I wrote at the RfA was pretty mild, but apparently I also have become a target of his ire. Heehee. Enigma message 04:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to provoke a blocked user when he/she cannot respond? Did you come here to gloat? --Blechnic (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I came here to respond to the accusations because the talk page is protected. Enigma message 04:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There are no accusations against you on this page that require your response or giggle here. --Blechnic (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Not on this page, but on the protected talk page that I cannot edit. Out of my options, this is the most appropriate place to put my response. Enigma message 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Other than {{editprotected}}. Kevin (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No one can edit it right now. That would be a good time for all parties to take a break, rather than parties who can still get in jabs continuing to do so in other forums. I wonder if your comment on the talk page of the blocked user would have gotten you blocked--laughing at someone who can't respond? If there's a possibility, there's no place for it anywhere else. A blocked user is probably pissed off. Provoking them increases the overall negativity on Wikipedia. Why not just leave the user alone? --Blechnic (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
PS This is the talk page for RfA, not for the user. --Blechnic (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Because if someone accuses me of "defamation" or anything else, I'm going to respond. I don't appreciate baseless accusations and I feel the need to defend myself against them. I usually will reply in the same location where the accusations were made, unless for some reason that isn't possible. Enigma message 05:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You haven't defended yourself, that takes a discussion. This is not the user's talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Quit flogging a dead horse. Wisdom89 (T / C) 14:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In flogging response to Wisdom89's last flog: Usually more effectively done without the request. --Blechnic (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bjweeks#Questions_for_the_candidate

Archived discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just wanted to point that out. Enigma message 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda creepy. No questions? And yet people can make decisions? Darkspots (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a real RfA yet. Quick, someone add five questions! Enigma message 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I never read the questions/answers. Everyone can "behave" at RFA and answer what they're "supposed to" anyway. We should be looking at contribs anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, interesting but nothing more. This discussion need not continue further should it unduly prejudice the outcome. It's fascinating that this candidate is popular to the degree than no more than the standard questions are asked but we unless anyone here has something to contribute to the RFA, move along, nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Definitely don't want it to influence the outcome. Just thought it was an interesting thing, given that we've had many complaints about too many questions at RfAs and said RfAs turning into a question drill. Enigma message 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hopefully not a preposterous suggestion

I'm growing a bit weary (as I imagine many RfA regulars are) of the constant harassment Kurt Weber receives for his prima facie opposes. Agree with him or not, his right to voice his opinion has been upheld on several occasions. Nevertheless, in every self-nom RfA there are several editors who give him grief over it. The comments he receives are often shockingly insulting, and I commend Kurt for remaining exceedingly civil through all of it. At the very least they're unnecessary, annoying and contribute nothing to the RfA. My humble proposition is this: when Kurt makes his prima facie argument at an RfA, that a small note is placed under it 1.) asking editors not to badger Kurt 2.) reminding them that he is entitled to his opinion and 3.) pointing them to a page which more thoroughly explains that time and again the community has upheld his right to make his argument. I hope this isn't a ridiculous idea, I'm just growing tired of seeing this at every other RfA, and I'm betting that I'm not the only one. Thoughts? faithless (speak) 02:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting we link them to, something along those lines. faithless (speak) 03:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I used to link them there in the past, but last time I did it Giggy seemed kind of upset[3]. Don't wanna get yelled at :-/ --Koji†Dude (C) 03:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Not angry... just making sure people don't go to that page thinking that its word is law (protip; it's not). giggy (:O) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While every editor certainly has the right to be heard, I have a hard time considering opposition from someone who insists on painting the whole world with a wide brush as being valid. Self-nom = autofail with no possibility of appeal is as inconsiderate as it is unfair towards those who self-nominate themselves for completely pure motives. It's awfully reminiscent of xenophobic philosophies such as "because of there are Italian mobs around, being Italian is prima facie evidence that you're a mobster, and thus you can't ever be a cop even if you're Frank Serpico unless a red-blooded American vouches for you out of the blue". Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

...was that red-blooded american bit meant as offensive? Anyway, this has been discussed a ba-gillion-fillion times, right now I think faithless is asking wether we should link to the essay or restriuct people's rights to badger him.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think that what I said could easily be misinterpreted. To clarify I'll point out that I'm not accusing Kurt of being a racist or anything like that, only of using the same form of arguments. As for the "red blooded american" thing, it seemed to fit the example. I went with Frank Serpico, because I had the page open and I thought it'd make a good example and we'll all tired of hearing examples of Muslim=Terrorists and I try to make a point of not bringing up Nazis as per Godwin's rule. Could've picked any group of people as there's racism all over the world.
Back to the important thing, I think that referring to the essay is the sound thing. I'm kinda surprised that Kurt doesn't automatically link to that essay if "badgering" is that big a problem. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Headbomb. If you think Kurt's arguments are repetitive, dull, weak, and annoying, you clearly haven't spend much time around WT:RFA. ;-) To actually rebut your statement, as is my role in commenting here (other than to offer to nominate every second commentator... the real purpose of this page!), I would point out that an oppose from Kurt doesn't equal instant fail. It equals an instant oppose vote. Some overly innocent not-so-old-timers will tell you that bureaucrats don't give this as much weight because it's not a very good argument. I consider myself more of an old timer to RfA than others here and will gladly tell you that RfA is a vote. But that doesn't mean 'crats can't exercise judgement over the vote, and I'm sure someone will draw a comparison to federal elections in some countries. But that isn't the point. The point can be found here. Thanks for reading. My advice is to unwatch this page and go build and encyclopedia—two things I'm hopelessly incapable of doing. Cheers, giggy (:O) 03:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to spend a lot of time here to see that there are worse arguments out there. I've received a few myself. And in the two-three months here, it also was apparent to me that anytime there's a vote, WP:DEMOCRACY goes out the door quicker that this thing. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy, I'm also tired of seeing this come up over and over. Unfortunately, I don't see any outcome as likely until arbcom accepts a case. The statement "his right to voice his opinion has been upheld on several occasions" distorts what's going on. There isn't any "right" to self-expression on RFA; the RFCs on the issue have been mixed at best; there has never been any broad community acceptance of Kurt's RFA edits.

In any case, there's no need to feel sorry for any self-inflicted criticism Kurt draws upon himself, or complain at others for their justifiable complaints about Kurt's comments. The disruption because of Kurt's comments continues because other well-intentioned editors enable it to continue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Kurt Weber's opinion thoroughly, but I also respect that his opinion is valid and should be counted. I would like to see more civility in the RfAs - not only toward the nominees but toward the voters. Kingturtle (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There are definitely a lot of people who object to the prima facie argument and I'm not bringing this up because I agree with Kurt and want people to lay off of him (I'm intentionally not stating my opinion here). But it's the same thing at every self-nom, sometimes by newcomers who aren't familiar with Kurt, but inexplicably often by people who ought to know better. I'm not saying that they aren't entitled to their opinions, just that an RfA is the wrong place for it. Ironically, these editors usually say how pointless or stupid or a waste of time Kurt's oppose is, but they don't realize that their comments are even worse in that regard! I just think that a link to something like H20's essay will save us from having to read a bunch of pointless banter by people alternately attacking or defending Kurt, will instantly remove a lot of needless incivility and, most importantly, not distract from the reason we're here in the first place, the RfA. No matter how you feel about the Kurt's oppose, I think we can all agree that 1.) though the names change, it's the same thing at every RfA and 2.) they do absolutely nothing to contribute to the RfA, and in fact only detract from it. It's a shame that such a preemptive measure is even necessary, but it's never going to stop otherwise. Cheers, faithless (speak) 05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well said. Useight (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Regretfully agree. giggy (:O) 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Don't badger opposes at all. How's that? Beam 10:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is is supposed to be a vote discussion. giggy (:O) 10:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Until all opposes are fair and about the proposal at hand, bad idea. Al Tally talk 10:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How come Kurt gets away with making these silly opposes, when I do the same thing I'm apparently disrupting and all my votes got removed. Why is Kurt special? Why should he get away with making thinly veiled attacks on every self-nom RfA? Al Tally talk 10:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the opposer is arguably "badgering" the nominee in the first place by questioning the basis of the nomination. If we assume that a nomination represents a qualified candidate, then an opposer is putting forth the proposition that this is not so (otherwise the oppose is simply partisan and may be discounted). So long as RfA is still a discussion and not a vote, there's as much a right to question an oppose as there is to question a nomination. I grant that the persistent refusal of the bureaucrats to show any kind of leadership on the question has confused the issue. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Simple version: RfA is a discussion, not a vote. If you aren't prepared to discuss then don't comment. HTH -- Mackensen (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No the opposer is not arguably "badgering" the nominee. And it's that type of idea, that attitude, that leads to supporters seemingly upset that someone would have the nerve to oppose someone. Beam 12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Simple version: A discussion is all good and fine but opposing should be allowed. Beam 13:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
A message to you Kurt: self-noms are not power hungry. Self-noms are made by people who don't really know anyone else who knows their contributions like they do. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Kurt is entitled to his opinion and others are entitled to question him about it. The problem is not the oppose, nor the response to it. The problem is when either gets out of hand and becomes disruptive. At which point, there are many, many options for preventing the disruption growing. I'd oppose some kind of pre-emptive strike against people querying Kurt's oppose. Who knows? Maybe one day, someone will make a very good point and change Kurt's mind. (Does anyone else remember the opposes made because candidates weren't supported by a WikiProject? That stimulated some interesting discussion, IIRC)

I'm all for debate, not stifling it. But we shouldn't permit disruption at RfAs or anywhere else for that matter. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone opposed every nominee who had the color green in their signature because they felt green signatures were prima facie evidence enviromentalism biased editors, then people would say something to that guy. Kurt's oppose is the epitomy of bad faith against people he has no connection with. The community has generally agreed to disagree on the fact that he has the right to leave such posts on RfAs. It is his right to do so, and it also the right of others to take offense to what is in any other medium an insult to a stranger. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Additionally, as is widely known, the guy failed his own self-nominated RfA and ran for the board this year. Great example of power declining humility. So if I'm an experienced editor who is a noob to the RfA process and regulars, and I innocently open an RfA because I want some extra tools and get called power hungry by a guy like Kurt, how does that make me feel? If I question his vote, its not so much because I want to argue with him, as expose his hypocrisy to the nominee. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In all fairness to Kmweber, that RfA did take place over 2 1/2 years ago, and that's more than enough time for someone to change their opinion about something. Acalamari 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree. It was last week's board vote that added some relevance to it again though as it brings forth a pattern. His vote attempts to make a criticism of hierarchy, which is an entirely legitimate position to take... unless you are doing things counter to the position that you stand for. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The difference, of course, is that unlike RfA, the WMF BoT vote doesn't make any provision for third-party nominations. If RfA had no provision for third-party noms, I likely wouldn't oppose ALL self-noms. I would certainly consider trying to change that, but in the meantime we would still need servants. And I only ran for the BoT because (a) several people (some quite passionately) asked me to--one even offered to do a third party nomination, process be damned, but I figured that'd just cause an even bigger ruckus; and (b) I didn't (and still don't) expect to actually win. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I for one took pride in Kurt's vote at my request. :-) But you make sense, people with green in their signatures should be opposed. --Ali'i 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This is true. Green just makes me so angry! :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean you're not really a fan of The Cabbage? From your username, I assumed you were. --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Different greenHiberniantears (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So, we seem to have established that:

a) RfA is at least supposed to be a "discussion" about the candidate, and
b) Kurt's !votes, with no indication of whether he has considered anything about the candidate other than the self-nom, are his voice in this discussion, to which he has a right. (This is true only for the sake of argument -- editing any page is a privilege, not a right -- but I'll buy it for a dollar.)

So, presumably, the community also has the "right" to inquire after Kurt's opposes, particularly on the line of whether Kurt has looked for something that might rebut the evidence of power hunger for any particular oppose. (After all, prima facie only means that it's demonstrated, not that it's proven.) If he has, and he hasn't found it, then such an oppose is reasonable. But opposing on "prima facie evidence" without either looking for the rebuttal (which good faith tells us to assume he's doing) or letting the candidate know what might constitute a rebuttal (which he's obviously not doing) would be bad faith, clearly. So for any given oppose, Kurt should be able to answer such a question, no? - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Kurt has previously stated that the self-nomination is itself the evidence upon which any given such vote is based. By the simple act of existence, the self-noms are self implicating as guilty of desiring "power" in the eyes of Kurt, and therefore are not worthy of his support. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Then 1) that's res ipsa loquitor, not prima facie, and 2) it's extremely bad faith and the community shouldn't accept it. Policies apply to established users, too. - Revolving Bugbear 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Bugbear said it best here. If Kurt softened the language, it would go a long way to prevent the long threads about his opposes (that seems to come in cycles). Though it would be a shame to change the boilerplate oppose he's been using for over a year now. –xenocidic (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this: who cares what's good faith or bad faith? or what's "soft languege" and "mean languege"? Let him scream about power hunger to his heart's content, and if people won't shut up about it, ignore them. Stupid people complain about stupid things, and make the intellectual people like yourselves come up with some kind of solution. If they don't like Kurt's vote, let them continue to not like it, let Kurt continue to not care, and let yourselves continue to not do anything about it.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I care, because right now Admiship seems to be more of a democracy rather than a meritocracy. Wikipedia should not be a democracy, and every time things get down to vote counting, things go bad. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that the opinions expressed in that Diff are a large part of the problem. It takes a very thin skin to see Kurt's commentary as a "personal attack" or lacking in civility. The labels of attack and lacking civility are bandied about as frequently, and with often as much justification, as POV/NPOV here. Criticism is not an attack and neither is a philosophical point of view, as expressed by him. If all the editing that has happened on this subject was done to Prima facie the blasted thing would be on the front page by now ! - Peripitus (Talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Really? You think calling people power-hungry is civil? - Revolving Bugbear 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a complicated question, and people can reasonably have different opinions. A related question is whether merely by saying "Every soldier is a potential murderer" you can insult an individual soldier. The courts are divided in this matter. The (current) final word in Germany is that you can't. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Not it's not. What is insulting is something like Being a soldier is prima facie evidence of being a murdererHeadbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC).
@Koji, re "who cares what's good faith or bad faith?": Is that a trick question? - Revolving Bugbear 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to need saying: there's a world of difference between saying "I view all self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power-hunger" and "You're power-hungry". The later may be considered a personal attack, but the former is simply an expression of an opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, there isn't. Putting more words in the sentence doesn't mean he's not calling the person power-hungry.
By way of analogous example: "I view disagreeing with me as prima facie evidence of being an asshole." That's an opinion, isn't it? - Revolving Bugbear 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)There are multiple ways to interpret the statement, many of which incidentally would constitute a personal attack. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way to read it that would justify the oppose. If he is merely saying that self-noms are at first glance evidence of power-hunger, then clearly AGF comes into play: further evidence is required to prove the case and justify an Oppose (and as far as I know, this is rarely provided). On the other hand, if we are to assume that Kurt means to say "I view self-noms as adequate evidence of power-hunger" then we may proceed on that basis: we may either interpret his contribution as being a violation of AGF (since self-nomination is not on the list of demonstrations of bad faith) or as a simple error, i.e. Kurt thinks this in good faith, but he's mistaken: the evidence is widely considered to be inadequate. I'm left with the feeling that Kurt wants the consensus to change, and for self-nominations to be widely considered unacceptable, but I can't see how the course of action he's taking could achieve that. It seems to be not so much a case of WP:POINT as Polemic. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I can't remember who they were were, but there have been self-noms that Kurt's supported. – iridescent 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naerii. Acalamari 22:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the oppose is quite able to be supported by examples of societies in which leaders are chosen from amongst who least want the job, and who quite happily hand the job over to others as and when the conditions under which they were chosen change. I would encourage you to look at the way in which American Indian chiefs were chosen, for instance. It is hardly a matter of bad faith to see something worthwhile in trying to combat the career administrators that wikipedi is presently suffering from. If a simple oppose, in Kurt's opinion, goes some way towards doing that, then that's fine. It is not an attack on any person, but a comment on the imperfections of the system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really sound like good faith either. If it's a comment on the system, then he should comment on the system; if it's not a comment on any person, then he should not comment on any person. That seems pretty self-evident to me. - Revolving Bugbear 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
By your own logic you are now accusing me of acting in bad faith. Not impressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstand. I didn't mean to say that what you said didn't sound like good faith. I meant to say that the motives you are (perhaps accurately) ascribing to Kurt don't sound like good faith. However, I invite him to prove me wrong. - Revolving Bugbear 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave this by saying that I have sympathy with what I believe to be Kurt's motivation. Whether his tactic is productive or not time will tell, but I do not agree that it can be considered to be "bad faith", or a "personal attack". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bugbear here. Every time Kurt drops one his no-thought opposes, he should be called on the bad faith he is showing. The oppose certainly assumes bad faith, as he is making an assumption that the candidate is power-hungry with any evidence whatsoever to support his assumption. From WP:AGF "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it" Kurt does exactly the opposite. Those complaining about his harrassment seem to think he should be exempt from criticism for his extraordinary ability to assume bad faith in others. Nuts to that. Note: He is entitled to comment as he sees fit, others should be allowed to challenge him and the blame for any ensuing wiki-drama should lie fair and square on his shoulders. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"No-thought opposes"? For goodness sake, it's called having principles; it's not specifically directed at any particular editor. What is so offensive about the notion that Wikipedia would be better off with (as one might see it) a caste of co-opted administrators rather than self-promotional ones?Skomorokh 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia would be better off if it wasn't a buddy-buddy RfA system with co-opted admins.Beam 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a no-thought oppose because he makes no effort to take a look at the candidates contributions or study the response to the questions; instead he makes a assumption of bad faith. Drive-by supports are routinely castigated and rightly so, the same should apply to opposes. Your remark here, "not specifically directed at any particular editor" is exactly the problem not a justification. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just as Kurt has the right to express his opinion and vote basing on any reasoning whatsoever, other editors have the right to comment on that. We cannot deny the right to decline some reasoning or openly criticize it - I would be quite reluctant to take Kurt under umbrella and single him out (by adding links saying, basically, that he can think what he wants and vote as he likes - as we all) just because he is persistent in his views. However, I believe that in all cases where the critique of Kurt's principles is uncivil or overly harsh, the users should be advised that such behavior is unwelcome here. Extreme trolling or insults can be dealt with as usual, too. After all the right to disagree with some voting principle is not less important than the right to vote on any principles one may have - it is only crucial to keep both civil. Pundit|utter 01:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I definitely wasn't suggesting that anyone should be prevented from commenting on Kurt's opposes. This is as much for the potential commenter as it is for all of us tired of seeing these pointless arguments; that is, if someone is about to question his oppose but then learns about the whole prima facie situation, they might not waste their time. I wouldn't have even started this thread if it wasn't for the fact that it is the same argument every single time. After Kurt's oppose the response is always one of three things: 1.) a mention of Kurt's failed self-nom RfA 2.) a request for him to expound/give a "better" reason or 3.) a comment along the lines of, "this shouldn't count." Regardless of one's opinion of Kurt, I'm sure we can all agree that nothing productive ever comes of these discussions, and that they are at least a bit disruptive. I'm also mystified by the logic behind them; it seems to be, "I disagree with what Kurt does (making ultimately fruitless and WP:POINTy comments) so I'm going to do the same thing. That'll show 'im!" I hope that it doesn't seem like I'm suggesting Kurt should be afforded a special don't-question-Kurt status; excepting the (surprisingly frequent) uncivil comments, Kurt is subject to legitimate criticism just like all of us. But these RfAs are just not the place for discussing Kurt's behavior. Cheers, faithless (speak) 07:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Very sensible. Sadly though the topic below this one shows once again that every time an unfashionable opinion is expressed in an RfA, whether it be by Kurt or by anyone else, the wrath of the self-righteously indignant is sure to follow. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
But these RfAs are just not the place for discussing Kurt's behavior. — Imho, these individual RfAs are also not the place for the concerns Kurt has about self-nominations. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but do two wrongs make a right, or just add to what these editors are decrying (pointless comments having nothing to do with any given RfA)? faithless (speak) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The considerable negative response which this particular templated oppose attracts should give the 'defenders of free speech' pause. Personally, I consider the mere fact of playing the same templated tune each time on the basis of as insignificant a common denominator as self-nomination an insult to the individual candidate. Granted, Kurt has every right to comment as he sees fit, but he should be prepared to receive feedback. Incidentally, I believe he himself is indeed prepared for that and doesn't really mind it all that much, as opposed to some of the crusaders who jump on everyone who dares to comment on Kurt's oppose. This constant harassment of people who uphold the status of RfA as an open community discussion must end. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, no one is suggesting that editors don't have the right to question Kurt, but rather that the behavior by everyone involved in these mini-discussions is detrimental to the RfA in which they take place and, by extension, the project as a whole. And for what it's worth, while I've never spoken with Kurt (about anything, much less this particular topic), I get the feeling that he couldn't care less about whether people give him the business for his pria facie opposes. But like I said earlier, I didn't bring this up to try to defend anyone from criticism, but rather to try to save us all from having to witness time and again the same tedious, irrelevant arguments. Cheers, faithless (speak) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
As in the situations described in the conversation above, there is room for discussion of rationales presented at RFA. Kurt's is just one of several I disagree with. How fine is the line between respectfully disagreeing and rudeness? Of course, with Kurt, it's gone beyond respectful disagreement. A simple mention of the opposer's (or supposer's) rationale and why it should be discounted should do it. One should be able to submit a counter-argument without ruffling feathers-- or being rude. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_135&oldid=1137437027"