Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 161

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 155

←

Archive 159

→

Responses needed

At User:Juliancolton/Why I hate RfA. Intended as a somewhat light and humorous essay. Use profanity and personal attacks as necessary. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can use profanity and personal attacks even when they aren't necessary? 'Cause, you know, it's fun. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today I commented on the subject of an AfD with "not notable, they can f*ck off and go die in a fire" (albeit off-wiki) so you have my support for that. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds, you have been blocked indefinitely for using the word "poo" in your edit summary. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Now now, if you infuriate me with a block I might use even more offensive words like "codswallop" or "labourite" actually the second one is a bit harsh Ironholds (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah - still not as harsh as Tory. GARDEN 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that breaches WP:NPA by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hatred of an opposer now a strong rationale?

This. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dearie me. NPA much? GARDEN 15:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a curious discrepancy that saying "I hate Ottava Rima" is considered to be acceptable in a support, but saying "No" in an oppose is not.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has even remotely said it was acceptable. Please, Malleus, please stop. GARDEN 15:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Or else? Isn't about time we started getting the veiled threats in? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? GARDEN 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus dislikes double standards or people eager to attack others but withhold on blatant problems. Everyone saw that the one user above (with an altered character name which makes it impossible to really refer to him as anything) say those things. How long would it have sat there without any questioning? Yet Malleus is pounced on from the very beginning. But Malleus, the point is made so we can stop with it at the moment and bring it up the next time double standards happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What on earth does my name have to do with anything? You can refer to me as whatever you want. When I changed my name I left a notice on my user page and talk page for a week, and for a week used a modified signature that said "formerly Politizer", so it's not like I'm trying to hide. I also specifically said in the notice that my name change has nothing to do with you and I wasn't trying to hide from anything; I changed my name for off-wiki reasons, so that doesn't really concern you. Besides, every user has the right to change their name (I specifically waited until after your ANI thread about me was archived, to avoid causing confusion), so you don't really have any reason to criticize me for having a new name. If you really have a problem with it, feel free to take me to ANI (again) about my big bad new name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It makes it impossible to call you anything because your symbols do not show up for everyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag shows up in the history and other places. Don't whine about how my username shows up differently than what it actually is, because plenty of people have that (first example off the top of my head: User:Marine 69-71 signs his name as Tony the Marine). And you can call me Big Bird for all I care. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In what universe is "please stop" a threat? Come on Malleus, no need to be that defensive. Regardless of the appropriateness of the rationale, it does not mean that other questionable rationals have been embraced. Chillum 16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In that same universe that "No" is considered uncivil perhaps? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Or comments are threaded so that they look like they are all responding to me? :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I changed the wording at Garden's request, but really I don't see why it was a big deal; I wasn't talking about myself or about Ottava, but about \ /. If you don't agree that \ / "worked with you," then fine; my point is that I think he worked with you, but he's a user I respect so much that I'm not offended by the fact that he's gotten along with a user that I don't like. You're free to take it as a personal attack if you want, but that's not how it was intended.

And by the way, it would have been nice if someone had notified me of this discussion. Oh well, no harm done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

...seriously? If the entire support !vote hinged on the fact that Rjanag hates Ottava Rima, there might be an issue worth discussing on this page. It wasn't though, so I fail to see the exact relevancy to the RfA process. Civility warning for Rjanag, don't do it again (seriously, if you hate someone, just keep it to yourself; there are plenty of people on-wiki that I can't stand [OR not being one of them], but I don't mention them left and right, and nothing productive comes from such statements, thisthread being a good example). What's left to discuss in regards to RfAs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility expected only from non-administrators while administrators are free to throw their weight around bullying and chivvying anyone in the oppose column whose opinion they take a dislike to? Nah, you're right, nothing at all to do with RfA, just human nature. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, administrators are expected to be civil as well; only bureaucrats should be free to throw their weight around bullying and chivying anyone in the oppose column whose opinion they take a dislike to. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

EVula, you don't find it something worth talking about on the RfA talk page when someone expresses any kind of "hate" towards another user that is not part of the nominee as any aspect of a choice? I could say that such beliefs would be a reason why you received as many opposes as you did lately in your own elections, but that would be a cheap shot. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I say the behavior was excusable? No. Did I say that I saw nothing wrong with the comment? No. I said that, unless the entirety of Rjanag's participation in that RfA was to say that he hated you (or, for that matter, if he was reacting to a candidacy based solely on his hatred of a neutral third party), this isn't an RfA issue, merely a behavioral one, and it should be addressed (or he should be redressed, take your pick) somewhere else, since its only tangentially related to the RfA process.
And feel free to take cheap shots; they're plenty fun if you make them outrageous enough. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it already has been addressed, as you said above...Garden sent me a friendly message (not one I agree with, but oh well, I got the message anyway) and I changed the comment a couple hours ago. Like you, I don't really see what still needs to be discussed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

EVula, I merely though it was funny enough to warrant mentioning here. "Ottava sucks" is the new "Why not". Plus, I did support you for Steward, which means I don't mind you as long as you are off destroying some other wiki. :P!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a difficult judgment call here, and it's not terribly important where we draw the line, but we should at least acknowledge that there's a line somewhere. If someone says (untruthfully) on someone's RFA page "I hate user X because they've been stalking voters in real life", that's so likely to create an atmosphere that makes it hard to get the work of the RFA done that it would probably be appropriate to revert or strike the comment, at a minimum. So, is "I hate X" (where X is one of the voters) in this category? Is it likely to create a distraction that interferes with the business of the RFA? I don't know, but if it is, then the comment should be reverted or stricken and the editor warned. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of those things have already been done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the guidance ought to be quite clear. No vote, either oppose or support, should include personal remarks concerning anyone other than the candidate. I see a comment such as "I hate candidate X because ..." in quite a different light from "I hate opposer (or supporter) X", particularly when the latter is coupled with "... so I'm going to support (or oppose)". To an extent, candidates at RfA have to expect personal comments; it's a pretty personal process having your trustworthiness and past behaviour publicly examined, but the voters aren't being assessed, and ought not to be subjected to the same kind of examination, or let's be honest, villification. Admittedly, many may consider my view that personal comment is not synonymous with personal attack to be verging on wikiheresy, but that's my view nevertheless, and I'd be prepared to go the stake rather than recant. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said above and on my own talk page, I wasn't making the comment to get anyone to assess or examine Ottava Rima; the comment was an assessment of \ /. I wasn't saying "hey guys, I don't like O R, let's go beat him up!" but rather "\ / has gotten along with O R, and I don't like O R, but I would still vote for \ / because that's how much I love him." Anyway, I don't see how it matters anymore, as the comment has already been edited and I've already gotten my shiny new warning. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

poor wikibreak effort Totally agree with Malleus - focus on the candidate not the supporters, opponents and most commonly the nominators. The issue round here is that people equate commenting on an editors posts on Wikipedia with a personal attack. "You're crap at tagging for CSD" is a world apart from "You have an ugly face and are a bit of an arse". One is a personal attack, the other is not. Regretfuly many people continue to be confused by WP:NPA - much as they are with WP:NLT over at ANI. Back to wikibreak now. Pedro : Chat 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I blame the children for this confusion between personal attacks vs personal comments. Which is why I would never support a candidate at RfA I had good reason to believe was under 18 ... oh, sorry, wrong section. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I forget what teachers call it, but the technique basically involves wrapping bad news up in good news. "Your work at AfD is absolutely exemplary, an example to us all, but you're crap at tagging for CSD. Why do you think that is?" is likely to get a better reception than "You're crap at tagging for CSD". Again, too many administrators have no real experience of life, and so don't really know how to ... oh oh, I'm on my hobby horse again, sorry. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Given my recent behaviour I think that I would appear to be under the age of 12, let alone 18..... But that's another story. And I think you are refering to the criticism rule of 70/30 60/40 (whatever it was in 1970's/80's UK schooling) that you spend far more time on the positives than the negatives in order to encourage children rather than disapoint. Not sure how it worked out for the education system. Very Badly, I would guess. Pedro : Chat 22:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing I could think of was "putting a spin" on the bad news, but that's not quite it. Maybe "positive reinforcement" or something? Useight (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a site that calls it "sandwiching" the negative between positives. Useight (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of. It's not that you spend time on the positives as in the 70/30 idea Pedro mentioned, rather they're just a vehicle for introducing the negatives in a non-threatening way. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up Pedro, we all go through bad times, wondering why we bothe to waste our time here. Remember, I've got the nuclear option, but I've never even been once tempted to use it. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The nuclear option? that has been removed without a simple one button desysop mechanism - viz. - en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=replace with specialist hard core pornography :) Pedro : Chat 23:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I bit. Do I get blocked now because I followed that link? I really, really hate being given links to pages that only administrators are allowed to access. It always reminds of Harry Enfield's Brummie couple: "We're considerably wealthier than yow". --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The point, my man, is that I can't follow the link either with my admin account - no admin can - put the mouse over it and see where it goes. Admins can't delete the main page.... Pedro : Chat 23:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thin end of the wedge Pedro. It'll soon get to the point where editors aren't allowed to alter any pages, for fear of a potential BLP violation. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)All admins get is a lovely message saying "You can't delete or move the main page.". Now editing the interface to say "You can't delete or move the main page you twat - see - you're not as powerful as you thought you were" might be a viable alternative to that message.... Pedro : Chat 23:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Better I think would be:"The effort you've put into improving this encyclopedia has been inspirational, but despite having gained the community's trust we can't trust you not to delete the main page. That's not a comment directed at you personally, we don't trust any administrators." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"It'll soon get to the point where editors aren't allowed to alter any pages, for fear of a potential BLP violation" Really? "get to"? cough. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

← Fair point. Flagged revisions will sound this project's death knell. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What really concerns me here is that we get everyone into a tizzy, and then some unsuspecting chump states in a vote that they "really, really hate nudity", and someone blocks them for incivility thinking the chump was stating a hatred of nudity, rather than disclosing a strong personal distaste for the human body sans robes. Where do we draw the line people!? Hold back the tides of anarchy!!! The preceding remarks were made entirely in jest. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

SQLbot

Is SQLbot unwell? two of our current candidates have blanks in their support, oppose and crucially for the crats the percentage column. Were Spiel Chequers 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you said "crucially for the crats", I feel I must inform you that, for just shy of seven days, the support percentage doesn't really matter to us. There isn't a single bureaucrat that would close an RfA exclusively based on the number in the template.
I'm not saying that the bot doesn't perform a useful service, mind you. I'm just saying that you shouldn't mention the needs of bureaucrats when they're still being met. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I got the impression he was joking in adding that phrase. Looking forward to one of you clueless crats closing a 23% support RfA as successful because you're lost without the percentage... ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 18:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"But... but the table said there was consensus! Why would the table lie?" EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should rename yourself AreBotChequers. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to Tangobot (the nice bot who used to update this page :)) btw? Chamal ^talk 08:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Addshore asked Tangotango ten days ago but got no reply. I guess we have to declare it MIA. So Why 09:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I just manually updated SQLBot's rfa count since it hadn't been updated in 2 days.--Giants27 T C 13:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's another bot master who lurks around here. I'll ask him if he can fill in while Tangobot is missing. iMatthew // talk // 14:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mission accomplished

User:ST47 was nice enough to put together this new table for us while Tangobot is out. It's updated every 15 minutes. Enjoy, iMatthew // talk // 15:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I put it at the top of the page.--Giants27 T C 15:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, while we are putting together new tables, can someone come up with a bot that tracks the supports and opposes from the 25 most prolific voters and put up a separate table on that? Why? Well, I find that it may be interesting. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice and thanks to ST47 for that. Could you ask him whether his bot can also add S/O/N numbers to that table and make them in chronological order? Right now it's not possible to sort them by that because the table gets sorted by time, not by date xD So Why 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA, what the hell is wrong with you

Someone is passing with no opposes, with no FAs, GAs, DYKs, or ITNs. Seems like RfA just lost its brain; for the better, that is.

I hereby declare RfA once again safe for consumption. — neuro^(talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You spoke too soon... Majorly talk 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that couldn't have been timed worse. Now I just look like an idiot.

No change there then. — neuro^(talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And Amalthea has an DYK, so your assumption was incorrect anyway ;-) So Why 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Screw you guys :'( — neuro^(talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he's got an oppose now, but still that's some good news for me ;-), but seriously I agree with this who cares how many FAs, GAs and DYKs you have that doesn't prove your worth you have to be good in policy, etc...--Giants27 T C 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with I believe to be your general sentiment, I think it's absurd to suggest that producing featured and/or good content does not "prove your worth". It's that kind of dismissive attitude that has led to the increasing schism between admins and non-admins. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My issue is it being a de facto requirement as opposed to a reason to support. Mind you, something is very wrong with RfA at the moment - or should I say very right? — neuro^(talk) 20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No no, the real schism is between Dragons and Gnomes. We once got along, but it seems like there is a fracture and many of the gnomes have sided with those awful knights. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I quite liked Dank55's characterisation elsewhere of it being a struggle between exopedians and those who fondly cling to the delusion that wikipedia's process wonkery actually contributes anything of value. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't think I said anyone was delusional. I said (here) that metapedians and exopedians don't respect each other much, and gave some arguments. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I put words in your mouth representing my own view. Sorry. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I call bullshit on the idea that this is a de facto requirement. Evidence please. Skomorokh 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the opposes on various RfAs from the beginning of 2008 onwards. You'll see it. — neuro^(talk) 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read them and I'm afraid I haven't seen it. How many can you find which garnered say, a dozen opposes solely because the candidate did not have a Good or Featured article? Or where this concern was the decisive factor in the candidacy failing? Skomorokh 20:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath. I think that is something like what you are looking for. — neuro^(talk) 20:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing like it. The very first oppose starts off: "Lack of article work. Sorry, I don't demand a FA, GA or even a DYK ...". That's lack of article work, not lack of a GA/FA/DYK. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, that's an example of exactly why I think you are wrong in this thread. There a significant concern was a lack of article writing experience on the part of the candidate, not a lack of FAs, GAs, DYKs or ITNs. To quote the first and one of the more influential opposes there: "Sorry, I don't demand a FA, GA or even a DYK, but I do think admins need to have some idea about the frustrations of content creation." Skomorokh 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that was a bad example - and I wasn't talking about the first oppose. Hey, this thread was supposed to be lighthearted! :O — neuro^(talk) 20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lighthearted is fine, but it seems like the take-home reaction to this thread is supposed to be "hohoho those silly fellows at RfA and their ridiculous requirements; maybe a ray of sanity is shining through! RfA is broken lol". Which would be fine, if the phenomenon alluded to in the OP had any strong basis in reality. Sorry for sounding crotchety, Skomorokh 21:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think about the response to this thread so much. We have been talking about it for a few days on IRC, thought I might put something here. Turns out that was a bad idea. — neuro^(talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've indeed seen quite a few opposes over the months concerning a lack of recognized content. While it's not one of RfA's most prominent problems, I don't see why everybody's attacking this thread. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What you've seen is opposes over the lack of content creation. I can't remember ever having seen an oppose over a lack of "recognized" content creation, assuming by that you mean FA/GA/DYK. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

People aren't "attacking this thread", simply pointing out that it's promoting a false premise. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My point was that an RfA had got through with no opposes based on that, despite the fact that the same had happened in similar situations before. — neuro^(talk) 00:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay misinterpreted you, on that point you are completely right it is absolutely amazing no one has said "you don't have an FA/GA/DYK, so you're clearly not here to build the encyclopedia, and based on your last 500 edits, you use huggle a lot, Wikipedia doesn't need more huggle admins", to me that's the worst reason to oppose, since it's absolutely insane.--Giants27 T C 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What "similar situations before"? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want me to reel off a list? There have been absolutely tons in 2008 alone. — neuro^(talk) 01:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One example would do. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of new user RFAs

Don't you think the amount of new user RFAs we're getting at the moment? These used to be quite rare, but we've had Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wael.Mogherbi, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Syjytg and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blctc all within the last week. None of them had a nomination statement. What's going on?--Patton^t/c 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistically insignificant deviation. Skomorokh 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps RfA is broken?

. — Aitias // discussion 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fail. It's been broken for months now. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me} @ 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No evidence to back me up but maybe, just maybe socks? I don't think so but it's a possibility.--Giants27 T C 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too.--Patton^t/c 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do have some shiny new CUs that we need to break in. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dylan - people at RfA are broken. GARDEN 17:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Garden - People (and keyboards) are broken at RFA. Gazi moff 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As well as caravans. GARDEN 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given that all three of them failed to fill out the descriptions of the candidates (themselves), that is a bit curious. Definitely sends up my sockpuppet flag... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Although, the new users log has been rather active as of late, so maybe we're just experiencing a surge of activity. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So has vandalism, I mean I've never reverted 2 vandalisms in 2 minutes before, for me it's usually 2 every 6 or 8 minutes.--Giants27 T C 18:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"I mean I've never reverted 2 vandalisms in 2 minutes before" | Clearly never used WP:HUG then! I remember getting like ten in a minute with that once... ah, man. — neuro^(talk) 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you can easily do 10–20 per minute with Huggle. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the hands of a competent and conscientious user, Huggle is extremely effective. Any proggy that gives users the opportunity to revert vandalism faster than Cluebot is impressive. It also breeds a lot of irritation though. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Jarry1250

Hi, just a quick note to let you know that User:Jarry1250 is up for BAG membership (click the above link for the nomination). Richard ⁰⁶¹² 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How dare you associate BAG nominations with RfA! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been the norm for some time that BAG nominations are publicised on various noticeboards (including, gasp!, WP:AN). People complained that BAG had a 'cliquey' feel, and so this was one way of getting more community oversight. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Wisdom89, is BAG membership is such a bad thing ? :P -- Tinu Cherian - 14:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA is too damn stressful (and a possible way that might fix it)

We all know it, RFA's too stressful. People spends up to a week on edge, and do/say things because of the stress that they wouldn't say normally. Solution: Restructure RFA to look more like the CU and Oversight elections. Have people vote, but not leave comments. I think that these comments are part of the reason there is so much discord at RFA. What does everyone think? Sam ^Blab 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Before someone says it (and I know they will), but m:Voting is evil is one of Wikipedia's most important policies, and a pure vote would therefore be evil. Majorly talk 23:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason to make it look any more like a vote; I don't really think the comments-with-votes have much to do with it anyway. Anyone with anything contentious to say would just stick their contentiousness in the discussion section anyway; I much prefer having peoples' opinions attached to their votes so it's easy to see who's thought it through and who's just following the conga line. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You could argue that the current system is an opportunity to see how the candidate performs in stressful situations, as they may very well come up against stress as an admin. Aptery gial 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I ever did as an admin was nearly as stressful as going through my reconfirmation RFA. Majorly talk 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this has been proposed, and won't be the last time this has been shot down. I suggest looking into the archives at all the other times when this has come up, meaningfully address all the concerns raised in those discussions, then come back and try again. —kur ykh 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see something that can come out of his proposal though. I think a nice concept would be to have RfA's held monthly. For example, every beginning of a month, we would have elections just like we did for ArbCom, where as many candidates would run as applied. That would be instead of having one whenever somebody wanted to open it, we only held RfA's 12 times a year (every month). It would take off a lot of pressure if you were running along with a group of people, instead of (in some cases, by yourself or with one other person). Just a thought. iMatthew // talk // 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that stress comes from within, not from outside. RfA is what it is, and there's nothing that can be done to change it. Any candidate who feels they might be streesed by the bear pit ought to stay well clear of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The CU elections only look better because the people are generally already well known and fairly well liked, so they generate less opposition and (by virtue of having been admins for quite awhile already) they are less likely to respond with erratic or emotional behavior. Plus they're just lower profile - fewer people are aware of those elections to begin with. Avruch^T 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think it's all that stressful. My RfA is coming to a close tonight, will most likely fail, and I don't have any hard feelings about it. In fact, it's a much better alternative to editor review. I'm not saying that's why I did it (it most certainly is not), but I've had an editor review sit for a month with no response. Here you get the most constructive criticism you could imagine with the bonus of many people saying good things about you (I really am appreciated!). If you shouldn't be requesting adminship, then yes, I can see an RfA being disheartening, but at the same time, you shouldn't have requested it to begin with. Just my 2¢. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

Wadester, trust me, it will definitely fail. But I like your attitude. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know if "stressful" is the right word, I think it's more of "uncertainty". And, generally speaking, whenever there is any event with an unknown outcome that directly affects your future, there's going to be some stress, even if it is solely due to the uncertainty. Not necessarily stress as in fretting and pacing around, but more of an apprehensive wondering, I guess I would call it. Useight (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the biggest things putting me off RfAing myself anyway; I just don't really need the stress of uncertainty. I'm not bothered about people saying nasty things about me, I just don't like worrying for a week - like it or not, Wikipedia's important to me and an RfA is something of a big deal, regardless of what the cliché may be. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The only way to truly fix RfA is &action=delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I kinda like IMatthew's idea of having one every month of the year, because then we can have that message on the watchlist, "vote in this months RFA elections", now the only deciding if we keep the vote at 1 week, or make it longer.--Giants27 T C 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Expect a long proposal coming soon. :) iMatthew // talk // 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like it too. A bit less secrecy seems like a good idea, particularly if candidates were actually allowed to make it widely known that they were standing at RfA without being accused of "canvassing". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to work on writing up a proposal (maybe tomorrow). If anybody would like to see it being put together, bookmark this page and check back often throughout the day tomorrow. (If you go there, be aware that it shows your IP, but nobody will know it's you if you don't fill in your username). iMatthew // talk // 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, in my opinion. X clamation point 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The only appropriate change if we remove one piece is to remove voting and just have comments. A good 50% of supports are pure fluff. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not stressful. It is just a few questions and a lot of opinions. That is what the people running for admin are asking for. A job interview is stressful, meeting with a doctor about something serious is stressful, being an admin is stressful. I went through RfA twice and I found it to be a pleasant experience both to fail and succeed. If you don't want stress then admin is a terrible job for you. RfA is nothing compared to the stress of an angry mob who will not accept policy berating you on your talk page.

Basically it takes a certain level of ability to handle stress to be an admin, if something as simple and constructive as the criticism on an RfA is too much stress then you should let that stress filter you out of the potential admin pool. RfAs should filter out people who are uncomfortable with people scrutinizing them. Admins are scrutinized.

The comments are the most important part, if it was pure voting with no comments then we might as well make a 'cratBot to do the promoting. The comments people make have an effect on the other people. Chillum 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this out of the way - not allowing comments is a downright silly idea. Hell yeah RfA is stressful, but saying "it is stressful, so lets remove the comments" is just... well, that is just making things even worse. How are people supposed to demonstrate reasons to support or reasons to oppose to others without comments? This is not a good plan. — neuro^(talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways to do RFA, including straight no-comment voting, selecting a fixed number of candidates from a preselected list or an open ballot, or other means, but 1) I'm not sure you would ever get consensus to change, and 2) any new system would have its own plusses and minuses. One advantage to today's RFA system is it gives feedback. People who fail usually walk away with a clue what needs to change before they can be granted the bit. As long as "opposes" are written a if they were "moral supports" i.e. "I would support you but for ..., now go change it and I'll support you down the road" then the current system is probably the way to go. If it should ever turn into a blood sport, then we have a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been using this a lot lately, but I won't say who said it, in case he wishes not to be quoted.

"The RfA process is not broken, the voters are. But since we can't change the voters, we have to change the process."

These threads and proposals are all good, ideas should come whenever possible. iMatthew // talk // 02:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

*Rant*Good quote and I agree 100% with it the RFA process itself is certaintly not broken (so all these people coming here screaming RFA is broken what can we do to fix it? are wrong) I have an idea do away with non-comment votes and no more moral supports those are garbage, "Too early, I'd vote for you down the road however", I have an idea OPPOSE!*End Rant*--Giants27 T C 03:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that CU/Steward/ArbCom elections happen infrequently. If you seriously think the majority of members of the !voting community are going to, individually, exhaustively research ten candidates a month just because a few over-sensitive people have meltdowns due to RfA, you're out of your mind. The current system allows for those of us with better things to do onwiki than diff-stalk to at least get a feel for the general pros and cons of each given candidate (a common-ground launching point, if you will) before doing our own research. Badger Drink (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather people make comments about me than simply say they didn't want to be an admin. That way I could improve as a person and an editor.--Patton^t/c 10:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you find a week at RFA stressful, don't spend a month at FAC ... ;) Wily D 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC stressful? Lol you've gotta be kidding me. It's one of the most relaxing processes there is. Everyone is so friendly.--Patton^t/c 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

{{disputed}} –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My first time at RFA, at least 4 other editors attempted to address objections on my behalf. My first time at FAC, no more than zero other editors attempted to address objections on my behalf. Helpful is more useful than friendly ... Wily D 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a straight vote is helpful from a self-improvement perspective; one of the things I strongly disliked about my recent OS election is that I have no clue why most of the opposers voted the way they did (a couple I was unsurprised about, but for the most part, I have no clue if there's something I need or can work on for the future). Yes, I may have gotten the OS flag, but I'm always interested in how I can improve myself; a straight vote doesn't allow for that. If anything, I think a straight vote would be more stressful, since the candidate would have no clue why they're being opposed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope I can say things like this and hopefully the "nomination succeeded" version of this when I'm ready to put on the asbestos underwear, er, drop my name in the ring. I agree with Badger Drink (talk · contribs)'s comment above: "The current system allows for those of us with better things to do onwiki than diff-stalk to at least get a feel for the general pros and cons of each given candidate (a common-ground launching point, if you will) before doing our own research." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to make RfA voting similar to ArbCom

The following discussion 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.

User:IMatthew/RfA proposal

Is this a straw poll? Tan | 39 15:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be more of a discussion at first, I hoped. Please feel free to make changes NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I really like this proposal, but I think that the other regulars will sadly slam a WP:PEREN tag. A novel idea though. Sam ^Blab 15:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, things are fine as they are. There are problems, but this would make things worse. My reasons are given in the above discussion. Oh, and as is traditional here is my one word bolded summary of my opinion: oppose. If you have any questions about my opinion, just ask. Chillum 15:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am however in favor of the idea of a required 2 or 3 days discussion to be held on the talk page before actual polling begins. You or your nominator would submit your RfA but it will not open for polling for a few days giving people the chance to discuss the matter before casting opinions. I think this will help with NOTNOW problems and give people a chance to make an informed opinion at the poll instead of jumping on a band wagon.

Once this short discussion period is over the RfA would begin and be carried out just as it does now. Chillum 15:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

- I'd disagree that things are fine as they are. The administrators keep leaving, and the RfA's are passing a lot less frequently. There is a problem, and more people can agree with that. iMatthew // talk // 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it's hard to think that you aren't biased for your own (inexplicably withdrawn) recent failed RfA. Tan | 39 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's what inspired me to try to think up something that would work better than this. Going through it again, it's getting worse and worse. iMatthew // talk // 15:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit sticky, Tan, but true. Also, a comment. 2 weeks? People can hardly get through one. Simon^KSK 15:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This would seem to be putting more barriers in front of editors wishing to run. The reason ArbCom elections run as they do is because members have to work cohesively as a small team, and it's in the encyclopaedia's interest that the team reflects the norms, values and concerns of a particular point in time. There is no such need for administrators, who can in the vast majority of cases block, delete and protect merrily on their own. I prefer to leave candidacies emerge organically than force them into artificial time periods. Thirdly, this would make RfA more of a big deal. Fourthly, making reviewers look through the contribs of the same amount of candidates all at once is far more stressful. Finally, if you can't handle the scrutiny of the editorial community for a week on your own, you don't have the mental resilience the position requires. Thank you for the thought put into this proposal, and I look forward to hearing more. Skomorokh 15:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Skomorokh. In other news, feels like creep. — neuro^(talk) 16:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This process needs to be fixed. If idea's keep getting shot down, and editors suggesting that it's "too much work" then it never will be. iMatthew // talk // 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

- I think you're being overly dramatic in thinking this is being 'shot down', but anyway. — neuro^(talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Instituting bad ideas just for the sake of changing something is not a promising approach. And with all due respect, at first glance this looks to be a bad idea; let's discuss it some more to find out. Who are you quoting with regard to effort? Skomorokh 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was just a comment in general. It's what I'm picking up from the thread so far. iMatthew // talk // 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If I were to shoot this down, then it's because I don't think this is an improvement to the RFA process at all, not because it's "too much work". The real problem is the inflation of people's RFA standards, not the process itself.--Atlan (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What Atlan said. --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the suggested advantages appear to be true. In fact, even the oft-repeated meme that RFA is "broken" is not well supported. Wily D 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think having a dedicated RfA time will fix the problems at RfA. I think limiting and restricting the process (in both how vocal participants can be, and when they run) isn't the best way to solve the problem; it works for ArbCom because it's a major role on Wikipedia, and (in theory) all candidates are already well known in the community. That is not the case for admin candidates, where there should be a bit more investigation into their background and edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA itself does not to be fixed the voters do, but I still like the RFA's once a month the rest I'm to lazy to read.--Giants27 T C 17:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA needs fixing, RfA participants need fixing, doesn't matter; restricting the process per the above won't solve either problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No actual problem has been identified, and there's no real reason to believe people could agree upon any identification. Very few RFAs actually turn out wrong, so far as I can see. Until a specific problem is identified, proposing solutions is completely worthless, so far as I can see. Wily D 18:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"RfA participants need fixing" Are you talking about me? : P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a few friends who've been fixed, and they don't seem any worse for the wear. Wily D 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Boo, hiss Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Most RfAs I've seen are quite fair, and it seems to me that the ~1,000 userspace essays and ~200 WT:RFA archives, filled with "RfA is broken!" makes it worse than it actually is. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that the fact that RfAs have become much tougher over recent years is a definite move in the right direction. I look forward to the day that it becomes so tough that it is impossible for anyone to pass. The wikifossils will then be forced to consider an alternative. Until then though, minds are closed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Very strong oppose A very bad idea, more stressful, less feedback.--Patton^t/c 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This proposal is a bad idea. As Skomorokh argues above, it would probably reduce the number of successful RFA candidacies, not increase it, as prospective admins would have to wait up to a month to run; it would also arguably increase the drama, by making RFA more of an 'event'. Making RFA more like the ArbCom elections is not desirable - does IMatthew not remember how drama-filled the last lot were? The current RFA system may not be perfect, but it works pretty well: users can submit themselves for adminship and receive an answer in a week, and NOTNOW candidaces are removed speedily. I'm not convinced we have a problem with a lack of successful admins, either; I see four passing RFAs in the top right at the moment. It's true that RFA can be a highly stressful experience for some candidates; but frequently, those who find it too stressful are those who are unsuitable to be an admin anyway. If you're well-suited to be an admin, then chances are you'll have a relatively drama-free RFA. All in all: wrong solution to a nonexistent problem. Robofish (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2009 (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.

Gonna jinx it for sure

It looks like our current 3 candidates are shoe-ins. Now that I've said that it's going to come out that they all failed to report taxable income or something and they'll be forced to withdraw. Oops, sorry about that. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, now that you've said that I'm bound by law to use my psychic powers to determine what's wrong with these candidates. Turns out that Amalthea's computer is powered by a kitten furnace, and Msgj and S@bre are actually sockpuppets of each other. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tax evasion ain't such a big deal no more. The guy who's in charge of the IRS failed to pay his taxes. "And thirdly, the IRS [sic] code is more what you call guidelines than actual rules.^[2] Just my (untaxed) 2¢. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! You owe between 10% and 35% of those two cents depending on your tax bracket! Useight (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't worry about my taxes because I have people.--Giants27 T C 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So do I. And they're surprisingly good at math. Problem is they won't stop singing... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Undocumented workers?!?! --Ali'i 18:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser might be needed in this case ;-).--Giants27 T C 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I would like to try to become an administrator, but I am not quite sure how to add my name. Adam Penale (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Most probably this page will be of help. — Aitias // discussion 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate--Patton^t/c 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikignomes

Caspian Blue asked an interesting question in Amalthea's RfA about Wikignomes running for RfA in large(r) numbers than article creators. As a discussion on that is tangental to Amalthea's RfA, I said I was going to comment here. I think that is largely because a wikignome is more likely to want to bit than a pure content creator. A pure content creator will rarely stumble upon issues where they need the tools. A wikignome, however, is (by their very nature) going to be all over the place. A wikignome is more likely to find various needs for the tools and find their efforts hampered by not having them. Many of our best article builders are not admins and never will be. They don't need the tools, so the population of article builders who run is smaller. I would argue that many (but not all) of the best article writers won't even bother running. And many of the top tier article builders, if they did run, would fail.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, your not likely to get into content disputes/make enemies if you spend the majority of your time fixing typo's, disambiguate pages and redirects. People who work quietly in the background, by their nature, don't cause controversy. Whereas someone who writes a full featured article on homosexuality in Finland (picked a random country), is guaranteed to piss someone off. One pissed off editor with a few diffs can single handedly sink an RfA. — R ² 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that more amount of "content creators" should be elected to administrators because they can help people resolve frustrating content disputes. Most of never-ending and tendentious disputes in Wiki which are brought up to ArbCom are not disruptions caused by vandals from bad-faith, but stem from conflicting over interpretation of sources, fact checking, etc. For such disputes, only admins with enough experience of building articles can meditate persistent dispute and if needed, they can quickly protect such articles or block disruptive editors before editors have to go ANI/AN or other wiki spaces, so peace would come earlier. On the other hand, vandal fighters and other WikiGnomes can rely on various useful tools such as huggle.--Caspian blue 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I certainly won't dispute that heavy content-creating editors often make good admins, but surely there's a difference between "we need more content-creating admins" and "we need less wikignome admins"? There's no limit to the number of admins we can have;
As a mostly-gnomish person, I've been a party to a few minor disputes here and there, in some cases as a direct party in other cases as an unofficial mediator. Most recently, I was on the factually incorrect side of a date-of-death dispute for Jeremy Lusk. The dispute was caused because of conflicting information from different reliable sources. Once all the facts came out, the dispute ended naturally and everyone was happy. Had the exact date of death never come out, the dispute would've dragged on indefinitely, reflecting the fact that the information was in fact disputed in external reliable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I certainly won't dispute that heavy content-creating editors often make good admins, but surely there's a difference between "we need more content-creating admins" and "we need less wikignome admins"? There's no limit to the number of admins we can have; the solution to a perceived problem here would seem to be to encourage more article-writers to request adminship, rather than discouraging the reverse. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
As important as content-creators are, I often believe wikigomes make better administrators. If nobody ever created another article, Wikipedia would remain a useful and comprehensive resource for years to come; if not for vandal-fighters, janitors, and wikigomes, Wikipedia would be useless in a matter of days. Just my $0.02. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I think trying to compare the need for both is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison; we need both content editors and wikignomes, and we need administrators of both types. However, I'm personally biased, since I'm a Wikignome to the core (and have been since the beginning; in three years, I've still yet to create from scratch a single article). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I propose the creation of a new class of administrators, called gnoministrators. Gnoministrators will have exactly the same set of powers as regular administrators, except that they will be exempt from people complaining about how they never made a featured article. bd2412 T 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gnome me up. :) Dloh cierekim 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know if you meant it... but gnomistrators sounds like commanding a women to do something she does once a month for a large part of their lives...---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 20:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh - not gnomistrators, gnoministrators! bd2412 T 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if we also create a gnomicrat usergroup as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"A pure content creator will rarely stumble upon issues where they ened the tools" I'm suprised at you Balloonman. Just because you don't visit a page whree someone tells you what to do with the tools doesn't mean you won't need them. I must haved requested admin page moves hundreds of times. I think everyone should write at least one FA (Not an FL, FP or anything else, a featured article) before becoming an admin, though that doesn't mean I'll opposed jus tbecause someoen hasn't.--Patton^t/c 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you surprised? The fact cannot be disputed, a person who is doing gnome type work, visiting a hundred different pages a week/day, is more likely to stumble upon a situation wherein the tools will be helpful. The Article Builder, who is focusing on 2-3 articles at time, and a score more in the background is less likely to stumble upon something. It boils down to raw numbers and statistical probability. An article builder isn't going to need the tools as often or as diversely as a gnome might. In fact, when I've approached true article builders their first question is often "Do I really need the tools?" A number of article builders don't want them because they don't ever see the need for them. Article building is important, but many article builders wouldn't notice the tools if they were given them.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 07:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

((ec))Some of us will never, ever create an FA. Including me. You don't need it to be an admin. What Julian said. Building the encyclopedia is important, however opposing because of an editcountits based on article creation is counter productive in that it excludes qualified users from adminship. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how easy it is to write an Fa. Don't say you can't untill you at least try.--Patton^t/c 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that I could never write the "brilliant prose" expected in an FA myself – couldn't even in my native tongue. I didn't even dare propse my article for GA review, cause I thought that it wasn't up to it prose-wise, and I felt it was a waste of reviewer resources.
After I finished my first article I said that "every prospective admin should spend at least a day on the other side of the fence, be it building articles, or patrolling new pages and recent changes." I think an FA writer would benefit just as much from spending a day with Huggle as I did from writing an article and getting it to a DYK. --Amalthea 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I, like some of the others above, have never written a GA or FA, but instead function mostly as a WikiGnome. And I was voted "Best Wikipedia Admin We Know" by my roommates. Useight (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

lol--Patton^t/c 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the best Wikipedia administrator I know. Wait... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world, any editor who competently carries out the things they do in their little corner of Wikipedia, does so in a kind manner, and who demonstrates an ability to learn and adapt should win an RfA election every single time. It doesn't matter whether they write articles, or fix typos. However, every democracy is subject to the irrationalities of the voters, and the RfA constituency suffers from its own form of creationists who reject the idea that evolution is possible amongst contributors, regardless of all supporting evidence. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I might disagree here Hib ... I do a lot of typo stuff, have written a bunch of stubs, even a couple of "most wanted articles". With over 5000 edits, you're right, I might have passed an RfA. However, I tend to deal with a LOT of WQA issues, and even ANI. Because of that, I have probably pished off quite a few - indeed, there are two truly incomprehensible entries on my editor review simply because I pished 2 people off in those forums. I was even taken to ANI because I tried to help someone, and they became belligerant. Because I took the muddy jump into WQA and ANI, I probably never will pass an RfA if I tried. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in this discussion. Even if one might think more content creators should be made admins, we can only consider requests by people who want to become admins. And adminship is largely maintenance, so WikiGnomes are usually more comfortable around it. But as long as noone can honestly claim that content creators are less likely to become admins because of their content creation, there is no point in discussing why there are so few compared to the gnomes. I invite every content creator to consider adminship - but we cannot force those people to request it. But in no way should those who do request it suffer just because they belong to a larger group of users. And I would still request Caspian Blue to elaborate why he thinks missing content creators at RFA are the reason not to support a WikiGnome. I just don't understand that, honestly. Both issues are completely separate (or in this case: Is it Amalthea's fault that so few content creators request adminship?) to me... So Why 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If a user shows competence in their non-admin work, be it content creation or gnome-work, they should be allowed to have the bit. That's the only thing that matters IMHO. Sam ^Blab 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Last month we only appointed 6 admins, though this month will be better we are some 11 months into an RFA drought where the number of admins appointed is insufficient to maintain the number of active admins. So I don't think we should be speculating as to why we are seeing so many Wiki Gnomes at RFA, instead we should be wondering why we are seeing so few non Gnomes coming to RFA. If we were back at the 2006/2007 early 2008 level of activity at RFA with only the current numbers of WikiGnomes applying we might well be asking why so few Gnomes were at RFA. Were Spiel Chequers 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"... we are some 11 months into an RFA drought where the number of admins appointed is insufficient to maintain the number of active admins." So it's not all bad news then. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I am sick and tired of you talking about how we have too many admins, and how the project would be better if they were all gone. Whether you like it or not, administrators an absolute necessity for this project. And we desperately need more. Today, there were >20 vandalism reversions per minute for more than 6 hours straight. That is a lot of blocks. Even when vandalism levels are on the low side, (8-10 rpm) is a rare day when there are enough admins on to keep AIV clean, or to keep the backlogs down at UAA and RFPP. And that's not even counting more complicated things like investigating copyright violations and dealing with 3RR violations and SPAs and sockpuppet investigations. Your fetish against administrators is narrow-minded and irrational. I don't think that you really believe that Wikipedia would be better off without administrators, but if you do, I do not know any words to accurately describe your stupidity. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have even the slightest interest in whether you're sick of me talking about it or not. Try telling someone who gives a shit. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, do you mean "we have too many admins" or "we have too many bad admins"? I'm finding it difficult to imagine any reason why we need less admins who act professionally, improve the encylopedia and generally make the site better. Raven4x4x (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean both. The only "urgent" administrator tasks are dealing with BLP violations and blocking persistent vandals. The actual vandalism is dealt with by regular editors, who are the ones that "improve the encylopedia and generally make the site better". So what if a backlog builds up at AfD, for instance? Better to get it right than to get it done speedily. Besides, the Devil makes work for idle hands, which is at least part of the reason for the ridiculous fashion for issuing civility blocks. And just for delanoy's benefit, the opposite of "too many" isn't "none". There is no excuse for misrepresenting another's opinion in a dishonest affort to discredit it, no matter how "sick and tired" one may be. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we need variety, a bit of everything. That's why I gave up opposing those who don't write articles several months ago. However, article writers are, more likely than most, afraid they have rubbed someone up the wrong way. I made my latest 'enemy' only today on Talk:Michael Jackson :D. Article writers should spend a few months in hiding before jumping through the hoops, and pray that the latest person you've annoyed hasn't already watchlisted your upcoming RfA. — R ² 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Try delisting a few GAs and opposing a few FACs if you really want to rack up enemies, it's really not difficult. But who's going to get upset about about a spelling mistake being quietly corrected? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's usually hilareous when I fight breaks out on FAC. Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Cobra, which has degenerated into nothing more than a flame match between the nominator and one of the reviewers.--Patton^t/c 16:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to oppose a GA or FA, or propose de-listing either, have your reasons at the ready and say "if anyone can fix these, I'll support GA or FA status" and give people time to fix them. On the one and only solo GAC I did, one of the criteria, lack of number and sufficiently varied references, was un-fixable so I gave up, without any hard feelings. Fixing the remaining things is still on my to-do list. It was a good, hard review and I applaud the reviewer for being hard on the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. thanks for explaining to me how GA/FA work. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that bad. I held off on RFA for quite some time over it, as I had so many enemies I kept them in cords. But come the big week, only two bothered to show up. Wily D 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-reform

I'm not sure if everyone is aware how much RFA has changed over the last year, and how a lot of things that used to need fixing don't need fixing any more. Look at WWEYANKS52's RFA for instance. (On that subject, please see my question in the discussion section; several voters said they wanted to ask questions, but someone asked 5 questions immediately, so they didn't want to burden the candidate with too many questions ... I suggested a change to the instructions to candidates to handle this.) Anyway, if WWEYANKS52 had shown up a year ago, he would have gotten SNOW'd and booed out of the room too, because there's a lot of stuff he doesn't know, and he doesn't fit the mold of candidates who have passed before. The willingness of voters to support people who don't fit any previous patterns, to think things through fresh, and to help the candidate out (many people have done helpful reviews for the candidate, on his talk page and the RFA page), is nothing like the RFAs of old.

So I stopped thinking about RFA reform and started thinking about Dank55 reform. Some voters strike me as too conflict-happy; I've got the opposite problem, I'm little conflict-phobic, and I haven't jumped in and said something when I thought I might be able to help, for fear that I'd get burned. I think people did get burned a year ago when they tried to do too much, but there are so many people anticipating possible problems at RFA and helping out that the burden isn't on any one person any more. So I'm going to be a little bolder. I think people are bringing problems to RFA that they've been frustrated about elsewhere on Wikipedia; if that's true, then in theory (and maybe in practice), the atmosphere at RFA will improve if we negotiate a settlement elsewhere that makes the problem moot. Although, I can't act in a knee-jerk way or automatically support the guys who are showing up at RFA over the people they're fighting with elsewhere; that would send a message that yelling about your problems at RFA is a good way to get your way. So I can't guarantee that I'll support your side, but I will do is push back against the idea that the best way to deal with voters who have unpopular views at RFA is to ignore them. The right thing to do is to deal with persistent issues, respectfully but firmly. Any feedback so far? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should run for admin, I'd have no opposes. ;-)--Giants27 T C 18:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"but I will do is push back against the idea that the best way to deal with voters who have unpopular views at RFA is to ignore them."... It really is a case by case basis. If someone applies a highly subjective oppose, it may still have merit, and therefore deserves some respect. However, a subjective oppose such as the classic Kurt Weber "prima-facie" bit opposing anyone who self-nominated deserved the grief it received because self-nomination is and was withing the rules of an RfA election campaign. The self-nom oppose was not a problem with the candidate, but with the rules, and therefore had no merit. On the other hand, a userbox oppose is dumb, but at the same time may have merit if the userbox in question really is perceived as widely offensive (and by widely, I don't mean a majority, but that an identifiable demographic would take offense to it). A userbox debate has room for a debate, while voting against someone for self-nominating is the same as giving someone a speeding ticket for driving the speed limit. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we handled AGF issues in general very well in the first half of 2008 at RFA. Kurt's gone, but I think if someone else gave Kurt's famous rationale, that anyone who shows up without a nominator is obviously power-hungry, I'd have a discussion about how "power-hungry" is obviously an insult, and even if it weren't, what's the evidence? I'd ask if there were "power hunger" issues somewhere else around Wikipedia that the voter was trying to draw attention to, and if so, I'd look into whether that was an issue that needed fixing, to stop it from bleeding over into RFA. But if I did all that, and 5 RFAs later, the voter was still saying "You must be power-hungry, and no, I don't need any damn evidence", then I'd try to rally support at WT:RFA for the idea of MedCab and/or ArbCom, with the idea of getting a topic ban from RFA if we can't negotiate a solution. CIVILITY is policy, everywhere on Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And people like you make this a better place, no question. However, I'm using the Kurt example to give life to a generic opposition that simply assumes bad faith from the onset. That is incivility in the purest sense, and we really don't need to pretend that the idea has merit for as long as we often do. I would argue that if Kurt had been dealt with from the very first instance of his self-nom oppose, there would have been far more civility here over the past couple of years. Giving him the benefit of the doubt for as long as we did generated all kinds of bad blood. Viewing that situation as a case study, I think it is good for us to push back hard when someone comes up with a nonsensical oppose that has at its basis a view of each candidate as guilt until proven innocent. This doesn't mean that if I see someone oppose for a reason I disagree with that I should hit them for it. Instead, the assumption of bad faith should be pointed out, and if the voter chooses not to clarify the position with sound logic, the vote should be discounted. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be reading this wrong (because the discussions kind of dwindled, they didn't end with a bang), but I think the recent discussions about off-the-wall questions suggested a lack of support for the idea of discounting questions, votes or rationales that we don't understand or don't like; I think I saw support for the idea that it's all or nothing ... either a voter is clearly a net negative (so we try to deal with what's bugging them, try to negotiate, and boot them from RFA if all else fails), or else we accept them and take the good, the bad and the ugly. If individual votes mattered a lot, that wouldn't be fair to the candidates, but I can't find any RFAs since roughly July where a few votes either way would have broken the wiki; even in the few cases where a few votes could possibly have tipped the result, I think we were generally agreed that there were good reasons it could have gone either way. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When I saw "Dank55 reform" I thought you meant something about how you'd posted to this page almost 200 times since Jan 1. ;-) Avruch^T 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)