Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 164

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 160

←

Archive 162

→

I'm very close to blanking this page and adding full protection to it. Read on, please

What's stopping me? Irony. Doing so would only lead to a dozen or so new threads (by admins editing through the protection)about whether or not an admin blanking a page to get everyone's attention was in fact a valid way to do so, or was in fact disruptive. Each of those subsequent threads would spawn new sub threads and arbitrary breaks about how we all spend too much time creating sub threads and arbitrary breaks. This page is so utterly convoluted and cyclical and useless. And I'm an optimist by nature. Of course, I realize just STATING these obvious point will likely produce several threads about how presumptuous it all sounds. Sigh. I'm convinced that until more people begin to realize how much of a time sink this page has become (just read the archives if you don't believe me, and I'll freely admit I'm guilty for my part), it will likely never be useful or relevent. to close, please don't respond here. Responding here anything of any level of seriousness to my whining only proves my point. Don't respond with some sort of "well do something about it" retort either. Respond here with something quippy if you must. Or archive it, and then start a new thread about whether useless threads should get archived preemptively. And then another about whether we should be archiving each other's ramblings at all. Keeper | 76 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be addressed via process. Please follow the steps listed here. Townlake (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respond since I must. I agree 100%, I have this page on my watchlist (actually I have the project page to see new noms so I can vote but get this too), and you have no idea how many long comments on meaningless stuff, desysopping processes, arbitrary breaks, complaining about some guys oppose, when the crats' should know what to do (if they don't then they shouldn't be closing the RfA now should they?), all these new absoultely pointless sections where at least 30 respond and I'm too lazy to read through one conversation since it's too long. Even though I wouldn't be able to edit this (I rarely do anyway), I think this should be like foundation protected so only Jimbo can edit it. Fully endorse protection of this page.--Giants27 ^T/C 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's Jimbo? Why would he want to edit this page? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggested summary of this page: Some people think we have too many admins, but others do not. Some people collectively dislike most or all admins, while other people have a different view. Some people think desysopping should be easier and there's various suggestions for how but nothing even close to consensus. Did I miss anything? Euryalus (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Keeper: I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here. Complaining about the fact that WT:RFA is a coffee lounge is coffee lounging in of itself. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then it's true! The grasshopper understands irony!. Good work!. (Now, let's see if you understand sarcasm)...Keeper | 76 01:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I restate my question. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You restate what question? You didn't ask a question. Keeper | 76 01:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It may not have had a question mark appended, but I was still unsure of something: what point are you trying to make here? I'm not sure I understand how noting that WT:RFA is pointless will be of benefit. It'll just fuel the discussion and wasted time that you're complaining about. Which, before you get the chance to note the fact, is precisely what this exchange between you and I now is. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. In my world questions have question marks. See WP:MOS. If you go and look at my post, I explicit stated "do not respond". You are the one choosing to respond. And of course your comment is "before I get the chance to note the fact", how could I note the fact before you note the fact if I didn't know in fact that you would note the fact because it hadn't, in fact, been noted? My post was a silly post, simply whining and being ironical (sic). It is, however, providing me good evidence of who can't accept irony as a brilliant form of humor...Keeper | 76 03:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This argument is really not worth it. I'm not sure what your intentions are in starting this thread, and you obviously don't have it in mind to explain yourself. That's all I was asking - why? But, alas, so be it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK Keeps how about if we post here in invisible ink, would that be OK? Ϣere SpielChequers 01:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COFFEELOUNGE now redirects to this page :). Ceranthor 01:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to all of you

Nobody forces you to read the damn thing. You keep seeing it on your watchlist because you have WP:RFA watchlisted and this comes with the package. Just because you see it on your watchlist doesn't mean you have to read the thing every ten minutes, let alone comment on it. 92.8.228.252 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! A subthread! Now, if we can only get an arbitrary break in the discussion....Keeper | 76 01:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Why'd you bring that up, haven't you seen the 50+ count above? Ceranthor 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary cat in the discussion

~ mazca ^t|c 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See, the thing that annoys me..

Is that people come in and make some bold proposition about how they are going to close RfA talk and how this is a completely pointless page filled with useless discussion. If you honestly believe that then just leave. Posting sections about how RfA talk is a pointless page filled with useless discussion leads to useless discussion and brings the page closer to being utterly pointless by packing it with "waaagh, I'm going to close it down". How about you do as that IP suggested; if you have an issue, take it off your watchlist, walk away and stop adding to the problem. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you don't take this talk page or yourself so seriously? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh trust me, I never take myself seriously. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No. :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think a potential admin should. :) Ceranthor 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Luckily a chunk of the community seems to have decided that I'm not one, so.. Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't worry about it, you'll be in very good company. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Ceranthor RfA can be one of the most demoralizing experiences you'll ever have on Wikipedia. I'd be concerned to an extent if an admin candidate thought highly of himself... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Err, no Julian. Perhaps you've never had a job? Perhaps you've never been laid off? Perhaps your wife has never left you? Perhaps one of your children has never died? Compared to that a failed RfA is a piece of cake. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed a couple words there; revised. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is the most pointless thread I've ever seen on this page. There's only one possible thing that results from posting purposely useless threads: drama. This has certainly been achieved. Some people happen to like discussing adminship here. So what if they're old proposals that we've heard time and time again? Some people like to talk about them. Threatening to blank and protect or whatever you're trying to accomplish here is a really bizarre suggestion. What point were you trying to prove by posting that, Keeper? I can't see what useful purpose doing so serves to anyone or anything. Someone ought to blank this section and we'll forget it ever happened. Majorly talk 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, your very thread is proving my point quite succinctly. Blanking is interesting, hadn't thought of that. I simply thought someone would archive it. Feel free. Then, start another thread in place of it about how wonderful WT:RFA is and how much you like it. You'll complete the circle that I so cleverly started. Keeper | 76 02:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well do something about it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant!!! Thank you SBHB for actually reading what I wrote, with all its seriuz biznus contained within. Off to other things. Those mines aren't going to sweep themselves...Keeper | 76 05:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall blanket voting

Am I missing a piece in the all-one-colour jigsaw of RfA voters here..? Is this a trend we can expect to be continued in the future, or a fad? GARDEN 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

^{[context needed]} Skomorokh 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at several of the current RfAs. For instance:

GARDEN 23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd hardly call two users sharing an oppose rationale a trend; have you taken it up with them? Skomorokh 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Hipocrite, but Skinwalker has certainly made opposes based on this specific issue on a lot more than those three RfAs. He took a break from doing it, but he made recall-based opposes on a good number of them a few months ago. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen more than one such !vote in a single RfA before. If this is becoming the latest craze, it would be nice to have a statement from a bureaucrat whether such !votes are routinely ignored. Unless they have a deeper motive such as testing a candidate's patience, I think these !votes are disruption to make a point. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a bit new here but I think it's not fair to oppose either way a candidate answers a question. -down load | sign! 03:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that the prima facie bit is gone, we have to find something... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why ~~Mazca~~ Skinwalker took a break from opposing based upon that particular rationale undoubtable has to deal with the fact the question was discussed back in August and at Ani Wherein the community loudly decried the practice of asking this question, to quote Dragons Flight, It has a divisive and destructive influence at RFA, since one can't refuse this "voluntary" process without some people assumming you are unfit to lead. The only good that came out of those discussions was how unpopular the question in question is and a general consensus that it should not be asked at RfA's. The question creates a lot of drama because it is unenforceable, and even if it were, is it proper to ask people to commit to a campaign promise during an RfA? Admin recall doesn't work, it is a toothless tiger, and demanding that somebody submit themself to a toothless tiger is a joke. But we went about 6 or 7 months since the question was a "routine" question at RfA's, now it has been reintroduced and is generating the same sort of drama that it had back then. And if history is any indicator, it is only going to get worse the more that question is asked and we are torn into another round of endless arguments about an unenforceable campaign ~~promise~~ blackmail.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got a "Mazca" in that paragraph where you mean "Skinwalker", I've never opposed based on this. ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 14:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies... fixed.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To respond here, I stopped opposing based on recall when people stopped asking the question. No questionable campaign promise = no oppose. I'm agnostic as to whether or not the question should be asked, and I consider it improper (if not borderline trolling) to ask it myself. Until there is an ironclad, enforceable recall mechanism in place I will continue to view recall pledges as empty campaign promises. I'd also like to point out that an admin's option to renege on recall pledges is specifically noted in policy. Skinwalker (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's test the water and see where we can get with recall. User:Rdsmith4 (Dan) is pursuing an interesting idea of occasionally being part of a recall "contract". That could work, or we might be able to get consensus on some broad proposal, but I think there are several really solid reasons not to go crazy with new recall procedures. We don't have time for it; if there's a fight over taking someone's bit away, that will draw attention away from the RFAs because it's more exciting. The best reason is the Peter Principle, which says that if you're not careful, everyone in an bureaucracy winds in a position they're not competent to fill, because everyone gets promoted until they get to a job they suck at, then they stay in that job. The same applies to groups and processes, like RFA;I got a complaint that I'm rambling. I love complaints btw. RFA has been so successful that some people want to "promote" it to do something it wasn't designed for and would suck at. Even talking about recall during an RFA can suck up time unproductively.

But consider this option, which avoids those problems: suppose after every RFA that fails with a percentage of 65% or more, the crats poll the opposes and neutrals privately after the RFA, and ask them this question: were you pretty sure the candidate is not ready, or was the problem that stuff had happened, especially recently, and you didn't know how to interpret it, and you didn't want to take the risk of getting stuck with a bad admin? If the candidate submits to some kind of recall procedure during a short trial period (maybe a guaranteed second trip to RFA 3 months in the future, or maybe only redo the RFA if there's some kind of recall vote), would that mean you'd be willing to take the chance and switch your vote? if they would be willing to switch their vote if some kind of recall criteria were established for the candidate (probably for a fixed length of time). This wouldn't suck up any extra time at RfA ... in fact, it might save us having to do another RfA 3 months later ... and it would address the most common complaint, which is that lack of recall is raising the bar so high that we're throwing away qualified candidates. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You can always become open to recall after the RfA. Then people cannot oppose you for it. Unless the candidate feels they need to be open to recall in order to pass of course. Chillum 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes you can, and I was aware of that when i provided my answer in my RfA linked above. However, i personally would feel uncomfortable effectively gaming the system like that. I wouldn't want a elected politician to avoid a question like that until after he'd been elected, nor would i an admin. --Ged UK 13:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But then candidates get opposed because they don't state that they are open to recall. There is no win with those opposes. Garion96 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a small minority of voters who LOVE recall, for all admins at all times in all cases. A much larger number of people think that recall might be useful in borderline cases. Everyone worries to some extent that when an RFA is in the 60% to 80% range, that there's a chance we're getting it wrong, and putting extra options on the table might reduce the risk that we're discarding a good candidate. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Indeed. If you have two opposing views, then you can't satisfy both, except by not answering, and personally, i would rather make my position clear regardless of the 'political' conequences. --Ged UK 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider becoming open to recall after becoming an admin to be gaming. Regardless I don't find it a good reason to oppose since every admin has the right to step down for any reason. I do find it a reason not to support though. Regarding the no win situation above, you could always just answer "I have not decided yet", though that may get you opposed by both sides(hee hee). Chillum 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I mis explained, or mis-understood. No, becoming open to recall after an RfA is fine, provided that you weren't open to it before but just didn't answer the question. In my opinion, anyway. --Ged UK 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just had a though... if any answer to the question will garner opposes... then perhaps it is the question that is the problem and not the answers. Perhaps a better question would be "Do you intend to be responsive to the community and hold yourself accountable for your actions as an admin?". Chillum 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The thought occurs that anyone who does not intend to "be responsive to the community and hold yourself accountable for your actions" has the wrong website. Those are basic standards we should expect of everyone, +sysop or otherwise. Pedro : Chat 14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually express frustration or anxiety about the RFA process, because it might come across as "You're making me feel frustrated, what do you intend to do about it?" That's so ... well, it's not me. But I'm going to risk it now, because there are two things that are frustrating about this thread. The first thing, and maybe this is a harsh way to put it, is: forum shopping. I generally like what I read from ArbCom members, and I think people have a generally good feeling about the new crop that was just elected 3 months ago. If there's a problem with a particular admin, then people generally talk about it ... they rarely stop talking about it ... at ANI and RFCU, and especially at ArbCom. We really can't tackle the problem of problem admins at RFA ... not because we're not capable or interested, but because RFA was never set up to handle that, and because it's already being exhaustively talked about elsewhere. Please take it elsewhere, because all the "Off with their heads! Make them accountable!" talk is distracting from the larger conversation about whether any form of recall might ever be relevant to RFA.

And some say "Hell no!" and some say "Hell yes!", and that's the second thing that's frustrating: the idea that RFA is going to magically morph into what you want it to be if you just repeat yourself often enough, rather than listening and going with the flow. (This isn't a pointed comment directed at any one person; it's an objection to the trend at WT:RFA to repeat the same short points, rather than really listening to people, engaging them, and searching for consensus.) There are lots of minority opinions, but the central and constant question in hard cases is: are we getting it wrong (in either direction), how would we know, and what do we do about it? A significant number of people think that too many people fail, and that part of the reason is a lack of any recall criteria, so that we suffer endlessly if we pass someone who shouldn't pass. A large majority of voters, including me, have a hard time when we see evidence a candidate has "acted up" recently. Was that who they really are, or was it just stress? Sometimes it's impossible to know. That's why I'm proposing [as option 1 ... see option 2 below] that in close contests, where someone fails with 65% to 75%, the crats ask the neutrals and the opposition to indicate (probably privately; it would just chew up more time to have a new discussion) if they want to change their vote on condition that the candidate submit to some kind of recall criteria, probably for a fixed length of time. That way, people wouldn't be forced to rely on their crystal balls in cases where they really can't tell what the future holds for a candidate. We'd have less anxiety among voters, and fewer failed RFAs that we just have to do over in 3 months (if the candidate doesn't give up and leave), and also fewer cases that get wrongly decided in the other direction. For instance, User:Ecoleetage might possibly have passed his RFA (but he was community-banned while the RFA was going on), because there were only a few troubling diffs, and voters (including me) were worried that it would be unfair to fail him for a few "bad days"; as it turned out, we were right to be worried, and I probably would have been willing to oppose in that case if I thought that would have resulted in a short trial period where we could keep a closer eye on him. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. in response to a question: I'm using the word "recall" just to keep all options on the table, because I know people are all over the place with what they want, but one option would simply be to redo the RFA after 3 months after we've had a chance to see the candidate's mop in action ... but only for those candidates where the RFA community honestly had a hard time interpreting the candidate's actions and deciding which way to go; that's why I think polling after the RFA to see if people would actually be willing to change their vote if some kind of fail-safe is put on the table is important. In most cases, people are going to stick with the same vote no matter what, in which case there's no point in talking about recall or a fail-safe 2nd RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC) striking ... opinion is running against this - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Garden's original question, these kind of opposes have been happening for a long time, they just seem to be more common at certain times than others. I should know as my RfA over a year ago had some (two with one withdrawn), probably because it was just after another controversial incident over AOR. I said in the RfA I was going to be open to recall, when the opposes appeared I confirmed I would still be open to recall, the RfA passed and I am still open to recall now. The drama that was claimed that would materialise by me becoming an admin in AOR has never happened, I plan to keep it that way. I do find it slightly funny that my first RfA nomination for Ged UK has also received similar opposes. I am not worried about them, as they rarely (if ever?) make a difference to a result of an RfA due to their small numbers, and some users do support based on recall as well. I would not object to candidates refusing to answer the recall question in an attempt to the keep RfA about other things (as it should be IMO), though that may not work. I am happy that Ged UK gave an answer either way on the issue, though I respect candidates are not obliged to do what they say in the RfA questions, and if candidates change their mind, they should be free to do so. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I got a private response basically saying "never, no forced recall, no reconfirmation RfAs", so let's talk about this option. After some discussion, I agree that it's a better option than what I suggested, but only if we can get people to agree on the parameters, and that's the rub. We don't want the subject of recall to come up during RfAs either in response to badgering the candidate or as a tactic by the candidate to save a failing RfA; if that happens, all that means is that people will generate drama just for the purpose of forcing recall onto the table. The only way it could work would be if candidates walk in the door stating their recall criteria, and there's no discussion allowed of whether different recall criteria would be better. (So it would be a good idea, if possible, to achieve consensus on what criteria are not too burdensome and good enough to satisfy the opposition in closely-fought cases, and if we can find a way to make them binding.) The biggest problem I see is that in every case I can think of where someone failed with over 65% where I think the opposition might have been swayed by recall criteria, none of the candidates were expecting the opposition they got, so they wouldn't have offered recall criteria from the start. To fix that problem, we would need to encourage candidates to ask a variety of people just before they run whether they think recall criteria will be necessary to pass or not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To respond to the post that started this thread: I think that the previous consensus to not ask the question about recall should be enforced. If it's asked, it should just be removed, as it obviously creates far more drama than it's worth.--Aervanath (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, while there was a clear consensus in August related to this question, and it appears clear to me that feeling still exists, it is not our place to remove good faith questions. We can bring the controversial nature of the question to the person who asked it. But I would need to see a much more concrete declaration to start deleting it. It is often asked by people unfamiliar with the history of AOR or the question at RfA and I would not want to bite somebody over it. (Now, if they continue to ask it when the community has roundly criticized it, that becomes a different story.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no one has taken it up with me. I have opposed other candidates that used recall as a crutch to get over the fact that they had other issues in their RFA - see here where I moved to neutral from support due to a poor recall promise. Here where I oppose someone for making a recall promise to aleviate concerns. I don't ask candidates to be open to recall, but I do oppose them when they try to convince people to vote for them by promising that if they think they should resign they will resign, and you can have a worthless vote or poll or tic-sheet to try to convince them. Shockingly, everyone is "open to recall," because step N-1 in recall (just before desysoping) is convincing the person who is open to recall they should resign, and thats the only important step. That's the same for everyone on the encyclopedia - including Jimbo. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Age and Adminship

Okay I've been taking in all these arguments about age and adminship but the argument has been one sided and now it's time for younger editors to provide my their agreements on this once more but this time in a more civil manor. And so I present to you Wikipedia: RFA my argument.

I think it's about time that a new policy should be added to Wikipedia. The main argument about all editors younger than the age of 17 just isn't ready to be and admin. Some people use connections to real society to make their argument saying "we wouldn't let a 9 year old fly a plane even if he had qualifications" and such along those lines. But once again, Wikipedia isn't the real world. Though you could get sued or you may have info leaked, that doesn't mean a younger editor isn't able to avoid those problems. Most of the time, younger editors are able to pass RFA and then the word of their age doesn't get out until after the RFA. But really, Wikipedia is not that serious. People may say "it's one of the most visited sites" but once you get up from the CPU you lead a total other life. So why should your life in the outside world be connected here. Why can't responsible young editors who can go long enough without loosing their cool be able to receive a mop just because they have a bed time, or have homework, or doesn't drive themselves where they need to go? What if we said that older editors were just to serious and narrow minded to understand everything on Wikipedia. Things would go up in an uproar. Me as an editor didn't prove my maturity as a new editor but some could argue to think that over the time of just 6 months, I was able to change my attitude and control and think about what I type before I press save. So if I ever go for an RFA after about 2 more years and I'm 15, will I be denied just because. If so is it really fair. Some argue that young editors shouldn't be permitted to edit on Wikipedia. Do you know how many edits would be loss. Wikipedia is already slowing down but a slaughter of accounts would almost kill off active editing So I need all those editors who read this, be opened minded and think, would want to be discriminated against just because. Thank you--N.G.G. 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some people will automatically oppose you because you revealed your age. Most people will now pay more attention should you ever decide to run and will be more prone to writing off immaturity/mistakes as a sign of your youth. Is it fair? Yes, you chose to reveal your age. You thus invited being viewed and judged as a teenager. Now you need to prove that you are not a typical 15 year old, but more responsible and less childlike... but even if you didn't reveal you age, you probably would have been categorized as a teenager anyway... and that is based upon what I knew about you before this post. In other words, your youthfulness is apparent, you didn't have to tell us you were a minor for us to ~~know~~ suspect that already!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to get into this, but I can't keep away. To the original poster: You will be opposed, by myself at least, for adminship for as long as you believe "But really, Wikipedia is not that serious". Editors with that sort of view should not be allowed anywhere near the edit button, especially where BLPs are concerned. I implore you not to edit any article involving any living person. GTD 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

EC"I'm afraid your post, which I could summarise as "Wikipedia isn't too serious - it has no real-world consequences and just like a video game you can walk away" demonstrates precisely why minors should not be allowed to edit. They are unable to assess the real consequences. Wikipedia is NOT video game - real people (especially the subjects of articles) can really get their lives screwed up. Minors should have no part in this project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)"

First off I never said Wikipedia had no consequences and comments liek that are what get conversations like this started. That is totally unecassary. I had no mention of a video game and no matter what I say all your seeing it as a 13 who has no idea what he's doing. I don't think you realize that you can have 100 good articles, the most civil user ever or whatever else you'd like hear about yourself, but you could get up from your compuetr and get busted for drunk driving. Get my point?N.G.G. 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Just Saying.N.G.G. 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is what is being challenged here. Majorly talk 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If I get busted for drunk driving, assuming nobody else is hurt, I only damage myself. If I were notable and you were an administrator and, for example, protected a defamatory version of an article about me that caused me real-world harm, you can rest assured I'd be suing you. Open editing is a good way to start a project such as this, but is it really a decent way to refine it? GTD 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a good example, if you were busted for drunk driving, then that might be news worthy especially if there are RS. A better example would be, Jane Doe on her blog alleged that George the Dragon sexually molested her, and that got protected in a page or even added by an admin thinking that Jane Doe who happens to be notable is a RS.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly

Well then your questioning the foundation of Wikipedia?N.G.G. 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he's saying the foundation is being questioned. Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. The person who started the thread is. Majorly talk 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no part of the foundation that says youth shouldn't edit so how am I questioning it?N.G.G. 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

@Dragon

Once again you would be loosing thousands of valuable edits. That would be like stopping IP;s from editing. Sonn good things would happen but there would be a major loss.N.G.G. 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but your youthfulness is showing extremely transparently in your comments - through numerous misspellings, odd punctuation, and just an immature feel to it. I'd be perfectly happy for IP editors to go, in any case. It's not difficult to register. Majorly talk 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Youth showing. :D I have heard that before. How I talk and how I spell, two different things. No connection to age, sorry.N.G.G. 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What they all said. I don't automatically oppose on age grounds, except when the candidate is obviously under the age of 13 (the age of responsibility under the Florida law under which Wikipedia operates). The sheer cluelessness of your posts – which seem to boil down to "Wikipedia doesn't affect people in the real world" – certainly makes me absolutely certain to oppose any putative RFA from you. – iridescent 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How you talk specifically. I know things like dyslexia can affect spelling in all ages, and of course not all adults are perfect spellers. But, again, no offence intended at all, but you sound like a child. I would oppose any editor that sounded like a child if they went for adminship. There are some younger admins on here who I would have supported even if I'd known their age, because they were way beyond their years. Likewise I'd oppose an immature adult. Majorly talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my gramma and spelin are attrocious... but I've worked it into an identifiable style (I've had posts where I forgot to log in identified as mine because of the style!)... that being said, I doubt Majorly would ever accuse me of sounding like a minor because of it. Spelling and grammar aren't the only give aways... there are plenty of other reasons, that you are apparently unaware of, that scream out "teenager." Too many things that without having to know your age, would trigger alarm bells on the basis of maturity!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As a WikiGnome, I pick up on many minor (no pun intended) mistakes. For example, like Spartacus says, his spelling and grammar aren't that great. Aside from intentionally misspelling "grammar" and "spelling", "atrocious" and "giveaways" were also misspelled. He also ended a phrase with a preposition ("that you are apparently unaware of") and did not precede a prepositional phrase with a comma ("without having to know your age"), although he did correctly end it with a comma. But I'm not going to grammar police people for minor errors (I'm sure someone can pick apart this comment and find some things wrong, too), my point was more along the lines of "it's how you say it, not how you spell it." It's difficult for me to say what, exactly, it is that makes a post sound like it was written by a younger individual, but said posts are often easy to pick out of a crowd, and it is often not the spelling that gives it away. Useight (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's why I do not support programs like "hooked on phonics." I learned how to write phonetically... the only problems is that I had a major speach impediment as a child. When you pronounce the first meal of the day as "Breadfast" until you are 13 it is hard to learn the proper spelling when you finally realize that it's breakfast.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, why was this thread opened? We already have one open ageism thread; no need to stir the pot once more. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's a nice thought :D.N.G.G. 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I give you all win. I really need to refocus on editing. I can't think of anything to sway the audience so apologies.N.G.G. 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. I wouldn't think about adminship for a while if I were you either. Just some friendly advice. Majorly talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm not planning to run. Thanks.N.G.G. 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit contradictory to your initial post, though. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Julian: He (I confidently albeit stereotypically assume this is a he) did say "if", not "when". NGG: you asked about foundation policy; FWIW it's "In general, most of our admins should be college students or graduates. Some gifted and profoundly gifted young people would be equally qualified.". – iridescent 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm delighted to be called gifted (admittedly by proxy) I must say that there was no editsummary on that edit. Colon oh. GARDEN 21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't use them. – iridescent 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a little ironic. Ah well, I'm probably the only one who cares, so.. GARDEN 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't use them, then I'll never vote for him at RfA! I don't care who he thinks he is ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You seriously think an account with a history like this ever had a chance? Only three articles ever edited more than 10 times, one of which is his own autobiography; 16% of edits to the mainspace; twice as many edits to his own talkpage as to all mainspace articles combined. Hell, I'd WP:SNOW it within minutes. – iridescent 08:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's actually the 50% of edits in the User Talk section that would kill it... what does he think this is, "MySpace" or "Facebook?"---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to desysop, methinks... —Dark ^talk 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been sitting back and looking at this thread. I have several comments:

@NGG: I do agree that young editors who run for adminship will be mercilessly barraged with narrow-minded opposes due to their age. Wikipedia is somewhat biased against teenage (and younger) editors. It's not something that can be stopped, thanks to GTD and Scott.

@GTD: You point out that underage editors are not mature enough to deal with the controversial area of BLPs, therefore should not be allowed to become an admin. Where is it set in stone that all admins must deal with BLPs? At a New York meetup last year, we discussed young admins possibly leaving such duties to older, of-age sysops. Younger sysops (I'm saying 13 as a prerequisite minimum, since I think that being a teenager is the absolute minimum an admin should be) would be fine blocking vandals, deleting certain types of pages, protecting heavily vandalized articles and those kinds of tasks. Just because there is one area that younger admins should not wander into does not mean that young editors shouldn't be admins at all.

@Scott: According to your perspective, all underage editors should be banned from editing. Does this mean that the few who take it seriously enough and actually realize that it is harmful to some people should be stopped from editing for no apparent reason? Don't blanket everyone under the same identity. I'd like to point out that I don't really see any occasions of children being seriously harassed. Most stalking incidents I've seen are from high-profile adult admins who deal in contentious areas. Most incidents of such BLP "trouble" come from adult editors/admins. Lastly, JarlaxleArtemis, whom some would say is our most notorious vandal, is over 18. How prejudiced is that? Allowing someone like him to edit while people like Anonymous Dissident are not allowed? Take a good look at what you are saying, and don't blanket all underage people who edit Wikipedia under the "naive" label. Sam ^Blab 11:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam, the reason you "don't really see any occasions of children being seriously harassed" is because you and your friends don't appreciate the sheer amount of tedious and mindnumbing work we do deleting and oversighting reams of personal identifying information posted by kids who seem to think they've wandered into "Facebook with articles". I seem to recall 200+ revisions of your user page having to be baleeted not so long ago for precisely this reason. – iridescent 11:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As Shaw once said: "Crude classifications and false generalizations are the curse of organized life." I have no qualms with people's views on age & maturity, but be very careful on the extent of the prejudices you possess (in other words, keep a open mind). Age is not the sole criterion for maturity; many teenagers I know act far beyond the social expectations of their age. I am not asking for you to disqualify age from RfA, I am asking for you to look through the contributions of the editor and judge accordingly. For a further insight, I find that some teenagers/children are able to deal with emotional turmoil better than adults. (However these are exceptional teenagers). I agree that (in fitting with the stereotype) most teenagers are unable to handle administrative duties; but some can handle them better than adults. Be aware that there is no arbitrary age that changes people's maturity. (You can't wake up on your 18th birthday and say "Oh look! I'm 18, therefore I am much more mature than I am yesterday!) —Dark ^talk 00:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As I think I said on one of these endless discussions, "you only realise they're kids when they act like kids". If the hypothetical super-bright seven year old edited quietly with none of the hallmarks of an immature editor (temper tantrums, misuse of words, overly fixated on appearance as opposed to content be it main or project space, a tendency to chat beyond what's reasonable, an apparent craving for popularity…) then nobody would have a problem because nobody would guess at their age; likewise, an adult who's perceived as immature (which is, after all, what this thread originally started as) won't get any special treatment because they're over 18. – iridescent 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a crazy idea, it might just work. Why don't we judge potential admins by their contribution history? If we do that we can ignore their age, religion, nationality, the color of their skin, and whoever they most recently voted for in their local elections. I guess the point I am trying to make is that we should judge people by the content of their character, not some arbitrary social stigma.

My advice to potential admins is not to reveal your age, religion, nationality, the color of your skin, or whoever you most recently voted for in your local election. It is not relevant to the post, and people will let these facts bias them. Protect your privacy and be a great Wikipedian, nothing is stopping you from doing both. Chillum 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone knows personal information about you they will prejudiced. It's not just against people under 18: a 67 year old retired doctor, for example, will get away with much bigger mistakes than a divorced 35 year old who has never worked. Similarly, someone who has revealed their religious beliefs will probably be opposed for some minor mistake on a religous article, while someone who has not will probably get away with the same mistake.--Patton^t/c 15:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That is why I don't tell people I am a 6 foot tall black leprechaun from Cuba who believes that unicorns are my personal saviour... OOPS! Chillum 15:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha!--Giants27 ^T/C 15:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam/Shappy talks the talk, but given he was caught with his trousers down (ie with 10 troll accounts!), perhaps he's a good example of why minors should be encourage to keep off WIkipedia for their own good GTD 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And given that this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, and many many many others have at least ten socks each, perhaps they are good example of why adults should be encouraged to keep off Wikipedia for their own good. Majorly talk 19:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The project would be better off if it self-immolated GTD 19:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that settles it, we'll have to discourage everyone from editing. We should probably change our slogan to "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that nobody should edit." Useight (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite my joke, if that's the best word to describe it, does anyone really think an encyclopaedia with articles edited by kids is really an encyclopaedia of any worth? For examples of why the kids are the chaff among the wheat, just take a look at a few examples on kiddy-pedia GTD 19:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, some of our best article writers are kids, so, uh, yes I do. How many featured article have you written then George? Certainly fewer than Anonymous Dissident, Julian Colton and Caulde. Majorly talk 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia first and foremost. For that reason, I'd not want to start an article in an area I'm not university-level qualified in or where I could be claimed to have a conflict of interest. And although most seem to ignore WP:NOTNEWS, I fully believe in it GTD 11:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What featured articles has Caulde written? None that I can think of. Claiming credit for is not the same as writing. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Waltzing through the door Majorly opened, I have to disagree to say that younger editors have not necessarily written the best articles, but they seem to be writing the most, and I see this as a facet of youth. They write the most because they write about the same things over and over. This could be an individual idiosyncrasy, but I tend to see a contrast between this kind of template-like article writing and Henry David Thoreau making the perfect pencil. It is not personally challenging. I know I'm going to ruffle feathers, but I don't think it's a surprise that I think this because I've stated it elsewhere. I respect the articles about storms and roads, and I respect the editors. However, I would respect the editors much more if they challenged themselves by writing about something they had to teach themselves. We do not grow unless we are challenged. Not diversifying one's topics avoids the challenge, and I see this as a route too safe. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I certainly do think the contributions of young people have worth. It is foolish to assume that a whole class of people are incapable of contributing. Just judge people the merits of their contributions, not some arbitrary metric. A few bad examples does not demonstrate your point at all. I know of admins who are very young that have done a great job. Their age was not an issue because they acted well. Chillum 19:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking Wikipedians to do something reasonable is completely unreasonable :) Majorly talk 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying someone's contributions are worthless and crappy because of their age is just plain stupidity.--Patton^t/c 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone at any point said that? No. Quit trolling. – iridescent 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you read the above discussion please? :P--Patton^t/c 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

...that's a bit harsh —Dark ^talk 21:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Iri - "does anyone really think an encyclopaedia with articles edited by kids is really an encyclopaedia of any worth?" That appears to be saying what Patton was detesting. GARDEN 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The only person trolling here is George The Dragon, who has written a massive five articles, the best of which is a stub. Majorly talk 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Does anyone really think an encyclopaedia with articles edited by kids is really an encyclopaedia of any worth?" That's up to you to decide, then. In the meantime, I encourage you to take a look at User:Juliancolton/Content. Seeing as I've written or contributed to nearly 30 pieces of featured content, and I've preformed 5,000 logged admin actions with few issues, it seems clear that I should be banned due to my immature behaviour. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should avoid becoming upset with baseless opinions and simply put them aside as baseless opinions. To be clear, I think we can safely ignore the idea that young people are by default unproductive as being without basis in reality. Chillum 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It is still fairly insulting to the editors mentioned, especially by an editor as non-productive as GTD is. But yes you're right, we should ignore baseless comments and trolling when we see it. Majorly talk 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, I'm more productive than someone ;-), 140 articles+ best of which is C-class, go me :-). Haha.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Chillum you are a voice of reason in the otherwise crazy world that is Wikipedia...--Patton^t/c 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some 40 year olds that are more immature than a 13 year old. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Stating that age affects an individual's ability to edit or administrate successfully is ridiculous, in all honesty. Some very good administrators, past and present, have been under the age of 16 and a lot of editors wouldn't bat an eyelid unless they were told their age. Sam's view that the project has "no place for minors" is pretty insulting, too (although I'm not a minor, I was once upon a time, and I certainly would have been editing better than a lot of older editors that we have). Esteffect (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary oppose reason #54: Not Enough New Page Patrol

This one is even more ridiculous than most. Editing a new page doesn't even create a patrol log entry. Can we please stop now? Mike R (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What is arbitrary about it? A lack of experience in new page patrol may indicate that the candidate is not ready to take on the common administrator task of assessing articles tagged for speedy deletion. While I don't agree with requiring experience related to all admin tasks, I can understand why some editors do. This line of reasoning is narrow and stringent, perhaps, but neither arbitrary nor ridiculous. For the record, this pertains to Oppose 32 in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thumperward_2. Skomorokh 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that comment and found it particularly arbitrary, in the sense that it seems to be an oppose based on a very specific requirement without justification about why that specific requirement is in itself necessary. It's less stupid than a few oppose reasons I've seen, though - at least you could vaguely correlate NPP with admin abilities, though it's massively over-specific. There always have been, and always will be, people who oppose both for strange, specific reasons or odd personal requirements. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense if Thumperward made some comment about wanting to be a sysop for the tools to speedy delete, or to have some other action regarding new pages, but he hasn't made any reference other than in an optional question about speedies. If someone says they want to do image work, but haven't contributed in any image areas, it might make sense to oppose on those grounds, or if someone states they want to do work in clearing the editprotected backlogs, but have never come close to that area, an oppose for that reason might make sense. To me, a specific and stringent qualifier is okay for someone to have, but the oppose should be weighted by the crats less where the area of expertise wanted by the voter does not match the area of interest of the candidate. But maybe I'm dreaming that the crats don't just count the votes and push the button as the numbers read. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've little interest in new page patrol, and considering the amount of grief I get for my inclusion standards anyway it's not really an area I'd touch with a bargepole. I only answered the questions on speedy deletion because not answering questions is yet another arbitary reason to oppose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding ignorant, according to my log I didn't record any page patrol until a year AFTER I got the mop. Maybe this wasn't recorded prior to then... Hiberniantears (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The feature was turned on in November '07, a month after your successful RfA. Skomorokh 16:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... And here I thought I was always a new page patroler... Learn something new every day. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me emphasize my point that the only way to get an entry in the patrol log is to click the patrol link at the bottom of a new article. Editing the article will not create an entry and will cause the "patrol" link to disappear. That is why pointing to someone's patrol log is ridiculous. A good new page patroller will most likely make at least one edit to a new page, whether to tag, copyedit, categorize, add references or whatever. Mike R (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

...and will get angrily barked at for wasting their colleagues time for their trouble ;) Skomorokh 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Note also, this oppose reason has been used more than once. Jayvdb used it on Baseball Bugs. Mike R (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that was more of a suggestion of an area to refocus in. The actual oppose seemed to be the concentration of the editor's activity on the dramaboards. Skomorokh 17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Among the logs at the bottom of X!'s new edit counter, "Pages patrolled" is included and counted. Kingturtle (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike R, do you have any idea how huge the unpatrolled-page backlog is? It's nearly a month long -- and it would be even worse if it wasn't for the fact that articles expire from the unpatrolled queue after 720 hours. I personally put a huge amount of effort into preventing this; I have pestered several different individuals into creating useful software tools, I have gotten people to do NPP by directly explaining to them on IRC why it is important, and it is directly as a result of my actions that Brion Vibber completely redesigned the interface for the unpatrolled queue (because I was putting a huge strain on the servers). And despite all this, the buffer - the time between "now" and "the time when unpatrolled articles will begin expiring from the queue if no one does anything" - is still barely three days. I got Greg Maxwell to create an "overflow" list - a page that lists all articles created since the implementation of the patrol feature which did not get patrolled. It is obscenely huge and will choke your browser. This is why I oppose flagged revisions, by the way - because we're barely keeping up with flagged newpages. And we're only keeping up with flagged newpages because of ME PERSONALLY PUTTING A HUGE AMOUNT OF EFFORT INTO IT. When I took a day off recently, the buffer dropped by almost a full day because no one else was working the far end of the queue. The whole point of the patrol feature is to reduce duplication of effort. If no one clicks the "patrolled" link, there is no way for anyone else to know whether the page has been checked yet. Maybe someone edited it, yes, but perhaps that was just an automatic spellcheck reflex or a bot cleaning up some garbage. And yes, there is still garbage in the newpages queue even when the articles are almost a month old. How many more hoaxes and lies and attack pages and spam pages went unnoticed? We don't know. How can I get more people to patrol newpages? It was suggested to me that if I oppose RfAs on the grounds of the candidate not having done sufficient (or any) NPP, it might draw some attention to the phenomenon. If you don't understand why it's important, after all, then are you really fit to be an admin? DS (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you don't understand that there are thousands of different ways to contribute to the project and that we should evaluate each candidate for who/what they are, then (to quote you) are you really fit to be an admin? I'm sorry, but opposing somebody because they don't work in your pet project is not fair to the candidate in question. This is already a harsh enough process without people pushing their own agenda and demanding work in an area they have no interest in working. This is the wrong way to go about getting support.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And besides, they might all understand that it's important, but not want to get involved. My guess is that most administrators understand that articles for deletion is important, or patrolling biographies of living people for libel, etc. is important, or mediating certain naming disputes including protecting pages and blocking editors is important, but they don't want to get involved. And that's okay. Some will, some won't. Not every admin has to be a vandal whacker, a speedy deletioner, nor a page protector. That's a feature, not a bug. "Understanding" and "doing" are separate concepts. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the patrol log for any editor is really all that indicative of whether they've been involved in NPP. First, because the "mark patrolled" hasn't been around forever. Second, I don't think its all that uncommon to do patrol-like work without bothering to hit the button. I know a few people who do that, and its not like I spend my days talking to people about NPP. Avruch^T 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my main point as well. Also, I dislike the idea of opposing candidates just to draw attention to an area of the wiki you feel needs more hands. BUT I must say that after reading DS' impassioned plea, I will personally commit to doing some new page patrol. Mike R (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look over something and don't patrol it or tag it for deletion, that is the same as having the Backlog reviewers look at it in four weeks. Plus, there are scripts that one can use to speed up the process; the one I linked to makes the "Mark as Patrolled" link more accessible. In addition, every article tagged with Twinkle or Friendly is now patrolled, so tagging articles is an easy way to show patrol experience.

I've patrolled the backlog with Dragonfly6-7 before. It took me 2-3 hours to clear about 24 hours worth. I looked at over 500 pages, and made changes or tagged for deletion to many of them. That's 2-3 hours of hard, intense backlog work. Dragonfly does at least that every single day. I honestly can't keep up with that, so I've faltered behind. As of this post, I've patrolled 3612 pages. That's about two weeks of pages, I believe, or maybe 30 hours of solid effort at NewPages. While an admin candidate does not need that much experience at NewPages patrol, even 5-10% of that is not completely unreasonable to ask for, as it will provide experience in dealing with new editors and those in the academic or business community. Many of the you probably want Flagged Revisions, right? The backlog for that will be massive; much more work than we have right now at NewPages. If we can't handle NewPages, how are we ever going to handle Flagged Revisions. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle and Friendly only do so if you access the page from the new page log. Since bugzilla:15936 was backed out again in rev:46542, they can't if you open a page in some other way, so a lot of people who do NPP but don't use the NPP log simply aren't able to mark as patrolled, lacking the link with the rcid. Get a dev to work on that problem and you will notice a lot more patrolling.
In any case, that's no discussion for here, and opposing over it is a pretty pointy way to attract attention to that problem. --Amalthea 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No wonder it hasn't been working properly.

And yes, that probably is a good idea. Off I go from RfA; no need to Soapbox about NewPages here. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: how will we ever keep up with FlaggedRevs? I'm sorry, but the answer to that is actually somewhat obvious. Before I get to it, though, let's keep in mind that FlaggedRevs isn't some wholly new and untested extension that we might use the live 'pedia to beta test. It has been done on a sizable, popular Wikipedia and the results are in. They indicate that the backlog is not unmanageable. Now to why: Watchlists. New pages are, well, new; no one looks at them in the normal course of doing something else. Patrolling new pages is a specific and boring task. Keeping an eye on the pages you've contributed to, or are interested in, is a completely different animal. The comparisons are facile and fall down upon inspection, and let's not continue to repeat them as if they were gospel. Avruch^T 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If I could ask a favor, could we put the Flagged Revisions discussion on hold for the moment (since the last poll had more than 560 votes and enough energy to power the Wikipedia server farm), so that we can get back to the very important points that were brought up? DS says we need more people doing NPP, and he's totally right, and RFA regulars are saying that you'll interfere with how RFA works if people start feeling free to demand that every candidate be committed to their favorite area of the wiki, and that's right too. My small contribution to this conversation is: I'm doing my part, by doing a lot of CSD work, and by notifying taggers (by {{talkback}} rather than leaving notes on their talk pages ... they didn't like that) whenever I decline a speedy for any reason, and I give the reason on my talk page. I think we owe it to candidates to carve out a set of rules, a set of "safe" things they can do involving deletion work that won't come back to bite them at RFA, as long as they're careful. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I should've framed my comment with how it relates to RfA. The complaint on the table is that this is an arbitrary issue to use while voting. The history is that votes based on arbitrary criteria (self nom, edit count, wikiproject endorsement, # FA/GA, etc.) have typically been the subject of much criticism and drama. The response is that NPP is actually very important, and chronically understaffed; a connection was drawn to the amount of work involved in FlaggedRevs review, which suggests that FlaggedRevs participation will not only become an epic problem but also the source of arbitrary criteria at RfA. The points my two responses attempt to make are (1) patrol tagging does not directly correlate with NPP (2) NPP work is not necessarily a good barometer of admin quality, particularly for admins without a stated desire in CAT:CSD (3) FR and NPP are different types of tasks, requiring different motivation and with materially different integration into the normal work of editors.

What might be a useful topic of discussion is whether we should be very supportive of requests from "generalists" at RfA. We need admins primarily to address backlogs in admin-only tasks, but we regularly pass requests from people who are unlikely to get involved in boring backlog work. In this view, DragonflySixtysevens approach makes some sense - to get voters and candidates to re-evaluate what it means to be an administrator, and who ought to apply and pass. Looking for work in specific areas might get us more background support types and fewer guns blazing forum moderator types. Whether that would be a net positive or not, who knows. Avruch^T 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of New Page Patrol, and I'd recommend it to any inclusionists out there, You'll get to include loads of articles into the wiki, but the price is that you won't wade through much of the cruft, attacks and other waste of electrons out there before you moderate your inclusionism. A suggestion to Dragonfly and others who wish to promote their favourite neglected chore - pick the next overly narrow inexperienced candidate and advise them to broaden their experience with a bit of New page patrol or whatever your favourite task happens to be; For maximum impact do this as their only moral support. But you don't need to oppose on an issue to raise it with a candidate - I've !voted support whilst mentioning a "negative thats not worth opposing over" and usually had positive responses from the candidate. PS Pages created by admins and bots are automatically marked as patrolled. Were Spiel Chequers 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this does not seem like a worthwhile oppose. About a year ago, admin hopefuls were coached to get FAs, just to see how the process went. Though I think everyone should contribute on that level, it creates poorer articles because the admin hopefuls aren't really interested in the topic and the FA star. I would oppose someone who demonstrated such a misunderstanding of the FA process that it alarmed me, but I would not oppose an admin who shows no interest in content. Similarly, someone who opposed a candidate based on lack of new page patrol experience when they clearly show proficiency in the areas they claim to getting admin tools for would be so spurious it would not warrant a serious response. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a bit pointless of me to say this, but (as usual) I agree with Moni3. RfA should be about asking ourselves whether or not we trust an editor with the tools, not whether or not they are exceptionally well-rounded. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

NPP is backlogged, yes. But using patrolled edits as the sole yardstick to determine if one is doing NPP is poor form. Even if one is doing CSD tagging, it's already a form of NPP. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- CSD tagging with Twinkle, which most users use for that New Page Patrol, automatically marks pages as patrolled. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated statistics

Yea, I know this is getting old, but here are some updated statistics on the velocity of edits being made to Wikipedia. Have fun! MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we're speeding up, yes? --Ged UK 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a graph of the time between equidistant edit milestones. So it is graphing the velocity of the number of edits committed to Wikipedia. It shows we peaked on 4/22/2007 at 212 hours per 2.5M edits and have stabilized at around 270-290 hours per 2.5M edits. If it was speeding up, the graph would go up to the right and a derivation of it's slope would be linear, showing a constant acceleration. Currently our acceleration is zero. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks! --Ged UK 08:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes perfect sense... Shifts his eyes back and forth suspiciously... Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 10:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing about 'perfect' sense! --Ged UK 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is our acceleration zero, or is the world just moving faster? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It could also be that the the world is moving in a different direction. ;) --Izno (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends who's point of view you're observing from ;) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So I started in our busiest month, 13 days before we peaked (zero growth in edits per day means we are declining in terms of our share of total internet activity). I wonder how much the zero acceleration is because people are finding that wikipedia already has what they were thinking of adding, how much because we've indef blocked so many IP addresses, and my favourite theory - how much because the English wikipedia is losing potential editors to the growing other language wikis? Were Spiel Chequers 22:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a "D) All of the above" choice? It's likely got a lot to do with the first two (for better or for worse), and probably a bit to do with the third as well. Perhaps this means we can start focusing a bit more on quality, rather than quantity. :) GlassCobra 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I suspect that all three apply, though I don't know in what proportions. It would be interesting to know some more statistics - how our page hit growth compares with the rest of the Internet; how the whole of wikipedia across all languages is faring in both page hits and edits against general Internet growth; and how many IP addresses we have indef blocked. Also are there other factors at work in addition to those three? Were Spiel Chequers 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I spam this page on a regular basis, I centralized my work to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editing trends. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Desysopping

I think I'm on to something here, I'm thinking we can make everyone happy, and this will even perform better than expectations, but you be the judge. One arbcom member just said that he would vote to accept a case roughly like this one: candidate is 4 days into their RFA, vote is 70/30 (this isn't about Ironholds, btw), the opposers are generally agreed that, let's say, the candidate sometimes loses his temper, but they think he's otherwise okay. Candidate makes an announcement: "I am now formally offering desysopping criteria. The supporters are supporting based on overall performance; the opposers have legitimate concerns about a particular issue. I agree with the supporters, but I acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the opposers, so let's test this: give me the mop anyway. For the next 6 months, if at any time you see me losing my temper, you should bring a case to ArbCom stating that I violated my own recall criteria and should be desysopped." The arbcom member said that if a case was brought and it looked like the candidate had violated his own criteria, he'd vote to take it ... in fact, he'd welcome that case, since it's a lot clearer than a lot of the cases that are brought to ArbCom. I'm inviting comment, and when we get comments, I want people to keep in mind the tale of the blind men and the elephant. There are maybe 10 different, significant things that are bugging people, and some people are going to say "this won't work because it doesn't address X" and some will say "this does work because it addresses Y". A gentle request: please don't invalidate other people's opinions that don't address your legitimate concerns, because not everyone is on the same page. This is complex; be patient, and I'll be patient too. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler for arbcom to just make it clear that they expect admins to behave like reasonable adults? If someone fails to do so, give them the boot, regardless of campaign promises. Friday (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on to this point, and I promise to be more receptive after we're done with the current thread, but I don't think it's directly involved in the question of how to tweak RFA to make people happier with how RFA works. The quick answer is: that's a very important question which gets debated in one way or another every day at ArbCom, and you have every reason to expect that you'll be heard and treated with respect if you bring it up in any particular case where they're considering booting an admin. Dig up the dirt, tell them how that admin is not behaving like a reasonable adult, and how that hurts Wikipedia. There are competing concerns, and not every case will go your way, but from what I've seen, you shouldn't be pessimistic about your ability to make a difference if you feel strongly about this. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom only desysop abusive admins or those who completely ignore multiple calls for them to reform. It does not and will not touch the not insignificant group of bad administrators. I don't think it is remotely in doubt that there are dozens of administrators who would not pass a reconfirmation RfA for example. I strongly support the spirit of Dan's proposal, though there would need to be a lot of thought put into the format and principles of recall for it to succeed. Skomorokh 22:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to accept such a thing, fyi. And Friday: if we required all admins to behave like reasonable adults we'd be desysopping a large chunk of the current cabal :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and FWIW, I think your RFA is one of those cases where this might have come in handy, but my position is, we're too late, we shouldn't debate this as it applies to ongoing RFAs. That will create a suspicion that this is just an attempt to get a particular result in a particular case, and it's not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dang, ah well. I'll just cross my fingers for a closing 'crat with a low bullshit tolerance. Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A likely objection is: "This can't work because if you ever put desysopping of any kind on the table during the RFA, we know from experience that it generates a lot of heat and not a lot of light": right, and that puts important constraints on what will and won't work. We should advise candidates in the RFA Guide that, if they decide to do this, they should not do it in response to a request to do it; yes, that will make some voters happier, but it will raise the suspicion with more voters that you believe that you're sinking and you need a lifeline, and will work against you. Therefore, we advise this: sometime during the 4th day of your RFA, if a solid majority believes you are fit for the mop ... say 65% or more ... but the opposition has serious concerns that they can't predict your future behavior, then offer RFA criteria saying that if they observe the suspected future behavior in the next 6 months, then you believe that's worth being desysopped for and you would support them taking you to ArbCom for that. On the other hand, if what you're seeing in the opposition looks less like a reasonable specific doubt, and more like trying to force you to submit to recall because they don't trust admins in general, or because they have a concern that you really can't see a legitimate reason for, or if you can't identify specific criteria that would make them happy, then you should say "no" on the 4th day, and state your reasons; people will respect that. I keep saying "the 4th day" because it's not going to work to ask the opposition to make sure to check in in the last 2 days to see if you offered any recall criteria that might change their minds; a lot of voters don't check in that often. And it's not going to work to consider desysopping criteria on the 2nd day, and 3rd day, and 4th day; that will create a distraction and work against you. If you're going to do it, do it once, on the 4th day. We'll make a general announcement so that voters will be expecting this, and will know to check back if they think it might make a difference in their vote. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just worry that an implementation of this idea would be inviting of abuse. An easy way in, if you like, without cemented consequences; "Okay, sure, we'll give you the admin rights now, but, oh, please don't do <legitimate concern xyz> in the future." Furthermore, where will the line be drawn? For some RfA's, the opposition is in harmony, all opposing for one particular reason. However, this singular distinction is rare, and deciding whether to allow the candidate the proposed privilege based on how clear-cut this is could be a matter of controversy and communal complaint, at least in my prediction. In fact, it'd probably end up being a matter of controversy in general, almost all the time. Just my thoughts. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think Dan's proposal is pretty clear on this point: the candidate draws the line, and Arbcom judges whether it has been crossed. Rather cement consequences right there. The decision of "whether to allow the candidate the proposed privilege" would be an individual one; the candidate's proposal would have to be sufficient convincing to win over enough non-supporters to pass RfA. Skomorokh 08:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  - Hmm, what you say is true. If the opposers are won over as a result of the comment of the candidate in question, so be it; this is already something that would be accepted and could, in theory, happen in the current climate. Perhaps I misread the proposal; it was my impression that Dank was suggesting that the user be given adminship regardless of the movements of the opposition. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If I feel an admin candidate needs to be on some kinda ArbCom enforced probation, I'm simply !voting against. You trust the candidate, or you don't. Perhaps there is a feeling that this should be strongly encouraged of any candidate attracting significant opposes, but there is something about the idea of proceeding in this way that really gets my goat. My RfA was contested, but I never would have done that. I would have told the community first to take the mop and stick it up its collective (well you know), and asked to choose which end first.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that in the scenario you paint, you're suggesting the opposers changed to support on the basis of the "deal" offered by the candidate, and not suggesting that adminship should be granted at a lower support level if there is a clear recall criteria. I am not sure I like the idea of probationary admins - wouldn't they just avoid any area of controversy, thereby missing the point both of having them as an admin, and of having a probationary period. I think I'd rather have a recall process that applied across the board though I'm not sure the best way to do this has yet emerged. Dean B (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I got an emailed question about which result I'm trying to accomplish; all and none. I'm trusting that if we give people a suitable platform to voice their concerns, and set up a few rules that minimize the unintended consequences (such as suggesting to candidates that they do it only on the 4th day), then voters will (or won't) voice their concerns, and what happens next is up to the voters. Consider WP:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith; that one failed with around 70%. She has a long wiki-resume and has always been helpful and friendly, but the opposers brought up good points along the lines of: we don't know if we have enough evidence to predict her future performance, and we don't know how to interpret what's going on in this RFA. I would hope in a situation like this the candidate would be clear-headed enough to say: 70% of the voters, including everyone who knows my work, think that I know policy, but you guys have legitimate concerns that I don't know it; if in 3 months, anyone believes that I have avoided AIV and CSD, or that I tried but failed, that I demonstrated that I don't know AIV or CSD policy, then take a case to ArbCom; I'm declaring to ArbCom that I was asking the voters to take it on faith that I knew and would correctly apply the policies (as written on those pages ... the criteria have to be specific, or ArbCom probably won't take the case), and if I said that just to get "elected", then I believe ArbCom should desysop me for that. Then the voters would decide whether that statement addresses their doubts. Most voters in most cases will say that they do not have doubts, and this will not alter their vote; it's a few voters in a few cases we're talking about. Also, the discussion itself may give the crats useful information about how to interpret the will of the community in discretionary cases. [This was just an example; AIV and CSD were not the issues in that RFA.]

Btw, I think it's clear that we're not wedded to ArbCom here; we want to use them for sure at first, because this is what they do; it will give ArbCom some nice clear cases, and give people a better understanding of how ArbCom operates. But when we've got a routine going, when we have consensus about what it means to pass or fail recall criteria, then the decisions might be seen as straightforward enough that the issue could be decided by a crat chat. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think ArbCom has an appropriate and limited role, and I oppose like Hades the idea of giving it this power. Especially since the mood last election was "kick the bums out" and I suspect it hasn't improved that much.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that (which is what all the verbiage is for ... working out unintended consequences). I kind of like the idea of giving people who hang out at RFA and people who hang out at ArbCom a chance to mingle a bit, and this is the kind of thing ArbCom would normally be used for; but if we debate this a bit and decide that we don't want this open-ended, that only specific kinds of yes-no criteria are acceptable, there's no reason the crats couldn't make the call. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the crats can't enforce the deal. They don't have the power to desysop.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. Given that it's been tough for several years to get consensus on anything new at RfA, that may be why we have to do it the way I suggested; nothing new is needed. But the test will be, by putting the possibility of enforceable promises on the table at RFA (in a limited way), does that leave more voters satisfied at the end of the RfA that they got what they wanted? If it works, people will notice, and if they like what they see and they'd rather that crats make the call, they'll vote for that. It's not hard to make new policy if you can get 70% or 75% support for it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My take is this. Recall is a voluntary process. You should vote for admins you trust, if you don't trust them then a voluntary recall means very little and should not effect your vote. Arbcom should apply the same standards to administrators. This should not be based off of campaign promises, but rather the communities expected behavior of all admins. Chillum 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may add to Chillum's excellent opinion - if you can trust a candidate enough to apply the voluntary recall process in a meaningful way, you can probably trust that the candidate will be a good administrator. Given that, the asking of the recall question, or applying specific recall rules on an admin, is quite meaningless. (IMO, that is!) --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 17:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I get chillum's point that recall is voluntary. But I think that we should be able to set up a regime whereby future promises to be open to recall are enforceable. I also don't think that it is a complete analysis to say that if we don't trust an admin to carry out a recall pledge we don't trust them with the tools. Sure, given zero uncertainty, this would be true. but neither us nor the prospective admin know what will happen tomorrow. An admin may pledge that he will be open to recall but grow fond of the tools. He may pledge that he will be open to recall and find himself in a bitter content dispute where recall will be used as a tool against him. In both cases, the admin has an incentive (a rather strong one) to abrogate that pledge. And in neither case will that backtracking be clear-cut. No admin will say "I now refuse to be recalled"--both because that will cause consternation and it will be hard for them to internally justify it. Rather they will likely pull back from the promise bit by bit, adding caveats or conditions. In this particular case, the community has an incentive to extract a specific pledge--one where abrogation will be quite obvious. We are inclined to force prospective admins to list specific recall criteria, offer tripwires, etc. Even in those cases, the pledges can be broken, but not without more goodwill lost.
I don't think we should continue down that path. RfA isn't the place to formulate specific recall criteria. It also isn't the place to resolve future uncertainty about willingness to accept recall. Allowing an admin to make a binding pledge helps us solve that. It prevents admins from making promises they don't intend to keep and it stops us from attempting to extract promises that most admin candidates won't want to make. This also has the benefit of impacting only the new admins--we don't create a new recall regime where everyone who is upset at me (for example) can suddenly call for my head under a process I have never agreed to. We just get admins who are willing to say "I will agree to a recall plan broadly, and if I fail to adhere to that, I agree that arbcom can review the case and desysop me".
A couple of drawbacks:

More work for arbcom. I'm tempted to laugh this off, but they have a lot on their plate. If the volume of this is high enough, it may push more important cases off into the future. My response to this would be to say that these will probably not be that frequent and that reviewing a recall case will be much less problematic than, say, some content dispute with entrenched POV warriors.
Does nothing about the "tenured" admins. Yup. Sorry. That's another kettle of fish.
Doesn't stop people from having to make specific pledges or getting opposes based on refusing to make a pledge. Maybe. But it will hopefully incentivize us to demand less specific pledges (on the premise that we are less worried about future enforcement) and it is probably a wash as far as the opposers based on refusing to accept recall.
Can still be wikilawyered. Sure. that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Needs more cowbell.

Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with all of that. Everything so far has been directed at the voters (and there's been less participation than I expected ... maybe that's because most people would rather make an argument in specific cases than in general, which is fine). But there's also an important conversation that needs to happen soon-ish among recent and future candidates, because this all goes to hell in a handbasket if the ability to make enforceable promises turns into RFA into a bidding war ... "Pick me, I'll do 250 logged admin actions!" "No pick me, I'll do 500!" It will work if we can get consensus among people who are thinking like candidates that it's not worth being a dick and trying to outbid people to get the mop; you'll really piss off the other candidates, and you won't impress voters much, either. So we probably need some consensus-building before we start this: if people complain that you haven't been interested in deletion before and they don't trust that you ever will be, how many deletion actions are reasonable to promise to get across the point that you're willing and that you'll follow policy? And probably the toughest question: how long? Some might volunteer to do specific work for 3 months, some for 6 months, some for a year. That has the downsides of a bidding war, as well. I would think that most questions that reflect an honest doubt on the part of voters about the character and abilities of the candidate could be answered in 3 months of work; if the voter wants more than that, then that comes across to me more as demanding a price be paid than as looking to answer an unanswered question. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I 'm not convinced by this because:

Its overcomplex - every new admin under this system could have unique desysopping criteria. That might work if we were some sort of hierarchy where every admin had longterm stable links with a small number of other editors, but we don't.
Its inequitable - two admins equally responsible for the same incident would be treated very differently.
Psychologically its an own goal - increasing the already overinflated "value" of a minority oppose position.
By complicating the RFA process I fear it could deter even more good candidates from standing, thereby exacerbating all our existing problems of a declining bunch of active admins.
The focus on desysopping discussions at RFA is IMHO unhealthy and misses the point (yup a proper desysopping process would be a good idea - but there are bigger problems at RFA, and better places than wt:RFA to discuss desysopping). Far better to beefup the training and introduce retraining/refresher systems, some of which could be CBT. Sure the tools come as one package, but that doesn't that every admin is ready to use every part of the toolset. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your third point is arguably the most powerful. But opposes do get outsized power even under the current system. This has positive impacts (genuine concern over action can keep people from the bit) and some negative ones (there is an incentive to vote tactically which increases as the candidate approaches the discretion zone).
As for your last point, I wish we could avoid the discussion, too. It is rather fatalistic to discuss recall in a promotion setting--especially because most of the anger and frustration about recall isn't actually directed at the candidate, rather it is directed at long term admins who have pissed people off. But there is a good argument to be made that RfA will become less of a battlefield if we move toward 'easy come, easy go'. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am still not convinced. I think we should hold administrators to the communities expectation of behavior. Simple as that. Chillum 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironhold's Law strikes again. Skomorokh 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone actually read that? :P. Ironholds (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that protonk's third point, that it will inflate minority votes, is very strong. We may wind up seeing FAC style "Oppose unless you ~~make the following changes to the article~~ sign on to enforceable recall." As a practical matter, I doubt it will ever happen, this talk page has long been an important source of hot air as Wikipedia goes green, and trying to get a clique of voters to oppose on that basis, enough to make a difference, will be as impossible as trying to get any group to present a united front around here (unless the group is sockpuppets!)--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Protonk's point that RFA would be less of a battlefield if we moved to an "easy come easy go" desysopping system. You may well be right, but IMHO that's an argument for putting a note here when a proposal for a desysopping process is made elsewhere. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)