Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 166

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 164

→

Let's introduce flagged revision like system to RfA

If normal flagged revision wasn's enough, how about flagged-admin-action system for new administrators? Where all the actions made by a new administrator must be flagged by an experienced admin, etc. Might be a good idea for some kind of a trial administrator in a system where we introduce the idea of trial administrator. What do you think? 山本一郎 (会話) 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The same as the process for bots? Not a bad idea, may not work because after the trial they are not flagged. --DougsTech (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but we can have the bureaucrats to decide when the trial should be over, instead of a fixed amount of time. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, in that case - Support--DougsTech (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I'd be happy for a probationary period to be introduced for new admins, I don't think that the flagged admin actions would work; partly because of the diversity of admin activities, partly because I don't feel that it address any of our real problems and of course we have neither the crats nor the admins to take on such a project. Taking me as an example, I have done about a thousand admin actions in the two months I've had the mop; I suspect that would be enough to get a crat to flag me as knowing what an attack page was. But I've yet to use the mop at UAA and I've only done a handful of blocks. Some sort of probationary or refresher system that was specific to the various tools could well be useful, but I think it needs to be more complex than flagging all actions by a new admin until a crat signs them off. Of course before we instituted such a system we would need to understand what behavioural change we were trying to achieve by it... Ϣere SpielChequers 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you ask me, there are a lot of possibilities with this kind of a new system. The crat might not need to flag all the new admin tasks, in theory any normal admins can flag the admin action since they are experienced. But let's say if there's a consistent issues that is brought up about the new admin in question. On the WP:AN or we could make another noticeboard devoted to issues about new admins, and if there is an admin action that is okay but could be better, the new admin should be notified by the experienced admin on the talk page. It's the record of talk pages and perhaps the noticeboard threads about the admin in question that something crats should look at when they decide weather or not to extend the trial, or have the trial admin resign? All the okay admin actions should be able to be flagged by any experienced admins without problem and they shouldn't needed to be addressed by crats. The problem that this system might solve is 1. We need a system which evaluates how admins will proform with administrative tasks, not editing, 2. We have admins promoted that are excellent editors, but not so good as an administrator, in short, the system promotes users who are not really suited to be administrators, but admired by other users for their editing/contributions to various wiki-space, admin task requires certain set of judgement skills that are best learnt when you are actually doing the deletion, etc. 3. The current system is somewhat intimidating, we could lower the new promotion standard, but create another standard for trial admins to promote to normal admins. 4. The system provides a live training for new administrators. I have not thought about the details, which if someone would like to fill that in, is welcomed to do so. 山本一郎 (会話) 05:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people are opposing flagged revs saying that it will create a massive backlog. How large will the backlog be if this was done with a much limited group of users? Although with lesser users the number of edits will be comparatively lower, I believe the editor to edit ratio will be much higher with admins. Also, some admin action need to be put into effect straight away (blocks, protection and also speedy deletion of attack pages etc to name a few). Creating such a system will not help with that, even if there is an admin available to do it since another one has to come by and check it. Whatever people think, we don't have admins around the place 24x7. Even at AIV, where a lot of admins are supposed to be active, there are sometimes backlogs. Chamal ^talk 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Solution looking for a problem. Is there any evidence to suggest that new admins are so incompetent compared to experienced admins that we need to have each action they perform reviewed, doubling the work of existing administrators in an era of declining adminship? What a great recruiting tool too. "Hey, we'll elect you administrator, but then we'll doubt every action you take...". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. We promote new administrators who have gained the trust of the community; presumably they can handle themselves with a few extra tabs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he was proposing this as a way to allow prospective admins to get some experience before standing for a full RFA, if they desire, not forcing people who have passed RFA to undergo additional scrutiny. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that was his intention. I don't completely agree with the idea though. iMatthew : Chat 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"how about flagged-admin-action system for new administrators" seems to be referring to new administrators. Regardless, quoting WP:PEREN "new admins should undergo a probationary period". Still no actual problem identified that this solution solves. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Some statistics

New admins

Number of successful RfAs:

408 in 2007 (June-December: 235) (data)
201 in 2008 (data)
112 (projected) in 2009, extrapolating from the 28 successful candidacies in the first three months of 2009 (data)

Unsuccessful RfAs: (data)

512 in 2007 (June-December, 326)
392 in 2008
236 (projected) in 2009, extrapolating from the 59 unsuccessful candidacies in the first three months of 2009

Analysis: Numbers for both successful and unsuccessful candidates have dropped sharply since 2007 (and 2006, which was about the same as 2007: 352 successful, 543 unsuccessful candidates). The ratio of successful to unsuccessful candidates has decreased from 4:5 in 2007 to less than 1:2 in the first three months of 2009. (The ratio was 7:11 in 2006).

Admins no longer active

Note: what is being counted is all types of editing. An admin can be "active" though doing no admin actions whatsoever.

Admin resignations and de-sysopings: (data)

33 in 2007 (June-December: 17)
35 in 2008
21 for January-March 2009 (projected for all of 2009: 84)

Inactive:

118 as of 6/08/07: 118 (earliest available data) [1]
164 as of 12/30/07: 164 [2]
256 as of 12/31/08: 256 [3]
281 as of 3/31/09: 281 [4]

Semiactive:

198 as of 6/08/07 (earliest available data) [5]
283 as of 12/30/07 [6]
421 as of 12/31/08 [7]
439 as of 3/31/09 [8]

Total decrease in active admins:

June-December 2007: 17+46+85= 148 (7 months)
January-December 2008: 35+92+138= 265 (12 months)
January-March 2009: 21+25+18= 64 (3 months)

Analysis: the number of admins who stop being active has been relatively steady over the past two years, averaging 21 to 22 per month. If new admins (successful candidates) per month exceed 21 to 22, then the net number of active admins will increase. If there are, on average, less than 21 to 22 successful RfAs per month, then the number of active admins will decrease.

Net changes in active admins

June-December 2007: added 235, lost 148, net change: +87 (7 months)
January-December 2008: added 201, lost 265, net change: -64 (12 months)
January-March 2009: added 28, lost 64, net change: -36. (3 months) (Extrapolated: -144 for all of 2009)

In context, there are now 1,634 user accounts in the "Administrator" group, with 720 being inactive or semiactive (see above), for a net of 914 active admins.

Analysis: the number of admins added each month via RfA is, on average, currently much lower than the number of admins who stop being active. As a result, the number of active admins has been decreasing for some time, with a projected decrease of 15% or more in 2009, if current trends continue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick view of active admins

(Belated addition, 2 April 2009) I just noticed that the bot that daily updates the page Wikipedia:List of administrators also posts, in the edit summary, the number of active admins. This provides a quick view of how this number has changed over time:

Most recent 1000 changes to the page

Analysis: The number of active admins peaked, in February 2008, at around 1,020; March 2008 showed an average of around 930. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I extracted the revisions the bot made and created a chart with the active admin number (on the right). The bot was active since September 2007. We see a steady increase until the 1000+ that John Broughton mentions in February 2008, then a bumpy, but steady decline to the approximately 910 active admins today. Regards So Why 22:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What accounts for the deep valley near the end, a problem with the bot? -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Rick pointed out that the bot made a mistake at the end, but I did not have the correct number to replace those with. I think the graph is fine to show the overall problem, but I agree that it's not perfect. Just something I put together in a few minutes of free time ;-) So Why 09:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Interesting stuff, thanks for doing that research. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This makes me more frustrated with the "no need for more admins" opposes. hmwith τ 16:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for the research and statistical analysis. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, kudos. The astonishing "number of successful RfAs" decline is the most chilling, as it really strikes doubt about the long-term sustainability of the current admin system. It's clear, as has been discussed to death here already, that there's a problem with RfA. It would be lovely if we could ever figure out how to solve it. ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 17:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also been a fairly sharp fall in the number of unsuccessful RFAs. Perhaps part of the answer is to scout out some likely candidates and try and persuade them to run - or rerun. Has anyone trawled the unsuccessful RFAs from more than 6 months ago to see if some of those who weren't ready are still active and willing to run again? Ϣere SpielChequers 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How would you define "likely candidates" though? Still, seems like a sensible idea to me. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think in the case of those who failed an RFA in the past, the test is it long enough ago for them to run again, are the reasons for the opposes still valid and would I support them in an RFA? I've started looking and its clear to me that RFA is a destructive process that loses us some editors, and not just those who get banned. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The numbers show 2 trends: a decline in applications for admin (920 total in 2007, 348 projected for 2009) and a decline in the success rate of applications.

WereSpielChequers, why do you think "RFA is a destructive process"? --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Philcha, I think RFA is a destructive process because I've seen good editors have an unsuccessful RFA and leave the project. Also before I suggested trawling the old unsuccessful RFAs I did a trawl myself, and while I haven't calculated stats, I found several where the rejected candidate hasn't contributed since. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to find out why experienced editors are not applying for adminship? I suggest that without some sort of research it's fruitless to speculate about the reasons for the decline. --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: common reasons that come to mind include people being burnt at previous RfAs, people not fulfilling every requirement needed for a decent pass these days ("good article and XfD work, but no CSD work? fail" et al) and people just not being interested. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I get caught up on other projects, I'm going to spend more time at WP:ER. If people got better feedback there, RFAs would be a lot more pleasant for everyone. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I was just re-reading the many thoughtful rationales in Teratornis's RFA. I guess my wish for the future is that we can use what we've learned from rationales in failed RFAs to help us fine-tune our advice at WP:ER, and hopefully improve the success rate. WP:ER says at the top, "Editor review seeks to review your contributions as an editor only, not as an administrator candidate." It would be nice if we could remove that sentence, but I wouldn't want to remove it unless and until editors can expect feedback at WP:ER that's on the same level as the feedback they get at RFA. Even though there are downsides to allowing future candidates to talk about their plans for RFA, I can't see a downside to allowing reviewers to judge editors by the same criteria they'd use at RFA, as long as they're clear that that's what they're doing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I could run. I've been around quite a while now, have 5700 edits or so, and have never done any vandalism or the like. But, there's absolutely no chance I'd pass. I'd get burned at the stake. Maybe I'm a case point; I'm guaranteed not to cause damage to the project using admin tools, but a flock of flying pigs will fly overheard before I ever passed RfA. But, watching RfA is great entertainment. It's like watching a raving horde of Golgafrinchans trying to invent the wheel, and getting stuck on deciding what color it should be. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You should check for the latest admin action, not the latest edits. I edit some still (around 100 edits per month) but haven't used admin tools since 4 months ago. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is summary data easily available, I would do that as well; I'm not aware of any, but I'm hardly aware of all the statistics and counts that have been done. What I don't want to do is examine, by hand, the editing records of more than a thousand admins. If you check the data links, above, you'll find that I'm citing publicly available summary data, some with monthly totals, some with annual totals. The entire analysis took me only a couple of hours because all I had to do was some basic math (mostly addition). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The only way to do this is by using the dumps, querying for users with the admin bit and their last administrative action (which should be recorded in a log). Just saying that the actual number of active admins is just a fraction of the number you show here. And admins that have been inactive have a harder time coming back: sometimes if you try to close a discussion, delete something, or move something, readers may complain that you have been inactive for a while and don't know whether your criteria still applies, or will call you a SPA or a friend of one of the ones discussing. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As a non-admin who loves Wikipedia, I'm glad to see this analysis; it's a scary trend. Sadly, I grok it all too well. After watching the RfA process with morbid fascination, I'm convinced that the effort and risks involved in applying for adminship outweigh the benefits of gaining it. It'll take a much bigger administrative backlog than I've ever seen before I'll offer my contributions and character as a target in this venue. So much drama. And the grand prize is a mop, folks. A mop! A nice mop, a useful mop, to be sure, but still .... I only wish I knew how to fix the process. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Certain candidates seem to get through the process with no drama whatsoever; check out User:WilliamH's RfA for example. The way to get through has been summed up by me in one sentence; you have to be visible enough that people know who you are, but not so visible that you've managed to piss someone off. It is unfortunately rather a difficult balance to strike. Ironholds (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Imagine if the process for getting a driver's license were modeled after RfA. You'd be questioned about motorcycle safety (AFD) even if you were applying for a truck/lorry license (AIV). You'd be grilled about what you want the license for, and asked to tell about your best road-trip ever and whether you'd ever been in a fight. For seven days, people would wander through and scrutinize your academic and disciplinary records, looking for clues that you might make a reckless driver, basically anything that might remind them of unsafe drivers they've run into in the past. They'd announce their judgements to a crowd of bystanders, and you'd be expected to smile and thank them for their pains. A couple globe-trotters would argue that you haven't done enough international travel to deserve a driver's license. And to top it off, one of them would tell you that he thinks there are already too many drivers on the road. --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Stephen, that's brilliant! Kingturtle (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite as bad as all that.. and, it's just an analogy, but we could learn a thing or two from driver licensing procedures. If you make a significant error, you can get ticketed for it. Too many tickets (in many locales) results in a loss of driving privileges. I know it's been said over and over and over, but if we had some usable way of keeping admins in line, we could promote them far more liberally. Friday (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a way, it's called ArbCom. You might consider trying it? Majorly talk 15:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I will reiterate that I think it would be very helpful if ArbCom set up some kind of sub-committee or tribunal to focus solely on Admin complaints which could then give ArbCom their recommendations to be put int effect. I think that would allow for a faster, more streamlined process. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be reassuring for a lot of people, and theoretically, it should be doable, but there's a lot I don't know about how and whether this would work in practice. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's possible they can be useful for that, but I'm not holding my breath. I've seen them fail too many times in solving this problem, and indeed some of our more infamous problem admins have been on arbcom. Then again, this arbcom is different from arbcoms of the past, so who knows. The one thing I've become fairly convinced of is that the "community" is utterly worthless in solving this problem. There are way too many people running around who would say "I oppose desysopping so-and-so! He's my buddy and a nice person!" Still, I hold out hope that we can find a way to promote people liberally and solve the problem of deciding who's capable from the other end. (ec) I like Avi's suggestion- I think it'd be worth trying. Friday (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, actually, Particularly if we gave it a bit more teeth, like adding "(X) reprimands from ArbCom over (X period) results in automatic loss of admin priveleges and/or requires a new RfA." I do tend to think the ArbCom itself wouldn't like the additional workload. Has anyone asked the ArbCom if they would be willing to do this, or set up a subentity to manage complaints about admins? John Carter (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, you have to be a certain age to apply for a driver's license. *ducks* --Ali'i 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hahahaah.. I know it's just a silly analogy.. but, consider this: when getting the license, do they merely ask you how you would drive a car, if you were physically able to do so? No, they take you out and observe how you actually drive an actual car. Relevant assessment- it's not a new idea to the world in general<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GeorgeMoney/UserScripts/LoadIpInfo&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>, but it seems to be a very new idea at Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The one thing I continue to be disappointed about at WT:RFA is the defeatism; yes, not every problem has been solved, and the problems left tend to be the bigger, more intractable ones, but hundreds of debates have been resolved over the past couple of years in RFAs, and it has made a huge difference in the quality of rationales. The counterargument to the truck driving test is a doctor's office visit. "Doc, my lungs hurt. Hey! What are you doing poking around and looking at my tongue? I said it's my lungs!" The community has felt that it needs to do a lot of prodding and poking around to figure out what to do, and sometimes, we've needed every bit of that poking around to catch people who would have become awful admins. Of course, all the prodding and poking around also has negative effects. My current thinking is not to berate opposers for being too critical, but instead to warn people at WP:ER who want to run about potential RFA problems and what they might do about it. RFA voters tend to be pretty forgiving when someone recognizes something that's considered a problem at RFA and works on it for a while before running; it's the people who have no idea what the opposers are talking about who get harsher treatment. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I can kind of see your point about rationales changing as the discussions take place. As you can see, there aren't the "why not"s or "no big deal"s in my RfA that were found in most of them just a short while ago. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that my analogy struck a chord with a few people. I wrote it more to vent my own fears about the process than to affect people's thinking, but rereading it in the cold light of morning, I find I want to get more involved in improving/fixing the process.

I wonder why Wikipedia adminship always includes both the power to delete pages and the power to block users. These seem like distinct powers, and I often see candidates stating that they only need/want one or the other. Splitting these admin capabilities out (creating new user groups for them) would allow a more gradual transition to adminship for those who desire it. (Is this what happened with rollback?) True, both activities require good judgment and tact, but separating them might help some voters feel comfortable approving candidates whose experience is mainly/only in one area or the other. I'm sure this must've been discussed before; perhaps someone could point me to the discussion to help me get up to speed on why things are the way they are. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue of debundling the administrator tools comes up from time to time, most recently here. It never takes root largely because nobody can agree on which tools ought to be debundled, plus administrators have a natural reluctance to give up some of their perceived authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That got me to WP:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures, which is more what I had in mind. Kind of confusing to me, since it says both "can't be done" and "already been done". If the WikiMedia software lacks the necessary refinement, might that not be seen as a bug or at least a valuable future enhancement? --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This comes up a lot, and you hear roughly 3 objections: 1. There have been something like 100 reasonable proposals (depending how you count them) to tweak RFA over the last year or two, generating a lot of discussion but never any consensus, so there's a lot of discussion-fatigue on proposals like this one. 2. RFA has always been about whether we trust that that person's heart and head are in the right place, not about micromanaging what the're competent to do 3. The argument that's persuasive to me: sure, RFA could be something different, but it's not, and it's taken us a long damn time bouncing arguments back and forth to get ... well, not consensus, but some stability. If we change what it is we're voting on, the arguments might converge in a year or so, but that's a lot of extra work for little gain. Bottom line: if you get high-quality feedback, and if adminship is something you really want, it's not that hard to achieve for most editors. (And for the ones who really do have a hard time, probably the best thing to do is to reassure them that they don't have to be an admin to be accepted and appreciated for what they have to offer, rather than assuming that the counterexamples mean that RFA is broken and has to be reformed.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the discussion fatigue. I won't be bringing any proposals at this time, though I'm happy to discuss anything that comes up.

I'm puzzled by your belief that RFA has always been about trust and attitude. I wish that were true. As an observer of the process, I see a lot of attention and lip-service being paid to experience, understanding of policies, participation, number of edits, etc. Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is quite blunt about this: trustworthiness is listed as one of nine things that are looked for. If the system were changed, perhaps varied experience would become less of a hurdle to admin hopefuls.

I have no problem with the current success rate. I just wish the process was less daunting. so that we'd see more qualified candidates. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidates are often rejected with statements like "not enough edits/policy experience/deletion work/etc", but look at the current crop of RFAs; some people are sailing through who don't meet all these qualifications. That doesn't mean that we're hypocritical when we oppose with comments like that, it means we're like every other institution that has to accept some candidates and reject others; we gush when we accept, but many of us try to give the least inflammatory, least detailed (but still accurate) reason for rejection we can find. It would serve no purpose to say "I turned you down after reading all the comments and some of your contribs, and I found the following 26 potential problems". It's easier, kinder, and more helpful advice for the next RFA just to say something like "keep working, and I think I could accept you next time if you work hard on X". That doesn't mean no candidate can possibly pass unless they work hard on X. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight into RfA rejectomancy. I see now why rejections based on lack of experience might be misleading to spectators such as myself. I remain unconvinced that trust and attitude are the main metrics, though. To believe that, I'd have to assume a level of mendacity in both supports and opposes that would wreck my faith in the Wikipedia community.--Stepheng3 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

←Sure thing. And I should have been more careful: I don't mean that performance doesn't count, I just mean that the voter has to take a lot of factors and distill them down to support, oppose or neutral, and when forced to justify why one thing was more important than another, it's often phrased in terms of trust: the candidate did such a good job with X that I can trust them to have good judgment if they ever tackle Y. In easier cases, they don't talk about trust because they don't have to, it's implied by "candidate is great at X, Y and Z". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to revive a thread headed for the archive, but I thought I'd chime in here. As someone who's been through two failed RfAs: number one and number 2, I think that the more detailed opposes with a clear rationale are more useful. My first RfA failed as needs more experience, but that point I had an FA, an assortment of DYKs, and I'd participated in a couple hundred AfDs. "Needs more experience" is actually a stinging rejection. On the other hand, my second RfA failed primarily because of "listen to your admin coach", and I learned something from it: "listen to your admin coach." If people are open and honest, then you get something out of the process. It's also less of a "rejection" if there's a reason attached to what people say. As a side note, I think standards on RfA are obscenely high which discourages candidates and I think the negative way that some people regard self-noms doesn't help anyone. Cool3 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech Proposed Topic Ban from RfA

Please see the AN thread for more. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 14:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech is for now under any username banned from RfX, see here. He can appeal via RFAR. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A 12 hour "discussion" produces a community decision? I hate to be a pain, but my objections to this weren't addressed, nor those of many others. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed the close. No way is that consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As of 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC), there were 30 supports and 13 opposes or neutrals. I'm not sure what you are looking at Spartaz, but I think your own oppose shows that your reversal is problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As of 16:39, 6 April 2009 there was less than a day's worth of discussion. Closing it was entirely inappropriate and way out of line. That's ignoring the fact that a vote or poll does not consensus make. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a snowballs chance in hell that less than 60% would be in favor of topic banning Doug, which is obvious from the talk page discussion above. This is only the -formal- aspect, not the consensus building. See the weeks of discussion on the matter above. So, your comments fall flat, Hammersoft. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when does consensus boil down to counting votes instead of weighing arguments???? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Even when the arguments are weighed it is very clear that there is consensus this user's voting pattern is problematic, and disruptive to the purpose of the RFA process. Majorly talk 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The ones being disruptive are the ban him brigade since they are the ones making all the running. Ignore him and the disruption ends. I'm not surprised you can't understand this given how addicted to drama you are but why don't you give your hectoring a rest and let other uninvolved editors have a chance to comment? You persistent badgering of people who disagree with you is bound to be driving some editors away from contributing here. If anyone needs a break from RFA it's you Majorly. proof by repetition isn't consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ignore him and the disruption ends" - No, not at all. The disruption will continue. And try to not make uncivil personal remarks, as you just did. I find it very upsetting when someone has to resort to that when we're trying to have a rational conversation. Majorly talk 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically you are right as the disruption will continue as long as you choose to keep it going and, I'm sorry to say, if you don't like getting remarks dished in your direction, you should be less willing to take on these crusades. You just started a lynch mob - pichfoks and everything and you are complaining we are not having a rational conversation. Oh Please! Spare us! Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't choose to keep it going - I started a thread at AN to end it. Unfortunately a few people decided that was disruption in itself. I'm the one who wants it to end. You seem to not. I didn't think it would be too long before someone wheeled out the old "crusade" and "lynch mob" cliches either. I did nothing of the sort - I started an honest discussion that you appear to be very upset by, and trying to blame me for DougsTech's disruption is beyond low. Sarcasm seriously doesn't help what is clearly a contentious issue, so mind not using it? It only makes your "argument" poorer than it already is. Majorly talk 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever your intentions and I'll AGF and accept they were well intentioned, you don't have a consensus to ban this user from RFA and its highly unlikely you will. You have created a lynch mob and a monster to weigh and judge the rights of users to comment on adminship. This is an exceedingly bad thing. You are utterly fixated on the RFA process to an unhealthy degree and you would benefit from stepping back and letting other editors take a front seat dealing with this kind of thing. You will, I know, insist on replying. Just so you know, I won't reply to your comment so you can have the dubious pleasure of the last word, but please don't assume that this means I assent to whatever comment you are making. OK? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It occurs to me that this "Let's ban him" thread on AN has taken on a life of its own. A mob mentality if you will, that we should, or even can, simply throw people out because of their opinions is a frightening thought to me. If we start casting aside all those who edit because they are misinformed on a particular point, it's going to be a very empty wiki in a very short while. Who will be left to run, and who will be left to vote - an quiet RfA it would be. — Ched : ? 18:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Each and every RFA oppose section is NOT the place to voice such an opinion. As was said before by others, DougsTech is entitled to his opinion, just not as a blanket oppose for every RFA. There are appropriate places (such as here), to voice that opinion, where it won't clutter up RFAs with inquisitive editors who have not met DougsTech and more controversy. Tim meh ! 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He may be entitled to his opinion, but he is surely not entitled to express it on Wikipedia. That notion is a myth. You are entitled to nothing here, as harsh as that may sound, except for the right to fork and the right to leave. There is no right to express opinions as one sees fit. —kur ykh 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You make a valid point that it is not a right, but rather a privilege. However, I submit to you the idea that every !vote is indeed an opinion on whether or not candidate-X would be a good choice for an administrator, and as such - providing said candidate with an extra bit would benefit the community at large. — Ched : ? 18:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Comments about the number of administrators have no bearing on the qualifications of candidates as individuals, which is what RfA analyzes. —kur ykh 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The proposal that someone should be banned because they hold an unpopular opinion, or express it in an unpopular way characterised by those disagree with it as "disruptive" is a frightening thought to me as well. A pity more people don't know more about the history of such ideas. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So he can't use that reason for opposes, but other users still can? That doesn't seem right. hmwith τ 20:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Have other users been effectively spamming all RfA noms with the same message saying they are unwanted because "there are too many admins already"? —kur ykh 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Not to answer the question) This is exactly the problem: he has been spamming individual RfAs. He's entitled to his opinion, but the community clearly does not share it. Continuing to announce that opinion in individual RfAs is simply disruptive: without a link to some explanation, it's confusing to first-timers, something that Wikipedia already has enough of a problem with. Suppose someone were, in every single AfD discussion, to support deletion on the grounds that "Wikipedia already has enough articles" - how long would it take for the community to topic ban that editor? Let him contribute to Wikipedia elsewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How much majority do we really need to stop disruptive editing? There is a clear agreement that this is not appropriate behavior. If I see him doing the same in the future I will refer to that agreement. Those who characterize this as not letting Doug disagree are way off base. He can come here, he can start an rfc, a policy proposal or any other appropriate venue and disagree till he is blue in the face. He just can't go to unrelated venues and troll someone's RfA. Chillum 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such agreement. If someone were to take action to stop DougsTech from doing what he is doing, they will be disruptive. Mountains out of molehills. Leave it alone. It doesn't matter if he opposes or not. Just let it go. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is sure no agreement that his actions are acceptable, on the contrary there is a strong sentiment that is is disruptive and not acceptable. It really needs to be accepted by some here that the idea that such behavior should be allowed is in the minority, and that it is a far more common notion that such action should be prevented. Sometimes a debate goes your way, sometimes it does not, just accept the outcome. Chillum 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept the outcome that there is no clear agreement that the behavior is disruptive. I accept the outcome that squelching one unacceptable opinion is a slippery slope. I accept the outcome that vote counting is an unproductive means to ascertain consensus. You insist I accept your outcome. How about I insist you accept mine? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Chillum's "How much majority..." comment above. I completely agree that this behavior is incredibly disruptive and that it needs to be stopped. Not that simply this one editor needs to stop, but that this behavior in general... from anyone. I support him being banned from using that oppose reasoning on RfAs. However, I think it would be just as disruptive if I, for example, used that as an oppose reason on a different RfA today. Do you disagree? hmwith τ 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As a relatively outside observer, with little opinion on DougsTech's actions (other than that people ought to ignore them, but I'm not opposed to a topic ban), I have to say that I do not find consensus in the AN discussion to ban, at least not at this point. For whatever that's worth. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is no consensus for a topic ban. Plenty of consensus that his edits are disruptive. If he can use the page without disruption then fine, he is not banned. But if he acts disruptively and trolls people's RfAs then that is something completely separate from a topic ban, just plain old ordinary disruptive editing. We don't allow that. Chillum 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So, time for an RFC? It's still not clicked with some people that we're being trolled here. Majorly talk 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He trolled me just a few minutes ago. RfC time, maybe even indef-block time. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:RfA Navigation

In the first row of this template are links to two pages that may qualify for "What is different in this list?":

Neither of these links has much, if anything, to do with the RfA process. I suppose these links are there for people to get an idea of what an admin does, and how - but the links are also included in the initial text information on the WP:RFA page, which is a much more likely place for people to find the links if they are unfamiliar with admins.

So: how do others feel about removing these two links in the template? And possibly replacing them with a link to Wikipedia:Administrators if enough people feel that the top template really needs some sort of "background information" link? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and make the change; if anyone really doesn't like the results, we can discuss further. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just popped in for a minute...

...and am delighted to see so many open RfAs.

Good luck to all the candidates and my admiration to them and their nominators. --Dweller (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that, wow there are a lot of noms, maybe RfA isn't broken.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

... and maybe pigs can fly. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There's too many noms. :-) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

When was the last time we had this many noms at once? FunPika 21:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're sounding like DougTech :P Cheers. I'^mperator 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As for when we last had so many open nominations - ten (currently) is hardly a large number. In June 2008 we had a total of 59 nominations; the seven months prior to that averaged 66 nominations; and in December 2007 there were 103 nominations (56 of which were successful; that would be roughly 13 successful nominations each week of that month, not even counting the unsuccessful ones). (data) But to answer the question - I think we've had, within the last two years, at least one time where there were close to 30 open nominations at the same time. (There were 22 open on December 8, 2007, for example.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Another troubling stat?

As the amount of time an editor needs to be active before being granted administrator rights increases, the pool of potential candidates goes down.

In a recent PhD dissertation regarding Wikipedia, the author noted the average lifespan of a Wikipedia editor is 200 days, ~7 months (See numbered page 157 at [9], Q5). According to rspeer, the average edit count of successful candidates at RfA is 10,000. This works out to ~~500~~ 50 edits per day, on average, for an editor to have a decent chance of passing RfA before they burnout and leave Wikipedia.

And we wonder why there's a diminishing number of administrator candidates?

If the trend is to be reversed, RfA will eventually need to be closed in favor of a system not involving the community voting for a candidate. I can see a more advanced version of the giving of rollback rights. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. GARDEN 22:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever the author is, they're misinformed, clearly. I've been here nearly 3 years, for example. 7 months is a blink of an eye in wiki time. Majorly talk 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My standards have not gone up. I'm still a minimalist. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand what "average" means Majorly? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Majorly - the average time. Including users who join to edit one article and then never edit again (which must be in the thousands, surely). Although I see Malleus informed you in a similar and familiar helpful and constructive way. GARDEN 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely aware yes, and I still think seven months is inaccurate for what's trying to be said here. Is the data, for example, including IP addresses? Sockpuppets? Bots? All things that skew the data. Majorly talk 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things here. First, 10,000 divided by 200 is 50, not 500. That's still obscenely high. However, there are things that throw off numbers here. People who use Huggle or AWB on their main account will certainly shoot up this statistic. Also, what is the standard deviation of the numbers? Is it a large number (indicating that there are several people who do not run till they have many thousands more than 10,000) or a small number (indicating that most people wait till around 10,000 edits? Also, skimming the paper leaves me unsure how they came up with 7 months. And what constitutes an average editor, anyway? 10 edits? 50 edits? 100 edits? 500 edits?

Also...while I have pondered your advanced version of rollback idea and believe that there is a way for it to work, I'm not sure how you got from "Editors need obscenely high edits per day" to "We need to stop community voting at RfA". NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, using your own history to refute an entire set of data spanning 10 wikipedias is unconvincing. The 200 days is an average. It's not when the bell tolls midnight and everyone turns into a pumpkin. The dissertation was reviewed, critiqued, and accepted by several other PhDs. It isn't just one editor spouting off with loose data. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins aren't average editors. Will Beback talk 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The average edit count of editors promoted in March was ~15,000. The average # of edits per day was ~19. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nearly half of all accounts registered on enwiki are never used at all. If you include those then the average number of edits and months of activity is close to zero. Not sure how one would arrive at a number like 7 months. Dragons flight (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your logic, if I may be excused for torturing the English language by describing it as such, appears to be that to be an "editor" you need never have edited at all, simply registered an account. By that same token I'm a successful novelist.

You also need to check your arithmetic. If 100 editors make 1,000 edits that's 10 per editor. If that 100 is a sample from a population of 200 editors, half of whom never edit, then the average edit count reduces to half of what it otherwise was, 5 per editor, not zero or even close to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You aren't looking at the whole population and saying that the average time it takes to become an admin is 7 months/10K edits, but rather looking at the population of people who pass RFA and basing your conclusion upon that. Also, I have to echo the people who point out huggle and the other automated tools. Less than a year ago, I made a post saying that I didn't think anybody with over 10K edits would ever pass an RfA. At that time automated tools weren't as common as they are today, and people who had that many manual edits were routinely failing RfA's because they had stepped on too many people's toes.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I really didn't expect any different. It's blatantly obvious from the data provided and multiple other recent discussions here that there is a problem. That's ok though. You can disregard it all you like. It's quite irrelevant. Just wait a year and see how bad it is. I don't care. :-) I just thought the data interesting given the recent spat of statistics and oodles of ponderings on how bad things are. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What's blatantly obvious is that most of those commenting haven't taken the trouble to read the document, even if having done so they would be able to understand it. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the study probably didn't take into consideration blocked users, SPAs, or other problematic users that make up a large portion of those that don't stick around for long. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, there are a ridiculous number of variables that can skew the data. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ostrichs have nothing on this bunch. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a far more troubling statistic from the dissertation is this: "Moreover reaching the core group of very active editor does not ensure that those authors will exhibit better survivability since, in fact, more than 50% of them abandon that core of very active editors after less than 100 days (less than 30 in the case of the Portuguese and English Wikipedias). So what that's saying is that our top editors typically burn out in a month. (The core group is defined elsewhere as the most active 10% of editors, see p. 153). Cool3 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see a way to measure activity that took reversions and useless edits into account. If you take a look at a user like, say User:Anywhere But Home, I'm sure he looked very active. However, if you looked more closely, you would see that his edit count was high because he had no idea how to use a preview button, many of his edits were immediately reverted because of low quality, so he had to put the same changes in over and over, and in the end, all of his edits were reverted because he was a sock of an indefinitely banned user. Lots of sound and fury, inflated edit counts all around, but no progress at all. He's not an isolate case ... that's a pretty typical edit pattern for a disruptive editor. That's a big part of why we consider them to be disruptive.—Kww(talk) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

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.

Sorry to probably be causing more drama, but I'm curious.... Ottava Rima seems to be going through his RfA, now that it's about to be closed, and adding brief comments after as many Oppose !votes as possible to discredit people who voted against him. (See the page history, all the edits with the summary "note" are examples.) Granted, Ottava's RfA is certainly going to fail and so anything anyone does by now is really just symbolic, but I'm wondering, is it appropriate for a nominee to be laying all these comments now, at the very last moment possible? If it were just tagging SPAs and such I wouldn't have said anything, but most of these are quite subjective complaints about why the editor's opinion should or should not be valued ([10][11][12]) or bold accusations ([13]).

(Note: I'm sure some people are going to come here now and attack me for whining or something like that, but I'm not interested in teh dramaz so I'm not going to respond here; I just wanted to ask a question. In any case, none of it is going to change the outcome of this failing RfA, so it's probably not a huge deal anyway.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Making sure to get in the last word was surely a poor judgment call made by the candidate. That only serves as evidence supporting the main reasons for opposing listed in the section. It's always better form to go out with one's head held high, & I do wish that Ottava would have done that. He attacks many editors for whom I have a high level of respect, & I think that this will only come to haunt him. hmwith τ 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the RfA has been closed now anyway, so there's not really any need for any action to be taken, and I don't imagine anything good (for any of us) coming if I leave this thread open for people to attack one another. So I'm going to archive it as "resolved", given that there's no longer any issue needing to be addressed. Feel free to move it off this page or whatever, if that would be best. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Account compromised?

There's another possibility: someone has hacked into Ottava Rima's account. In his nomination, OR quite clearly stated: "If you want to oppose me, feel free. I wont hold anything against anyone nor challenge it. If other people want to badger opposers (or even badger supporters!) that's fine. I'm staying out of it." I can't believe the same person would sneakily slander a dozen or so opposers after the due expiry time of his RfA (thus preventing any chance of reply). --Folantin (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems unlikely to me. Maybe he just saw red? GARDEN 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that' just Ottava for you. : ) iMatthew : Chat 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I doubt it, considering that I spoke to him off-wiki about it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Doesn't "seeing red" mean a spontaneous outburst of anger? Most of the comments "Ottava Rima" replied to had been on the page for days already. Whoever posted those comments last night was clearly acting calculatingly, which may suggest a hacker. --Folantin (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How does it suggest a hacker? Majorly talk 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, Ottava's most recent posting is to this page, so sooner or later he will likely comment here. Or post as an IP editor that his account was hacked. (Or someone can do a close analysis of the wording of Ottava's last set of comments at the RfA - is it consistent with what he has said elsewhere? It's not that hard to hack an account, but accurate mimicry of another editor - that is difficult.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I don't see any evidence that the account is compromised; it seems more likely that Ottava couldn't hold his tongue. I'm sure we've all been guilty of that in the past (god knows I sometimes say I'm going on a wikibreak and then 5 minutes later I'm back at it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, John Broughton, the writing style and content is pretty similar to Ottava's, and belies a level of familiarity with all the editors involved. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I have blanked the RFA. The personal attacks inserted just before the close were against policy. That some individuals believe that RFA's can't be modified per WP:RPA means that as a courtesy to Folantin, it's obvious the only solution is to blank the entire thing. Thus, the problem is solved. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, was promptly reverted by the same person who also reinserted the personal attack against Folantin. I question the probity of this action, but have just removed the personal attack again, with notation made on the page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I appreciate that but, as I've said elsewhere, there are so many personal attacks there against other users maybe it was selfish of me to remove just that one (plus I missed two other sock puppetry allegations made against me). I've explored the possibility that OR's account has been hacked but nobody else believes this is likely. Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been reverting it because people agree it's not appropriate to edit the page after closing. And the attack is not really a "personal attack"—immature, yes, inappropriate, yes, but personal attack, no.rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

1. There is not consensus that "It's not appropriate to edit the page after closing to remove personal attacks." Are you honestly stating it's not a personal attack to state that someone "provides little to the actual encyclopedia?" Please review WP:NPA, specifically the part that reads "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Is it disparaging to say that someone "provides little to the actual encyclopedia?" How do you define "disparaging?" Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

- ::::[14] . And yes, it's disparaging, but not "personal" enough to be removed. Trust me, there were comments at that RfA (by opposers, not by the nominee) that were oversighted, and they were far worse than this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the idea I provide "little to the actual encyclopedia" (per Ottava) is a bit rich when I have made about three times as many mainspace contributions as OR. Besides which, this user called me a "well known troll" only a few days ago. When asked to back up his claim, he backed down.--Folantin (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) Any chance we can have this RfA page protected for a few days to stop the edit warring? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Takes two to tango. How many reverts do you have on the page so far? How about everyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, I haven't reverted your latest removal. (And, for what it's worth, I have two reverts; same as you.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How about we draw a line under it, and move on. --Ged UK 14:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. It's over; enough of this dramamongering. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, whoever added those comments personal attacks removed Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC). Let's leave it at that. --Folantin (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm happy either way.--Folantin (talk) 14:46, 8 April 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.

Stats table - what does it mean?

What are "Dups" and why don't I have any? SpinningSpark 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming duplicate somethings, presumably duplicate votes? – Toon ^(talk) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is set to "yes" when there is the possibility that someone has voted twice (by mistake or otherwise). If you click through to the report it talks about duplicate votes there. Camw (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Camw is correct. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Avraham_3

According the the "About RfA" section, "Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page". According to this, Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Avraham_3 was transcluded on 2 April, so doesn't that mean that it should be closed tomorrow? GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 20:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded 11pm UTC April 1, rm'd around 9pm UTC April 8. That's close enough to seven days for me. GARDEN 20:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

See crat's explanation here. FunPika 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, can't imagine anyone would really care or be too upset about this close. --Ali'i 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they are short for the graveyard shift tonight and need him there.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow

take a little wikibreak and the RFA candidates line up in droves. Outstanding. Dloh cierekim 01:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I desperately want to say something here, but I will restrain myself... ;-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What, has Dlohcierekim turned into our bad luck fetish? bibliomaniac 1 5 01:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, this must be one the most amusing things I've heard all day since my day has been pretty boring thus far :)--Giants27 ^T/C 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A boost and a slam, all in the same breath. Well done, Giants27. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments after closing time

A post-script to the above discussion, in response to several questions regarding Ottava Rima's RFA.

I dislike the idea of squeezing in as many nasty remarks as possible at the last moment so that they will be preserved in indelible ink by the "closed" tags. So as to discourage exploiting the tags in this way, I have reverted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ottava Rima to the last revision before its week expired. All of the content that was added since that point is available in the history; any of the users whose comments I have removed are welcome, if they think it's important, to repost their comments elsewhere -- say, on the talk page -- so they can be continue to be discussed. I expect no one to make any further edits to the RFA itself, which is now in its permanent archival form.

Please note that this decision does not signal a change in our current easygoing practice of accepting comments past the official expiration time, right up until a bureaucrat adds the "closed" tags. I am making this singular exception so it will be clear that exploiting the expiration time to have the final word is not appropriate. I am reverting all the way back to the deadline and no further because (1) it seems maximally fair -- I have no principled basis for picking any other point; and (2) nothing dramatically new or productive was introduced to the discussion after the deadline, the outcome having already been clear for quite a while before the deadline.

Truly effective discussion at RFA -- which, perhaps, we only achieve at moments, but which I hope we'll keep striving for -- requires dialogue: people talking to each other, especially replying to comments previously made. So it is never appropriate to squeeze in a bunch of damning remarks about particular users, framed as statements of "truth" and addressed, not to the users in question, but to nobody in particular ("This user does/says/is such-and-such"), just as the RFA is about to be closed, in such a way as to prevent any subsequent dialogue. The one-week point of cut-off is necessary because RFAs have to end somewhere, but it may not be used as a way to prevent people from replying, especially to claims about them with which they almost certainly do not agree. In this case, all the votes beneath which the post-deadline comments were placed had been in place for several days, plenty of time for several rounds of conversational turn-taking.

Now, as is probably clear from my tone, I'm pretty confident in this decision, which I suppose is a good thing for a bureaucrat to be; but of course in the dialogical spirit I welcome replies. — Dan | talk 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good decision. Don't game the system is the appropriate policy here.--Folantin (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. –xeno (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair and reasonable. — Ched : ? 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that was a good decision to make, though I'm obviously biased about the whole situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good decision. It was open for a week, no need to be piling on after the fact. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty appalled by the comments made by the candidate. I thank you for this, I hadn't noticed the attack on me. This certainly proves that Ottava isn't suited for the Admin role, but my first (rather annoyed) reaction is that further action should be taken about these attacks. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And I just went back at took a quick look at the RfA because I thought I remembered something, and I did -- he wrote " I wont hold anything against anyone nor challenge it.". Huh. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see any need for action to be taken. Yeah, it was immature, but it's over now, the RfA failed anyway, we can all move on. I was attacked, too, but I'm pretty used to it and I don't really see how any possible action that could be taken would be beneficial for anyone; I think the best thing to do is just go do something more productive with our time. (For example, I went grocery shopping.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I've had a good night's sleep now and can see it for what is is better now. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, Doug. By making those comments, Ottava has guaranteed he will never become an admin. Wikipedia wins. --Folantin (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse strongly as well. Those attacks were absolutely shameful. GlassCobra 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments are not votes. Anyone can respond to any page anytime unless it is archived or protected. You would have to rewrite policy to change that idea. So, the above is pointless. I would start at WP:VPP if you have any concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: I've reformatted the RFA header to be more like a closed RFA, without the "voice your opinion" link and other miscellanea. I can't understand how this could possibly be controversial, but it's better to announce it anyway in cases like this. Graham87 04:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Graham. I always forget to do that. — Dan | talk 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pile-on agreement with Dan's actions as a reasonable use of bureaucrat discretion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From one Dan to another, well done. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

People, rejoice, the dark times are over...are on vacation!

12 RFAs are running at the moment! Rejoice! So Why 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

eh, that's too bad 'cause I heard we have too many admins already... –xeno (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The more the merrier, ~~Doug~~ Xeno. — Σ xplicit 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm .. maybe I should submit mine now before they quit taking applications? — Ched : ? 19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, there are still ~~mere mortals~~ normal users commenting on this page?

So Why 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over some of the people commenting here, and I don't think "normal" can be used to describe most of them... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. If you knew me in real life, you wouldn't classify me as normal ;).--Iner22 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You should know by now that "Wikipedia" and "normal" don't go in the same sentence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's out of work... what else is there to do BUT edit Wikipedia. Free things tend to be popular during economic meltdowns... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But I iz still friends with the ~~honored ones~~ holders of the sacred bit? — Ched : ? 20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) (by the way, aren't we off topic? .. but then again, if all the adminz iz here, there's no one to scream NOTFORUM!)

This is certainly a pleasing sight. Not only are there lots of RfAs on the summary, but there are lots of GREEN RfA's that look very much like passing. Here's hoping it isn't a statistical anomaly! ~ mazca ^t|c 20:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Hibs - I lol'd. :D GARDEN 20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And to think in January this talk page was flooded with how there were zero RfA's, clearly people feel more confident to run in Spring.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember that it was like this during my RfA! Loads of RfAs, mostly in the green. Ah, the good old days before I was an admin... Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it. bibliomaniac 1 5 15:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA tallies

On the RFAs in which DougsTechs has voted, I have decreased the tally by one, since bureaucrats have made clear they will not be counting his so-called opinion (template). This, to me, seems a perfectly reasonable response, to ensure RFAs are accurate as possible. Majorly talk 23:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this, all votes should be struck and indented since their fake.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they should be indented too really, better even removed (they have no purpose being there if they're ignored), but I thought that would be too far for some people :) Majorly talk 23:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this as it seems retroactive and confusing to those counting the numbering. Given that many editors oppose his "votes" being discounted on AN, we should not discount those that already exist while a discussion is still underway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are the ones who decide what votes are valid and what aren't. They have stated quite clearly DougsTech's aren't. That's what goes. Majorly talk 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be them who discount them, not any of us. Has EVERY bureucrat said as much? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen one who has said otherwise. Bear in mind, something like half are inactive. I'm sure they don't mind people noting on the RFA that the "vote" is invalid. Majorly talk 23:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, Majorly, it just doesn't feel right. We should not assume would others think or believe and given that more than just a couple editors expressed support for Douch Tech on AN, it is not unreasonable, however unlikely, that maybe one of them even would agree at least with his ability to still be counted among the participants. IF as you suspect it is disregarded and RfAs are discussions and not votes anyway, then so what if it is counted among the mere numbers? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't feel "right" to let such disruption and abuse of process go unnoticed because of this so-called right to soapbox ones opinion. There's a difference between giving an opinion on a candidate's suitability to be an admin, and the situation with admins in general. I already explained this though, dozens of times, apparently it went in one ear and out of the other. Majorly talk 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Did majorly miss the bold "voice your opinion" link that is on EVERY SINGLE RfA? --DougsTech (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Did DougsTech miss the italicised Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Example User before commenting. The thing that's on every single RFA. Voice your opinion doesn't mean "soapbox your feelings here!" Clearly, because DougsTech doesn't bother looking at contributions. Majorly talk 00:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But that is still under discussion. I understand your stance. I don't agree with Doug Tech and anyone who knows me from AfDs know I can't stand copy and paste "votes" rather than original arguments. With that said, just as I would not strike copy and paste rapid fire "per noms" and "jnn" from AfDs, which I personally find unhelpful and pointed, I don't think anyone should strike someone's comments in RfAs on "he might be a sock" and when for various reasons more than ten editors in good standing have said on AN to just let Doug Tech's "votes" stand for now. If he went around copy and paste calling people insulting names or something, okay, but this just really seems like something that is so easy to just ignore. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is the one "trolling" now? Majorly seems very wp:pointy in removing all my votes from the tallies. Looks like the accuser is the one committing the "crime". He stays talking about me and my actions, and accuses me of not helping the encyclopedia...but all he seems to do is this kind of stuff. --DougsTech (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And you're not being pointy?--Giants27 ^T/C 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Not trying to push a point, thats pretty obvious. Trying to reduce the admin overpopulation. --DougsTech (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out my user page for a summary selection of my work here. What have you done DougsTech? Played on Huggle and AWB all day long? (Oh, and troll RFAs too...) You're the one disrupting the process, not me. What's the last article you wrote? And you are pushing a point, that's pretty obvious. Majorly talk 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And that's pointy. Because you're trying to prove a point on someones RfA, do it here not on RfA's.--Giants27 ^T/C 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out my user page for a summary selection of my work here. --DougsTech (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You've created no articles whatsoever, and you've never improved an article without the use of an automated tool. There's nothing on your userpage that suggests you're interested in writing an encyclopedia. You started using Huggle from your first edits - are you a sockpuppet by any chance? There's no way a normal editor would start using Huggle from the "start" as you did. Majorly talk 00:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, you already raised this issue in the proper venue (if there is one), on DougsTech's talk page, and were properly ignored there. This issue is not about RfA. If you can point to some policy that says editors may not use Huggle on their first visit, please use that policy's talk page to complain about DougsTech's use of Huggle on his first edit. --KP Botany (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At this point with the way DougsTech is being harassed for his vote, I'm considering whether or not I have an obligation to support him by voting too many admins on all RfAs, also. Someone offered a good point in support of DougsTech, above, in fact, Majorly, who points out that half the admins are inactive. Where is the Wikipedia policy or guideline and its enforcement that dictates valid reasons for voting for or against? I guarantee it's not being enforced. Stop harassing DougsTech, it's just making his point more valid, more seen, and more heard. --KP Botany (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I said half of the bureaucrats are inactive, not admins, for a start. Where is the Wikipedia policy or guideline that entitles every person to a vote? We're not a democracy. Until DougsTech stops abusing the RFA process, he can expect to get "harrassed" (though my definition of harrassment clearly differs to yours). And it's certainly not making his point any more relevant or valid. More like a broken record. Majorly talk 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, the best way to just ignore someone is to just ignore them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with KP Botany's reasoning about how admins' activity or inactivity matters but she(?) does raise a good point about how we are all acting. All this attention and discussion is just what DougsTech wants to make his POINT; if we really think his !votes are worthless, it would probably be better just to turn the other cheek. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No that simply doesn't solve the problem though. Not everyone is aware of how he abuses the process, and so will always get his attention in some form. Something needs to be said, I don't agree we should all sit back and let him troll us - which is what he's very clearly doing. Majorly talk 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

True, at just about every RfA someone seems to take the bait. Why not (I'm sure this idea has been floated before, but here goes) just have someone leave a template message beneath his !vote immediately, like we do with SPAs, but something along the lines of "Discussion of this user's !voting habits is going on at WT:RFA#wherever, if you want to comment on this !vote please do it there and not here."? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an OK idea, but unnecessary effort for someone to have to do it. Majorly talk 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If the bureaucrats are going to discount DougsTech's votes/opinion, let them do it. There's no need to remove his !vote or not count it in the tallies, I'm sure the 'crats are smart enough to ignore him either way. :) (Or: What SB_Johnny said.) --Conti|✉ 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I know this is a hypothetical, but how many editors who are on the individual RfAs will see this thread? Such a move just seems to invite others innocently noticing the edit tallies changed, revert back, and so on. I almost reverted Majorly on Kww's RfA, but thought I would check his edits first to see if I missed something and that's how I came here. I wouldn't put it past anyone else to in good faith just keep counting Doug anyway. As such, striking his comment has the potential to set the stage for confused edit warring. Maybe it won't happen, but I think it a reasonable likelihood, no? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the long AN thread, there is no consensus to restrict DougTech's !voting behavior. Ignore it if you don't like it. Skinwalker (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the bureaucrats, and ignoring it doesn't solve anything. This is about the tallies and their reflection of the RFA. Bureaucrats have stated his soapboxing will be ignored. So rightfully the tally should reflect this. The proposal on AN was to topic ban him, which there was unfortunately no consensus to do. There was consensus his votes were useless and pointy though. Majorly talk 00:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The thread on AN isn't even archived yet and so it seems premature. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we've never taken this approach with any other user before (discounting their votes from the RFA tallies) - not even with Kurt. I dislike DougsTech's votes, but I dislike the precedent this sets even more. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd have to disagree with discounting DougsTech from the tally. While I disagree with just about every aspect of his opinion/theory, I can't get behind this idea. Useight (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nor can I, discounting votes is the job of the bureaucrats, if that's something you want to do start an RFB. RxS (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies ahead of time if this is an incivil remark, but-- damn, another ~~lunatic~~ misinformed user who 1) thinks there are too many admins, when in fact there are too few, and who 2) thinks protest votes like these are anything but annoying, disruptive, pointy, and inappropriate. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Dear. God. Please let's just leave the whole damn thing alone and let the bureaucrats do their job. This does nothing but stir up needless drama. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Amen Evula. On every RfA that Majorly insists on changing the tally to remove DougsTech's vote, I will undo the action. This silliness needs to stop. And before anyone screams "EDIT WARRING THREAT!", have a look at WP:BRD. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)