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.
The page reads "In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact that positions with no explanations", but should probably say "In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations". I don't want to fix it I'll only bollocks it up. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. In future, feel free to correct typos such as that yourself :D. Be Bold, you're unlikely to break something beyond repair - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
oh noes!
No RfAs. I guess this is where I start a panic thread? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I could run, thus preventing mass panic across the place :P ... but then again, I might have to postpone my job hunting... Until It SleepsWake me 01:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the perfect time to go to the old format, ;)--Giants27 (c|s) 01:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry JC, the size of WP:ADMINBACKLOG isn't... really... so... Oh god we're all going to die. Jafeluv (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Answering the unasked question: as far as I can tell, it hasn't happened in at least the past 3 years. tedder (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Then you aren't looking hard enough... Julian's post is mocking the fact that this happens about every 2 or 3 months... there will be a few hours where there is nobody running... Up until about 6 or 7 months ago, whenever it happened somebody unfamiliar with the ebbs and flows of RFA would make a post about how "This proves RfA is broken" or something. About 6 or 7 months ago, people experienced with RfA started making it into a joke (ala Julian's post.) There are no candidates... time to panic. Again, this happens every 2-3 months.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me restate- I ran my script and didn't find any. Let me know of a date where it is empty and I'll retune the script. Admittedly, the script was mainly looking for monthly maximums. tedder (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there has ever been a full day where there hasn't been an RfA... generally it lasts just a few hours, so if you want to find a time where it happened, you'll either have to look through the archives to find one of the many similar discussions or you will have to recalibrate the script to look for a time on a hour (or even half hour) basis. They are pretty short---just like today. If you ran it, today would not appear.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 05:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I was looking diff by diff, not daily/hourly. I found a bunch of false alarms, but no blank ones. I just need to be proven wrong so I can figure out what the script is doing incorrectly. tedder (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Here you go, that was immediately prior to my RFA. Useight (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
My nomination is always the backup nomination so, if anyone sees a blank RfA page, add my name. ^__^ Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Heheh... time for me to run then ≈ Chamaltalk 05:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
While reviewing PD images, I happened upon this image , which is interesting in that it shows at one time the normal number of RFAs open was between 10 and 20. Big change if you ask me. MBisanztalk 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've seen eight or nine open before, but "open" doesn't mean "good". Eight candidates redlining it into the pits of hell doesn't really help our stats. Ironholds (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, given that the historic pass-rate is 44%, I hope those were aberrant occurrences. MBisanztalk 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... I wonder if we usually see drops in RfA runs around September, November/December, and so on -- school-driven schedule, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It'd be great to see some 'experimental' RfAs. "I want the tools. I only want them for six months. On $DATE I want them taken away" Or "I want the tools. I only want them for this area, see my existing contribs. I agree to having the tools removed if I take any admin action in any other area" NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be very interesting. Is anyone willing to try it? ;) Timmeh(review me) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Cobi's running on an anti-vandal platform. I doubt we'll see him do much else. –xenotalk 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
lustiger seth ran on a spam blacklist only platform and specifically requested to have the tools removed if he did any other admin action.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The last experimental RfA was torpedoed by people who refused to engage the process on its merits, and turned the RfA into a referendum on the format. Change at RfA is as likely as change anywhere else on Wikipedia; the status quo is too heavily-defended by demagogues and the people who follow them to make any substantive change to anything. So no, an experimental RfA is a bad idea. It'll just entrench this process even further into the way it is. → ROUX₪ 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be more than willing to try running as an anti-vandal-only admin... not sure if I would pass, but I'd be willing to try. Until It Sleepsalternate 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I was thinking of that one, couldn't remember the name though. That was within the discretionary range, and if a similar RfA occurred today, it very well might not pass, regardless of candidates' vows to only edit in a specific area. Timmeh(review me) 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That one might have failed then too... I was surprised it passed... of course, I waffled on that one more than any other RfA... in fact, I closed it per NOTNOW before deciding to reopen it...---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Question
There have been a few cases of admins being desysopped after being guilty of sockpuppeting. It seems to me that the current state of adminship is making it more likely that we're sometimes electing Trojan accounts. Does anybody else agree? South Bay (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. With the standards so much higher today than a few years ago, it's actually less likely to select admins who are sock puppets of other users because the time and dedication needed to qualify for adminship is that much higher. A few years ago a sock-master could create a sock that edited okay for 3-4 months and then adminship was open for it. Nowadays a candidate will be met with more scrutiny and needs a much better track record. Regards SoWhy 09:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that anyone wanting multiple accounts would operate a few sleepers, which make small good faith edits over the project, and one main active account that makes very many good edits, and many good contributions to policy discussion. So, sure, it's possible for someone with bad intent to get an admin account, but it'd take some dedication. And really, there's not that much disruption you can do with the its that you can't do without them. There are plenty of examples of very disruptive editors who've een allowed to carry on for months who've never had admin status. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It almost seems as if the implication is that the effort required to get a sock to be an administrator would result in a net gain for the project - HAH! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Support per Pedro's "net positive" — Ched : ? 10:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Right. Because "net gain" before sock promotion reverses its sign soon afterwards (they're socks, not Mother Theresa), all newly promoted admins must be desysopped on the spot. NVO (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This will reduce confusion, and make the pages easier to type on the keyboard. What do you think? --Mythdontalk • contribs 04:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Pulling an ArbCom on us, eh? I'm not sure what this is intended to solve. To me, typing out "Requests for adminship" is easier than "Adminship/Requests". But that's just me. (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you suggest we move all the old pages too? Malinaccier (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What a horrifying prospect, Malinaccier. At any rate, is there any good reason to rename everything? The proposed system may be more logically organized, but the current one is more logical and easier for people to relate to. Nobody wants to deal with Wikipedia:Adminship/Index/Requests/Unsuccessful/Chronological, it's a sore just to navigate to. At the very least, I think the RfA process is separate from actual administratorship, and doesn't belong as a subsection. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the confusion? I don't remember anyone ever complaining that the structure was too confusing to navigate. Everything is linked from everywhere else, so noone has to remember those page names anyway... Regards SoWhy 09:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This is totally unnecessary. With the navigational template at the top of the Requests for adminship page, any user can easily navigate throughout all the related pages. If some useful pages are missing, add them there. --76.66.199.118 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Being organized is also a reason I want it to be this way, but I just couldn't word it good, so I said nothing about it. --Mythdontalk • contribs 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke. Also, the "typing" rationale is confusing. I wasn't aware that anyone typed those titles; I've always just copied and pasted their names. Obviously, WP:RFA shouldn't be named "WP:Gorillas consuming gerbils" or something similarly nonsensical, but the names are largely irrelevant, and the existing ones work just fine. EVula// talk // ☯ // 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Spoil sport! I rather like the idea of "WP:Gorillas consuming gerbils"... WJBscribe(talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, that's actually what gave me this idea. --Mythdontalk • contribs 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow ... I knew that WJBscribe had a great deal of respect from his peers, but I had no idea how much! :-) — Ched : ? 09:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)(well, yea, actually I did know)
I can see the organizational reason behind having RfA pages set up that way, but I can't see any problems with the current setup that has RfA separate from Wikipedia:Administrators. One part I would support is moving any RfA-related pages to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/..., so that they are subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. IMO, it makes more sense to have any pages directly related to RfA as RfA subpages, rather than having completely different pages for the guide, the arguments to avoid essay, etc. It seems oddly inconsistent to have the nomination page as a subpage but not the guide or the successful/unsuccessful requests pages. Timmeh(review me) 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I can relate to that argument. It is more organized, and it makes more sense. And if this was 2004 when RfA was created, then it would be perfectly fine to change now. But 5 years later, RfA has gotten so huge, and it would cause more disruption than it's worth to do it now. (X! · talk) · @144 · 02:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what disruption it would cause. It wouldn't change the names of any of the request pages. And I don't think there really are all that many other RfA-related pages that would have to be moved. It looks like the guide, the arguments to avoid and not now essays, and the successful/unsuccessful RfAs/RfBs pages would be all that would have to be moved, with a few double redirects being fixed for each. Timmeh(review me) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a completely pointless move and discussion, tbh. It's a solution looking for a problem - I don't know anyone who has ever found it difficult to get to RfA, and I'm not convinced that this format would make it significantly easier for newbies to navigate their way here. 'sides, WP:NOTNOW means we don't want them here anyway :P Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is an effective proposal. The current method works nicely and with a minimum of fuss. I agree with Ironholds that this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I also think this is an unnecessary change. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
RFB Questions
I'm tired of being one. >:(—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, this is the first time in a few that I'm not . Then again, I had the dubious distinction about being asked about my own RfB on my own RfB -- Avi (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
<grins> --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's a proposal. I tend to agree with you in that it can be embarrassing to have one's failures/mistakes brought forth and displayed repeatedly for the world to see. At the same time, I think the questions have value. So I thought of a possible compromise. Here is the example I was thinking of. What I did is I replaced every occurence of the user's name with "THE_CANDIDATE", every occurence of the nominators name with "THE_NOMINATOR" (Co noms would be "THE_CONOM_#"), and changed the year to 2099. While this does not completely hide who the subject is, it will require more familiarity with WP than many people have or that the person dig around a little more to find out who the original candidate was. This will give us a better assessment as to how people would actually answer the question. I mean, face it, if somebody is viewing Ed Poor's RfB, and they are familiar with Ed Poor's tract record, their current views might influence the way they answer the question in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20. Similarly, it makes it harder for the person to read what the final verdict was and base their decision on that.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
How people !voted
Does anybody have the link to the tool that checks out how people have !voted at RfA.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 01:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It's up now, but it may be up and down thanks to the toolserver's borked-ness. (X! · talk) · @085 · 01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a post on BN that they were expecting some replacement part(s) this week. I think the "thing-a-ma-jig" that connects to the "do-dad" isn't sending the proper 1.21 Jigawatts to the "whatchamacallit". That causes the "whosit" to overheat, and the "giggleythingy" ends up sending faulty data to the "hicky-ma-jigger". Hope that helps. ;) — Ched : ? 10:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just keep in mind it doesn't work well for renamed users. –xenotalk 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I just ran the Rfa tool. It doesn't seem to know what to make of my position in two cases. In one case, I think the problem is that the user has an odd character in the name. However, I don’t see why my support in the case of 7 isn't clear - am I doing something wrong? I didn't have a space between my !vote and my explanation.--SPhilbrickT 01:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Tsepelcory
What's the procedure for dealing with stuff like this?
I recall one RFA being deleted on the grounds of sockpuppetry. I found the unfinished one while looking at the source of rfatally. Plastikspork (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
First one can stay - since the second one wasn't transcluded (and never will be, accounts have been banhammered) it can probably be deleted in the same way other untranscluded ones are. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will delete it. Is there a procedure for deleting ones that are never transcluded? Plastikspork (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Not afaik. I've seen it done before certainly, although normally at a user's request. Just blamming it should be fine, it isn't like informing the user on their talkpage is worth anything with a blockedpuppet. Ironholds (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in going for an RfA, though I would rightly get snowballed if I went for it now. What are things I can do beforehand to improve my 'chances' of getting supported and not opposed? (Not quite the right use of the word, but I can't think of a better one). The account is new, but I've edited as an IP off and on for a few years, so I'm familiar with the environment. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Your best bet is to familiarize yourself with the current RfA climate but lurking around various RfA discussions. That's the best way to assess your chances and discover what it is the community has come to expect, lofty as it may be. Wisdom89(T / C) 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Righto, I've been working on doing just that. I just want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row, all my i's dotted, all my t's crossed. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep contributing to all areas of the project, especially the main article space. A lot of people like high edit counts, and continued, solid article-building activity, as well as participation in sysop-related areas, such as WP:AN, WP:AFD, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and so on. A good place for information on how to "prepare" would be the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. Essentially, you'll want to have a solid and proven grounding in policy, as well as tested works and actions that show your understanding of how disputes can be resolved. Reading a lot of the latest RfAs would be a great way to familiarize yourself with the types of questions you'll be asked, as well as the scrutiny you'll face. Also, don't forget about an editor review. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Good luck running in the future! hmwitht 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Feel free to ping me on my talk page if you need any help. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at this page. It has a lot of good tips that will help you pass RfA in the future. I hope to see you at RfA in a few months! (X! · talk) · @167 · 03:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I would also recommend Wikipedia:Admin coaching, although you will get some oppositions as a result. Some people view coaching as a way of being presented a crib sheet for passing the RFA. I disagree; I would not have passed my RFA first time without the coaching I received. However, coaches tend to pick from those who are already making good headway in their admin goal. So if you follow all the advice above, you should find it easy to get a coach. Stephen!Coming... 16:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've started looking at that and have requested a coach. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I haven't really seen any opposition to admin coaching in the past year or so, though it was indeed widely looked down upon before that. I think the admin coaching process as a whole has evolved from lessons on how to pass RfA to lessons on how to be a good admin. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
ten day
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This proposal has little support, and the key points have been made by both sides. Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been mulling the whole RfA situation over, and I've got a proposal that I think will improve RfA while not drastically changing anything. Basically, my proposal includes increasing rfa to 10-days and thereby increasing the level of supporters. South Bay (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you think this would be a good idea? Thanks! Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
More importantly, can you explain why that would change anything, anywhere? The current problem is nothing to do with seven days not being enough for the thousands of potential supporters to rush to the page. RfA being a hive of spite is commonly seen as the major problem, and expanding the time limit to allow for these thousands of potential supporters to turn up wouldn't make a difference. It would also attract more opposers, making no significant difference, particularly since people actually interested in RfA have the place watchlisted. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::It won't make a fundamental difference to the fact that some people hold back until the last minute to see who else supports... or opposes. With or without knowing the nominee. I only ever support knowing, oppose with extreme knowing to the contrary. – B.hotep •talk• 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, I don't think that's a big problem in RfA, although it is a bit disturbing to know that you check who opposes rather than what they actually say. Ironholds (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
With the indentations here, I would like it to be known that I don't check who opposes rather than what they say. – B.hotep •talk• 01:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahh okay, I may have misunderstood. "oppose with extreme knowing to the contrary" is extremely confusing to the knowing :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, when I read it back, and with the edit conflict and all... this is my stance "It won't make a fundamental difference to the fact that some people hold back until the last minute to see who else supports" or opposes. That's what people do. I don't. I support knowing them. I oppose with a very good reason to. – B.hotep •talk• 01:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
This would also allow for more opposes, which would make it even harder to pass. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Julian. Seven days is plenty. →javértchat 01:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeedy, as I said above. Really I can't see the S/O ratio changing significantly in the last three days anyway, so it isn't going to magically boost someone's RfA chances. More importantly, again: more time is not the main issue with RfA. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
We are still waiting for a reason for this proposal. South Bay, please explain. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
And I would like it to be known that I don't approve of people waiting to see who else approves/disapproves of people at RfA. As long as that is clear... South Bay...? – B.hotep •talk• 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think altering the length of RFA has been discussed in the past, there was even a chart showing how almost all RFAs don't really change their percentage in the last 48 hours of the RFA, but reducing RFA to five days could disenfranchise weekend editors. I see no advantage in extending RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers 02:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The idea behind 7 days is that everyone's different schedules can be accommodated without going overboard. Kingturtle (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with this proposal per the others above, specifically Julian, because with 10 days opposers can have more time to bring things to light so as to make it harder for candidates to pass. Plus — and I know a lot of people may disagree with me when I say this — RfA is getting a lot better than what it apparently had been several months ago, editors participating have become more civil (not to say they weren't in the first place, of course, it's just that often I found a lot of comments were needlessly strong), and people aren't failing for purely statistical reasons. Even though there are still more unsuccessful RfA's than there are successful ones, for the most part the ones that succeed deserve to, and the ones that don't are usually premature, or the editor simply isn't suited for the job. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Julian was saying that 1) it will allow people to dig up more flaws and 2) this is A Bad Thing, just that while it'll result in a few more supports it should in theory result in a few more opposes as well. Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is what Julian meant, and of course he's right. And I personally don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing, or a good thing per se. Though I still stand by the sentiment that it could potentially make RfA more challenging and say that, yes, people may have more time to dig through contributions and present more flaws. But when you think about it, chances are if there are any flaws to present, they'd probably still make their way on during the course of seven days. Extending it to ten days would be redundant. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I also feel that this is unnecessary. Very rarely do things come to light in the last day of the RfA, and even rarer afterwards. I think that the proposals to change RfA in these last few months fail to recognize that despite the various opposers, the culture at RfA is not as bad as they think. The only real drama that exists is in the responses to frivolous opposes, and this page that I'm editing right now. Other than that, most RfAs go by smoothly. People interpret the FlyingToaster, Davemeistermoab, and other unusal ways as evidence that RfA is absolutely broken and needs to be fixed, when in reality, this is the best that we can do. Years of discussion has made RfA the way it is, and it should take a good reason to change at this point. (X! · talk) · @158 · 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you were including my proposal above, but I'll respond anyway. One of the hardest things for a group of friends to do is not to step in and give a quick answer when they see conflict brewing. It's often better to let people struggle a bit; humans rarely get anything really useful done without some discomfort. An archaeology show tonight was reminding me that it took us 2 million years to make tools out of metal instead of stone. We miss a lot of opportunities when we're afraid to try something new.
I'm disappointed at how often someone points to a conflict at RFA or suggests a new idea, and someone steps in and says, "Nothing to see here, we can count on the crats, go home". I think I can name names here, since I know and respect everyone involved: Keeps was recently called various names implying that he's seriously crazy, so it came as no shock at all when he called Matt crazy. Malleus made a sharp comment in his oppose at 7's RFA, and things escalated a bit from there. Yes, crats aren't going to have a hard time making the call, but that's irrelevant to the fact that real people are getting hurt. The thing is, I've seen lots of intelligent comments about how we might understand each other better and maybe see what people are really saying here, and do something about it; if people would quit "helping" by explaining to us how irrelevant our insights are, I expect we would make slow but steady progress. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this and I don't see anything magical in seven days as opposed to 10, or say five for that matter. If it could be shown that more people would take part over 10 days, it would be worth considering. Against it is that even seven days having your edit history picked over and disected is clearly gruelling for candidates. I'm open to being convinced either way. Dean B (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Re: "getting hurt", I should say that there's some guesswork here about what's actually going on, and if we can figure out a way to reach out to people to find out if that's really how they're reacting without making too much noise in an individual RFA, that would be good. Some kind of "RFA mediation" page with ground rules everyone can live with might help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
As the graph to the right shows , once an RFA hits 6 days, it is a near certainty as to what the final percentage will be. So unless we are seeing that certain non-statistical factors are occurring later in RFAs (discovery of issues with the candidates, canvassing, etc), I would concur that there is not a need to extend it to 10 days. MBisanztalk 04:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That graph is now over 2 years out of date - I wonder if it still holds true today... WJBscribe(talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, based on MBisanz's observation in his RfB about there being a brightline at around 72%, it seems that it is mostly accurate at least in that regard. J.delanoygabsadds 14:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Because activity is down across the board among many editors I thought It would be a good idea to extend rfa to ten days at least for a couple months. Additionally its pretty easy to get all your college buddies to vote for you, if you extend rfa this wont happen. South Bay (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because time limits is not, never has been and probably never will be a problem. Reform of RfA has been discussed ad nauseum, and never before have I seen "people don't have enough time to vote!" brought up as a flaw. This is a solution searching for a problem. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel that 7 days is sufficient enough to get a solid grasp on how many people hate you and wish you weren't part of Wikipedia. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither do I see the advantage to 10-day RfAs. As it stands, I believe there's enough opportunity for discussion in each RfX. If we reduced it to five days, that'd just be too short, since discussion usually is still occurring on the 5th and 6th days. As others have said above, the seven-day standard has a good purpose and was put in place to accommodate people's schedules around the week, so everybody gets a chance to see and participate in the RfA. Ten days, on the other hand, is an unnecessary extension of stress for the candidate, IMO. Perhaps the last 3 days wouldn't have much drama/stress or high activity. But although people are usually still participating on day 5 and 6, the outcome is mostly set in stone at that time. I'm not sure whether or not it would cause more supports or opposes, but to me extension is not a necessary move. JamieS93be kind to newcomers 15:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the current state of RfA is already too onorous for the nominees. Would a change from 7 to 10 days be that significant? No, but it is still headed in the wrong direction. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Another argument against extending RFA to ten days is that finding a tenday window in your schedule where you can log in and be grilled is a big ask - seven days is already a bit long. This is a volunteer project and we need to remember that some of us are fitting this hobby in with other things. ϢereSpielChequers 17:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly correct. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It already feels like RfAs are 14 days long. I know that's glib but it's my thought. Also I would be blown away if the heat map shown above doesn't reflect conditions at RfA as well as (if not better) today then 2 years ago. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Why 10 days, why not 14 days? If its 10 days, then it HAS to be 14 days for all of the same reasons why we have it set for 7 days instead of 4. (Namely, people who infrequently edit not getting the same chance to participate as those who are on every day.) So, if it is extended we HAVE to extend it to two FULL weeks! But why draw the line there? How about a month? Or a year? No, we do not need to extend, if it were possible, I'd support a shorter period, but then we would invariably have the complaints/criticisms associated with that move.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Seven days is plenty of time to get a broad crossection of the community and gauge consensus. Anything else unnecessarily prolongs the drama and agony of the candidate. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Many more RfAs are lost than won in the final days, the trends are generally downwards. I suspect if we extended it to 10 days, we'd have more lost RfA's. Also agree with reasons above, RfA is hell week, no good reason to extend to hell ten days.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no reason to extend it. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no logical reason to extend the timeframe for the discussion. Seven days is more than enough to come to a consensus. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question
Basically, I am a bit confused of about the type of question people ask, for example: "What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?". I have a theoratical feeling that alot of editors copy and past their answers from somewhere else...basically the whole question thing is in jeopardy..South Bay (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite see how people would be copy and pasting from elsewhere since everything on Wikipedia is recorded and accessible. These are personal contributions - nothing is clandestine. Wisdom89(T / C) 01:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. There was one case where a user copied his nom statement from someone else - as you can imagine he got quite liberally shat on by the regulars. What exactly does your "theoratical" (sic) feeling stem from, then? Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
My thought is that this is a hard question to copy-paste since each editor will have a different "best contribution". If someone claims a vague contribution like "anti-vandalism patrol", people will probably look closer at it and consider it a meaningless statement. If a person claims major contributions (like an FA, etc) that are not theirs, people will quickly see through it and oppose. It seems to be rather difficult to fake. MBisanztalk 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Where would they copy and paste from? An editor review? As long as it's still their best contribution, what's wrong with copying and pasting the last time they answered the question? EVula// talk // ☯ // 03:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
About source for copypasta stuff - They'd be botching together something from various admin coaching (which seems to be much better now than it used to be) or previous RfA. Some people say that if you're running for admin and you can't even do that you deserve to fail RfA, while I tend to think if you haven't done that it might mean you've been bbuilding content, which can't be a bad thing. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Copypasta? Yeah I'd like a source for that. ;-) --Atlan (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I do recall that a few months ago somebody's RfA went down in flames when it was observed that the candidate literally copied and pasted a successful RfA onto their page... and then made some minor tweaks.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There was Mr Alcohol, who copied his nom statement across. I haven't seen someone copy the entire RfA. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The question I.. erm.. question is, "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?"
Because.. how is a non-admin supposed to know what specific administrative area they want to work in if they've never tried it before? Without any actual hands-on experience at using the tools they're basically just guessing at what processes or tasks they think they'll be good at. I dunno because I'm not an admin but I think it's safe to assume it's not as easy as just 'pushing buttons'. — œ™ 04:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I do relatively little of what I said I'd do in my RfA. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it really so hard to figure out that there are admin-related areas that users frequent with and without the tools? Wisdom89(T / C) 05:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wisdom, I think. Admins deal with C:SD and WP:AFD, for example, both of which many more non-admins than admins frequent, so as a user running in an RfA, I'd know beforehand that I'd like to do New Page Patrol and Articles for Deletion work, and I think I'd do the same as admin. Getting the tools may allow the user to branch out more, but I think the user should have some idea as to why they want them in the first place. Whether you follow to the letter what you said in Q1 or not, you should at least know beforehand what you already have some experience in. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes but they're not familiar with actually using the buttons and what's involved in that process as opposed to just watching what the admins do. I suppose it's not hard to learn how to use the tools once you get them.. I imagine mass experimentation in a wide assortment of areas is what new admins do upon getting the tools.. not only to learn how to use the extra buttons but to get a 'feel' for what area they enjoy working the most.. which brings us back to the question.. how would they have known beforehand what they're good at without experience using the actual 'buttons'? But I'm just thinking out loud here, it's not a big deal. -- Ϫ 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as actually pushing the button goes, they may not be familiar, but I'd imagine (or hope) that they at least have some idea what they would like to do. If they didn't, they why are we giving it to them? Same as yourself, just musing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Frequently this question is useful not in determining what a user actually wants to do when they are an admin, but rather why they would not make a good administrator. I've seen answers along the lines of "protect the articles I am working on", which shows an obvious misunderstanding of WP:INVOLVED. Also, if a user is claiming they want to work the image backlog, yet they have never edited an image, one tends to question if they actually understand the image policy and want to work in that area or are just saying what they think people want to hear at RFA. Of the half dozen things I said I was interested in doing at my RFA, the only one I have not done is patrol WP:COIN. MBisanztalk 06:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Biz... the question does serve a purpose, it helps to identify the people who have given thought to what they want to do. Will they end up working there? Anecdotal evidence would say not likely, but by asking the question, you are really asking, "Do you know what admins do?"---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the question is a useful one - it's a disguised "so how much do you know, exactly?" really that helps catch out inexperienced users. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ironholds; it's more to make the candidate think than to have them chart their future as an administrator. My own guess on my RfA was hopelessly inaccurate to where I eventually focused some of my energies. EVula// talk // ☯ // 17:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Most candidates I've seen go "well, I'll work in CSD, and AfD, and..." but most of the AfD closing is done by the same small circle of people. I don't think it's necessarily accurate, but it helps cut out unprepared candidates. Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
'disruptive' / 'bad faith' / 'odd' NotVotes
(Please notice scare quotes)
PLEASE can we agree that some people make comments that we may strongly disagree with, and that we should either ignore those comments (otherwise we risk feeding trolls / adding to disruption) or we calmly respond with counter arguments to actual points raised (because discussion is a good thing but ranting at an individual is a bad thing), or we take discussion to talk pages, or someone takes the time to file an RfC.
tl;dr: Spit the Hook. RfA/RfB is toxic enough as it is without people being sucked in to ridiculous sub-threads. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
If one sentence is WP:TLDR, then you really don't want to know my thoughts on this subject. I think it's a lot more interesting than that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In a perfect world, no one would respond to odd opposes. Everyone would be aware that someone should be ignored, and everyone would accept it. This is not a perfect world. No matter how many people we convince that they should be ignored, there is always the one person who doesn't get the memo, and posts a comment. Thus begins the cycle of drama once again. This is why there's the whole "we don't like their opposes, lets ban them" mentality is much greater than the "ignore them" mentality. Sad, really. (X! · talk) · @264 · 05:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are the supposed alternatives to ignore or to argue? Why not just accept that sometimes other people vote based on opinions that you may not agree with and/or not find important? Isn't that the most mature response? Keepscases (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
By ignoring, I mean "not responding". Accepting that people vote differently falls under the "ignore" category. (X! · talk) · @137 · 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The only problem is that not everyone is able to distinguish between "opposes with which you disagree" and "opposes which are completely ridiculous". --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's why one person could make a short comment stating that it has been discussed. The problem is that people tend to get into the same tired debates over and over again.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeff, I consider it bad form to continually link to Keepcases RfC. The community has been alerted and input is being gathered. There is no reason to single him out in this thread. Also, Keep and BM summed it up nicely. Wisdom89(T / C) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Adminship is no big deal..South Bay (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The majority would respectfully disagree, at least it terms of how Wikipedia currently functions and from looking at even a handful of RfAs. Wisdom89(T / C) 14:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have two specific suggestions for changes to CIVIL that might help. One I made at WT:CIVIL#Civility Poll results: I can't see a justification for calling someone seriously crazy (delusional, disordered, etc.), even in their own RFA or RFB. The other is that I'd like for the policy to be more specific about how and when some provisions of the policy don't apply; we've been kind of making that up as we go along, and making it up doesn't seem to be working very well, it would be better to write it down. (This applies to some extent to ANI and Arbcom too, but I'd rather avoid that discussion, it's been done to death.) When someone volunteers to be a candidate, they're giving up some (but not all!) of their expectations of civility. Also, we're dependent on those people who are brave enough to oppose, and smart enough to be convincing, and we don't want to create the chilling effect of being quick to bust them for policy violations. Having said that: CIVIL is still policy on Wikipedia, and some of the comments above sound like a claim that CIVIL doesn't apply at Wikipedia, that everything will be okay if we just ignore stuff we don't like. That social experiment has been tried a thousand times and failed a thousand times; Wikipedia minus CIVIL equals Usenet. So, the question is: when and how does CIVIL apply to RFAs? I can't see any reason our policy doesn't apply in full except when a person is making a good-faith oppose to a candidate; there's no reason that people voting at RFA or commenting here shouldn't be treated the same as everywhere else on Wikipedia. (This isn't a call-for-pitchforks; I'm just saying I can't see any reason for special rules.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Do I need a TLDR version? CIVIL is policy, but we don't punish voters for good-faith RFA votes. Let's talk about that, and if we can get something most people like, let's record it at CIVIL. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Candidates who go through RfA should expect more scrutiny than normal, which will result in more incivility than normal, just by its nature. However, the only thing I would change about CIVIL is to have it deleted - not expanded. Lawtype!snype? 21:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with your first sentence. On the second, people may want to look at the July poll (opinions were all over the place), but my hope is that we don't have to settle every civility question just to answer the question of whether informal standards and practices (whatever they are) should be different at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Btw, if we can't agree on an edit to CIVIL, we can always aim for NPA instead ... it's a narrower application, so less to be gained, but consensus is wider for NPA than for CIVIL. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith in the Bureaucrats and their ability to discern a useful !vote and an unuseful one. Assume good faith in the community that worthy editors will gain consensus to become admins. Ignore responding to what you perceive as disruptive !votes. By engaging, you are taking bait. Many times these situations involve trolling. Just ignore it and let it go. We Bureaucrats can tell which !votes are constructive. Kingturtle (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!!! -GTBacchus(talk) 15:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I felt that I should probably respond to this topic. - Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Bad idea. If the phrase is used per that essay, it will become synonymous with "your opinion is worthless", and will get the same kind of responses. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried it? Besides, the point of the essay is not to use that particular phrase. The phrasing is unimportant. Phrase it better, but help teach the community not to freak out when people oppose RFAs. Please do keep the main idea separate from incidental details. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're right, by the way, and if serial oppose voters responded to "thank you" by trying harder for attention, then we would be empowered to stop them. When we're only reacting to a calmly worded vote, we don't have that power, which is why this is a perennial issue. We've been really foolish about this for years, and we're paying for it now. I think that at least attempting another way is worth it, just to see what happens. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with that essay. I'm firmly of the opinion that nearly everyone should be able to participate at RfA and share their views accordingly, as unreasonable as they may be; however, like with all other areas of Wikipedia, there comes a time where disruption is disruption. AGF only goes so far I'm afraid. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Disruption is disruption if people choose to be disrupted. When I was made an admin, there was a senseless oppose vote, and we pretty much ignored it. No harm done. AGF has nothing to do with any of this, and I never mentioned it. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem. No matter how well you or I ignore a vote, somebody—usually unknowingly and with the best of intentions—inevitably replies, thus starting the cycle all over again. So even if the initial vote isn't particularly disruptive, the ensuing drama is. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That's why those of us with experience help teach newbies the appropriate way to react to serial opposes. The new users do not exist in a vacuum, and they learn community norms by watching those of us who are less new. The process I'm suggesting is an active, not a passive one. Break the cycle, by offering guidance to new users, and educating them. That's what the essay suggests. It's not very different from how we already educate new users about other community norms. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I like that idea. We don't shrug off vandalism and say "Meh, just revert and ignore it", do we? Why should we put up with intentional disruption at RfA? Sorry if I'm sounding a bit hardheaded at the moment, but I'm having difficulty understanding the motives behind the essay. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The serial oppose voters with whom I've addressed this topic have indicated they'd be perfectly happy with people simply saying "thank you" and moving on. We could at least try it.
I don't see how you can say it's "intentional disruption" until we've tried letting it roll by, and see how disruptive it is when we ignore it. I think that most serial oppose voters have some kind of bee in their bonnet, and their intention is to communicate their dissatisfaction, not to elicit angry or lengthy responses. If (in the minority of cases?) that is their goal, then we win by not giving them those responses, per the essay. The current community standard is to identify potential trolling and then serve it banquets of troll-food. Let's stop.
Trolling is only trolling when you feed it. Intentional disruption is only intentional disruption when we allow ourselves to be disrupted. The motive behind the essay is to encourage the community to deal with potential disruption in more effective ways. This venue, RFA, is a great place to model the best way of handling potential disruption. That's very different from simple vandalism, because it's less clear-cut. Revert a page-blanking and nobody questions you. Call someone out as a "troll", and watch the fire spread. Our community has some very bad, drama-generating habits. We need to change them. That's the motive behind the essay. Why not refrain from saying it won't work until you've tried it? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comment about vandalism is right on target, in a way. We do shrug it off, revert, block and ignore. What we don't do is engage the vandal in combative conversations about why they vandalize. If someone were to do that, then the more clueful among us would say to them, "look, stop it. We don't need to give vandals so much attention, just revert it, alert an admin if needed, and ignore it. Move on." That's precisely how we deal with vandalism, whereas when we see a strange oppose vote, we hold a press conference over it. That's stupid. Let's be less stupid about serial oppose votes. Let's teach each other the smart reaction - recognize and move on. If the goal is disruption, then the "troll" will have to try harder, at which point we can throw the book. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No, we take appropriate action against the vandal to prevent further disruption. I suppose the bottom line is that disruption at RfA leads to a toxic atmosphere which often reflects poorly on the candidate, and to simply ignore it is, in my opinion, irresponsible. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That's what I said. We take appropriate action. We block them. We don't have a conversation with them about it. These votes are simply not a form of disruption unless we choose to let them be. I'm suggesting that we stop making that choice.
If we've never tried this approach, then why not give it a week? Why not try it? Ten years ago, if someone said they wanted to write a collaborative encyclopedia, that any old stranger can edit, there would have been many, many, many objections that it wouldn't work. Nevertheless, we tried it. Let's try this. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, so why not take appropriate action against disruptive users at RfA? –Juliancolton | Talk 15:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Because we can't. Simply opposing, even if the reason isn't very good, is not a behavior that there's enough community consensus to simply shut down. Whenever it's tried, it leads to huge drama-fests. I've seen it happen several times, and that's why I wrote the essay. If we could institute a community standard along the lines of, "RFA oppose votes must be sensible, relevant, and tailored to the candidate, then I would support that. We can't, because it's less clear-cut than vandalism. Like it or not, strange oppose votes are in a gray area where we can't count on community backing if we crack down. That is different from the case with clear vandalism, and that's why we can't simply throw the book. We need to be given a better reason thatn "he opposes RFAs". Fact of life, it seems. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If consensus suggests that a particular editor's votes (opposes or otherwise) are disruptive, and said editor refuses to even explain their actions, then it becomes clear. All good faith editors are allowed to participate in Wikipedia, and intentionally disruptive users are warned, blocked, or even banned. I still don't see why it should be any different at RfA. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Julian, I've never seen consensus get to that point without generating more drama than it's worth. Have you? How can you possibly know that RFA opposes are "intentionally" disruptive? I've known and talked to these people, and their intention is to be heard, not to cause disruption. Recognizing that they're heard without elevating the drama level is something we've never tried. Why not try it? Show me that I'm wrong. Show us all. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually have a mixed opinion on that essay. The first part I agree with. Saying "stop your disruption" after each !vote is just as disruptive, and it's not the way to deal with the serial killers opposers. (sorry, that always comes to mind when I read that essay) However, I disagree with the second part. I don't think that saying "Thank you for your vote" is the best idea either. It's a rude, sarcastic, smarmy way of saying "I hate your vote, but I'm going to show off how much better I am by pretending to be civil about it." And it's just as incivil as the first method. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to deal with these opposers, which is one of the weaknesses of the RfA system. The best thing to do is deal with it on a case-by-case basis, and to use common sense when replying. (X! · talk) · @231 · 04:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's neither rude nor smarmy unless you mean it that way. The idea of the essay is to be polite about it. If you don't like the phrasing, then phrase it differently. The point is to let them know that the vote has been seen, recognize that they've had their say, and then move on. Is that really a bad idea?
If that idea doesn't come across in the essay, then please feel free to edit the essay so people will not read rudeness and smarminess into it. The idea is to politely give someone recognition that they've been heard, and then move on. I would suggest that knocking it without having tried it is premature. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
How exactly does this essay resolve the real issue of RfA regular's questioning/hectoring serial opposes, or new-comers constantly being bewildered and feeling compelled to voice their disagreement about the !vote? Wisdom89(T / C) 13:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The idea is that, when you see a serial oppose vote, you either don't respond at all, or else you respond in a way that doesn't amount to "hectoring". There's no need to argue with a serial opposer. There's also the idea that those of us with experience help teach this strategy to "bewildered" new-comers. That's why I said, "Please help institute a culture where we remind each other of this." If this community can learn to stop getting upset over lone, possibly senseless, oppose votes (which will be ignored by 'crats), that would be a Good Thing.
If it isn't clear from reading the essay that it's suggesting that, then please feel free to edit it for clarity. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between assuming good faith and sticking you fingers in your ears. I would far rather we just removed votes such as "Oppose it is raining" than give an insincere thank you. It is far more reasonable to either demand clarity or that they stop posting nonsense than it is to give sarcastic thank you. We don' tolerate disruptive behavior anywhere else, why is it that RfA extents an assumption of good faith when it is not reasonable to do so? When has ignoring these people ever worked in the past? This sort of behavior only stops when we cease to allow it. Chillum 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not remotely talking about assuming good faith. That's why I didn't mention it. I also do not suggest insincerity, ever. If the essay comes across that way, please help fix it. Insincerity is a Bad Idea. I don't suggest sarcasm, on any level. It's a stupid tool to use in collaboration. Stripped of insincerity and sarcasm, and recognizing that nobody is asking you to assume good faith, can you see the value in a minimal response, that doesn't invite further discussion? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If we are not assuming good faith, and we are not being insincere or sarcastic, then why would we thank them? "Stop disrupting RfA or you will be blocked" is also a very short response. Chillum 15:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I thank them because I mean it. I am assuming good faith, but that's irrelevant. I'd respond the same way if I weren't. If "thank you" is a bad way to convey it, then change the words. From me, it's sincere. YMMV. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Being treated just like any other good-faith editor while causing disruption is exactly what half the trolls are after. Chillum 15:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Um... do you know any trolls? They want drama. They want anger. They want hate. They eat it up. Boredom kills them. I know these people. Nobody has yet tried what I'm suggesting, so we don't know, a priori that it will fail. Why not try it? Prove me wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have known many trolls in my time here yes. The problem with this idea is that it only works if everyone participates. But everyone is not going to participate, that is just the way Wikipedia is. The reason this has never been done is because there are always going to be people that say "stop being disruptive here", and these people are not wrong for saying that. Chillum 15:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean have you combatted trolls. I mean have you been friends with them, hung out with them, and seen how they act when the cat's away? You're right that convincing and educating the community is difficult. I don't think it's half as difficult as it would be to build consensus for a more draconian approach. We've managed to convince thousands and thousands of editors that a collaborative, open content encyclopedia works, that "ignore all rules" is a fundamental rule, and a million other strange bits of Wiki-culture. Dealing smoothly (and in a manner speciically requested by bureaucrats) with RFA oppose votes is really not a stretch. Why not try it? Prove me wrong. We haven't tried it. Show me.
Again, the words, "Thank you for your vote", I don't give a shit about. Those words clearly suck. They're not the point I'm making. Please try to see my point, and respond to it, and not to a word choice that I agree is beyond awful.
I don't care whether people who say "stop being disruptive" are wrong. I care that their strategy has not, in the real world, led to a solution. That strategy has failed; let's try another. Why not try it? Why not? You don't think it'll work? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is; let's go. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I like the intention behind this essay. It's obviously there to promote an initiative whereby drama caused by serial opposition is mitigated, which can only be a good thing. But I think the more productive thing would be to try and institute a culture that completely ignores such remarks – because "thank you for your vote", however well-intentioned, can easily be misinterpreted in plain text. Perhaps a statement of acceptance and "unfazedness" from the candidate would be more fitting after a third party responds, rather than as a pre-emptive and attention-drawing measure. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If the phrasing is bad, fix the phrasing. I appreciate that you separate the intention of the essay from the particular word choice. If you can fix it, so that fewer people will read it as sarcastic, then please help by doing so. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
As you say yourself, GTBacchus, we can either ignore it or respond. Ignoring is obviously the easier and drama-free method compared to a pointless argument arising from an impulsive and angry response. The person who has the self control to ignore it will ignore it anyway, and the one who feels a need to respond in some way can go for the "thank you" comment instead of the "get lost" comment. Either way, the intention of the comment is to tell the user that you don't think their comment is worth crap so to shut up. It'll be an improvement on the appearance of the comment with regard to civility, but someone who is purposefully trolling will still have got what he wanted. Also, the candidate is likely to get opposed based on this reply anyway, since some people will inevitably compare that with badgering. ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 15:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No, if I say "thank you", my intention is not to say "your comment is not worth crap." I genuinely respect these votes, because I know that they are, at least some of the time, sincere. I can see that the essay doesn't make that clear, as it currently reads... Like I said, if the phrasing is bad, then please see past that, understand that the point is not to disrespect anyone, and try to respond to what I'm actually suggesting: that we dignify the person in a way that ends the conversation. That's all. If nobody can do that with genuine dignity, then I'm simply way too idealistic for this world...
Trolls want actively burning disruption, not calm, brief, one-sentence replies that dignify the remark without blowing it out of proportion. Someone trolling for that.... is not a troll. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - I'm not assuming bad faith about what you are saying. But I think what I said is valid on how this is likely to be used, no matter what the response is. ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I don't care whether you're assuming my good faith. I never, ever bring up that policy to others; I apply it to myself. I disagree about how it's likely to be used, and I say prove me wrong. I also invite, please, ways to fix it so it doesn't come across as sarcastic, insincere, or smarmy. Surely there's a way? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring trolls at RfA has never worked very well. People complain, they are told to ignore it, they don't ignore it, this repeats 9 times over 2 months and the troll is blocked. That is what happens almost every time. Just warn them to stop, and block them if they do not. Yes, trolls don't like being ignored but that only works if everyone ignores them, which they will not. Trolls don't like being blocked either, and once blocked the community suddenly finds that ignoring them is not so hard. WP:RBIChillum 15:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
We've never tried it. We've never tried it. Sometimes, these oppose voters aren't trolls, and there's no acid-test for distinguishing them. Oh, wait: yes there is. It's my suggestion. A real troll, if they don't elicit an angry response with their initial !vote, they'll try harder, and do something more unequivocal. Then we'll get 'em. If they're not a real troll, then the problem is solved.
Oh... what makes you think trolls don't like being blocked? Do you know any trolls? They love it! They set up dozens of sleeper accounts, just so they can get them blocked. What trolls don't like is to be denied recognition as a troll, by being treated just like any other good-faith editor. I know these people. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Possibly the best response, since the phrase "thank you" is assumed to be dripping with sarcasm and vitriol, would be for the candidate themself to reply to the oppose vote with something like: "I'm sorry that I do not have your confidence, and if this RFA succeeds I will do my best to use the tools in a way that will not let you down, or let the community down."
Does that work better? Or is it still "smarmy"? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If everyone got behind this it might work in some of the cases. The fact is that right beside your "thank you" or other friendly post will be someone justifiably asking the person to not be disruptive. We need a solution that will work with the response that we know the community will provide. I have no objection to this tactic, I just don't think it will work unless everyone goes along with it(and not everyone will not go along with it). Chillum 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit of community education, and it is difficult. I don't see it as being more difficult that the alternative, because I don't see an alternative other than, "let's keep having drama-parties". Would you have believed, ten years ago, that a community of thousands would go for a system in which "ignore all rules" is a fundamental rule? There are maybe half-a-dozen people per year who have a hard enough time with that that they post a thread at WT:IAR. What I'm suggesting is much easier to swallow that IAR. Let's try it. Please. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) It might help that we can say, "The bureaucrats who close these things have specifically requested that we refrain from replying to seemingly senseless oppose votes. Let's honor their request." -GTBacchus(talk) 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Chillum on a lot of this. I think the idea is wonderful, but getting a global community behind it is problematic. I'll admit that I've only "skimmed" the last couple hours of posting to this thread, so apologies if I'm being redundant here. I think it's rather ironic that the words "Thank you" could be considered as "dripping with sarcasm and vitriol" ... and I certainly appreciate the efforts here. I'm just not sure how you get everyone on the same page with this. We have a lot of young editors here who feel a need to respond to every little thing they read, often with less than acceptable tact. Curbing that desire is an admirable goal, but I'm not sure it can be done. Personally, I think that an aggressive attempt to move a lot of these "replies" to the !votes over to the RFA talk page would be the optimal way to go. Then again, ... who is going to attempt such an undertaking? All in all, it is somewhat disheartening at times I admit. — Ched : ? 16:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
We've educated the community on matters far stranger than this. (Best example: IAR) This bit of education, we haven't yet tried. Isn't anyone willing to stop saying, "It'll never fly, Wilbur", and at least give it a chance? Why not? Can't we please try the better solution, rather than admitting defeat from the outset? It would be so much better. Why not try it? Give me a reason that it's not worth an honest attempt. At least one B'crat has requested that we do it. Why not try to honor that request? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey ... GTB, I do apologize. Perhaps age has made me cynical, and I agree that "nothing ventured is nothing gained". I'll make an active effort to point candidates to this. I'd love to see it work, and I apologize for being skeptical. — Ched : ? 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries. :) This thread has taught me something. I think the essay, as it currently stands, doesn't quite get the intended point across. I'll probably edit it later, unless someone else fixes it up first. I don't want to come across as saying "let's be sarcastic about it", but that does seem to be a common interpretation. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, a reword is probably what is needed here. If it is reworded, I would be fully behind this essay. I agree with it in spirit, but not the way it's presented in its current state. I do agree that it's unfortunate that "thank you" can be interpreted as a way of saying "get lost" on the internet. I think that if there's a group of people who are committed to this proposal, that will get a large group of the global RfA community to follow suit (or at least ignore). FWIW, I'll certainly be more focused on pointing the candidates to this too. (X! · talk) · @167 · 03:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I've added paragraphs and examples and such to the essay. Enjoy... -GTBacchus(talk) 01:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
What constitutes disruption?
This post in a nutshell: Backstage wikidrama is nothing to get worked up over.
I think, from what I'm reading here, that a lot of the disagreement is due to a failure to agree on a definition of "disruptive" behaviour. And I'm not sure we can reach agreement. But here's my take.
Julian says that these serial opposers (henceforth, I shall shorten that to "S.K.O."s, in a small tribute to X!) are disruptive, not necessarily because of their actions, but because of the drama their actions precipitate. He compares this to vandals, and points out that we should treat them the same way. But is what they do the same? I don't think so.
The article vandal raises problems very different than an S.K.O., or even an admitted vandal who is operating in non-article wikispace. The article vandal damages the product that we present to the public, creating false information or destroying accurate information that the public comes here to learn about. The impact of vandalism in the mainspace is significant and unambiguous. But even if the intent is the same, the effect of vandalism on the "backstage" pages of Wikipedia is simply not as significant, not by a long shot. Participants in these backroom discussions have learned or are learning the dirty details of how Wikipedia works; they are unlikely to be misled by S.K.O.s or vandals.
So what I am saying is this: Even in the event that some editors lose their heads and create drama, there is no significant disruption to worry about. As Kingturtle says, the crats can make decisions regardless of the presence of !votes by S.K.O.s, and I'm guessing he would also agree that crats can likewise make their decisions even when the pages get cluttered by drama. The only people hurt by the S.K.O.s are those who choose to devote their time to respond.
Julian is probably correct when he indicates his belief that these serial opposers intend to be disruptive, but it is possible that they are sincere and/or are trying to make a legitimate point. If that is the case, then we are only make these people feel persecuted and likely create hardened attitudes. And even if they are trolls, then all we do is we do is to reinforce them, not only by discussing their !votes, but even more so by planning to curtail their privileges. I think that GTBacchus has a good idea, but I think that AD is even closer to the mark when recommending that we strive to ignore S.K.O.s. Unschool 00:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say if a bunch of people stop what they are doing to argue about you on this talk page then a disruption has occurred. Chillum 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
But I'm not being disrupted. Only those who participate are disrupted, so it's a choice they make themselves. Most importantly, the encyclopedia is not being disrupted, unlike when vandalism occurs in the mainspace. What's important is the main stage, not backstage. I don't care if backstage the leading man complains that the leading lady has bad breath and she says that he kisses like a coyote, as long as the play they put on for those in the audience the best performance they can put on. Unschool 01:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, who were disrupted? Anyone? Ever? Speak out. NVO (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. In future, feel free to correct typos such as that yourself :D. Be Bold, you're unlikely to break something beyond repair - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
. Then again, I had the dubious distinction about being asked about my own RfB on my own RfB 
-- Avi (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
