Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 190

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. 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 185

←

Archive 188

→

Delete-bot

Note: This is not an active suggestion yet but if the CSD backlog is severe enough, it could easily become one.

Proposed CSD-bot and users allowed to assist the CSD bot

Proposal: Bot to delete files which are up for CSD, providing certain conditions are met. Conditions include:

Article is new, less than 12 hours is about right
Article was not created by anyone with more than, say, 100 edits and more than 30 days tenure, i.e. no bot deletions for experienced editors
The article has at least two CSD tags of the same type at the same time, the more recent one(s) in effect endorsing the first one.
The CSD type is one of the more obvious CSDs, e.g. G4, G5, G7, etc., specifically not A8 or A9.
There is no "hangon" and no non-m/non-b edits below the deletion templates since the most recent CSD tag, i.e. no effort to improve the article.
At least one of the CSD tags is by an editor in the proposed page Wikipedia:CSDBotAssisters or who has the proposed DeleteAssist userrright (note that the DeleteAssist userright confers no rights, it is used only to check if the editor has the right to make recommendations to the bot).

This would allow selected non-admins to patrol and manage those deletion categories, freeing up admins to do other work that requires more discretion, or to handle those which the bot has actively turned down or which have gone stale waiting for bot-deletion.

This isn't the only way to do a delete bot. You could remove all logic except checking who put the speedy tags on, and you could require not just 1 but 2 or even 3 people with DeleteAssist rights to endorse the speedy with nobody declining it or putting a hangon tag on it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

By "article has two CSD tags", I'm assuming you mean it's currently tagged, was tagged once before, and the tag had been removed? I'm under the impression that pages can't have two CSD tags at once. Equazcion (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean two at the same time, the second in effect endorsing the first. I've updated the text accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pages can have multiple CSD tags at once, but there's typically no reason to do so. I've seen it done, typically when the first speedy was "iffy" and someone wanted to provide an alternative reason for an administrator to delete. It does get a bit confusing seeing an article in multiple CSD-related categories though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, so you're saying CSD tagging practice would be changed significantly to make the bot work, since the policy has always been no more than one CSD tag per page. That part doesn't seem so clear. I always use Twinkle, which might be a source of my personal confusion, since it won't let you tag an article if a tag is already present. Anyway it's an interesting proposal, but it seems like a lot of criteria, a little confusing. I like your afterthought, of just requiring 3 people with the new user right to endorse the CSD. That seems more practical. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right, a simple bot that required multiple endorsements of the speedy would be easier all the way around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is a move in the wrong direction. Too many admins act like bots as it is, without enshrining it as permissible behavior. The right direction, is not permitting an admin to delete his own nomination in most cases, but requiring two presumably aware human beings to look at each of them. Both don't have to be admins, but no one of us is so error free that we should be permitted to act on their own. It would be enormously simpler to just extend the delete rights for certain classes to selected non-admins, on the analogy of the way we have non admin high school and college closings. But I really see no problem as it is-- the backlog is almost always cleared at the end of the day for articles, though not necessarily images. I think we're a very fast site at removing junk. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with DGG on this. I'm profoundly uncomfortable with bots handling speedies, even those tagged by two people. There are too many articles that are mistagged, and too many admins deleting without thinking as it is.

OTOH, if you wanted to start a delete bot expired prods, especially those with a prod-2 tag, might be a place to start. Those at least have had 7 days to be examined.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I could be misunderstanding your comment, DGG, but it looks like you might have misinterpreted the proposal. The bot couldn't act on any page unless the CSD was endorsed by multiple people. This isn't a proposal for anyone to be able to act alone in deleting things. Equazcion (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If it were possible to grant administrative rights on a more fine-grained basis then the perennial RfA controversies would swiftly die (except perhaps as regards blocking). Quite why this isn't a higher priority is beyond me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

DGG:

Although there's no policy against it, I thought admins weren't supposed to delete untagged items unless it was super-blindingly obvious or not doing so would be to ignore an article that causes harm or is a legal or copyright problem.
Whether it's a bot that does robo-cleanup after 2 or 3 or more "trusted" non-admins tag it, or whether trusted non-admins have the right to delete themselves doesn't really matter, both get the job done. ::*The question is which approach is better for the project, or is there yet another way of doing it, or is the status quo good enough? If the backlog really isn't a problem then the status quo may be good enough.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re deleting untagged items: see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Second opinion. Short version: couldn't get agreement to declare it "good practice", as the declaration wouldn't achieve much; and the idea floating around of making it compulsory is controversial and probably unworkable. Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just throwing an idea out there... How about instead of two CSD tags, you create a {{prod2}} style template specifically for those within the (proposed) user rights group to use... anyone can add the first CSD, but the bot won't do anything unless it sees a {{CSD2}} template from someone within the user rights group? - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. If there is consensus to change CSD, we can discuss specifics then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to DGG and Fabricamp: Deletion has several distinct components: 1 (or in some cases where an admin sees it first, 0) or more editors claim an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, the creators or major editors are notified (by the nominator or a bot), 1 or more trusted editors (currently a single admin) review it and determine that it does or does not meet those criteria, and the actual deletion and any resulting cleanup, e.g. notifying creators, etc.

The notification and deletion stages can be automated. The key thing that cannot be automated is having 1 or more editors tag the article and 1 or more trusted editors who know what they are doing review the article and stamp it as deletable. Currently that role is done by administrators for deletable articles and any editor save the primary author for non-speedy-able ones. In most cases save perhaps copyvio and hate pages, the approving editor should not be the same as the tagging editor.

The bot proposals above move the admin's review job to anyone on the "trusted user" list, and move the admin's deletion job to a bot. The trusted users would be expected to use about the same level of judgment as admins currently do, or possibly more if some admins are acting too robotic about it right now.

I hope this clarifies things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was basically my understanding of the proposal. I think my discomfort comes from the fact that we can't seem to select admins who grok CSD, but we're going to have another group of editors who essentially can push the delete button, without any assurance a human sees the article after they approve the deletion, and without even as much community involvement in their selection as RfA has (however flawed that process may be)? I don't see a fundamental difference between giving someone the okay to approve an article for bot deletion and giving them the power to delete the article themselves. Why not just give them the bit and eliminate the bot?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If we trust someone to be in a "DeleteAssist" and flag an article as delete-able by a bot, why don't we trust them to just perform the deletions themselves? The addition of the bot into the mix seems to be adding an unecessary layer of complexity to the process - or, rather, seems to be trying to make a whole new set of processes for certain CSD categories. We should be working to make things more simple around here, not more cryptic. Shereth 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I think we should keep an open mind and look for new ideas, but if we're at the point where we need to start conceiving bots to do our work for us, our only solution really is to simply promote new admins. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm here and ready, if someone wants to try to bring DGG over to the dark side (said humorously, not a self-nom!)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please to God, editprotected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the CSD backlog is not another bot. We had enough people tagging speedy deletions wrongly without a bot to help them along. —Dark 10:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting non-admins to help with backlogs

Many admin-related backlogs can be partially cleared by more experienced non-admins who have the judgment to say "no" when "no" is the right answer. I've spent time clearing out CSD backlogs by declining those that don't meet speedy criteria, for example. Publicizing these backlogs and how non-admins can help will not only give non-admins a way to help and clear out the backlog, it will also give future admins practice in the very areas they will be working in later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And that clearing out is much appreciated, too.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. The idea that non-admins tag and admins remove is old fashioned and should be discouraged. NP patrollers should not only indulge in drive-by tagging but also in removing wrong tags and improving new articles. Many new articles that are tagged for A1, A3 or A7 could instead be fixed instead, thus reducing the workload for admins going through C:SD and users having to fix those articles. Regards So Why 11:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some of this as a sort of "dress rehearsal" before my RFA, it's a good way to get some experience both with making admin decisions and with the flak you take for making those decisions. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA-lite revisited

Well, not exactly RFA-lite, formally it would be the same RFA we have now, it would just be informally streamlined.

If we could create a set of "you are likely to fly through RFA" criteria and advertise it, it might encourage editors who meet this criteria to apply. This criteria should be quite a bit higher than the "minimum" criteria and should be designed to attract people who, if they ran today, would garner nearly 100% support.

My personal "no need to do more than a cursory check" criteria:

1+ years in the project, with regular editing for the past year
several thousand edits in the past year across various article spaces
nothing seriously negative/no blocks or very bad Editor Reviews in any wikiproject, and nothing more than trivially negative in the last year. Yes, I will spot-check your talk page history and the history of people you talk to, if you reply on their pages.
Active and recent participation in more than one admin-ish and/or policy area, the more the better.
No failed RFAs in the last 6 months or horribly failed ones in the last year.
No other reason not to give you the typical level of scrutiny that I give most RFA people when I !vote.

The 1 year of active and good editing and the active and recent participation in back-end affairs are probably the most important for me.

If you don't meet these criteria I may still support you but I will spend more time looking at you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but most of the people who are staying away from RfA are doing it because they suspect that one or more people will vote against them ... maybe they've been too inclusionist, too deletionist, too focused on articles, not focused enough on articles ... or maybe they told somebody off. So if we want a bunch of candidates, we need to figure out a way to help people mend fences. I've offered several ideas this year to increase the pool of workers, including the one above in #Admin recruitment campaign, with no success. (I'm not particularly disappointed, because I think the job we all do in individual RfAs is much more important than any procedural change could be.) I've got just one more idea: amnesty. Amnesty is an effective strategy in general when everyone agrees that neither prohibition nor repeal of prohibition can work, and a third option is needed. For instance, the Amnesty Act of 1872 allowed Confederate soldiers to vote; you don't want to allow secessionists to vote in general, but it also doesn't work to treat everyone in a geographic area as criminals on an ongoing basis, so you say: this once, you're off the hook, but that doesn't mean that the laws have changed. Lots of failed candidates failed because they violated some "rule" in the eyes of some voters, and those voters don't want to give up their right to enforce whatever the "rule" was. I wonder if we could encourage some of the failed candidates and opposition voters to attempt to work with each other during November building good will, followed by a one-time grace period, say during December, when we apply peer pressure to opposition voters to let more people through the gate. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Expungement is similar to amnesty except is is applied based largely on the age of the crime and continuous acceptable behavior since. Every RFA participant has his own idea of what can be "forgiven" after what period of time. What I forgive after 6 months someone else might not forgive for a year, and very serious offenses, like going to Wikimania and telling everyone there F*** YOU will probably take a very long time and a sincere apology to all to get past. As far as I know, there is no "systematic expungement" on Wikipedia, save perhaps the theoretical ARBCOM-ordered removal of block log entries or the theoretical permission by ARBCOM for someone with a bad block/ban history to come back under a fresh start. I've never seen either happen and everything I know about the current ARBCOM says they won't be a party to hiding the past. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I know of one case of expungement in Wikipedia: Giano's block log was expunged after an arbitration case. Graham87 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer pressure? Another dougstech-style, keepscases-flavor witchunt? NVO (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty

David, I'm not talking about people who have done horrible things they want buried. Just to take 3 recent examples (maybe these are still too hot-button, but I'll pick them anyway because they're recent enough that people will know what I'm talking about): Timmeh, RayAYang and Kww. At least 30% of the voters in those RfAs felt that there were principles at stake. We probably won't be able to talk the 30% out of their convictions, and I don't think it would even be a good idea to try (I opposed one of those). But if those candidates spent some time working on projects that are important to their opposers during November, perhaps the opposers could be persuaded to support in December ... on condition that we all agree that we're not retreating from the principles that caused the opposition, we're just saying that we're happy with what we've seen in the candidate's recent behavior and we're willing to be just a little more forgiving because everyone else is willing to be a little more forgiving too, because of the pressing need for more active admins. The reason it has to be a one-time thing is, if you announce that we're going to do this every December, then people like Eco/Pastor Theo will just wait til next December to run, and candidates in general will hold off until the next "amnesty", which would be inefficient and counterproductive. What makes amnesty work (when it works) is that it's a surprise, one-time variation from the usual rules. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it must be quite the opposite: "if those candidates ABSTAIN for some time from treading into the projects that are important to their opposers". For example, yours truly sincerely opposes the very existence of "outlines of whatever". How in the world can you force me to "collaborate" with would-be sysop The Transhumanist on his turf? What good can I do to the "outlines" that, in my opinion, must be deleted and salted? More drama? NVO (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all beating about the bush. We're trying to make sure candidates are perfect, because we don't have a proper recall procedure for candidates that turn out not to be. That should be the priority. Endlessly talked about, eg currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a fine procedure, it is called arbcom. Several admins have been desysoped when they needed to be through this procedure. We need more admins, not less so lets work on making people admins, not getting rid of the already dwindling supply. Chillum 14:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is less about getting rid of admins and more about a safeguard against bad admins. A lot of folks aren't satisfied with Arbcom as our only safeguard and are thus unwilling to overlook minor blemishes on a candidate's history. I think the admins lost to a more permissive de-sysopping process would be more than offset by the uptick of "slightly imperfect" candidates being promoted and allowed to polish their skills and knowledge of policy on-the-job. Shereth 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If you've got a fail-safe you can take more risks. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's the more experienced candidates (i.e. the ones who know what they're doing) who are losing out in the current process, as they're the ones that the culture of retaliation and grudge-holding most adversely affects. Inexperienced candidates, by contrast, only really have to worry about NOTNOW. I seem to remember someone doing a graph that showed that the optimal time to run for adminship is after only a few thousand edits, and after that it's a downhill curve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Why do you start your response with "But"? Your point perfectly underlines Shereth's! It's people who run after having been around long enough to make mistakes and/or enemies who lose out, because there are reasons to doubt that they're perfect candidates, and there's no recall in the worst case scenario. People who run just early enough not to get NOTNOWed, and who've covered enough of the bases, but kept their head down and not pissed anyone off yet, they're more likely to get through. Rd232 ^talk 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As people feel more of a connection to Wikipedia over time, they change ... old issues that seemed uber-important can become less important to the person than the health of Wikipedia as a whole. This applies to previously failed candidates who might be worth a second look, and it applies to voters who used to feel strongly about one issue or another. But just making a philosophical statement gets us nowhere; we should encourage people who distrusted each other in previous RfAs to try working together for a month to see if they still hold the same views, or if their positions, or at least their priorities, have changed, and then see if we can use what happens in November to foster some kind of goodwill at RfA in December. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, some kind of mechanism for "forgiveness" ought to exist. I preface my statement by stating that I have not been perfect in this regards and have sometimes withheld support (or outright opposed) based on some non-major infraction and as I've thought about it, realized that isn't really the most fair way of doing things. Just because someone made a few bad CSD taggings in the recent past does not mean we cannot trust them to learn from their mistakes and not do it again. The current culture at RfA, however, is not so willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt in those kinds of cases, and I agree 100% that something needs to be done to allow otherwise good contributors to learn from their mistakes, rather than being damned for them. Shereth 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The process seems to be precisely about getting rid of admins. A deadminship process is a bit of a charade otherwise. At the same time, it's not about creating safeguards against bad admins. The idea being argued here is the opposite -- that we can relax our safeguards against bad admins if we have a better process to desysop them. The missing element here to me is a coherent explanation of what's wrong with the current process, Arbcom. (I'd imagine that would begin with listing admins who should have been desysopped at a given time, but were not.) Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You're missing most of the point. The process is precisely not about getting rid of any particular bad apples, any more than having a justice system is about getting rid of particular criminals. It's about having an effective process in place which makes it possible to get rid of bad apples, with three effects (a) more promotions at RFA, because voters know that making a mistake about a candidate is reasonably likely to be fixed; (b) deterrence (admins think harder about whether they're really doing the right thing, and work harder to respond appropriately to criticism) (c) getting rid of some who turn out to merit desysopping (d) increased trust in the community's processes by non-admins. Arbcom doesn't effectively fulfil that role for a number of reasons which are reasonably well known and hopefully don't need spelling out. A better-working WP:RFC/U would help, but there's been a resounding silence to my WT:RFC#Revamp proposal. (Sometimes it seems like the only thing that gets a real response round here are obviously controversial proposals; mild improvements provoke aggressive disinterest.) Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that if the current system has promoted hundreds of admins and desysopped dozens, without any identifiable mistakes, then we have a very effective process in place already. Why would voters feel uncomfortable with the current process if it hasn't made a mistake? Why would the new process act as an additional deterrent if its not going to desysop people who wouldn't be desysopped under the status quo? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A desysop process which could desysop people more easily would be a deterrent. The idea is that it mostly, in practice, wouldn't have to (deterrent effect). Plus it would, as noted, have two other effects (increased risk-taking at RFA, more community trust). Perhaps someone more familiar with ARBCOM can enumerate how a working recall process would be an improvement over the status quo (ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator perhaps, if no-one volunteers here). Rd232 ^talk 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay well let's look at it another way: what sort of behaviors are people currently engaging in, while remaining sysops, that you believe will be cause for them to be desysopped under this new process? Basically, in what areas would the outputs of this systems (i.e. remain sysop/desysop decisions) differ from the decisions currently produced by ArbCom? Christopher Parham (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that would depend on the details of the process, for which there are many proposals; and this is better discussed elsewhere, eg Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This probobly is a bit of COI as I have nominated myself and am currently going through AfD, but I do have an opinion so here it is. I am 100% supportive of forgiveness and that people change. However, it is important not to disregard the minor mistake in the recent as evidence of the same attitude of a major mistake in the past. I voted for Timmeh because I felt he was trustworthy. Although Kww seemed like a decent guy, I felt that he had an opinion that he wanted to pursue and had and still has a history of pursuing it. It was about trust for me and I just didn't feel at this time that Kww was trustworthy to disgard his own opinion for the community one. Forgiveness can be effective as long as recent minor trends are not ignored as trivial when they have the same pattern as major issues in the past.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the RFA chart?

The first RFA on it says EXPIRED, but it just started.Abce2|This isnot a test 12:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this, I think we will have to keep an eye on it, see if once it updates, it returns to normal. Athe Weatherman 12:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed it do that before on new RfAs, it should fix itself in a few hours.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 13:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems ok now. You were right as usual Giants :) Athe Weatherman 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The neutral column still reports 0, I gather it will be fixed if X! returns from his wikibreak. –xeno^talk 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the RFA tally is having a problem on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spongefrog. Abce2|This isnot a test 14:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

RfA victim...cough, volunteer trawl

With the (perennial) lament of not enough admins, perhaps we each should contact three or four people we would be comfortable nominating. I've done it to my group (and fully expect them to remain sane and refuse me again). If we all do so, maybe we'll net another 20-30 good admins. -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I did one awhile back and now that I'm batting 1.000, I have little incentive to tarnish my record *ducks*. Besides, he would be the first person to tell you he was insane before he accepted the nomination *ducks again*. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if someone thinks that they are ready, get someone who knows you to nom you, or self-nom (although that can work both ways :/ ) -- Avi (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now nominated two candidates neither of whom quite made it, and two others I Emailed didn't even deign to reply. I'm a tad reluctant to sound out anyone else as I'm beginning to think a nomination from me is jinxed, but if anyone reading this page is looking for a nominator feel free to checkout User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria and email me if you think you meet it. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I am not in the best position to be nominating candidates at the moment, I do keep a list of users I've been keeping an eye on at User:GlassCobra/RfA; anyone is of course free to speak to and nominate the names on that list. I would encourage someone to vet the two on the list currently noted as "Tentative." I do update this list sporadically, so if a couple regulars here would like to keep an eye on it, that would be fine. GlassCobra 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed five of the six on my short list (the sixth having told me a month or so ago that s/he was not considering an RfA now). Two of the five immediately declined, leaving me waiting on three others -- /sigh. maybe I should put some basic "nom"-ing requirements up somewhere too :) -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

When I ask somebody to run RfA, I know that if they're dumb enough to accept, they're probably not suitable to be an admin in the first place. :) The smart ones just respectfully decline! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What's with those users you nominated and who succeeded then? :P So Why 18:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The next person Julian nominates, I'm going to Oppose, per julian anybody who is dumb enough to accept his nomination is not suitable to be an admin ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, besides asking folks who post at WP:AIV regularly, there's not much incentive these days. I think most of Wikipedia has forgotten that it's run by volunteers and admins (and 'crats) are doing their best, most of the time. Who needs the stress or the threat of being outed on Wikipedia Review? I know of a number of great Wikipedians who would easily pass the "admin" tests but who shy away from it because of the peripheral nonsense and unpleasantness... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The unpleasantness from sources right here on this project is plenty enough to ward off any sudden urges one might have to consider adminship as it is. Rarely does a day go by without a new report at WP:AN/I of administrators abusing their powers. I've said it before, and I'm half serious, anyone stupid enough to accept a nomination can't be trusted with the tools. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Or has already had as much drama thrown at them as the average admin, and has learned to deal with it? The above statement makes it sound like admins are the only ones who get complained to, bitched at, or threatened... what about those of us without the tools that have already been outed a few times, and get regular attacks on our talk pages, just for doing our part in keeping the 'pedia clean? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Happens to me all the time. My userpage is sort of a hall of fame to the insults tossed at me. The 'leaders' here don't give a rats ass about civility problems, and rare is the block for incivility. I don't blame admins really. You block someone for incivility, it's pretty much guaranteed the person will come after you in one form or another. Who needs that headache when you're volunteer no less? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling, Xeno indef-protected my user page over a year ago due to vandalism, and my talk page is a shrine to incivility... one user even promised me a "Worst Admin Ever" award (which I am still waiting for, LOL)... I'm not blaming admins for any of this either either, my point is, (per your above statement) just because someone accepts a nomination for RfA does not mean they don't know what they're getting themselves into... some of us already know all too well what incivilities will come with protecting the 'pedia... tools or not, it's just par for the course in the life of a janitor... I've already been outed, been bitched at and called a WikiNazi and an asshole more times than I could count, and had one vandal start stalking me IRL, and I'm still here... what incivilities could I possibly not know how to handle at this point (except ArbCom)? Now mind you, I am probably not the average user either, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only non-admin in this situation... we know exactly what we're getting ourselves into, and don't care about the incivility, we jut want to help the 'pedia work a little more efficiently... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I took at look at the last 20,000 blocks searching for "civi". Just 9 users blocked over civility issues. By that sampling, somewhere around 0.05% of blocks are for civility; 1 of every 2000. I'm not suggesting people accepting nominations don't know what they're getting into. In fact, rather the opposite. If they understand what they're getting into, and agree to do it anyways, they can't be trusted with the tools. I too do a lot of janitor work, mainly in non-free content issue areas. The abuse heaped upon people doing janitorial work is de rigueur. Not once has anyone who has insulted me ever been blocked. Granted, I stopped reporting insults a while back when it became blatantly obvious that people aren't blocked for civility problems anymore, but still. The last time I reported someone for civility problems was for someone who said I was the most ignorant and disrespectful editor on Wikipedia. I was told that wasn't contrary to the spirit of WP:NPA. Anything goes! So, I just immortalize them. Of course, I was recently criticized for immortalizing them too. I'm increasingly losing hope that the philosophy of "Well, you can't piss off everybody" is true. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic, only one of the six accepted the offer of nomination; that's not a great track record :( Maybe some of y'all will have better luck. -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, next time I put myself through it, I'll be looking for co-noms from highly respected admins LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Recall RfC is underway

In case you missed the note on WP:CENT, there is currently a Request for Comment on various proposals for moving forward with the recall of administrators. Finding better ways to deal with problematic administrators is of crucial importance to the project, and has been a frequent topic of this forum, so I hope that there will be strong participation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Mahalo, Skomorokh, barbarian 13:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Make RFA pages automatically signed

Seems like the most important place to require signatures. All pages in Talk: space are automatically signed by User:Sinebot, but other discussion pages, like Village pump pages, need to be placed in a special hidden category in order for Sinebot to include them. Can anyone think of a reason not to do this? And does anyone know how? Having never nominated anyone before, I don't know where the relevant template is, or whatever it is that needs to be edited. Equazcion (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think the better solution is to make signatures automatic as part of the software, with an opt-out procedure for those editors who choose not to sign. Then it would be easy to identify where signature should be included and where not. Reminding new editors to sign is one of the sillier aspects of this place. I'm a firm believe that software is ideal for repetitive, boring manual tasks.--SPhilbrick T 14:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion proposed changing this one page; you are proposing a massive Wiki-wide alteration. This isn't a "better solution"; it's an entirely different notion in terms of scope, difficulty and consensus-gathering. To Equazcion - yes, I agree, this should be a relatively easy change. We should recruit Xeno, he probably knows how to do this. Tan | 39 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, with the alleged impending implementation of LiquidThreads, in theory we won't have to worry about signing our posts anymore. I'm not sure if LiquidThreads would apply to project-space pages, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

~~I knew my ears were burning for a reason! This should do it... Though I remember SineBot used to sign RFAs... Maybe it was turned off for a reason...?~~ Correction: Since WP:RFA has Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed, SineBot should already operate there - but keep in mind SineBot ignores anyone with 800 or more edits... –xeno^talk 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that correcting a flawed process everywhere is a better solution than making piecemeal, potentially inconsistent changes. However, if liquid threads solves the problem, then I look forward to liquid threads.--SPhilbrick T 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The RFA subpages don't have it though, at least the couple I checked randomly. Does Sinebot include pages transcluded onto pages with that have the category? I doubt it would. Equazcion (talk) 15:52, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Right, the cat doesn't need to be on the individual pages. –xeno^talk 16:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Guess I'm wrong then :) Thanks for clarifying. Equazcion (talk) 16:36, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Sinebot is not always helpful on the RfA pages, where some comments need to not be signed,[1] but it does indeed operate there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I guess it does then. I don't understand how, but anyway. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 16:14, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

questions by Epeefleche

In the last few RfAs, Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has asked a question that actually implicitly asks for an opinion on his current ArbCom case (which isn't going anywhere). I feel that this is improper forum shopping, and that leaving people who answer the question unaware of the true state of affairs puts them in a false position. Looie496 (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ceranthor 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principal. This appears to be the question that we are discussing. Given the fact that it is a bit heavy on the soapboxing, I can see that some might take umbrage at it. However, the underlying hypothetical question is actually quite good. We admins frequently grow oblivious to the appearance of collusion that our many friendly relationships can send. Two admins who know each other well on the Wiki, but act objectively and without bias can appear corrupt to the casual user since to them it could appear that two admin buddies ganged up on the user. Certainly a worthy concept to address in an RfA. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a comment at the latest RfA. The concept might be relevant, but it's totally disingenuous for Epeefleche to call that a hypothetical question. He wants ammo and admins that agree with him. The one candidate even called him out on it. Very, very high on the impropriety scale. Tan | 39 01:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I closed the AN/I thread that Epeefleche started on the grounds that another forum was better (forum non conveniens, you might say) and then had to paddle hard to avoid being involved in the ArbCom case. It is very clear that Epeefleche is out for blood. I haven't looked deeply enough into it to decide if he's entitled to be out for blood, but he should get the blood someplace else, not at RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But this be the blood of virgins! Hiberniantears (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, he needs to be more choosy about the source of blood.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not super-new, it's been going on for at least 10 days (I questioned Epeefleche about it here). But in that same thread, I let it go (at the bottom). While, as you guys point out, it's probably not right to call it a "hypothetical" question, I did at least take it on good faith that he's using it to evaluate candidates--at Kww's and RayaYang's RfAs, he did place votes after they answered the question, and after all it's normal for people to vote on RfA candidates based on whether they share their views on some issue (whether it be a wide or narrow issue)... for example, I recall that Jennavecia often does (or did, I don't know) post a big set of BLP/flaggedrevs questions. In this case, there is at least some evidence that Epeefleche is using the questions to make votes, not just to make points; and if he is out to "collect ammo" (which I myself accused him of 10 days ago), he at least has not used that ammo anywhere as far as I know. So all in all, maybe the questions are obnoxious or single-minded, and maybe someone should urge him to provide context for them, but I don't see a need for any 'official' action to be taken. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Has Epeefleche in fact opposed candidates over their answers to his question? GlassCobra 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Like I said above, if he's "collecting ammo" then he has not used it anywhere, so I don't see any impropriety. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've informed the user that he/she is being discussed here. Remember courtesy please, folks :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

He was notified yesterday by Triplestop; the notification was since removed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. He's removed mine anyway, so I assume it's safe to say he doesn't care. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After his reply on one of the RfAs, I'm no longer as concerned. It was misleading but not horribly so. Tan | 39 23:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why RfA is NOT broken!

How many admins have had their bit removed because of deliberate misuse? How many admins are intentionally sabotaging the project with their extended powers? Out of the 851 admins I bet you can count them on one hand! This goes to show that we're doing a really good job in selecting admins who can be trusted. And that's what really matters the most in any RfA.. whether they can be trusted with the tools. This intense level of scrutiny in the vetting process we put our candidates through is exactly what's needed to ensure a functioning Wikipedia admin corps so we can rest assured that Wikipedia is in safe hands. -- œ ^™ 09:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Here, here. In an ideal world we wouldn't have problems, but this isn't an ideal world. At the end of the day the minority of admins who go walkabout is a tiny percentage of the overall selection. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"I bet you can count them on one hand!" is only true if you have a rather freaky hand. That would be 46 arbcom/WMF enforced desysoppings, plus 24 "under a cloud" resignations (they're the ones with a 1 or 4 footnote), making a total of 70 "rogue admins". 70 admins from a total of about 1500 isn't a majority, but it's a lot more than just a couple of malcontents. 92.8.57.239 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are very wrong in one key fact, I could count them on one hand---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Having such a hand would be very useful in tasks such as piano playing. Useight (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue of too intense scrutiny, rejecting people who would be good admins on the basis of minor issues. A better-working admin recall would help lower the bar at RFA, because promoting the wrong people would be a lot more fixable. See the current RFC. (Rejecting people wrongly is bad, BTW, not only because we need more admins, but because rejection is inevitably somewhat demoralising to good contributors.) Rd232 ^talk 11:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually you'd have to have a severely mutated hand to count all the admins desysopped for deliberate misuse of admin powers; though I'm not sure which if any of them I'd describe as "intentionally sabotaging the project", I count 13 former admins who are currently blocked. However this page is about the appointment of admins, not their dismissal, and some of us see the processes as very different. As for whether RFA is broken, the arguments that I'm aware of for RFA being broken include:

It no longer promotes enough admins to maintain our numbers of active admins.
It is a sometimes incivil process that at times degenerates into a hazing ceremony.
It is a capricious and arbitrary interview process, subject to fads and moods that as a result produces anomalous results.
Inflation of arbitrary standards is putting adminship out of reach for many editors and as a result creating a separate and sometimes resented admin caste.

There are other reasons to consider RFA as broken, including some who unlike me do connect issues of desysopping to RFA. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of the unlike you is that if desysopping is more straightforward, RfAs would in turn become less scrutinized as bad apples would be easier to remove. A causality link, in fact :) MLauba (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Weaknesses in desysopping causing RFA to be broken is an interesting idea, especially as it implies that fixing one would improve the other. However it rather ignores the points that:

If you measure RFA as broken because since the spring of last year it no longer produces enough admins, desysopping was a problem long before then and didn't obviously go through a sea change at that time.
There is an argument that rising standards at RFA might screen out more bad apples, but in practice the two processes are almost entirely disconnected. Threads at RFA along the lines of "looking at the last six involuntary desysops and those admins RFAs' I see this common factor, perhaps we should be more cautious about appointing similar admins in future" Are rare to nonexistent.
There is no obvious reason why concerns about weaknesses in the desysopping process would cause RFA to be so tolerant of incivility as to be considered by some to be broken.

Ϣere SpielChequers 14:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the causality link established by those who tie RfA with ease of desysopping is a bit more subtle as you make it. Currently we're pretty much nominating people for life unless they really do screw up badly, that necessarily limits the amount of people who'd be prepared to vote "heck, lets' give him his chance, if it doesn't work we'll just remove the bit." But as the RfC on deadminning shows, we're not on the same side of the fence here.

That being said, I had a look at RfAs on de a couple of days ago, and what struck me was that you get in eccess of 300 total votes. Of course, they actually handle things quite differently, it's a straightforward vote for them, by rule or custom (didn't check) they vote and add no more as a single sentence in guise of comments, and the entire discussion happens on the talk page. I'm not drawing any conclusions, mind you, but it's interesting to look how things are handled over there. MLauba (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if the 24 resignations have been problems, 46 arbcom/WMF enforced desysoppings have been abuser their privileges. As with some in a previous thread said, the few problem admins can cause a lot of trouble. I agreed with MLauba's "if desysopping is more straightforward, RfAs would in turn become less scrutinized as bad apples would be easier to remove." --Philcha (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very much of the opinion that we need a simpler desysopping process if we're going to make RfA a less arduous gauntlet to run. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While it would be my earnest hope that Rd232 and EVula were right in their assumption that a new desysopping procedure could allow the community to lower the bar at RFA, it seems like wishful thinking to me. Rules, bureaucracies and policies necessarily metastasize over time, and I don't see the community suddenly becoming more forgiving about errors in a more complex and political system. This is despite the fact that bad admins are not typically the ones that misunderstand some policy. We are smart people and can learn from our mistakes. Bad admins the usually the ones with a bad attitude, an axe to grind, and far too much free time on the wiki to do it. I do agree with the central premise of this thread though. If your index of brokenness is letting bad admins through, then it's not broken. I doubt most bad admins can be seen coming, and there really aren't that many "bad admins" in the first place. If your index of brokenness is the discouragement of good editors from going through the process, then yes, it is broken. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm certainly not thinking "all we need to do is have an RfDA system and then RfAs will be a breeze and puppies will frolic in the field amongst kittens and unicorns." I do, however, think that such a dramatic shift would, in turn, affect a change in overall attitudes in RfAs, albeit not immediately and not even necessarily directly; I could see some weak opposers being gently nudged towards supporting with the argument of "we can take the bits back if it's a problem." The overall atmosphere (which we can mostly agree is, at best, slightly hostile and antagonistic) could, gradually, be shifted to a more positive one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! What Evula said. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I like EVula's proposal. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's strange that anyone doubts the causality of weak desysopping leading to higher standards at RFA. I am a conservative RFA participant. I am conservative because bad admins are nearly impossible to remove on this project. This year's more responsible ArbCom has gotten us about 20% of the way to where we need to be. If we get the other 80% I'll happily stop opposing, but I'm not optimistic. As for analyzing desysoppings (like below), I think the effort is somewhat misguided. Many of the candidates I, for one, oppose are the people who most resemble the segment of the admin corps that has not been desysopped but should be. For example, an admin who is an arrogant but careful bully will not show up in the desysop statistics, because nobody is ever desysopped just for being arrogant. Nor is anyone desysopped for being oblivious to which editors are toxic POV pushers and which have something to contribute. Such admins (the arrogant and oblivious) nevertheless do more to create a toxic environment than any other groups on Wikipedia. --JayHenry (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Forensic examinations of candidates - a case study

I'm concerned at the lack of forensic examination of candidates at RFA, I suspect that we have a herd effect with a lot of people checking some aspects of the candidate and possibly not enough checking other things.

To compensate for all the slightly anonymised stuff on others that I posted in my last bit of research, I thought I'd use myself as a case study on the behaviour of the RFA crowd. My second RFA ended on the 12th Feb this year with 109 participants, and during the RFA:

13 people looked at my barnstars
26 looked at my guestbook
266 looked at my talkpage, including at least 100 extras
I think we can assume that most checked my userpage
10 viewed My Badz (and I suspect some off those may have been me)
46 looked at my 2007/2008 archives
9 looked at my 2009 talk archive
7 people looked at my userboxen
6 looked at my To Do list
but 120 looked at my previous RFA
about 30 extra hits on the FAC review I linked to in question 2

This is only a sample of 1, and somewhat atypical in that I didn't consider the articles I'd written as worth including in my best contributions. Also it would probably be salutary if we could link to Special:Contributions or deleted contributions to see how many reviewed them. But one of the suggestions I made a while back was that when we !vote we say what we've checked, as I'm pretty sure from this that a lot of people check the same things and I fear that some stuff isn't looked at at all. I appreciate that those of us who would happily random checkuser admins are in the minority, but I do think it should be possible to make RFA a more intense and effective scrutiny whilst at the same time making it less of a hazing.

PS Thanks to Kww for the idea. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I remember suggested something similar about 6 moths early, and I'm sure it wasn't original. --Philcha (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What lessons can RFA learn from desysoppings?

Though I'm very much of the mind that "RFA is broken for other reasons than lack of a proper desysopping process"; I do think we should take cognisance of desysoppings and see what changes we can make to RFA to screen out those who are likely to be desysopped. I've done a little review of twenty recent desysoppings by Arbcom to see what lessons if any we can learn for RFA.

twenty recentish desysoppings and their RFAs
nom or self nom	attempt	result	level	edits at RFA	months from RFA to desysop
self	1	61/3	>85%	4200	23
nom	1	35/0	100%	3600	56
nom	1	105/20	<85%	4800	2
nom	2	129/23	>85%		44
nom	1	34/2	>85%	2000	59
nom	1	29/0	100%		44
nom	1	14/2	>85%	1000	57
nom	3	125/55	<85%	40.000	28
self	1	20/5	<85%	4100	45
self	1	13/0	100%	2000	59
nom	1	65/15	<85%	2800	37
nom	1	82/4	>85%	14900	3
self	3	246/12	>85%	18000	27
self	1	58/0	100%	1600	19
nom	1	53/0	100%	3000	1
nom	1	39/8	<85%	5000	6
nom	3	69/20	<85%	7000	24
self	1	22/0	100%	2300	21
nom	2	159/0	100%	19000	7
nom	1	39/1	>85%	5700	13

Of course the sample size is well below anything that could generate a 95% confidence level for almost any interpretation, and therefore need to ba taken with a pinch of salt. However:

The first lesson I take from this is that RFA support is not a good predictor of desysopping. 7 out of 20 were unanimous, and even if we raised the threshold at RFA to a crat level of 85% the majority of these would have been successful. The implication of this is that raising the threshold at RFA probably won't be helpful, alternatively lowering the threshold at RFA might not increase the proportions of desysoppings.

I don't think this shows either self nomination or repeated nomination is a risk factor, if anything admins like me who pass on the second attempt may be lower risk than others, and self noms don't cause problems until they've been around a while (this could be because self noms are now very rare, and therefore most desysopped self noms will be longserving admins) .

The thing I find startling and unexpected about this is the lack of desysops amongst admins in their third year. There have been suggestions in the past about fixed term limits or reconfirmations for admins, and while I'm not keen on either of those options, I think that this table would imply that the interval for reconfirmation should be three or three and a half years. More sensibly it might be useful to set up an admin refresh process for admins in their fourth year to reread policy and go through some sort of refresher training; in real life people expect and need training to keep their skills up-to-date, perhaps we need something similar?

Ϣere SpielChequers 15:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I realise these stats are meant to be anonymous, but removing the names from them is just cruel. I for one am curious who the heck was promoted with only 13 supports! And who was promoted with 100% support, only to be desysopped one month later... I'm not sure what we can actually learn from these stats though. If anything, they seem to show how little desysopped admins have in common - there really isn't any clear pattern here. Robofish (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The 13 supports of someone who was an admin for almost five years reflects the very few participants in early RFAs. I think that what we can learn from this is that some of the themes at RFA are wide of the mark. If there was something wrong with self noms I'd have expected more self noms to be desysopped, and if there was something wrong with multiple attempts I would have expected more desysops of people who made multiple attempts. Of course the missing side of this is the norms, 7 of these 20 had 44 to 59 months service as admins when they were desysopped, I wonder if more, less, or about a third of our active admins have 3.5 to 5 years service as admins. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, could you add columns for 'number of (mainspace?) edits per month', 'number of blocks per month', 'number of deletes per month', and/or 'total number of admin actions per month' (in that period)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do so if you want and have the time, though I'm not sure how you could easily get "number of (mainspace?) edits per month". But I think you'd want to copy the table elsewhere, as while I can see that it would be interesting to see whether there is any sort of admin activity that predicts desysopping; I don't think it is relevant to RFA. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It was out of curiosity, but you are right, that would be not be relevant to RFA. I'll consider doing the stats. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't know the time periods involved, the one thing that does strike me is the comparatively low vote totals in some of these cases. If any of them are more current, then one thing that might be useful would be to more or less indicate that a minimum turnout of, say, 50 support !votes might be a good guideline to follow. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

From the gap between the RFA and those desysops I would say that they were all from an era when RFAs received far fewer !votes than now. I don't think these were unusually low votes for the time so no need for a minimum now. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in a column that gives the reason for the desysop (socking, abuse of tools, etc). This would be important since it is possible to lose the mop for reasons unrelated to actual abuse of the mop. For example, it would be interesting to see if the more veteran admins who were desysoped were losing the bit because they were failing to adapt to changing policies. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I would look at this from the other end of the telepscope. What reasons for their desysoping and is there anything that establishes a pattern which could be interecepted and dealt with sooner. Just a thought.... Leaky Caldron 17:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can put on my "statistician" hat for a moment: it's quite useless to show information about people who have been desysopped without also showing info about people who haven't been -- it's in the differences between the two groups that any possible signal must lie. Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. This would also be useful information. However, if we see that veteran admins are desysopped for reasons that are similar to each other, but different from those of newer admins, that would a helpful data point. As far as data on those who have not been desysopped, I think we have to also look at available metrics. Are we comparing only ArbCom cases that included the possibility of a desysop, or do we have the ability to cast a wider net? Hiberniantears (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I sourced this from the June 07 to Oct 09 Arbcom desysops, it could be expanded either by going back or by adding those who've retired but would have to run an RFA to get the mop back Ϣere SpielChequers 19:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. We never know what someone will do in the future, we can only predict. If someone wants to keep their bit(s), all they have to do is follow policy, not lose their temper too much, and not do anything that will bring their integrity into question. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of anonymizing statistics made from public records? Each case is unique and interpretation of the stats need to take into account what actually happened in a given case. Chillum 19:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from a lack of community due diligence at the time I’m not sure what more can be determined from the data presented. The community is now behaving extremely forensically at RfA and that should yield benefits in the long term. I would prefer to analyse reasons for the loss of Admin. rights, but I suspect they are many and varied. Leaky Caldron 19:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we are any more forensic now than RFA was a year ago. Suspicious yes, but forensic implies a rigourous analysis and I don't know if we are doing any more of that than in the past. As for analysing reasons for desysopping, I'm a bit cautious about that as it would require summarising negative data on individuals - a difficult task to do fairly. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would help if administrators were given a less authoritative name, such as "custodians". Part of the problem is that the title conveys an authority that really shouldn't be assigned liberally. I don't agree with raising standards for access to this particular suite of features however (indeed, lowering them might be wise). South Bay (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that from time to time. It implies a false, though admirable, humility. However, website administrators, or sysops, are a perfectly acceptable IT term. I'm a Salesforce.com admin as well, and I can assure you that no one thinks that's a big deal. Anyone who's an IT administrator of any type is generally perceived as a doormat. At least in corporate America... which is why I don't tell anyone that I'm a Wikipedia or Salesforce admin. Actually going so far as to call us custodians is essentially a kick in the pants. We know what we are. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the name is problematic, although this is so entrenched in our culture there may be nothing to do about it. The best change I could imagine on this front would be a gradual unbundling of admin tools-- the level of trust and skill required to block/unblock a single-edit ip user is very different than the special blend of temperament and finesse required to block/unblock other admins, for example. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Great stats, Werespiel! The one big take-home point I see is that this demonstrates something I'd assumed to be true but didn't have hard data on-- namely, that no matter how high the bar at RFA is set, some users with exemplary RFAs will wind up developing problems later on. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was watching a recent Rfa, half-hoping that someone would oppose so it wouldn't be unanimous, after a recent incident involving a unanimously selected admin. I thought I was joking, but that table shows that 100% is no guarantee.--SPhilbrick T 13:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the time interval is significant here. If someone is desysopped more than three years after they became admin it is rather less likely that whatever they were desysopped for could have been spotted at the RFA than if they were only an admin for 3 months. But there is an interesting question that this poses, Has adminship changed? Or had those admins changed? I appreciate that some see these desysoppings as evidence for why we need to make desysopping easier, I see them as evidence that our desyopping process exists and works but I see a lack of ongoing training to prevent such situations arising. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

See also User:Cool3/Desysop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.253 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My kingdom for a control group

As I mentioned elsewhere, this is an awesome dataset. Some day I will have the time to sample one myself, but this dataset cries out for a control group of active admins and a logistic regression. If someone gives me the control group (random please), I'll run the regression. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Duh, the control group is listed one line above... IronGargoyle (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A project you might be interested in

Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support the Wikipedia community and its volunteers. I'm looking for a few people to help me get it off the ground, so feel free to join up! It's a long shot, though. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. Please help by posting your new ideas! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding notification of bureaucrats about alternate accounts

Franamax raises an interesting point in response to a canned question about alternate accounts. I reviewed Bureaucrats, and I don't see acceptance of such notices in the job function. Arguably, it is over-complicating things to formally update the job functions, but did anyone ask whether 'crats accept this responsibility or did we just decide to assign them this task?
I have no intentions of creating an alternate account but if I were to do so, can I:

Just pick any bureaucrat and send an email?
Even Brion?
What about Cecropia (listed as inactive?)
If I send an email to one bureaucrat, can I ask that it be treated as confidential, not shared with others?
Are they required to share such a submission with all other bureaucrats?
Are they permitted to share it with other bureaucrats at their discretion?
Can they share it with ArbCom?
If I participate in Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD and notify ArbCom but fail to contact a 'crat, am I in violation?
If a admin agrees, then becomes a bureaucrat, can they notify themselves?

Some of these questions, particularly the last one, may be silly, but some are serious. If we have created a process, I've never seen a link to it. If we haven't described the process, I fear we've created a de facto requirement with no delineation of process.--SPhilbrick T 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume any mention of crats is a trick element to the question and best answered along the lines of "any other accounts I have have been notified to arbcom or a checkuser in accordance with WP:SOCK#LEGIT. If a candidate gave an answer that implied they thought crats were involved that would imply they hadn't read the policy. There has been some talk on Wikipedia Talk:SOCK about the low security of emailing arbcom and the need for some secretive people to be able to email one individal, however that does raise issues as to what that individual can do with the information, and how easy it would be to game a system that enabled you to email one retired or dormant account. For Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD the appropriate security level for the "secret" accounts is pretty minimal, so after checking with Arbcom I wrote in that alt accounts created for that project need to be declared to Arbcom. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was conceived as a trick question although you point out correctly that crats are not elected for this. I'd suggest we simply ask Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) why they asked the question this way. Regards So Why 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep it simple, send it to [email protected]...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 18:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, I thought the very same thing. It is certainly not in the bureaucrat's job description. It's not described at WP:Bureaucrats, WP:SOCK, or WMF:Privacy policy. The nearest is we have is at WP:SOCK and states: "RFA candidates should normally disclose all past significant accounts", and later, "Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a WP:CHECKUSER or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors [...] considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny." (emphasis in original).

Quite right too, that such notification is neither required de jure with arbcom nor part of a bureaucrat's job:

It would seem to assume that editors will use alternate accounts maliciously, which would violate WP:AGF (guideline).
Do bureaucrats or arbcom have the time or interest in scrutinizing every alt account? I doubt it. They aren't explicitly notified of every known sock puppeteer.
For legitimate alts, it would be an extra hassle against the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY (policy) and WP:KISS (essay).
For people actually intending to abuse multiple accounts, obviously it's a totally useless notion. When was the last time a bureaucrat or arbcom received a message from someone advising that they had a new account and were going to use it for sock puppetry?

Besides which, it's so easy to lie in written communication, especially when you have time to compose your answer. A promise to notify anyone is technically unenforceable. Past desysoppings have proven that. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Franamax did make reference to bureaucrats role regarding Sock accounts. Ultraexactzz used what has become my standard phrasing for the RfA question - most of you have seen it in every RfA since the whole law thing. I chose the words very carefully when I crafted the question. One of the primary reasons that I used "bureaucrats" is that on the 7th day, a bureaucrat will check the !vote for the RfA candidate. They will then make the decision on the success or lack of success of the RfA grilling. Perhaps I should suggest providing the bureaucrats alternate account info during the process, however, I believe that the honesty factor comes into play. 3 months from an RfA if we find out about banned socks, the proverbial fecal matter is going to strike the fan. If they're willing to lie in an RfA, then what else are we going to see/find? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But you do not ask about past sock accounts, you ask about accounts held now or created in future. Anyone running malicious socks is, obviously, going to lie about it at RfA, that's the point of socking. I don't understand the point of the question. It serves no purpose. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One purpose of the question might be to elicit general views on use of alternate accounts. I wouldn't mind seeing "have you used any other account in the past and did you notify anyone?" added in there too. But yes, the bad ones are just going to lie.

I originally thought the question was "would you notify a bureaucrat", to which I might have answered "yeah, whichever one I like the least, so a year from now they can get nailed for not having properly supervised my other account and they'll get picked off in the ensuing drama-fest". ;) Franamax (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "that you may have" in the question is well-chosen: even if I have abandoned an account, or it has been blocked as a sock, it is an alternate account that I may have, even if it's unusable. Once someone creates an account, it'd theirs for good. Therefore, the question does ask about any account that the person has ever created. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an obscure way of asking about accounts that an editor has had in the past. I strongly suspect most people do not interpret the question in the way you'd like. I strongly suspect that people who've had an account that they no longer use do not say that they "have" that account still. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you didn't enable email and you scramble or lose your password you "had" that account but no longer have it (a fate incidentally that I nearly suffered myself), What I dislike about the current wording Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator? Is that it ignores policy on legitimate alternate accounts, and it creates a new role for bureaucrats that currently belongs with arbcom or checkusers. I can see the point that it wants to encourage candidates who have alternate accounts to allow them to be vetted by a trusted third party, but making that the crats then puts them in the invidious position of evaluating consensus whilst knowing information not available to the !voters. If for example the crats were to close a close call as no-consensus there is a risk that !voters in a future RFA would assume that the crats considered a users alternate account to have been used contentiously, instead of having concluded that the weight of arguments amongst the 25% who opposed was stronger than that of the 75% who supported. Though as wp:SOCK differentiates between alternate accounts and former accounts, the currently asked question does at least respect wp:CLEANSTART. However I think a more sensible question would be along the lines of Are you familiar with wp:SOCK, and are you happy to comply with that policy?" Ϣere SpielChequers 13:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Not only is this beyond bureaucrats' stated duties, it could also impact their ability to close an RfA based on consensus. That said, this isn't something that can be changed readily, is it? Users are free to ask questions like this in any way they wish, even if the wording is tricky as it is here... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for admin

It seems to me that this is all but a joke.. Northwestern guy (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, this page is nothing but a joke. Wastful (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, there are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. So, you know, don't get excited. Steve Smith (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent call Steve. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 08:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Growl! Wild cat in the distance (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Minimum level of activity for an incoming admin

I'm intrigued by Materialscientist's comment on Sebwote's RfA that "Low activity is a big minus for a newcoming admin." I take a different view, so I thought it might be worth discussing to see if my view should be changed. I support that view in a different context—in ArbCom selection, for example. Any position where there are a fixed, finite number of members, it is appropriate to insist that the candidate commit to some level of activity of involvement.
However, there are no upper limits on the number of admins. Promoting one editor to admin does not take a slot away from an existing admin. There is a pile of work for admins to address, adding one editor to the admin list reduces the workpile for others. (In contrast, appointing a minimally involved person to a fixed membership board actually increases the workload for the remainder.)
My argument leads to an inference that I would even support providing the bit to an editor planning five edits a month. I don't go that far, because I think that being an admin requires keeping up on community norms, and five edits a month isn't enough. (In contrast, an editor who adds five good edits a month is a net positive, and welcomed.) I can accept a minimal level of activity, but I feel that an occasional month dropping below 100 edits isn't a cause for concern.
Do others feel that there is a minimal level of activity to be eligible to be an admin? If so, what are your thoughts on what the level is, and why such a minimum is appropriate?--SPhilbrick T 15:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To me it really depends on the type of activity. 100 edits a month might be insufficient if they're mostly or entirely automated, but in the particular example of Sebwite, his edits seem to be well thought-out which suggests to me that he's paying attention to what's going on. (Also note that one of his "100"s is November, which has only just started, so his edit rate for November is about 25 per day). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar in that regard to how edit count is viewed. I think the implication is that a sysop who is not regularly active may not be able to keep up with changing policy/consensus/gossip. Admins should have a presence or something along those lines. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Irregular editing does not equal irregular visits to Wikipedia. I for one frequently read this talk page, but my last edit here has been a while ago. Editing is not required to keep up with policy and such, although I realize it's the only thing through which presence can be shown.--Atlan (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I was writing, I was thinking about continuing education issues as promulgated by many professional associations. Some minimal level of continuing ed is required, and I can see that applying to admins. However, continuing ed in a professional association can be met by reading, not just by writing, but there's no trivial way to measure reading here. I agree that one can keep up without editing, but I'm not sure how to measure it.--SPhilbrick T 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison about workload is missing the point. Low participation isn't the objection because it would mean more/less work for other admins, but rather it is through participation that we can measure how people interact with others and understands policies/guidelines and can interpret them. If a person doesn't participate we have no way to measure them.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Balloonman; consistent activity is more likely to correlate with a current knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings than does inconsistent activity. Useight (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not meant as a personal attack or anything, but it seems from Materialscientist's RfA that he might not be quite familiar with certain norms ("canvassing", etc). This is confirmed in his vote, I see WP:ECT for a user with 9k edits and one of those "prima facie" votes. Materialscientist should take some time to get acquainted with what's expected and things that are generally frowned upon. Triplestop x3 21:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To Triplestop. Taking offense is my right, isn't? People who know me might say that I have rather high sensitivity threshold, and that I do admit my faults and weaknesses readily. I don't recall we crossed anywhere (have I stepped on your toes in a crowd sometime ?), but I take offense with your words and suggest we resolve this now, anywhere you want, when it is still just a friendly chitty-chat. PS: I did ask at my RFA to spill out whatever you have against me, and many really did. You've been there, haven't you? Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to the audience for the above note, I'll reply on the thread topic shortly. Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not "stepped on my toes". As an admin your actions are subject to scrutiny by others. Have you seen Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions? Triplestop x3 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I getting it right, that everything was fine at my RFA (as judged by your activity), but now after I voted "no" to Sebwite (with an explanation why and respect to everybody), and you voted "yes", I become a "subject to scrutiny by others"? Note that this thread was started on another topic, and it is not a good manner to continue it this way. Look at it another way - your notes do not change my (friendly) attitude to Sebwite, but they are certainly not helpful to his RFA. Materialscientist (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not helpful to assume that everyone is out to get you because they disagree with you. You should not be getting offended when other people raise concerns over your actions because as an admin this is a very common occurrence. That is all I am going to say. Triplestop x3 23:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What admin actions are you talking about - any registered user has a right to express their opinion at RFA, isn't? Just two weeks ago you said nothing at my RFA, and now you jump me. Why? I don't recall anything controversial I've done in that period. My taking offense had nothing to do with our votes - you've openly expressed concerns that my judgment might somehow be inappropriate to an admin. May I ask you to be specific on "generally frowned upon"? Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<indent>I actually came here in response to a friendly invitation by SPhilbrick to clarify my opinion on admin's activity. Some notes: (i) Accidental low activity is never an issue, I meant regular low activity, especially recent. (ii) There is a technical issue - inactive admin accounts have enhanced risk of being hacked, and I saw inactive admins stepping down for that reason (at least, that what was said - elevated chance of account hijacking). (iii) adminship is not a badge, which can be put on a shelf. I expect that a newcoming admin would actively help and would be an example to newcomers, and therefore put certain requirements to a candidate. I don't know Sebwite, and thus AFG by default, but his edit counts, actual edits and achievements are not exemplary to me (while understanding the misleading nature of those stats, I'm trying to get some useful bits from them). Just an example, one may write excellent articles and intentionally avoid DYK/GA/FA processes, and I would understand why, but and admin needs to know those processes first hand, and experience tells that he/she will have much less time for that learning after RFA than before. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I actually heard that the opposite was true—that inactive accounts were less vulnerable to hacking. The reason being (I think) that an active account may be used on public computers, computers with keyloggers, etc... You may very well still be right, but why do you think inactive accounts are more vulnerable? IronGargoyle (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the more often one uses public computers the higher the risks. I think the argument was about the accounts themselves, i.e. if I'm logged every day, I would see if someone hijacked my account. I can't tell how it can be hijacked though (brute force breaking the password, etc?). Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought there were some technical measures taken to prevent brute force attacks (although I haven't seen the captchas recently). Not being some crazy hacker trying to break into an admin account, I really don't know their motives. Blocking Jimbo? Deleting the main page? Crazy template vandalism? If that's the case, it's not going to matter if they have the account for 10 months undetected or 10 minutes. They're going to get in, cause some mayhem, and then get their asses drop-kicked by a steward. It seems to me that an active account and an inactive account should have similar vulnerabilities to brute force attack. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Its all about smart use. If a hijacker makes an edit/day, but that edit is a vote, user unblock, etc. this could be a trouble and could go long unnoticed. Such things are much more difficult to track if the owner is inactive. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that incivility and other trouble-making often correlates with an overinvestment in a particular philosophy, POV or subject area. It strikes me that a less vigorous activity level might indicate a more casual (but yet not less responsible) approach to editing. This might indicate less of a risk from such a candidate, provided they can demonstrate a keen understanding of policy. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Honestly, I like much better a slow editing style, with few edits per day, but every edit bringing something valuable, rather than a string of edits, correcting one word/edit in a single article. No doubt that numbers are misleading, but if the number is low and edits are insignificant then .. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

myself, I know a lot of good people here who do a great deal of thinking and only a little acting-- but appropriate actions when they do them. However the acceptance of an admin's work depends to some extent on his reputation for knowing what to do- If some new (or for that matter) admin who has never participated much in tagging for speedy starts patrolling there, I would certainly watch them closely. To use an example given earlier by Iron Gargoyle, I am an edit who almost never engages in DYK/GA/FA processes--which is fine if i do not attempt to do admin work there. Nobody can learn everything. I don;t know how to do range blocks either, so I rely on the admins who do know. The two key functions it is hard to avoid are blocking and deleting, because one cannot help but come upon the need for them frequently--but some specialists do manage to avoid it. . The other function not just an admin but any experienced editor cannot avoid is giving advice to newbies--and I do not see how one can do that without having worked a reasonable amount on one's own articles. But if a newby asks me for help with an image, I direct him to where he;ll get a better answer. What we want is enough activity at what one does most to be an expert at it, and enough general activity to keep up with changes. The only thing every admin absolutely needs to do is the sort of engagement that keeps him aware of the need for courtesy, judgement, and the willingness to admit error. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG sums up my general view of this. Personally, I tend to view a consistently high rate of activity as dangerous to one's health and mental stability. As with anything, moderation is key. Users who run up thousands of edits a month are either bots, or addicted. Granted, there are a good number of pre-existing medical conditions which can actually make such behavior healthy as it offers a valid social outlet to those who may otherwise lack the ability to socialize. However, to view this behavior as a benchmark level of activity is to endorse populating the admin corps with a combination of people who are entirely unrepresentative of the larger project (some for bad reasons, and some for good reasons). Hiberniantears (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Minimum numbers of edits per day

I have made this a sub-discussion of the one above because it is related, but should not be confused or tied in. As most of you know, I am currently in an RFA. One of the issues that has been brought up is that one should have "a lot of activity."

Here is my take on this: Wikipedia is a volunteer service. No one should feel compelled to make any minimum number of edits. Whoever does make any edits should make them because they are needed, and not for the sake of racking up a huge edit count.

In terms of being an administrator, obviously, a person needs some experience, and one with just 216 edits is probably not so experienced. But a one who has 5000 edits in 4 months doing virtually the same thing all the time may also not have the knack, while one with 2500 edits in 2 years who has studied a lot of Wikipedia's guidelines may know a lot more.

And regardless of these numbers, the most important thing is that edits are made wisely. Knowing how to edit wisely is much more important than the numbers one has. The lack of edits for several days may signify nothing more than that the user has not found anything worth editing during that time.

Remember, people have busy lives, and no one, even administrators, cannot be expected to make Wikipedia their full-time job. Sebwite (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The concept that admin candidates need to log a certain number of edits per day is disturbing. It can lead to burnout. And I agree with your point on racking up many edits in a short period vs. fewer edits while focusing on discussion and learning policy. Majoreditor (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the main points all should remember is that it is better to have fewer good and useful edits than many lousy or needless ones. Sebwite (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone that is currently having his wiki-time pretty much obliterated by real life commitments, I'd like to echo Sebwite's comments about editing being voluntary. I like candidates that are dedicated to the project's principles, but real life is (or at least should be) more important. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that. If anything, spending too much time editing should be considered a reason not to support an RFA. Look around at the people who appear to be wiki-addicted- they are often kooks, or otherwise disruptive editors. Friday (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support! for Sebwite on this. Good grief! I've been here for almost 5 years, and I think I'm still waiting to turn over 3000 edits. When I look at the editors with 65 000+ edits in the same time frame... I am in awe. But, neither do I feel inferior. I am a busy person. I work all the time at the present, and in the past 5 years maintained an "A" average while attending school part-time. (BTW... when I became an administrtor, I had only five secondary school credits! I hadn't ever finished the ninth grade! I've managed to finish my high school diploma, while editing here. Glad that nobody asked me what grade I was in at my Rfa!))

It comes down to qualtiy editing by everyone who stands, or is nominated here; diligence in keeping to the WP standards of conduct, and continuously seeking to improve the project, in all it's aspects. When I see people doing that, they have my support regardless of any artificial criteria that is postulated on this page. What I have to count on is that the 'crat who tallies the !votes will take opinions like this into account. I believe that they do. Let's hope that trend continues. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)