Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 199

Archive 195

←

Archive 197

Archive 198

Archive 199

Archive 200

Archive 201

→

Archive 205

Is it working?

Consensus can and does change over time, so every now and then, it's probably a good idea to throw out the question ... is RFA working? I guess I agree with most Wikipedians that the wikiprojects that consistently produce quality articles are the highlight of Wikipedia, and every other process is lacking something by comparison, including RFA ... too many fights over nothing, too many people who just vote their agenda. OTOH, I also see a lot of people who take time off from their busy day to evaluate and say something nice about people they don't have much to do with, and seeing all that generosity of spirit keeps me positive on RFA. Is that a majority or minority opinion? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that RFA, when viewed as a whole, is working. Useight (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does provide a method for "choosing" administrators. If asking whether it is the best method - most likely not, but it works for now. Yes, the drama is ridiculous. Yes, there are probably a lot of users hurt in the process. But as a whole, I think most (this is not statistically proven) users recover from the drama and continue to edit productively. And it makes adminship kind of a big deal. As for people voting an agenda, if you consider that they mostly have different agendas, then it should balance out between "supports" and "opposes" and the non-agenda related !votes decide the outcome. Or maybe a certain agenda takes over and outweighs the rational opinions. It depends on how you look at it. Like most things on Wikipedia, there is a viewpoint from which it looks like a waste of time and energy, but I still look at it positively and think that, yes, RfA is working. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 23:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• RFA is the worst method of choosing administrators, except all other forms that have been tried. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • A++ would buy from again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • History shows that it worked fine for those that passed; not so well for those that didn't. – B.hotep •talk• 15:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I would even say that it worked fine for those who failed - some just aren't ready/suited for it. If they had passed it wouldn't have been good. Aiken ♫ 15:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Serously I don't think either is actually true. We have those who passed, and should have. We have those who failed and should have. But we also have those who passed and should have failed and those who failed and should have passed. Any method ia a balancing act, trying to keep both of the first two at a high %, and the last two as low as possible. As a whole though Hammersoft is probably closest too the truth.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Same goes for hiring practices at business and political elections. There is no perfect method.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
          • And, apart from a benevolent dictatorship, there is only one alternative, isn't there? – B.hotep •talk• 16:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Very well, If I have to I have to. I volunteer for the job of RFA Czar.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Support. Not enough RFA Czars. TFOWR^propaganda 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
                • It is rare to indent bulletpoints so far. Useight (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • I wonder what the farthest has been? Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
                    • I don't know. Let's see how far we can indent this! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

But what else can we do? TFOWR^propaganda 16:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Outdent joke not funny out of context... TFOWR^propaganda 15:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the serious point, I tend to agree with Cube lurker's first point to an extent. I think there are good candidates who should get through but don't and, while rare imo, there is the occasional "bad" candidate who gets through and isn't competent/ready/whatever. RfA certainly isn't perfect, but it seems to have been getting better lately and it's the best system we have at the moment (sorry guys, but no RfA Czars for me ;) ). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it is not a perfect system - some seemingly obviously qualified candidates fail, and some bad eggs get through - but on the whole, I think it works. I agree, no RfA Czars... but I'll be an RfA Ombudsman if I can get a new t-shirt... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of direct democracy and consensus, and in that regard I do think RfAs (and other !votes on Wikipedia) use pretty much the best method available - with the obvious caveat that they aren't perfect (but perfection is often an unrealistic goal). TFOWR^propaganda 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that administrator is, at the moment, a position for life, it's more important that bad candidates don't get through than that all good candidates are promoted at a particular time of asking. I think the intense community scrutiny succeeds reasonably well in this aim. If we want the process to be less of a big deal, then the obvious route would be to implement some kind of relatively simple de-adminning procedure, but there's never been consensus for such. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely think that the entire process would improve if there were a way to make the admin appointments less permanent (barring severe issues). *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree... I'd love to see it be easier to move into and out of adminship ala rollbacker. Have the initial RfA... but then make it so that people can lose their adminship and then regain it without the fuss. Right now, it is for life and once obtained getting Adminship away from somebody is easier than getting a gun away from the president of the NRA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's something we have some control over right now, through our ability to support/oppose candidates based on their permanence. Mind you, I like recall, but it isn't a show-stopper for me if a candidate isn't open to recall. TFOWR^propaganda 08:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% true. We can support or opposed based on a promise to be open to recall, however there is no mechanism to enforce that promise. A reality that's been demonstrated several times.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

...and recall doesn't affect the numerous current admins who aren't subject to it, etc etc. However, it's our !votes that control the direction the future composition of admin-dom moves towards, regardless of some broken promises. RfAs are always going to suffer from broken promises... I suspect any system would. TFOWR^propaganda 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. A system with a mechanism to enforce promises made wouldn't suffer from broken promises, it would react to broken promises.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If it reacts to broken promises, those promises have already been broken ;-) Seriously, though, what types of promises were you thinking of, and what mechanism did you have in mind to enforce them? I've been thinking a lot recently about recall, and whether it could be mandatory, and whether mandatory recall would be a net positive, but it's not something I've reached any firm conclusions over. TFOWR^propaganda 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To many to list. That's why I like the idea of the community having the ability to either recall or reafirm adminship in a way that can react to concerns that fall short of abuse that arbcom would step in on. . Easy hypothetical. Candidate says I admit I know nothing about CSD, so I'm only going to use my tools to help out at AIV & RFPP. A month later he's decided to regularly work CSD, and does a lousy job. Not abusive enough to take to arbcom, but sub-par, frequently overturned at DRV for obvious errors, and not what we thought we were getting when we supported. With recall the community could say "you made a promise and broke it, so we're taking the tools back. At the same time if the situation was different and it was 6 months later and the person had truly gotten educated about CSD, the same community could see the facts and say all good, the concerns we had then aren't concerns now, keep up the good work. Not holding my breath till we see that, but ...--Cube lurker (talk) 5:16 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I think recall is an excellent idea in principle, but the reason I'm not in CAT:AOR is because it's just too easy for someone to trigger maliciously based on "you abused your adminship by blocking me for making 100 reverts in 24 hours" or over a misunderstanding or a mistake. Admins make mistake- myself very much included- but shouldn't have to fear for their bit when they make a potentially controversial decision. That said, if I felt I no longer had the trust of the community, I'd step down or stand for reconfirmation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, because this is precisely why I like the idea of recall in principle, but it could be seen as being too blunt - the same hypothetical admin turns out to be excellent at AIV and RFPP, but lousy - as you said - at CSD. Recall then becomes a Throw out the baby with the bath water case. Picking up on HJ Mitchell's comment, I'd like all admins to behave like that - i.e. to be responsive to the wishes of the community. If they were, we wouldn't need blunt tools like recall or ANI. Sadly, this is probably me meandering down the road named "naiveté"...! TFOWR^propaganda 16:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't always need to use the tools to make their existance valuable. Just having a cop on the side of the highway makes people slow down, even if he doesn't pull anyone over. Having a real way to remove the tools would make it a lot easier for someone to reach out to that one and lay out the facts. Go back to what you do well, or the community will take take action.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the real issue is not the current RfA system (which, by and large seems to be working OK) but the general decline of Wikipedia as a project. There are fewer new editors joining it and fewer of those who stay long enough to get sufficient experience for adminship. I think a rather telling indicator here is a considerable decrease in the number of the obvious NOTNOW cases compared, say, with a couple of years ago. Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the standards have gone up considerably. Airplaneman ✈ 20:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the job has become more difficult in the 2 or 3 years since a candidate with a few months' experience and a few thousand edits would just breeze through. The community has expanded and admins now find themselves enforcing arbitration rulings, dealing with edit warriors and deleting vast number of pages. Admins today often have to make far more difficult and potentially controversial decisions than I think they did "back then". It's interesting to compare it to the current state of en.wikinews, where the community is much smaller and there are only a handful of admins and admin actions are comparitively rare. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a Big Deal. Friendly admins who speak the language are essential for a POV faction to succeed. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that standards have risen. This very morning I have seen a classic example of a very recently created admin already throwing their weight around in a totally uncalled for manner.There really does appear to exist a class of admin who is on an ego trip and who use their 'adminship for life' to be really arrogant and intransigent while skillfully avoiding the only issues that can get them desysoped. I'm in favour of anything that will encourage such admins to behave, and it's not a slap on the wrist from ANI or ARBCOM that is going to do the trick. Perhaps there should be a probationary period for all new admins after all.--Kudpung (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that "standards have risen" as that retaliatory opposes are so often used by particular groups that editors who are evidently capable of being admins need ridiculous levels of support to pass an RfA (such as Kww). Meanwhile, it's still fairly easy to pass an RfA by the looks of things simply by not offending anyone, such as in the Pastor Theo debacle. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A Short List

I know there often complaints lately that there aren't enough candidates for RFA lately, perhaps a "short list" of some kind where users can put capable candidates up without the requirement for a full RFA so we can all see possible candidates we never thought of. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been done on occasion on this page, it sort of worked but if I recall correctly from a list of 20 or so candidates only one or two were even willing to run. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be more than 20 and more turnover on asking active editors. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason you couldn't go ahead and start doing this. Perhaps start Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/short list. My main question would be how to find the candidates. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup; a watchlisted idea ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the previous time we've done this within my memory. Seems to be a mixture of previously failed candidates who managed a high percentage/Highly active users/DYK contributors etc. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A poor solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Leaky Caldron 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A problem that doesn't exist that is complained about on this talk page a few times every week. I'd like to hear your ideas on how to fix it.Doc Quintana (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas on how to fix a problem that I, personally, don't believe exists. I know people complain here about it. Maybe if they got on with Admin. work instead of bleating on about a lack of Admins. the perceived problem would go away. Leaky Caldron 09:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether it truly is a problem or not, it is a concern otherwise it would not be such a frequent topic of conversation. And Wikipedia is not a job, sometimes people with the mop need more help. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a few content contributors whom might be interested. ceranthor 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I have a list of about half a dozen editors I think would do a good job and have a decent chance of making it through an RfA within the next few months but some of them aren't quite ready and others need a bit if coaxing to run. How would this short list thingy work? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dare I suggest that we just simply make a list and if there are users who think it is a stupid idea they can feel free not to use it. I don't see any reason for any sort of formalized procedure, as the idea is simply to brainstorm on who might make a good admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Two good specialist admins might include Modest Genius (who I think does some good work around the main page) and Jusdafax. Those are just from the back of my brain; no judgment was used in listing them here and I don't have any real familiarity with either. Perhaps we could evaluate them? ceranthor 19:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd support both of those. Jusdafax is on my "list" and I know MG from the Main Page, where admins are in short supply. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite flattered to be on anyone's list, thanks. It is quite true that I have specialized in anti-vandalism for the past 6-7 months and I feel reasonably strong in that department; however, that strength came at the expense of my work on content. As I have said elsewhere, the more I learn about Wikipedia policy, the more I realize that I have a lot more to learn. Jusdafax 21:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you postpone your RFA until you learned all that, you'll never run. Remember, adminship is a job you mostly learn while being on the job, not before. Trust me when I say that you will never stop learning, no matter what "status" you achieve here. Personally, I think you are level-headed, clueful and mature enough to pass RFA with flying colors at this point of time. But then again, that's only my personal opinion. But, and I don't mind using the cliche, when I read your name being suggested, I was confused at first because I was convinced that you were an admin for some time already. If enough people share my confusion, you are certainly right for the job ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I again thank you, and will consider your thoughts carefully. I appreciate your kindly opinions. Jusdafax 00:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

←In the "old days" (I like to refer to it as that because, as it happens, I am old compared to many here) an RfA was quite simple – if you were just a content creator, you didn't need the tools so you got !voted down; if you were just vandalbane, you were !voted up because you did need the tools. It wasn't easier to pass then because there were some really scary people around who would let you know if they disapproved. Best bet is to keep your head down and improve in both areas... that's when you shouldn't get any in the oppose section. – B.hotep •talk• 21:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My own feelings in the matter tend in your direction. I do note that since I started !voting in other folks' RfA !elections that my thinking has shifted a bit towards the observation made in your first sentence. Thanks for your considered advice! Jusdafax 00:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

2006 is the old days now? I must be from the stone age then. It's true though, sentiments have shifted from giving the tools to someone who demonstrates a desire to work in admin areas, to a near-perfect all-round editor. I can imagine those admins burning out shortly after getting the bit from all the eager-beaver editing they were required to do, and looking back through past succesful nominations, many actually do become pretty inactive in mere months. Good luck finding a few good ones though.--Atlan (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten a couple ideas for nominations looking through the WP:GAN page. I see a few folks there now who would be good. Juliancolton (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll have the sense not to submit to the abuse. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Zing! To the face! Şłџğģő 04:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone willing to put anyone in this "list" it;s been around for a few days now and nothing's happened....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well mine's a bit shorter now- TFOWR is up, Soap is getting there. How about Connormah (talk · contribs)? He would be next on my list. He says he's not quite ready yet, but would he have support? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My list of potential candidates include Connormah (talk · contribs), Soap (talk · contribs), Fetchcomms (talk · contribs), White Shadows (talk · contribs), AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs), and Marek69 (talk · contribs). Note that some of these users aren't quite ready at this moment. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 15:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on Fetchcomms (on my list already). Soap has agreed to stand, but it's not live yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dang! NSD, you took all mine :(. Fetchcomms and AnmaFinotera especially. How's Intelligentsium (talk · contribs)? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 23:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera has something of a checkered past, what with all the edit warring blocks. I like her, but I doubt she'd pass RfA, nor do I think she'd want to run.--Atlan (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

She's been asked about it heaps of times, but not in 2010 I gather. And she's mellowed a bit. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It'd be best if I wait until exams are done until re-assessing myself. I'd appreciate any comments here if you do feel obliged. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be a couple of nominations for adminship from Wiki Project Medicine in the coming weeks if anyone is interested to know. This has come from a discussion on our project talk page regarding the lack of medical admins.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

HJ and NSD would you mind just adding your "list" to the "short list" so we can all go over their contribs ect? And while I appreciate that you added me on your list NSD, I'd have to agree that I'm not quite ready. I still have a few minor issues that I'd like to address before acepting any noms. Thanks for considering me though. That was very nice :) As for the other people that you all mentioned. I have no issues supporting any of them and I'd even go as far as co-nom Fetchcomms....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I have a few more, but I'm not sure they'd be comfortable being discussed behind their backs, so to speak and some of them aren't quite ready yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Then instead of asking them to spend "a week in hell" as you put it, why not just ask them if you can put them on that list "thingy"? That's the reason it created right?--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 23:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion by nominator

A current candidate immediately got opposes for not answering the standard questions because the nominator, without the knowledge of the candidate, transcluded on the main RfA page the minute after the candidate accepted the nomination. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate someone else point 8 says: "Wait until the candidate has accepted the nomination before adding the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship". This makes it sound like the nominator was allowed to transclude at the time. But Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else tells the candidate to first accept the nomination, then answer the questions, and then transclude it. I don't follow RfA much but it seems to me that point 8 should be changed. The current formulation is from 2008 [1] and there was something similar since February 2007.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

[3] (yes the questions are quote-unquote optional but I've kept it simple). –xeno^talk 13:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think PrimeHunter's point is that the current instructions (even after your last edit) are inconsistent regarding who is supposed to do the actual transclusion: the nominator or the nominee. It might be better, to avoid confusion, to require that the transclusion be always done by the nominee. Nsk92 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So you think it should be changed to something like "In general, the candidate should transclude the RFA themselves after they have accepted it and answered the optional questions" - or something like that? –xeno^talk 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, yes (at least that's my preference, I am not sure what the others think). Nsk92 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think it matters who transcludes, so long as the candidate gets to finish up first. Some nominators may wish to avoid "beat the nom" support by transcluding themselves, and I don't see any need to forbid that.--~TPW 17:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think there's a particular need to discourage nominators from transcluding - as long as they wait for the candidate to answer the questions! This seems to be a bit of a one-off case, to be honest - an inexperienced nom. –xeno^talk 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly fine by me. However, I still feel that some clarification of the instructions may be useful: something to the effect that for non-self-noms the transclusion may be done either by the nominee or by the nominator, after the first 3 questions are answered and the nomination is accepted. As of now, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else says that for non-self-noms the candidate must do the transclusion, while Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate someone else seems to say that the nominator should do the transclusion. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

[4] ? –xeno^talk 18:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. Maybe Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else should be modified similarly... Nsk92 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

[5] Tweak as desired. –xeno^talk 18:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the RfAs that I nominated were transcluded by myself (due to time differences and the like) - I think that the candidate should transclude it when they have answered the standard questions, but at the end of the day, as long as the instructions (wherever they are) say that it isn't transcluded until the candidate has answered the standard questions, then it doesn't matter who does it - and so I think the modifications above fit the bill perfectly, thank you! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative we could tell those opposing to learn patience.©Geni 00:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the best solution is to say that a nominator should check with the nominee that it is OK to go ahead with transclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If people agree with Balloonman that a candidate should plan to be available to provide immediate answers to questions raised in the first few hours after his/her bid opens, that would suggest to me that the candidate ought to be the one to do the transclusion, so that he/she can make absolutely sure the timing is OK. Richwales (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In my RfA, my nominator suggested I did the transclusion when ready, which as it turned out was rather sensible as I was going away on a business trip. As it was I had to delay by a week, so that I knew I would be able to log on every evening while the RfA was current.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Candidate transclusion almost always makes more sense. I would not want it to be required, however, because I don't think knowing how to transclude is a requirement for adminship (although eidtors can certainly consider that in their deliberations).--~TPW 13:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if a nominator transcludes it gives me the opportunity to see how the candidate communicates and works with another editor.--~TPW 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA report not updating anymore

Resolved

It appears that the "RfA report" has not been updated since 14:30 UTC earlier today (15 June 2010). Who should be notified? Richwales (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

X!. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Do not want! This is a known problem, and it's a server configuration. There is a bug for it, and is awaiting server admin help. (X! · talk)  · @083  ·  00:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember the good ol' days when we used to have to manually update the template because the bot was down. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have fixed itself. Either that or ambitious editors :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No longer "optional"

I think we all know that we're kidding ourselves to say the initial three questions are truly "optional". For good reason, they're more-or-less mandatory, and I'm not sure why we still call them nonobligatory. Barring any objections in the next day or so, I plan on updating the relevant template (from {{RfA}}). Juliancolton (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen people pass without answering all of the additional questions (usually late or blatantly tendentious questions), but not without answering the first three. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Has there been an instance when a serious candidate has not responded to one or more of the first three?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not in the past couple years that I'm aware of. Juliancolton (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting – is this the discussion which resulted in them being added to the RfA template in the first place? – B.hotep •talk• 20:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. !Voters might expect candidates to answer them and might "punish" them by opposing if they don't - but if a candidate does not want to answer them, they should not feel forced to do so by the wording of the template. It already says that it's "recommended" to do so, thus clearly expressing that many !voters expect it. That is enough imho. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but... don't voters already expect—no, demand—that candidates answer the first three questions? I'm not saying the additional questions should be marked as mandatory, mind. Juliancolton (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I said this before, in another conversation, but how many of you would even consider supporting someone who didn't answer the three questions. They are de facto mandatory, I agree with JC that they should be de jure mandatory. They are reasonable questions - anyone not willing to answer them probably isn't serious about being an admin: if I went to a job interview, but told them that I didn't want to answer any questions, then I wouldn't get very near to getting the job! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Julian: We should make the very minor change of taking out the word "optional", but we don't need to replace it with "mandatory" or some such. They may not be technically required, but it is misleading to tell an admin candidate these questions are truly optional. — Satori Son 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On balance, I agree. On the one hand, it is important to minimise arbitrary requirements for RFAs. On the other hand, it is important not to mislead candidates that a question is genuinely "optional". I think the second factor outweighs the former. I fear RFA is becoming a rather insular place, where a candidate's knowledge of RFA "conventions" appears necessary for the candidate to pass. Calling a question "optional" when conventions dictate that it really isn't doesn't help. I also agree with Satori Son that just removing the word "optional" should suffice.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) Well said, Phantomsteve. I think the questions provide a good preliminary gauge for many users about how suitable the candidate is for adminship. I know I would have rather grave reservations about supporting a RfA where the user deliberately didn't answer them- it seems a bit pointy to say 'they're "optional', so I'm not answering them." Eliminating that opportunity would be good. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I would word it along the lines of "please answer the following questions; your answers will be used by participants to assess your contributions". Juliancolton (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. It doesn't say "mandatory" per se, but it's pretty clear about why the questions should be answered. I might make it "...your answers are an important way participants assess your suitability for adminship", because "contributions" is a bit vague, and I would like to make the importance of careful answers more prominent. But mine is rather clumsy as it stands. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that just leaving out "optional" would be enough: It is recommended that you answer these questions to provide guidance for participants in the RfA discussion:? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That works too. No need to make things too complex. Juliancolton (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I like that wording. Using the word "mandatory" will inevitably creep into the additional questions being regarded as mandatory, and then becoming mandatory. I'm okay with taking out the word "optional," but frankly if a candidate doesn't understand the process well enough to realize that many, many editors will oppose on those grounds alone, he or she is clearly not ready.--~TPW 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. "Manditory" isn't right, just pull out "optional". Jusdafax 22:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done "Optional" removed per discussion above. TNXMan 11:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I vote on several RFAs without reading the answers, so they are as optional as they are optional to read the answers. Aiken ♫ 17:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

True, we've yet to find a feasable method to require educated !voting.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Still. You wouldn't find it a little odd if you skimmed past the questions and found that some or all of them had been skipped? Şłџğģő 17:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd, but there are some editors that are just shoo-ins. Aiken ♫ 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: I'm sure there was one RfA not too long ago where the (very experienced and well-known) candidate refused to answer the first three questions. Cannot remember the username, though, and neither whether s/he passed or failed. --Pgallert (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am only aware of one such RfA (predating my time on this site) where a highly experienced user refused to answer the three questions — it failed dismally, though that was due by a large to her prior controversies as an editor, former administrator, and former arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A user has actually passed RFA without answering the first three questions: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss. That one was back in 2007, mind you, and would probably have been WP:SNOW-closed as a speedy fail if tried today. Robofish (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You forgot Skomorokh (talk · contribs)! (he passed) decltype (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh didn't list the standard questions in Q&A format, but the self-nomination statement addressed the issues raised in all three, and Skomorokh said as much in the discussion section. However, it is a clear example of someone who declined to answer some other, truly optional questions, without harming their nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Bureaucrats' Noticeboard regarding a current RFA

See this: WP:BN#Herostratus' "recall" RfA. I think it would be well out of my scope as a bureacurat to close this RFA as "improper" when so many people have voted on it and only one person has expressed a problem with it. To do so would be an abuse of my bureaucrat rights, as it wasn't what I was elected for by the community. If I'm wrong, I'd be very happy to resign as a bureaucrat for having no idea what my job is. Anyway, that's all contained in that thread, and isn't my reason for posting here.

My point in making this thread: Nsk92's comments are (in my opinion) part of a more general argument against reconfirmation RFAs rather than a basis for bureaucrat action, so it might be a good idea to reopen discussion about whether or not reconfirmation RFAs are appropriate. --Deskana (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm feeling a little embarrassed that I didn't realize all the problems with them before now. I weighed in over there. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Where to place?

Resolved

 – Sock indefinitely blocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do someone put a request for adminship in the main article? --Homem de Letras (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but if you don't know how to place it you are nowhere near ready (or qualified) for the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ArcAngel; I believe an RfA from you at this time would end unsuccessfully. However, it is ultimately your choice; should you decided to go ahead with one anyway, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we speedy close his RfA, he has been blocked as a sock. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

G5'd. –xeno^talk 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to be nominated fo admin

I'll be glad to contribute on Cricket, Professional Wrestling and Video Gaming pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimcheeda (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a read of WP:NOTYET or Administration is not for new users. Codf1977 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Saimcheeda! I'd like to apologize for Codf1977's comment, if you thought it was dismissive. I certainly did. You've been editing here a year, and likely you know that you can contribute on any page you wish without becoming an administrator, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I'm curious, what sort of contributions would you like to make on Cricket, Professional Wrestling and Video Gaming that you think administrator status would be helpful for? Lastly, I noticed that you haven't commented much on talk pages so you may not know to please "sign" your comments by putting 4 tildas after them, like this: ~~~~. That will appear as your username and timestamp, like this: ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to be taken as snide, or dismissive... but if the user does not know to sign posts, they are nowhere near ready to run for admin, as I see it. Jusdafax 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But that isn't the point. We have a user who has signaled that he wants to participate at a greater level. That's a good thing, and that needs to be nurtured and developed. We shouldn't make people feel bad for asking, even if they aren't ready. Its just bad practice. Users asking for greater responsibilities who aren't ready should be encouraged to continue to develop their skills, not dismissed out of hand for having the temerity to ask. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Noraft, and your view would seem to speak highly for your innate kindness. My other observation would be that the candidate is unable or unwilling to spell "for" in the section title. I don't claim to be the world's greatest speller myself, but if one can't even create a decently spelled title for a request for nomination for their first Rfa... well... Anyway, my best to all concerned, here. Jusdafax 02:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

An admin might like to ask Saimcheeda what they want to do with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Saimcheeda. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done, and an admin isn't required here, unless there's a request to delete the page. The user will either transclude (with the pre-ordained and quick result), or won't. Either way, the natural course of events will follow without any special intervention by anyone. If the user wishes the page deleted, a simple speedy delete tag will do the trick cleanly and relatively quickly.  Frank  |  talk  03:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, the untranscluded RFA isn't quite clean, plus the user has a recent block, along with this so it would be a case of WP:NOTNOW for me.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the list of unsuccessful candidacies should exclude Hero

I note that Hero is in the list of unsuccessful candidacies. Given the unusual nature of that situation, I don't think it should be in the tally. While it is all fresh in our minds, those lists are used to do formal and informal analyses—I would think that "candidacy" should not be included in any analysis of normal RfA. Over time, someone may forget the details, and any summary data including that item will be flawed.--SPhilbrickT 00:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the RfA was successful, or do you just want to hide it? Talk about reinventing history. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he's suggesting that as a recall RfA it should not be treated like a normal RfA. I see no indication of attempting to reinvent history, just clarify for future statistics/observers that it was not a normal unsuccessful RfA. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

True, the next time we have a ZOMG! thread about the dearth or plethora of candidates, the attached chart will be skewed if his second is included, since it will doubtlessly be a chart showing how difficult it is to get adminship these days.--~TPW 02:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure this one RfA will really skew the stats. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly didn't expect this to be controversial. My main point is that it wasn't an RfA. I see my suggestion as more as accurately reflecting history. We currently have two categories - editors requesting the mop who were successful, and those who were unsuccessful. We ought to separately count sysops who stood for reconfirmation. I was working on an Editor Review for Salvio giuliano, and thought it would be useful to compare article space edits counts, Wikipedia space edit counts, and deleted counts for a few recent successful and unsuccessful candidates. I am excluding Hero from the compilation, but the compilation is too hard to do manually, so I was thinking it would be nice to do automatically. However, an automatic compilation would, in my opinion, erroneously label Hero as a recent unsuccessful candidate, rather than a reconfirmation candidate who chose to step down.--SPhilbrickT 10:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Malleus:1 RfA, out of 12 in that month, is quite a large percentage. So yes, it will skew the stats. sonia^♫♪ 11:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this initial thinking by Sphilbrick, since the Herostratus 2 "reconfirmation" Rfa (if that is what it should be called) is not an Rfa. The problem is, as I see it, is that if you make a new category for this result, then you defacto confirm Herostratus 2 and any similar actions, if any, as a fully-accepted practice for the 'Open to recall' category, at the very least, and possibily even to all admins. And by doing that, seems to me you open a cargo container fulla worms ala WP:CDA as I have commented recently on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. [7] I must say this looks to be a tough call either way - and for the record, I advocate nothing, I merely give my own POV in pointing this out. Jusdafax 11:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point that formally creating a separate category would be de facto acceptance of a process that is not fully accepted by the community. I was trying to balance my desire not to have it in the stats with the comment by Malleus about hiding it. I'm not a big fan of hiding things, but maybe that's not such a bad decision in this case. I'll argue that inclusion in the list is already creating a de facto acceptance that it was an RfA, and I'd like to reject that notion. Unless and until we formally accept the concept of reconfirmation RfAs, I think this one (and any others) should simply be removed form the list. If we do formally accept the concept, then this one and others can be added to that new list.--SPhilbrickT 12:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Skewing stats (even in a small way) I agree with, but I just don't see why folks get their knickers in a twist over Herostratus choosing this method for reconfirmation. Since our only reconfirmation process is completely voluntary, people get to make up their own rules. The fact that Hero followed his own rules is commendable, since the entire process is a farce unless the admin chooses to honor it. The only precedent it creates is the one that acknowledges that admins are admins until they step down or ArbCom takes away their bits - same as it's always been. CDA was bad because it was designed as a witch-hunt, but optional reconfirmation has been a bad idea all along because it's just as unbalanced in the opposite direction. What I would really, really, really like to see is a Category:Admins who have agreed to a set term limit until we can get consensus on an automatic reconfirmation process. If we can flag revisions, we can bloody well comment on how our admins are doing. It won't create a backlog because if no one has a problem, the admin stays and we move on. How tough can it be to do this?--~TPW 12:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We've had RFAs before from sitting and very recent admins. I don't think we have enough so far for it to be worth measuring them separately, but if anyone wants to create an analysis that does that I guess all the relevant data is available and appropriately licensed. So I've no objection to someone adding some sort of tag or filter to enable this, as long as it is still possible for me to analyse them in combination. As for commenting on how admins are doing, isn't that what talkpages and email are for? We also have Wikipedia:Administrator review for those of us who are inviting scrutiny and feedback; But judging from my own experience of that process, there is very little enthusiasm out there to comment on admin activity. ϢereSpielChequers 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Until there is a binding recall procedure, it should be treated as any other RfA. Even then, this one probably still should. But as Chequers says, there's nothing to prevent anyone from doing analysis on the recalls so far, or indeed from creating this category or indeed this one. WFC (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unsuccessful candidacies" should list only RfAs of nominees who were not admins at the start of the RfA in question. RfAs that are utilized as recalls should be documented elsewhere. Either all Recalls should be pooled under one heading, or they should be split up into "Unsuccessful recalls" (in which the admin was not recalled) and "Successful recalls" (in which the admin was recalled). Kingturtle (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But how can they be documented elsewhere, when wikipedia refuses to recognise a binding recall process? If an admin is elected on the promise of an RfA if they do something wrong, then by electing that admin, the community has deemed that an RfA is appropriate. WFC (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

They can be documented under the user's page. The simple fact remains, while the user may have put this through the RfA process, it is NOT an RfA. Let me repeat that, this was NOT an RfA. Having a permanent record of it, is not the domain of this page. Why? Because this was NOT an RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If I go through to a barber, and someone cuts my hair, then I've had a haircut. The fact that it was unconventional, messy, or produced an outcome that I didn't want is neither here nor there. He was elected on the basis that he would have an RfA under certain conditions. Said conditions were met, said RfA happened, and the bureaucrats allowed it. Maybe in future we'll have a way of distinguishing between this and other RfAs, and maybe at that point it will be appropriate to remove this from the RfA stats. But at the moment that distinction does not exist. WFC (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a barbershop. ;-) Jonathunder (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The depth and consideration of your contribution to this conversation has been noted.  -  Begoon (talk)

Your analogy fails... he didn't get a haircut at the barber, he got his nails trimmed, he already had the haircut. This wasn't an RfA nor was it a haircut.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly folks, who cares? Write more articles... this thread is probably longer than half of the articles we have. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I care, at least enough to read the threads. I wish that discussions concerning RFA converged on solutions faster, but it is what it is. Most RFAs contain reasonably productive, reasonably focused discussions, and that makes me think that if we focus on any one question for long enough, we'll eventually get it sorted. It's beyond the patience of any one person to sort all the issues, but no one is forced to read every conversation. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it. We have 16,000 stubs on WP:BASEBALL alone, and it's taking me a week just to expand one article. Vodello (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC for potential admin candidates

I've been looking round the page and I've failed to notice if theres something similar to an RFC for people who want feedback about themselves to see if they would gain consistent support to become an admin. (I'm not thinking of Editor Review although that could tie in with this, if it exists.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ask ten people, you'll get ten answers. If you haven't done WP:ER, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do one; it's just not specifically geared for giving people a clue how they'll do at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen people simply make posts on their own talk page soliciting comments from talk page stalkers before. –xeno^talk 16:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We used to have occasional grumbling that this was a kind of CANVASSing, but I haven't seen that objection in a long time; I certainly wouldn't mind, as a voter. I like directness. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• My general rule of thumb is you now you're ready (for an RfA at least) when A) you would find the tools useful and B) you get unsolicited comments from people who think you should run. Obviously that's just one opinion, though. The problem with WP:ER is partly that it doesn't attract nearly as much attention as an RfA but mostly that you won't have every mistake you've ever made dredged up and put to you as bluntly as many RfA opposers will. The only way to know for certain what chance you'd have is to go for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• I found it useful to do User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2 Multiple Choice before I ran. Its also worth reading Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. The RFA crowd is also somewhat unpredictable, if you've a clean block record, >4,000 edits and over 12 months tenure and you catch it in the right mood you might sail through. If you are unlucky or you slip up, wait four months and run again. Providing in your second run you can demonstrate you've learned from the opposition in the first run you'll probably get through. ϢereSpielChequers 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • By "learning from the opposition" I assume you mean "brown-nosing the opposition". Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't mean that and I don't believe that tactic would work. If you've been active for a further three months and you reread the oppose section, you may well see some opposes where you've now acquired the experience they had wanted to see. Brown nosing would only work if RFA was a sort of popularity contest, and for all its faults it isn't that. Though it can sometimes be an unpopularity contest. ϢereSpielChequers 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I know that it does work, and so does Tanthalas39. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed, and well put. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks Dank. Re to Malleus, it only takes 30% opposes - perhaps as few as twenty five early oppose votes to pretty much torpedo an RFA, not quite blackballing but close enough to be an unpopularity contest. But with one oppose vote being worth nearly three support votes it is much more difficult for an underqualified candidate to pass RFA by being popular than for a strong candidate to fail it by being unpopular. That's compounded by the diverse and diffuse nature of our electorate, which makes it very difficult to know or be known by >70% of them. I think that passing an RFA by being popular would be difficult even if we had a defined electorate of a couple of hundred of whom 50% typically voted. But we have a potential electorate in the tens of thousands of whom less than 1% vote each time. So whilst I can remember some RFAs that failed because of a candidate's unpopularity I'm not convinced I've yet seen one where an underqualified candidate passed due to popularity. ϢereSpielChequers 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
          • We'll almost certainly have to agree to disagree, but I was specifically talking about cases where candidates have clearly brown-nosed opposers, and I gave one example. There are many more if you care to look. Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
            • And the one case he cited in specific is a case where MF is not manufacturing facts or applying motives to a person that the person may not have actually had, but rather wherein the candidate admitted afterwards that he intentionally lied to people who opposed him in their first go around and pretended to be their friends, but held a grudge for months if not years after he passed!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
              • We're all of us human. Does anyone really believe that was a one-off incident? Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• I can understand the idea, but I can't help feeling that a pre-RfA RfC would effectively be just the same as an RfA except that you wouldn't get to be an admin if you passed. To be useful, opposers would need to give you their reasons for opposing, just as in a real RfA, and if you then went for a real RfA everyone would have to re-!vote and repeat their explanations. Personally, I'd favour just asking one or two experienced admins to have a look over your contributions and let you know what they think - I can think of a few who I'd trust to be able to give me a good overview, and pick up on potential oppose reasons (and without really wanting to name them, there are several just above me, up there ^ ). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• If I ever wanted wide-ranging opinions on my strengths and weaknesses, I'd go through RfA. Sure, it's vicious for all but the very finest, but you do get a lot of constructive feedback. WFC (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's vicious for all but the most popular, not quite the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Until we have the assurance of a safety net, the most popular (least controversial) candidates will continue to be considered the finest. I don't think that's right, but that's where we are. WFC (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • True. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRA?

Resolved

 – WP:FRA has been redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject France. —MS10 (Master•C•L) 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite get that redirect. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's intended for the typo of WP:RFA. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, but I think it'd make a little more sense as a disambig on the France Wikiproject. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 04:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep :) WFC (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim "'WP:FRA' redirects here" is now not correct, and I can't get rid of it. Bah. Şłџğģő 04:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

At the top of this WP:RFA, there is a comment that WP:FRA redirects to this article, but it is (as above) no longer the case. The comment after template expansion reads ""WP:FRA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject France." Could that comment be removed? Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 05:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter. It was not protected, just hard to find. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (And a forehead slap to me, of course I could hit "edit' on a protected article and look at the code, I'd never tried, I just thought "oh, protected, can't edit". Learn something new...) --j⚛e decker^talk 05:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody close Marcus Qwertyus' RFA?

Resolved

 – it's now closed and the ANI thread is resolved as well. Move along, nothing to see here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously not going to pass. As the user who fired the torpedo it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've closed it, but I can't remove it from the main RFA page, nor can I put a notice on his talk page. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think IP addresses are supposed to close RFA's. I've left a note on WP:ANI. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They can close them, just as any other editor can. Aiken ♫ 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Our policy is "Requests for adminship can be closed by non-bureaucrats in certain cases; for example if the user has withdrawn the request or the outcome is very unlikely to be positive. Non-bureaucrats should be very careful in the latter case and only close RfAs when they are not in doubt. In such cases the requesting user should always be asked to consider withdrawal first."–no mention that the "non-bureaucrat" needs to be autoconfirmed. – iridescent 18:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't get very excited about whether an IP can close a snow RFA or not. Wikipedia has bigger problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously it's either a user logged out or perhaps a blocked user. I wouldn't jump on as a 'problem' just yet- the vandalism in Connormah's recent rfa, however, was a bit worrisome. Tommy! [message] 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter are that if it isn't a problem, we shouldn't be looking to make it one. As to the vandalism on Connormah's RfA, that persisted even after it had been closed and the page is now protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the vandalism on my RfA was just from a vandal who appears to be targeting me. Nothing really. Connormah^talk 05:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure the current policy allows IPs to comment (but not !vote) in RfAs and to close them in the obvious NOTNOW/SNOW/withdrawn cases. This particular close was certainly entirely non-controversial. However, I wonder if allowing IP comments in RfAs is such a good idea. I may be wrong, but my impression is that in 9 cases out 10, when an IP makes an edit to an RFA, it is either plain vandalism or it is a registered user who for whatever reason does not want to have the comment they are making associated with their username. The latter practice is actually the more problematic one and should not be encouraged: vandalism can be quickly reverted, but when someone who is clearly not a new user makes an RfA edit as an IP, this can cause all sorts of ugly suspicions and accusations and is just the sort of thing could raise the temperature in an RfA (which is always undesirable). My impression is that the cases where an IP editor, who does not have a registered account, makes an edit in an RfA, are rather rare. Nsk92 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with disallowing IPs from commenting is that there genuinely are a lot of good faith IP editors with good contribution histories, who, for whatever reason don't want to register. What if they wish to comment in an RFA about actions the candidate took in relation to them (or in relation to anything else, come to think of it.)? Even if your 9/10 guess is right, or 99/100, that still doesn't seem entirely fair to me. Of course you could have a separate discussion about IP editing in general, but whilst it is permitted, allowing them to comment on who gets to administer their edits seems fair.  Begoon^talk 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread has been marked resolved, and the topic has shifted from the title. Can I suggest that a new thread be started if there is more to say?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok - just replying to the new comment - didn't see the Resolved note. Doesn't need a new thread for me, I've pretty much finished rambling now  Begoon^talk 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should close ddbruce's RFA

Resolved

 – done by Courcelles. sonia^♫♪ 05:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would close it but I don't fully understand how and I don't want to do anything stupid. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it has absolutely no chance of succeeding. Mauler90 _talk 05:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Doing. Courcelles (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh.

Resolved

 – open discussion below

Unresolved

 – I've never seen one before -- no one has -- but I'm guessing it's a white hole....?

Well, I was going to come and contribute my infinite wisdom to all of the no doubt plentiful discussions on this page, but I have arrived to discover that there are no open discussions. What am I going to do about this? So hard to figure this out... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

By starting a discussion about there being no open discussions, you have thereby solved the problem which led you to post in the first place. However, since there is now no problem to solve, this thread is no longer relevant and can be archived. But then that presents a problem where there are no open discussions. Maybe we should start a thread about it? Oh my... --Deskana (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My mind = blown Mauler90 _talk 22:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, that's what I was hoping for. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to this discussion being closed on the grounds that it may cause the universe to implode in on itself in a puff of circular logic. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what is it ?  Begoon^talk 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone ever notice that ADMIN spelled backwards in NIMDA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Cline (talk • contribs) 18:50, July 22, 2010

If the important issues are all dealt with, any chance of a look at the protected requests? --WFC-- 01:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Want to be an admin

I want to be an administrator Megan035 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is brimming with anticipation.--Atlan (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is a definite asset! Probably the most important thing people want to see in prospective admins is content - evidence that you've helped improve articles and, ideally, authored completely new articles. I'd suggest getting to know your way around editing first, then start thinking more seriously about becoming an admin once you've got, say, at least 3000 edits behind you. Good luck, and happy editing! TFOWR 18:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not going to happen. The user is already blocked. Reach Out to the Truth 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. I still reckon it's worth providing an answer - for the benefit of others, if nothing else. Maybe the formerly enthusiastic editor will read this and sneak back as a productive editor? Who knows... TFOWR 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Found this on her talk page: "That Sock Puppet stuff is stalkerish. Anyway, i don't care. Wikipedia's stupid anyway. The only reason i have one is because i searched Christian Beadles on Google and saw that no Wikipedia thing popped up so i decided to make a Christian Beadles page. Bye" WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Darn, all that excitement building up for nothing.--Atlan (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Percentages in the Sox Bot table

Resolved

 – Sorry, that was stupid from me. typed the wrong numbers into the calculator *facepalm*

--Pgallert (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Should the percentages in this table include "neutral" !votes? If not then the current calculation is not right, e.g. at a tally of 66-17-5 it should be 74%, not 80%. --Pgallert (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The percentage is only based off Supports and Opposes I believe. The point of neutral votes is that users can register concerns without actually opposing the candidate, thus they should not be included in the percentage. --Taelus (Talk) 09:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also for your example, my calculation is that 66-17-5 comes to 79.5%, so 80% is correct. --Taelus (Talk) 09:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should read into your statement above: 'and/or without actually supporting the candidate'.  ;) --Kudpung (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

IP permissions in relation to RFA

The exact wording of on WP:RFA, along with some comments on my talk page made me wonder about a piece of minutia. WP:RFA states the following:

1. Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote". and;
2. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions..

Does this indicate that I may make comments in the Discussion section of an RFA with any content (barring attacks, threats, etc), as long as I do not use an octothorpe? 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see it yes.  f o x  17:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Fox. That's pretty straightforward. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I had interpreted item 1 as implying that the IP portion was also in reference to the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I think that anons should be able to 'vote' just like everyone else - editors without an account are no less important than anyone else. Just like with new accounts if they have very few edits, crats will take note. Prodego ^talk 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is meant to be a safety valve, in order to prevent socking and vote stacking. By barring all IPs, it does prevent anyone logging out and double voting. IPs are always going to be at a disadvantage on Wikipedia. IPs commenting in discussions are almost always looked upon as suspicious or inferior, and as it's so easy to create an account I don't see why anything should be changed. Aiken ♫ 17:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Still, a 1 edit new editor posting at RfA will be looked at suspiciously as well. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

New Question #4

Hello all, I'd like to propose that we add a new "standard" question #4 to the questions at RfA. Specifically one that asks about previous accounts and having significant edits as an IP. I thought we'd actually done this at one point, but I guess my memory fails me. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Its an important question, but I'd be against it becoming a standard one. The beauty of the current compulsory questions are their simplicity, and the fact that they give candidates the scope for original answers. Although I find it inconceivable that any candidate would pass having refused to answer that question, I think that formulaic questions, however important, should remain "optional". --WFC-- 02:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Second the Motion - This is a common sense question that should be asked of each and every Rfa candidate. I am not sure what the proceedure is to get this done, however. Hopefully not an Rfc, which would entail a lot of discussion. Hobit's suggestion is a simple one (like many good ideas) and the question should be simple as well. I would like to see a speedy addition of this idea as a Q4, and not get dragged down parsing every word. Many thanks to Hobit for getting the ball rolling here! Jusdafax 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Motion thirded Neutral, but now leaning to No [changed my opinion because of good points made below - too many problems with what initially seemed a good, simple idea] - I agree, both that the question should be standard, and that it shouldn't need a drawn out wording debate. Every time I see it added, I think "That should have been part of the standard template." I can't think of any other perennial question that strikes me that way. This one is simple, and basic, and asking it up front has the advantage that no editor adding it could possibly be viewed as doing it through "suspicion" rather than just for information. Basic disclosure, IMO.  Begoon^talk 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Very good point there, Begoon, that making the question standard removes any taint that someone having to ask the question is somehow guilty of not obeying WP:ASG. Now, can someone suggest the fastest, and fairest way possible to get this question added quickly without the type of drama an Rfc would enable? I'd hate to see this become a political wiki-football. Jusdafax 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Bolding in an attempt to at least be addressed Basic disclosure, perhaps. But if it becomes a compulsory question, people with static IPs will effectively be forced to post it on one of the highest traffic pages on wikipedia. As someone who will never run for adminship unless or until there is a community recall process for all admins, I'll say as a neutral that I do have a problem with that. --WFC-- 02:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - that is a point I hadn't considered. I have a static IP myself, but never post logged out. Your point obviously applies equally to RFAs where the question is added optionally, since you say above "I find it inconceivable that any candidate would pass having refused to answer that question". Just playing the thing through - if I were at RFA, and answered: "I have around 100 edits as User:foo, prior to my current name. I also had some IP edits, but prefer not to disclose the IP for privacy reasons." - would that satisfy you?  Begoon^talk 02:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, fair question there WFCforLife, and apologies for no reply to your previous objection (which I just simply disagree with.) I'm no expert, but I believe those !running for admin already have the option of confidentially disclosing a major amount of edits on a different account, including an IP, to a senior admin, or 'crat or steward or ArbCom member or something like that, don't they? Jusdafax 03:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's an issue, but if folks are making significant edits as an IP, I think that needs to be made known, though the exact IP could be hidden using a process that Jusdafax has outlined. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it just seems kind of pointless to me. If they're really crooked obviously they're not going to tell the truth, and if they're not then we aren't going to gain much by asking either. Adding that to the problem about essentially putting people in the situation where they feel pressure to answer "what is your IP address?" at a time when they want to be as cooperative and open as possible makes me lean toward no. I don't see a big advantage to adding this to the standard anyway, since anyone can ask any question they like. delldot ∇. 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides, if the onus is on the candidate to do it, that introduces an element of suspicion that they're trying to hide something. Equally, if someone says that "I have made major IP edits but for privacy reasons do not want to state the IP", that's a cue for people to try and find it, completely undermining their right to keep their static IP secret from those who have not bothered to check their contributions properly. --WFC-- 03:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The three standard questions are there because they are simple, general, and leave the court open for people to make judgements. They sum up everything that most people know to make a decision. This question, though, is non-essential. If people have concerns, they can ask it. I am firmly against adding more questions though, especially questions which are a non-issue for 99.99% of candidates. (X! · talk)  · @179  ·  03:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've altered my thinking based on this rationale, and the fact that in addressing the problems above, the whole thing looks like it might become too complex/problematical. Shows the value of good debate - seemed like a simple, good idea initially. I'm still wondering whether a space in the template where candidates can name previous accounts might be helpful (even as a reminder against the possibility that they just forget to do so, which could later be viewed as less than open), but I'm tending now to agree that adding an extra compulsory question isn't probably the way to do it.  Begoon^talk 03:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oppose - with regret. While it seems like a reasonable proposal at first glance, the concern raised by WFC is quite valid. I for one would not be comfortable with disclosing my IP, even privately to trusted 'crats, etc. As X! says, it's nonessential. However, Begoon's idea is not a bad one. Worth some consideration. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any expansion of the mandatory aspects of RFA unless the reason for expanding is overwhelming. This isn't. Townlake (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. (ec) Nobody should be forced to reveal their static IP and if they have dynamic IPs, like I do, they're not going to know what all of them are and other individuals could have edited using that particular IP at some point. Revealing previous usernames could conflict with the candidate having exercised the clean slate. As was mentioned before, if the candidate is rogue-esque, they won't reveal them anyway and if the candidate is a good one, then there isn't much to gain by knowing any previous accounts. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not normally one to weigh into a proposal after sinking it, but I don't think it's about "being a rogue" (and for the record, I am a rogue). If anything, making disclosure the default position would put more pressure on whiter-than-white candidates, as they would feel less able to go against the grain. --WFC-- 04:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that some more explicit form of asking for disclosure about prior/alternate accounts (either as an extra RfA question or just as a place in the RfA template for listing such accounts) would eventually be a good thing. However, at the moment the idea seems to require more field testing. I would not simply dismiss the proposal on the grounds that rogue candidates are not going to disclose the truth anyway. People have a remarkable capacity for self-deception but, when faced with a question about prior/alternate accounts directly, many of the "rogue" ones will simply decide not to apply. Among the more high profile cases of this kind is the Sam Blacketer/Fys/Dbiv case (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer 2 for the background info). I am fairly sure that if a question like the proposed q4 had been on the books then, the original Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer would simply never been filed. On the other hand, I share the concerns expressed by others about putting RfA candidates into a position where they may be pressured to disclose their IP data. There are too many innocuous situations (accidental log out, briefly using a public computer, etc), where an editor might have made a few edits as an IP. Geolocate gives fairly precise information about the geographic location of an IP, and I feel that generally that kind of information is sufficiently private and personal that WP users should not be required/pressured to disclose it. So I think the idea needs more field testing to ferret out possible issues and unforeseen ramifications, and Hobit should keep asking the question as an optional one for the time being. Nsk92 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• The point of being "forced" to reveal your IP to the wider community is likely incorrect, and moot as I point out above. I believe there are ways for an account or IP substantially previously used to be disclosed to a trusted community member for inspection, and if I am not mistaken it is usually a 'crat. In any case the question can be asked of all !candidates individually anyway, as also noted above by Nsk92. I have commented in a recent Rfa vote that "the problem of false identity aka 'socks' is a major issue"; therefore, full disclosure for an Rfa - at least to a trusted community member - should be a given. I believe it is required of Rfa candidates for those editing substantially on a different account. As for WFCforLife's comment, I would say Hobit's idea to simply make the question a Q4, which I heartily endorse, is hardly sunk. The conversation is just getting going, and I welcome fresh commenters. Jusdafax 05:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Basically, I agree with the sentiment, but I do think the idea requires more pilot testing before it is written into the RfA template. When an individual user asks an RfA question, if the wording turns out to be problematic or some issue develops, the question can easily be modified and reworded by the same or another user the next time. Changing the RfA template is a touchy process, which each time requires an extended discussion, consensus etc. The question has only been asked by Hobit a few times in an RfA before and it seems to me that the question needs a longer run, to ferret out possible kinks, issues and unforeseen ramifications, before it is added to the standard RfA template. Nsk92 (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Exact wording aside, it was asked a LOT a year or so ago as I recall. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• No to more questions. Nobody should have to reveal past accounts/IPs, and besides, they could just lie, if they had anything to hide. I might be persuaded to add a different standard question, but not this one. If you must know an answer, ask if as an optional question. Aiken ♫ 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well again, you don't "have" to reveal a durn thing - if you don't request a lifetime ability to be able to use some potent extra buttons as a Wikipedian. Hobit's suggestion is that if you do request adminship, you should be formally asked a question regarding a previous "incarnation" as a Wikipedian, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure - and if there are compelling reasons not to put the info out in public, then a trusted member of the community here, like a 'crat (who has to get a super supermajority of !votes to be a 'crat) can review that account history information in private, to ensure that there is nothing that is dubious, or worse, that would be problematic. And as for those lying about their past, it puts them on record, in case further information (such as a COI) surfaces in the future. Jusdafax 12:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Revise the question - While I suspect there are solutions to the IP problem, I'm not particularly concerned about edits as an IP, especially given the de facto value given to the edits from an IP. However, experience suggests it important to know whether there has been a past account. I thought it would be straightforward to quote Per policy, but I see we may have to have some discussion as I view "You may not run for positions of community trust without disclosing the fact that you have previously edited under another account" and "You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform..." as not fully consistent. In short, I could support asking about other named accounts , although I concede we would need to debate exactly what think the existing policy says.--SPhilbrickT 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Those interested in this discussion might wish to opine at How strong is the duty to disclose old account in an RfA.--SPhilbrickT 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose "Have you edited under a previous account in the past?" isn't such a relevant adminship question as the current three. Besides, anybody could use an additional question slot to ask this. RFA doesn't currently need a fourth default question...yet. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose apart from the privacy and practicality issues re IP addresses, I see this question as currently worded conflicts with WP:CLEANSTART. That said I'm not opposed to doing anything on this subject, but if we do ask a a question it needs to be more along the lines of "Do you have any other accounts that you currently use to edit? Or have you read our policy on sockpuppetry and do you comply with it? If people are minded to tighten up in this area then I think we need to keep the following in mind:
  1. Asking this as an optional question implies to some that you have a suspicion as to that particular candidate. Questions along the lines of "Dear user:bad example you have been blocked on both Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia for sockpuppetry, do you have any undeclared alt accounts on this wiki?" are perfectly in order, provided they are diff supported. I'm not comfortable with boilerplate "optional" questions that don't seem to have been inspired by evaluation of that particular candidate.
  2. Any policy that encourages disclosure of private information to a "trusted person" should only do so to people who have verified their identity with the office, currently I believe that means Arbs not crats.
  3. Crats have a normal working practice of discussing things online, Arbs discuss many private things via a mailing list. So if you have a disclose to functionaries rule it should be to arbs not crats.
  4. Some peoples IP addresses are much more personal than others. If you know my IP then you can work out that I am one of many millions of people who live in the parts of the UK that have Virgin Media as their cable provider. Someone else's IP might identify them as one of twenty employees of a small company. It is unfair to conflate both and expect editors to waive privacy for their IP addresses.
  5. It is perfectly normal for editors to have done IP edits before they create an account or occasionally when we don't notice we have been logged off, discussing this at RFA is at best a distraction.
  6. We could change policy, and if necessary invest in IT and hardware to allow checkusers to check for the return of banned users, and/or to check for sockpuppets amongst admins, at RFA or at AFD. I'm not sure that our sockpuppetry problems are so bad as to justify that, but I'd rather do that than ask it in RFAs without specific reason.
  7. Unfortunately, we currently allow editors to create accounts using real names. In my view that is probably unwise, and we shouldn't compound the problems involved by deterring people who've done this from exercising clean start, retiring their real name account and opening a pseudonymous one.

ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is much in your post that I agree with but I disagree with the sentiment of item 1. If the question about prior accounts is asked neutrally and uniformly, I do not think it implies any suspicion towards a particular candidate. I am not sure how widespread the problem of RfA candidates with prior accounts is, but there have been at least two significant cases there, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo (where the existence of prior accounts came up later, resulting in resignation in one case and desysopping in the other). I feel that simply the presence of a regular direct question about prior accounts would discourage quite a few candidates with problematic past accounts from filing an RfA. In particular, I have a feeling that the two RfAs mentioned above would not have been filed if a question like that had been on the books at the time. It is easy to deceive yourself that you are not doing anything wrong if the obligation to disclose past accounts is tucked away in some subsection of WP:SOCK. It is harder to do that if the question is asked directly. Nsk92 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• If it were added as a standard q4 then my first point "Asking this as an optional question" becomes moot. But as long as it is asked as an optional question then some people will assume that it has been asked because there is a reason to be suspicious of a particular candidate. A standard question is there on the RFA template, and any candidate with clue will answer it before transclusion. An optional question posted by two or three active users would usually be asked in the first 24 hours, but not all RFAs last that long and if it were asked just after the candidate had logged off it could be sitting there unanswered for several hours. Also I'm aware of both the socking cases that you allude to, plus at least one other. But I'm not convinced that any of them would have been deterred by asking that question, as I suspect all three knew they were breaching policy. ϢereSpielChequers 07:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the only way to do it is essentially "Did you ever edit under another account that would be material for people to judge your RFA credentials?" It's still subjective to the candidate but someone who fails to disclose something material can and should get reamed for their judgment in not disclosing it, not so much about what they did before. The candidate can claim it's always irrelevant but that in itself is a judgment (one that I think is much more probative than what they actually did with prior accounts). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Material" is too subjective to work, here. Material for whom - someone who has a checklist of 200 things an admin must and must not have done, their FAs, GAs, time on this and that process, etc etc, or material for someone who wants to see 1000+ edits and responsible attitude. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose due to disclosure and privacy issues, "long ago past", forgotten or temp accounts, openness of initial 3 questions, potential lack of usefulness and making RFA unnecessarily hostile for minimal community benefit (see further comment), and the other reasons given above. We want to have honesty if there is a buried problem or "history", but also at some point some kinds of less problematic history can probably be allowed to drop away and in any event privacy protected. If such a question were to become standard (not convinced it should), this might get past some of the issues:

Possible alternative if this question was needed

4. (Disclosure question) Have you used other IPs or accounts in the last year, or ever (under any IP or account) been blocked, warned, or come to administrator attention for conduct issues? If the answer would breach privacy or expose personal information and IPs, please ask any functionary to review your past accounts and IPs history in complete confidence and to summarize whether there are any visible editing or conduct issues.

Once RFA'ed, the norm is that users are either good quality admins or, if not, will get noticed due to their post-RFA actions much more than their pre-RFA hidden accounts. Those who RFA'ed in bad faith or hid a "bad" account would do so anyway, those who RFA'ed in good faith largely intend to edit well regardless of past accounts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – An extra RFA question like this would breach privacy of users. One of the main reasons to create an account is to hide one's IP address, so this question would remove one of the reasons to register for an account. This should only be asked if an extra account is suspected of a user to be used disruptively. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Very Strong Oppose since it's a breach of privacy. There's a reason why only Checkusers can see the IPs of users, and only with a very good reason. I wouldn't be comfortable disclosing my IP to anybody. Also, many users (myself included) have dynamic IP addresses (such as those who use ISPs like RoadRunner), so it may be impossible for some users to know which IP(s) they have edited under before they created an account. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely Not A very intrusive breach of privacy. There is never a reason for anyone to have to divulge information such as their IP. If a candidate voluntarily wishes to add some edits of theirs from an anonymous IP, that is different, but no reason to ever have it a question. Silliness. Jmlk17 06:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Perhaps it seems like a good idea on the face of it, but I agree that including a mandatory question asking people if they're liars is a pointless exercise - it's a bit like having a Secret Service entrance exam and asking "Can you keep a secret?". But a comment too - I note that some people are opposing on the basis that this is a breach of privacy, but the suggestion doesn't require people to actually divulge their previous IP - just "Yes, I have edited as an IP" (perhaps "before creating an account") would presumably suffice (though I accept that it would probably lead to more intrusive questions which could sidetrack the RfA). One more comment - some people started off badly and, with the blessing of Crats and/or ArbCom, have gone the "Clean Start" route, and I don't think they should be obliged to divulge earlier usernames - Clean Start should be exactly what it says on the tin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Boing's comment above is a good as any reason. RfA is getting too much like a criminal court case anyway, in which 'guilty unless proven innocent' seems to be the unspoken mantra of many. Nobody who wants to be an admin so that he/she can carry out an evil agenda is going to admit to anything negative and will lie through their back teeth to obtain adminship. There are a lot of unpleasant admins out there already who have slipped through the net. It's inevitable, with or without question like these.--Kudpung (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose- I basically agree with Boing. Reyk _YO! 06:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

New RFA question about alternate accounts: proposed text

I am writing on behalf of User:Chutznik a.k.a. "Shalom", who posted to Wikipedia Review. here.

In a recent thread, User:Hobit proposed the addition of a new standard question to Template:RfA regarding the RFA candidate's use of alternate accounts. Opposition has centered on the invasion of privacy and the lack of a need for such a question. The following proposed text and FAQ attempts to move forward on this much-needed improvement.

Proposed text

4. The following questions ask you to disclose all significant editing you may have done outside of the account to which you are currently logged in. For the policy, see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

a. Have you made any edits while logged in to another account in the last 30 days? (Do not include "anonymous" edits attributed to your IP address.)

b. Have you made at least 100 edits while logged in to another account over the entire history of Wikipedia?

c. Have you ever been blocked for editing under any account or while you were not logged in?

FAQ

Q: This is a solution in search of a problem. A: Wikipedia has been burned many times by administrator candidates who did not - and were not asked to - disclose their previous or current sockpuppeting activities. Some examples:

• User:Jtkiefer, User:Pegasus1138 and User:Thygard were sockpuppets of one another. Together they made more than 10 requests for adminship and bureaucratship before the deception was revealed in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 3.

• User:Henrygb was desysopped and banned for abusive sockpuppetry that was ongoing during his RFA.

• User:Runcorn was desysopped and banned for similar reasons.

• User:Robdurbar went on a wild spree and was desysopped. He was later discovered to be a reincarnation of User:Wonderfool and his indef-blocked sockpuppets.

• User:Archtransit passed RFA unopposed. One month later, he was desysopped and blocked as a sockpuppet of banned User:Dereks1x.

• User:Law passed RFA without revealing that he previously edited as User:The undertow, who was serving a nine-month ban.

• User:Pastor Theo passed RFA without revealing that he was banned as User:Ecoleetage.

• User:Sam Blacketer passed RFA and was elected to serve on ArbCom without revealing that he had been desysopped as User:Dbiv.

See WP:FIRED for details. In none of these cases were the RFA candidates asked to disclose their previous accounts. To paraphrase the familiar adage: "Fool us once, shame on you; fool us ten times, shame on us!"

Q: But it hasn't happened recently. A: It happened at least once each in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. It may happen again.

Q. Too many RFA questions. Too little time. A. The proposed question is exceeding simple to answer for most candidates. ("No.") A candidate who uses a benign alternate account can explain it in less than five minutes. Furthermore, the community has repeatedly failed to act on proposals to limit RFA questions to a reasonable number.

Q. Asking about alternate accounts invades the candidate's privacy. A. Any candidate who is so concerned about privacy that they are unwilling to disclose alternate accounts should not seek the community's trust at RFA. Notice that the proposed wording does not require the candidate to disclose his or her IP address, no matter how many edits it has accumulated, unless it has been blocked.

Q. Have RFA candidates faced this question before? A. User:Jossi asked RFA candidates in December 2007 the following question: "Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia?" See example: [8]

Q. So why not allow an individual user to ask the question as Jossi did, without adding the question to Template:RfA? A. In order to deter candidates from avoiding scrutiny of possibly abusive alternate accounts, every candidate must be asked. If individual users ask this question, eventually they will lose interest, as Jossi did. The deficient status quo ante will resume.

Q. Dishonest RFA candidates might just lie. A. Refer to Nsk92's astute response in the previous discussion: "I would not simply dismiss the proposal on the grounds that rogue candidates are not going to disclose the truth anyway. People have a remarkable capacity for self-deception but, when faced with a question about prior/alternate accounts directly, many of the "rogue" ones will simply decide not to apply."

Q. Honest RFA candidates should know to disclose alternate accounts without being asked. A. Some honest RFA candidates will not be familiar with the detailed policy. Furthermore, the policy is ambiguous regarding whether disclosure at RFA is obligatory or optional.

Q. The wording of the proposed text is deficient. A. Please feel free to improve the wording.

Thank you for your consideration. Privatemusings (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why somebody had to post this for him, he's been unblocked since the second week of February... If he wants to come back and participate in this community he doesn't have to do it by proxy. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just one concern that pops into my mind.... "Why yes, I AM indeed a sockpuppet of a banned user! Thank you for asking!" (X! · talk)  · @211  ·  04:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If only it was that easy. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That does seem to be the main flaw. We would essentially be asking them "are you a liar?" Expecting a "yes" answer is a bit silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This objection is quite misguided I think. There is a huge moral difference, in the mind of conscientious multiple-account-users (to be polite), between outright telling lies and letting people believe untruths through omission. I would conjecture that quite a few reincarnated editors have good intentions for the project and do not wish to mistreat its editors, but are willing to look the other way on their own past infractions. I don't think Sam Blacketer or The undertow, for instance, would have lied outright if asked a direct question about previous accounts. Skomorokh 15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And just to draw a bit of a parallel, and be a bit of a devil's advocate here, I don't think that when Customs Officers ask you if you have any drugs in your luggage they are actually expecting you to say: "Oh yeah, fair cop, heroin in the shampoo bottle...". They want to [a] see your reaction, and [b] have it on record that you stated you were not carrying drugs. Not a perfect analogy, granted, but makes the point that a question can still be valid even in those circumstances. As pointed out, the existence of the question might prevent some people from applying who "shouldn't", because they draw the line at outright lying - it might equally be a problem with preventing the application of a "clean start" candidate who "should". All good points, but the mere fact we think people may lie shouldn't preclude the asking of a question. I have other concerns which now lean me towards thinking it should not be included, which I commented on earlier, but this particular point isn't a show-stopper for me.  Begoon^talk 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• There are quite a few policies that we expect admins to follow, and in the past admins have managed to misbehave in ways as diverse as POV editing, deleting the wrong things, blocking the wrong people, uploading copyvio, having poor account security, disclosure of deleted material, aiding a banned editor to vandalise wikipedia and indeed abusive sockpuppetry. I don't see the argument for singling out one of these as a new question 4, and if we did so we risk each of the other ones becoming standard questions 5 onwards, with each subsequent desysoping being followed by proposals for an appropriate nth question at future RFAs. Much better to make sure this is covered in WP:Administrators' reading list and try and shift the focus at RFA away from questions and back to a review of the candidate's contributions. Also you somewhat lost me by revealing that this is an initiative from Wikipedia Review, my experience of initiatives to "improve" Wikipedia that start from there is overwhelmingly negative. If someone genuinely wants to make Wikipedia better that particular WP:BADSITE is really not the place to start the discussion. ϢereSpielChequers 09:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• The idea was comprehensively rejected a few sections up. Why must we have a whole new section on the same topic now? The linked Wikipedia Review topic rapidly devolves into the usual tinfoil millinery - I still really don't see how this is supposed to help anyone. Yes, some admin candidates are hiding some big sockpuppety skeletons - and I very much doubt a single one of the listed examples would have declared them if they'd been asked. All this achieves is wasting the time of well-intentioned users while simply requiring deceptive admin candidates to lie one more time. ~ mazca ^talk 10:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• I've merged the sections. --WFC-- 10:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm just not sure why anybody who had anything to hide would answer such a question honestly. No one in their right mind would admit they are in fact a banned user or whatever - the RFA crowd are tough on even the best of candidates. It's just completely pointless. Aiken ♫ 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I suspect this is just one of those British/American cultural differences. The US immigration service has been asking these sorts of questions for decades - possibly for longer than British comics have been taking the p*** out of them. Mind you they have the advantage of asking them face to face, and in that environment perhaps sometimes they could work. ϢereSpielChequers 16:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. When you can see the person answering the question, it makes a world of difference. If they break eye contact, or hesitate, or start fidgeting with their hands that can tell you if they are trying to be deceptive. In a text-only format we don't get any of that. It's so much easier to lie when nobody knows you're a dog. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re "The US immigration service has been asking these sorts of questions for decades": They also ask them on forms, so it's not just a face-to-face thing. But I was once told that there's a very good reason for it - that lying to the immigration dept is a federal offence, and so if a visitor is later found to be doing something naughty, there's something bigger than state laws that can be brought to bear. Don't know if it's true, but it kinda makes sense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Lying about editing on other accounts establishes bad faith with the Wikipedia community. I've stepped back from this debate after seconding the original motion by Hobit and some initial comments, but I have yet to see any arguments that would convince me that there should not be a Rfa Q4 on this issue. Jusdafax 17:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like this proposed question - at the risk of making a completely over-the-top comparison, it reminds me a little of McCarthyism and questions like 'are you now or have you ever been a Communist?'. It assumes all admin candidates are potential sock puppets until they swear otherwise. That kind of paranoia is unhealthy for RFA, and isn't likely to encourage reluctant users to apply. Also, it's worth remembering that having more than one account is not, by itself, illegal - it is acceptable if done for certain specific reasons, e.g. to protect one's privacy, and providing that the accounts are kept entirely separate. (See WP:SOCK#LEGIT for details.) Say a user had created their initial account under their real name, made more than 100 edits under it, then decided they didn't want to be associated with it and started again under a new account and later ran for RFA - should they really be forced to admit that, or risk receiving Oppose votes for not answering the question? Robofish (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In lieu of all this

Why not just "Did you edit under alternative registered accounts which would likely cause problems for you if they were known, and which you have not disclosed to the Arbitration Committee?" IP addresses, in point of fact, are hardly worth noting. If the arbs know about the account, and there was no real problem, we do not really need to worry, do we? This would cover the actual problems which have occurred in the past without getting to be too intrusive, IMHO. Collect (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been holding off commenting on this—as those with long memories will recall, I'm the material cause of this thread—but I may as well poke my nose in at this point. I'm not sure any additional question is necessary, but if we have to have it, that wording is as good as any. – iridescent 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is an acceptable substitute, as many people who would have to answer the first variant in a useful way (that is, useful to the community) could say (in good faith) "no" to this one. Few people think their own actions are wrong. But this is better than no question at all on the topic. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just another way of asking "Are you a cheat and a liar?", and thus completely pointless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

It might be that for certain reasons I possibly understand Shalom's thinking here more than most; he draws a distinction between "actively lying" and "not mentioning unless specifically raised", which may not be immediately obvious to everyone (although anyone who's served in the US military will have seen DADT in action and be familiar with the concept). He does have a point; firstly that he was penalized for admitting to his past (rightly penalized IMO, but still unfairly given the number of undeclared socks that have sneaked and continue to sneak through RFA), and secondly that at least some high-profile "returning banned user" cases (User:Law is the obvious example) would have owned up if someone had flat-out asked at the time. – iridescent 18:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - yes - I must remember to ask all future candidates if they are the_undertow. Or indeed Eccoletage. Or indeed name redacted - we all know it anyway from IRC and their RFA will be forthcoming 'Cause no doubt they are all so honest that if we give them a "flat out" question they will happily admit their other accounts...... Sorry, but get real. I don't like this quesiton, indeed I oppose it, but let's not be so blind as to think that half of the brainless soul seekers on Wikipedia Review don't have potential admin socks right now. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the brainy ones... :-)  Frank  |  talk  22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I'm not agreeing with Shalom's proposal, I'm just trying to explain what (I think) his line of thought was in proposing it. I personally think it would do nothing to reduce the "honest people are potentially penalized" issue. – iridescent 08:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• What difference does it make? What's to stop somebody from lying? It just seems redundant. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RfA candidates lie routinely on all questions. This is why RfA questions are pointless, since honest and well-meaning editors answer questions in good faith and get burned for stating their honest views, while dishonest candidates lie their way through the process, or as Iridescent points out above, they simply don't answer the unasked question. We have the tools to dig, and simply decline to use them... no doubt because we let the patients take over the asylum a long time ago. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you are trying to say that admins are for the most part crazy I.... uh... ... shut up! We are not. Furthermore, chicken yellow mailman bundt cake. Now give me back my banana you octopus! On the other hand, if you are trying to suggest that we are a bunch of liars and we all used deception to get in the door to admin status, I didn't, and I don't think most other admins did either. On the other hand, (I have three hands) asking someone if they are a liar, as has been repeatedly stated now, is an exercise in futility. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

...On the gripping hand... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice Arthur. Beeblebrox, I'm simply saying that human nature should negate the assumption of honesty in an anonymous process required to gain additional power through the acquiescence of an equally anonymous community. People lie, particularly when they know they can get away with it, such as in an anonymous on-line community. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"There are no current nominations."

Currently, the line There are no current nominations appears on the RfA page right after Cgoodwin's RfA. Is there a way we can get the line to display only when there are, in fact, no current nominations? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Yes, there is a way, a very simple way [9]. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's one way of accomplishing this goal, but it does appear to require someone to put the line back once there are no nominations again. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I looked in the page history and that is how it usually works. When a b-crat closes the last remaining RFA they add it back in [10]. I suppose it's possible some sort of WP:BOT could do it instead. User:SoxBot already monitors RFA, maybe it's owner would be able to do this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have put the line back, but in a hidden comment, so it does not appear. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA Boiler Plates

I have been thinking about a new system for the boilerplate message used on RfA's and have come up with the following idea:

• {{Rfap}} Used for a passed RfA
• {{Rfaf}} Used for a failed RfA
• {{Rfah}} Used for a held RfA
• {{Rfant}} Used for a RfA thats not been transcluded

along with these I was thinking of having boilerplates for:

• RfA's due to close in less than 6 hours
• Active RfA's with less than 50% chance of passing
• Active RfA's with less than 25% chance of passing
• Active RfA's with between 25%-50% chance of passing
• Active RfA's with between 50%-75% chance of passing
• Active RfA's with more than 75% chance of passing
• RfA's that closed immediately after being transcluded

If anyone has any other ideas for boilerplates feel free to discuss them. Paul2387 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain how you calculate "Active RFAs with foo percent chance of passing"? The only one who knows that is the 'crat who's choosing to close it. – iridescent 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I have an idea: if it ain't broke don't fix it. We don't need all these case specific closing templates. It's a pass/fail system, specifying how low the percentage was in the close is just degrading to the failed candidate and serves no useful purpose that I can see. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I had an idea too, but it was the same as Beeblebrox's, so I'll leave my post like this after the (e/c)  Begoon^talk 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I'll add this - I went to your user page, Paul, after reading this, and my eyes still hurt. On that basis I'm glad you didn't post all the colours for your "chance of success" bands too. There is no real way this is practical, and absolutely no need for such a complex system. On a related note, I may be oversensitive, as a web designer myself, but I think your use of colour in general, as evidenced by your user page, may need to be toned down nearly as much as your statement about what things you know. That's just my feeling, and I considered not posting this, but on reflection, I'd want someone to tell me if I were you, so on the basis that you, at least in part, came here for design advice, that's mine - and I'm genuinely sorry if you find it blunt.  Begoon^talk 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that we don't need an overhaul for the sake of it, and the existing colour coding system system is rather better than the proposed chance of passing system. If you have identified a problem with one of the existing templates and have a proposal to improve it, I suggest you start a specific thread re that template, showing the current and proposed templates and explaining why you think your proposal would be an improvement. PS If an RFA has not been transcluded it doesn't need a boilerplate. ϢereSpielChequers 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore ;p –xeno^talk 17:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, hang on D&L - doesn't your last statement just mean we need more categories? Like "Admin requests that only failed by a bit", "Admin requests that looked like they might succeed but didn't", "Admin requests which succeeded but had some good Oppose points". That may initially sound complicated, but if colour coded, it could be a breeze, don't you see... (or not...) yes, I know, I'm just being silly now - I'll stop, promise...  Begoon^talk 17:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While it may be fun please do not create whatever fake template is linked in a discussion. Redirecting will put this whole page into Jonathunder's comment and blanking the template will remove it from his comment, rendering it a very poorly constructed sentence. That said, it was funny. As to the additional categories, i think that they would be mandatory to compliment the templates. And xeno, why did you remove this page from the successful RFAs? Consensus was clearly in favour of unblocking WT:RFA (talk · contribs) and granting admin rights. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I realised how silly it was as soon as I did it. I also witnessed the negative effects you describe, viz looping the page into the user comment as soon I created them, for which I apologise - I too, had to cringe for a few seconds at my stupidity. I have done my best to fix the problem by having the errant template deleted, and hope that this, my edit history comments, and compassion for my all too apparent incompetence can help me to be forgiven :-) I hope I haven't left any mess which anyone needs to tidy up.  Begoon^talk 18:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, we have {{toomanypastelboxes}} already. Jonathunder (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the typical 75% to pass, then I suppose the "75% chance of passing" would be 75% of 75%, or 56.25% support? And what is the purpose of posting these templates onto RFAs currently in progress? It could serve to bias the remaining contributors and the template would have to be changed fairly often. And I definitely do not see a purpose for a "do not modify" on a not-yet-transcluded RFA. It would almost certainly need/get some modification between the point that it was discovered and tagged and the time that the candidate wants to transclude it. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The percentage would be calculated based on comments given and answers to questions plus the usual RFA criteria would be used as can be seen here also I have removed the colour from my userpage per User:Begoon's omment above, plus added reasons to why I was going for RFA. Paul2387 17:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow - I still don't agree with this template proposal, but you're obviously receptive to comment. For anyone lost, I posted this: User_talk:Paul2387#My_comment_at_RFA_talk. I really did intend it constructively, even if my innate sarcasm sometimes makes that less than obvious.  Begoon^talk

Oh, now I think I see what you mean by the "75% chance of passing". You're going for a subjective estimation, based on the candidate's merits, on what his/her chances would be at passing the RFA. So, some candidate with 5000 edits and 2 years of editing would get stamped, presumably by a bureaucrat, as "75% chance or greater" while a candidate with 500 edits and 2 months editing would get the "25% chance or less" template? I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're going for with these templates, so I'd like to make sure I'm clear and that we're on the same page. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Peculiar, needlessly complicated, smacks of crystal balling. –xeno^talk 18:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed, this is a bad idea. There are only five possible statuses for RFAs: untranscluded, transcluded and open, closed as successful, closed as unsuccessful/withdrawn, and on hold. That's all that we need to highlight; we shouldn't categorise RFAs by their current chance of success, and moreover it would be impossible to do so objectively. Categorising by amount of time left is also unnecessary - it's prominently stated on the page already. Robofish (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Though in general they amount to the same thing, it might be necessary to be able to distinguish "withdrawn" from "failed" in some statistics. So a "{{rfaw}}" template could be useful. - Pointillist (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• No need.  Frank  |  talk  20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious...

Can bureaucrats use the admin tools? Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes we can. In fact, most of my time on wikipedia is performing other admin tasks, not crat stuff. :) (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To be more precise all bureaucrats are also admins. While it would be theoreticaly possible to have a bureaucrat who was not an admin it would be fairly pointless.©Geni 00:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that in the remote possibility a non-admin was elected a crat, the RFB would also be deemed a RFA. Very remote possibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be pointless? The main thing bureaucrats do is to close RfAs, which doesn't require an admin toolkit. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrats also work with bot approval and username changes. I think those activities take more of their time than RfAs. 76.182.66.233 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. And so I suspect have many bureaucrats; it's a nothing job in reality, just another stripe. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Special:UserRights allows you to change your own settings. If you trust someone with the ability to make themselves an admin there is little point in messing around.©Geni 00:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically, bureaucrats do not have sysop rights (special:ListGroupRights). If bureaucrats had could view deleted revisions and suppress redirects upon page moves, they could function without most of the administrative tools. –xeno^talk 00:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as many editors manage quite well without any of the administrator tools. The problem that nobody is prepared to recognise is the accretion of policing powers into the hands of an unaccountable cadre, bundled up with routine administrative powers like page moves. And that cadre is unwilling to allow any rational unbundling of its powers. I realise though that I'm speaking to the deaf. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So promote more admins. Damn hard to run a coherent cadre when you've got a large and constant stream of new people comming in.©Geni 01:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusion defies all logic.Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that you're an administrator Geni, so I'd like to have some idea of when the beatings and torture are likely to begin because I think you're talking crap. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your position is that admins have formed an unaccountable cadre. In order for this to be the case they must somehow be able to neutralise all forms of acountability. That would include admins who were not at any given time part of the cadre. Either they would have to be able to induct all new admins or they would have to find a way to neutralise those who wouldn't join. Either way that would be expected to get much harder if there were 30 odd admins a month being promoted. Of course the reality is somewhat different but your position supports the promotion of more admins.©Geni 01:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If the cabal was supposed to buy me off, they owe me about 20 months of checks. I find being an evil minion expensive, and I expect them to pay me handsomely for the privilege. Very annoying. I may have to break with the thin orange line.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to tell me what you think my position is, allow me to tell what it actually is. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe wikipedia's system of governance is corrupting, although many have misinterpreted that as wikipedia's administrators are corrupt. I have no difficulty in believing that many of wikipedia's administrators do a reasonable job, and some of them even better than that, but the system of admins for life is fundamentally corrupt. Naturally, as an administrator yourself, I don't expect you to agree with my analysis. After all, what do I know, I've never passed an RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think there is an "unaccountable cadre" why should you worry if other people don't recognise that there is one?©Geni 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I find it difficult talking to those who are so blind that they cannot see. I have very clearly said that the "unaccountable cadre" problem is the admin for life mentality. If you lack the mental resources to understand what's being said, then fair enough, but it doesn't change the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Need a little help here

Another user nominated me for administrator here, but I declined it since I'm clearly not ready. (I only have slightly over 1,100 edits, most of which are semi-automated vandalism reversion) What should be done to the abandoned RFA request? Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Cheers, –xeno^talk 17:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the fact you knew you were not ready and declined the request is probably one of the best reasons you should get the extra buttons. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kind of ironic, really. The best way to prove you're ready for the mop is to turn it down! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to make a subtly disguised overture to Malleus here? - Pointillist (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Even I, with my general level of semi-surreal optimism, doubt that Malleus will run again. Which, to be honest, indicates why the "admin thing" on wikipedia is pretty much WP:BUGGERED. I wish he would, so I could atone for past errors, but there we go. I also wish we'd ease up on many candidates, but again, there we go. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW I just unredlinked the WP:BUGGERED thing so perhaps someone can either fix up the auto-cat errors or just delete it! Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right Pedro, I'll never run again, so all those who have my next RfA watchlisted might as well take it off their watchlists right now. There's very little I'd want the tools for in any case, except to be able to do certain moves myself instead of having to ask someone to do it for me perhaps, but that's certainly not worth another week of ritualised humiliation. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ritualised humiliation"? I'd say that was a pretty mild description of RfA! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I remember it, although it was a couple of years ago now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I take it then, Malleus, that you are thrice refusing a kingly crown?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that what it is, a "kingly crown"? I was just offering to help, I didn't anticipate the orchestrated character assassination that followed. I expect you know what you can do with your "crown". Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess mine got lost in the mail ... --Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I only took a picture of a kingly crown, and got yelled at by the beefeaters. RfA is insane. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocks and RFAs

Hello all. It looks like my RfA is going to fail, although I'm not going to close it just yet. The two main concerns brought up were (1 my history of conflict and (2 my inactivity. Although I have been blocked in the past, that was like two years ago. I haven't had any conflicts since then, but apparently I am still untrustworthy. What else can I do to prove I'm trustworthy or once I have a block, there is nothing I can do to redeem myself?

The second reason was my inactivity. How would this affect my use of the tools? There are plenty of current admins who have as many edits a month as I do, and that's not a problem. When they do contribute, it's still useful, right. All I want is some constructive criticism out of this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 04:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't really established much of a history in the last year and a half; we have to go with the evidence we have. It's easy to not get blocked when you aren't editing much. Townlake (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This might just be my own point of view, but your conspicuous lack of activity over the last year and half gives the impression of attempting to fly under the radar and lay low instead of actively correcting any problems you may have had in the past. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe I have other things (sports, school, etc.) that take precedence over Wikipedia? Besides, no one has given me a single tip of advice on how to correct any of those problems I may have. You keep wondering why the number of active admins is dropping; this is why. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The advice has been stated repeatedly by many users - establish a more recent stable history. If you choose not to do that, that's your business, but don't blame the community for your reputation. Townlake (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't blame the community for my reputation. I guess no conflicts in two years is not stable enough. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow Eddy, I just popped in to see what was going on and find you having a little tantrum... most people have expectations that editors running for admin are somewhat active on WP. I define active as having at least a 100 edits per month---which really isn't that many. I "retired" for a year and had over 100 edits in most of those months! But since March 09 you've only had 1 month where you had over 100 edits. And 70%+ of your edits are to articles. This means that people can't see how you think or evaluate policies/guidelines. People don't really care about 2 years ago, but your recent history clearly doesn't entitle you to becoming an admin and doesn't provide enough to know if you've changed. If you want to be an admin, show yourself to be an admin... being an admin is more about attitude than a few buttons. The people most qualified for adminship are the ones that others assumed were already admins because they didn't need some artificial process to become leaders. So do what you've been advised to do, otherwise you come accross as somebody who is too immature to be entrusted with the tools.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not throwing a tantrum, it is ultimately the community's loss in the situation. With regards to the inactivity concerns, yes I haven't been very active recently, but that is mainly due to outside forces like vacations and school. I already have ~80 edits this month, and it's not even one week into it yet. I also mostly edit articles, but I do have over a thousand edits in the Wikipedia namespace and have experience with DYK. Granted most of this was 2 years ago, but I still read the signpost and am fairly well versed in policy. Do you suggest I start working at places like AfD and the like? Again, I am not hungry for the tools, I just think they would be conveniant. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You sure as Hell look hungry for the tools, else why would you be asking about AfD? Just go about your normal business; nobody really needs the tools. Nobody. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I don't need the tools. I just think they would be a conveniance. I can't tell you how many times I've spotted an article that needed to be deleted (ie, to make way for a move) but I'd have to wait for an admin to do it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an inconvenience that all of us peasants face, but it's a very minor one. Just tag whatever it is that you want deleted and someone will come along and do it for you. Sure you have to wait, but it's never urgent anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for some stats

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the drought at RFA has now run for 28 months, and its getting worse; 2009 produced very few admins compared to previous years, but each of the last 6 months has seen fewer successful RFAs than the same month in 2009. Our number of active admins has fallen from the peak of 1,021 in February last year to 802 today. I appreciate that some editors in the past have dismissed these trends as a statistical blip, or thought that RFA had seen this sort fluctuation in the past (it hasn't). So:

1. If people can't yet accept that we have a real problem, can we agree a number of active admins below which they would accept that we have a problem?
2. If people do accept that we have a problem, can we all try and pressgang a few likely prospects?
3. If you aren't yet a admin, and might be interested in running feel free to read User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria, and email me if you think you meet my criteria and would be interested in a nomination from me.
4. Of the various proposals to reform RFA that we've discussed here, the only one that I remember coming close to general acceptance was upbundling: Reducing the powers and importance of admins by restricting some of the most contentious parts of the admin role to crats only. Is it worth reopening that debate?

ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is the lack of new admins, but rather the lack of motivation for becoming an admin. The drought is clearly real, but anecdotal evidence suggests that this is caused by a number of factors. For example, when I became an admin, Wikipedia had a lot more geek-chic cache attached to it. Since then, most intelligent people have learned that this isn't a real encyclopedia, and as currently run will never be an encyclopedia. The historical supply of admins was driven by a steady volume of new users joining a project billed as a compendium of knowledge superior to the biased or limited scope of traditional encyclopedias. Some years later, however, most people think Wikipedia is the playground of bored teenagers creating articles about themselves, con artists waging disinformation campaigns, and the Essjay's of the world. Perception of the project isn't what it used to be, and that's reflected by a lack of volunteers who see value in taking a beating at RfA for the extra tools to defend this place. Who wants to be ruthlessly mis-judged by irrational children and chemically imbalanced ignorants for anything, let alone a delete button on a website? Hiberniantears (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The pace of admin promotions is slowing. Promoting candidates who have not demonstrated their ability to judge when blocks and deletions are appropriate will stop the drought. Deciding against a more liberal approach to promoting and demoting admins is clearly going to solve the problem too. --WFC-- 21:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've said this before, but I don't think there is a problem. If Wikipedia needs admins, Wikipedia will make them. I don't consider this a drought, but more like what it should be. While there is nothing wrong with lots of admins, there's nothing wrong with a few, and that's the way it should be. We should definitely not look at numbers because they can mislead. Bear in mind how many bots there are around nowadays, all the extra tools available to make things easier, and so on. We just don't need as many. It doesn't matter at all if no new admins are created, as long as the current ones are getting on with things. This will only become a problem if the encyclopedia starts to really suffer. And I don't think it's anywhere near that stage yet. Aiken ♫ 21:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Point 1, the point at which we have a problem is the point at which jobs are going undone that need tools. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If we make removing admins much easier here (say, allow them to be removed by bureaucrats instead of stewards), we would be able to promote admins more liberally than we do now. Wikipedia is losing editors, as editors enter heated debates full of drama that make everyone angry in the end. Why do editors participate in these debates? Because most articles are mostly written already, editors do not have as many articles they can substantially contribute to. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty more still to be written, but the way N is applied in AfDs tends to drive off many people who want to write about their own pet topics. THAT is an entirely separate discussion, and not part of any administrator shortage per se. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk) poses the question that if there's no work that needs to be done going undone, then what's the problem? Clearly though there are many editors who need to be blocked, myself amongst them, and the present cadre of administrators just can't keep up. So that's clearly vital work that's going undone. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no problem, other than this strange idea that we have to keep creating new admins, regardless of need. Aiken ♫ 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a strange idea. How many administrators would be enough? My own view is that there are already far too many, but I recognise that's an unpopular position in a "community" that encourages teen and pre-teen editors to apply for their sheriff's badge because they've been around for a few months and have a passion for zapping vandals. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The main backlogs that are really worth looking at tend to be the CSD ones, especially things like attack pages and copyvios. If those are being left up on Wikipedia for long, that's bad. Anybody have any stats on how those have been lately? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the CSD backlog times, but as far as copyvios being left up for long - feel free to look at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations for any of the tens of thousands of articles which need investigating; many of them requiring deletion or the removal of copyvios from history since they were introduced years ago. I'm sure there are plenty of other areas where extra admins would be beneficial. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It could be that Wikipedia is possibly worth more dead than alive. Most stuff is written, at least most high-profile stuff. There's less work to do and so fewer admins are needed. People run out of stuff to do (or at least stuff they enjoy doing), so they leave the site. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think wiki is becoming more reliable and more trusted than it was 2 or 3 years ago. Its a high traffic site on the web, and is being used more readily in academia. People are dropping by, and a considerable amount of article creation is still occuring. That said with the improvement in quality comes a bit more expecations in the RFa process. We get a healthy participation (nearly 100 people if a RFA runs its course). That is a healthy sign. But the process can be intimidating. I think alot of good candidates get scared off and decide not to run or run again. It can be very intimidating also if a candidate runs by themselves without any other open RFA going on, they are sure to get a high level of particiapation (and maybe increased scrutiny) occuring. That though is an additional side impact i think that comes with the decreased amount of RFAs. But mainly, Im also not to sure how many candidates (who just dont make it) we deem as being so close and encouraged to run again (soon) decide to, thats a stat id like to see. All that aside. Id personally like to see more admin candidates run and as mentioned above I think there are alot of issues pertaining to why the number is declining faster than we assign them. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, has anyone thought of this: Wikipedia has been around for nine years. In that time many people have become members of the site. This group has included many wonderful administrators. Maybe all the capable admins on the face of the Earth have already joined and gotten the tools. It's a novel idea but maybe it's the truth Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a novel idea in the same sense that believing you're a reincarnation of Joan of Arc is a novel idea. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus. The project is going to have contributors come and go, and so admins come and go. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course admins will come and go, but far more admins are going than coming, hence the 20% decline in active admins in the last 18 months. If RFA was producing enough admins to replace those who become inactive I would not have started this thread. ϢereSpielChequers 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You gave us stats on the declining number of active administrators, but are there stats on the fluctuation of administrative backlogs over the same period? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not aware of anyone keeping tabs on that, but in my view this is a problem long before we start getting backlogs. I would be more interested in seeing how the number of admin actions per admin is changing over time. If we need to do fewer deletions, restores, protections, blocks and so forth then the average number of admin actions per active admin might not be increasing. However it is a complex equation as declining an incorrect deletion tag doesn't need the tools but typically takes longer than deleting per a correct tag. The level of editing has fallen back slightly from peak, but has been stable at ten million edits every 7 weeks for some time - which would imply a pattern for this year of a declining number of admins spreading themselves more thinly. If like me you think that admins should be members of the community who spend some of their time here doing admin stuff, then it makes sense to have enough admins around that none of them feel unduly distracted from other editing. Most of what we need admins for are day to day chores that if divided between many hands are easily accomplished, and as the active editing community is supposed to be stable at circa 40,000 one would expect that the proportion of admins amongst us should be rising rather than falling. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that backlogs in key areas would be a good indicator - not a complete one, but a start on getting a handle on this ongoing discussion. Writing a program to determine wait times at WP:AIV or WP:RPP is way beyond my skillset, but I think it would be useful in numerous ways. I will add the anecdotal evidence that in my last year of active participation as a contributor at AIV, just as one example, I have noticed a gradual yet fairly dramatic increase in the average length of time it takes to get final administrator action when vandalism is reported. As for WereSpielChequers opening statement in this section regarding 'upbundling' of some admin functions to the 'crats to take a bit of the "charge" off of !votes on the Rfa pages, I think it is an interesting and worthy concept, but given how difficult it is to effectuate change in this type of area, I doubt consensus could be reached. The argument that current 'crats were not elected to have those additional powers would be raised, etc. In other words, it could just devolve into a contentious time sink. Jusdafax 16:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as admins, current crats were elected to have those powers... before they even became crats in the first place. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) If someone was was prepared to code it I would suggest that as well as backlogs, admin actions per active admin would be interesting to keep charted - it would help to know how dependent we were on a few active admins. As for the argument that crats weren't elected for these powers - crats already have the full admin bit. Upbundling would increase the crat workload but would not give them any powers that they don't already have, it would just take some power off us admins. ϢereSpielChequers 17:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Good point, Thing (and WSC), though I should have made clear that I believe that objections will be raised that current 'crats were not originally intended to be the sole holders of upbundled powers, whatever they may be. But my main thinking, rightly or wrongly, is that while WereSpielChequer's reasonable idea - of reopening discussion on what may well be the worthy concept of 'upbundling' some admin powers to the 'crats - may be a good one, I personally doubt it will bear fruit, given what I perceive to be resistance to change. Then again, I could still be in recovery from the failed WP:CDA proposal. ;) Jusdafax 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While every successful bureaucrat candidate (to my knowledge) already had the admin bit, it isn't a de jure requirement. Administrators have far more rights than bureaucrats, who have a very limited set of rights (Special:ListGroupRights). –xeno^talk 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the contentious thing about upbundling would be deciding what admin powers should be confined to crats. I was hoping for some suggestions from those who consider that admins are currently overpowerful and would like us cut down to size. ϢereSpielChequers 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Without meaning to come across as critical to any thought or person in this thread, I find this whole thread quite hilarious. That aside, these debates routinely come up and will continue to do so as sure as the sun rises in the east. Just as surely as it will set in the west, there will be nothing to come from the debate. What will be a catalyst for change will be the project falling apart in a noticeable way. An event that is highly dramatic which is perceived to have been caused by a lack of administrators will be the catalyst for change. Intellectual discussions about whether there is or is not a shortfall will never foment change. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My sense is that WereSpielChequers is concerned about the phenomenon of the Boiling frog. I have always admired those who can identify a problem that is gradually growing in magnitude, and who speak out long before the problem is dire. WSC has done much to track a 28 month trend that could well be a problem. I would argue that if the only way a serious issue with Wikipedia can be identified and targeted as such is by "the project falling apart in a noticeable way" then we as a community will deserve what we will get - at the least, severe stress to an institution I presume we all value highly.

There are two main points under discussion in this thread at the moment:

• 1. - Is there a need to reopen the discussion regarding 'upbundling' some unspecified current admin rights to the 'crats, and
  2. - Is there, or should there be, a tool to determine and track wait times at various admin 'bottlenecks' like WP:AIV.

On number one, I share a certain cynicism with Hammersoft regarding the current willingness of a clear majority of current admins to renounce any of their powers. Since I am not an admin, I hesitate to speak to which powers can or should be 'upbundled' in such a discussion.

As I say, number two gives us more information on which to draw conclusions. It will take some work by someone who knows how to write code, of course. Jusdafax 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• You will never achieve consensus to implement point #1. As to #2, you don't need consensus to implement it and no discussion of whether there should be such a tool is necessary. Find someone willing to write it, and have it done. As to my cynicism, yes it is the boiling frog parable. I do not believe the community can sustain itself under the current paradigm. As we asymptotically approach the completion of the project, the ability of the project to manage itself will continue to decline. At some point, a transition will be made to a more steady state completed work, largely immune to the fluctuations of every day editing. The recent move to revision mastering is a step in that direction, but far from the last. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft you are of course correct that this is not the place to request a database report. However I would be interested in knowing why you or anyone else objects to the upbundling idea. I appreciate that this is not the easiest place to get support for any sort of change - but I would really like to know what objections there are to this idea. I'd also be interested if anyone can either find fault with my statistics or an alternative solution to the problem. ϢereSpielChequers 20:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should first see if (the relatively small number of) bureaucrats are even willing to take on the role of "super admin": it's not the job for which they volunteered. –xeno^talk 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• ... And that's just the first of many potential objections. I appreciate the invite WSC, but I'm not here to debate point #1 above, rather to point out that getting consensus on it will be impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh it's worse than it looks. Admins who are not doing much in the way of admin actions will still appear as active if they are editing. Worse still you've got to consider whats happening to the admin population. You end up with a mix of aging dinosaurs and a handful of new hyperactives. If thats not bad enough admins are the main recruting ground for the more senior positions which means that without new admins comming in we would expect the quality of admins left who are not being tied up with stuff above admin level to decline.©Geni 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Senior positions" is a curious turn of phrase. Since when was "janitor" a senior position? Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"janitor" is generaly reserved for admins and at no point did I refer to admins as having a "senior position".©Geni 00:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Who in their right mind would consider promoting "janitors" to these "senior positions"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your exclusion of a qualifer is noted. Still if you would rather deal with the phrase "positions that allow greater acesss to features of the mediawiki software without providing direct database (post 2004) or shell acess, positions that the english wikipedia community have decided that for the time being have greater influence than mere admins and positions that the foundation has decided have some form of oversight role" feel free to do so.©Geni 00:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that WereSpielChequers has written a Signpost article based on these interesting stats that will appear in tomorrow's issue (comments about the article's contents are still welcome in the newsroom before publication, and on the article's talk page afterwards). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so where are we?

My guess is that if we had even 70% support, in any forum, for provisional adminship, more people would have jumped in here and supported; the usual strategy people take at WT:RFA if they don't like the options is to say nothing until there's a vote. I'm not taking a position on it, but I do think that if we create something that's a lot like adminship but isn't, it will necessarily affect RfA in a number of ways, and it's impossible to know whether the net effect will be good or bad until you've run the experiment for a while. I don't generally like to tinker with my car engine while the car is speeding down the highway.

The more I think about some form of 1-year clerkship (with no extra userrights until the community thinks that one or two extra userrights are clearly necessary and merited ... if ever), the more I think it's worth suggesting as an option at some of the noticeboards to see if anyone is interested. The problem is that we admins already have a lot to do; traditionally, we haven't been interested in creating specific clerkship roles, because that would involve an assessment of trustworthiness and competence for potentially a lot of candidates, then following up, deciding how and when to train them and/or fire them, supporting or fighting their decisions ... plus, the community gets pretty huffy when individuals think they have a role assessing other people; that's generally seen as something that either shouldn't be done at all or should be done by the community. I think everyone has dreamed of getting help with whatever they're doing but it's always seemed like more trouble than it's worth.

Fortunately, we have a bunch of voters at RFA who are pretty good at this kind of assessment, so maybe we could match the people we've got to the need we've got, and have some kind of community vote on "clerkship" candidates. Since I'm most familiar with WP:UAA, I think I'll suggest this first there, but I want to get feedback here first. A year ago, I considered encouraging some non-admins to take a more active role at WP:UAA, but didn't because of the problem I mentioned above about User:decltype, that the rare candidate at RfA who's actually taken on roles traditionally reserved for admins sometimes has a harder rather than an easier time at RfA. Are there other noticeboards or areas where admins are active that could use a community-approved clerk? Presumbly, someone who wants to be a clerk and is good at it anywhere wouldn't usually want to "go rogue" and clerk where they don't know what they're doing ... and even if they did, the admins would just start ignoring their recommendations. No big deal, and their term would expire in a year anyway noticeboards could choose to work only with those clerks that had been accepted within, say, the last year ... more than enough time for them to either get bored and leave or use their clerking experience to help them pass RfA, if they like. That's another point: RfA is hard enough to pass now that it's no longer providing the function of giving honest community feedback and recognition to everyone who's serious about janitor work, and probably all of these folks need the feedback and deserve the recognition, whether they're interested in adminship or not. Maybe clerkship could help with that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to jump in and shoot this down right off the bat, but 1) One year seems a long time; I became an admin eight months after starting to edit; and 2) Do we really need a "community-approved clerk"? People can clerk at UAA, AIV, CHU, etc, without a community mandate. The only possible advantage that my sleepy eyes see is that the community might trust them more if they were an approved clerk (like being a rollbacker, for instance) and this extra trust might get them through an RFA (more easily) down the road. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We'll need a lot of tweaks to any proposal, which is why I'm suggesting "crowdsourcing" the problem rather than trying to settle on one solution ... I mean, different noticeboards and such will have different needs and we/they can work out for our/themselves what time period works and how valuable the input of RfA voters would be. I've started a conversation at WT:UAA that's going well at the moment. My first guess for clerking at UAA is that we'd generally want someone approved sometime within the last year ... longer than that and they might be too rusty to be useful ... but boards where things change faster might want more recently approved clerks. Despite all the disagreements at RfA, I think the RfA community is pretty skilled and diligent about poking into a candidate's track record; if we're voting on a clerk at UAA and we don't extend an invitation here at WT:RFA, I would worry that the regulars there wouldn't have the skills that you guys have, and some of us might be less objective and maybe not as, um, forthright, since we have to keep working with the candidates every day whether they pass or not. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: I enjoy clerking things and making other people's lives easier, and would be very interested in that kind of position since my schedule doesn't allow long periods of editing. However, I would steer clear of volunteering if it meant I had to be committed to becoming an administrator. Would this clerking resemble the sort of drive-by thing that happens at WP:CHU, or is it more like SPI/ArbCom clerking? Is it specifically for training to become an administrator or just for people who want to help? I mean, I suppose it defeats the point if users who don't intend to run are clerks, but I think tying it too closely to adminship would be a bad idea as it would imply that any clerks are "almost ready" for adminship and become a status symbol in itself. Since clerking is by nature no big deal, this would destroy it. (Not to mention you'd get lots of new users applying if they see it as a status symbol, and that would create more work instead of less.) sonia♫ 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of letting each noticeboard or other admin area decide how "serious" clerking should be; I hope I don't bias the result by saying that we're pretty easy-going at UAA and a few good clerks would be welcome. You're welcome to join the discussion at WT:UAA if you're interested in usernames, it looks like we're about to get started ... if not, is there another place you'd like to clerk, including any of the boards that have clerks already? - Dank (push to talk) 05:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Something which may or may not work is having clerks for speedy deletion, declining incorrect tagging and fixing those tagged under the wrong criteria. I know the CSD off by heart and would be keen on doing something like that. RfPP and RfPerm seem to both have some non-admin stalkers who would be happy to clerk them, but I'm not sure how such a clerkship would work. Clerking AIV would be pretty much pointless, for sure. sonia♫ 06:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Objections have been mentioned in the past but it's worth discussing. I don't see why a useful clerk role couldn't work if the focus is narrow enough. Anyone want to weigh in before we take this to WT:CSD? - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I learned from WP:NEWT was that quite a few incorrect speedy deletion tags are being declined/amended by non-admins. So yes I agree that there is room for a clerking role, and hopefully if that happens we would reduce the number of instances where people don't discover that their CSD tagging is controversial until they run at RFA. Hopefully the clerks would feel more comfortable telling people that they'd changed their tag. I think it would also help to have some clerks for BLP prod as a significant proportion of them are incorrect tags, and the ten day cycle lends itself to clerking more readily than CSD does. ϢereSpielChequers 14:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

←The inevitable question about clerking in deletion work is that you have to put a tight limit on what clerks can do if they can't see deleted contribs. Mike Godwin (the WMF attorney) has said that only admins should be able to see deleted contribs, because of the potential defamation problem if someone complains to Wikipedia about their bio and we delete it but the info leaks out anyway. Just to move us along to the end of that discussion before it starts: if we've got 10 specific clerks working at UAA and CSD and elsewhere, and everyone agrees that the people we've got are trustworthy and that the competition for clerkship is rigorous enough that we're not ever likely to promote someone who isn't trustworthy, then it seems like a non-issue to me, when you consider how many old admins we've got who got promoted after a discussion that went: "Do you think we can trust him?" "Sure." I don't buy the argument that it won't be possible to assign just the userright of seeing deleted contribs. I also don't buy the argument that it's up to the Foundation whether to allow it or not; if the community clearly wants clerks to see deleted contribs and the Foundation says no, that's likely to piss off the community to the point where we promote the clerks in a regular RFA and ask them on their honor to stick to clerking rather than using the admin tools until they pass RFA a second time (which gets us one flavor of provisional adminship through the back door ... which I don't want and am not asking for, not unless clerkship doesn't work, and I don't see why it wouldn't. My only point is that it's clear to me that the community has the power to make the calls here, so there's no point in whining "we can't do that, they won't let us".) - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that if we want these to be meaningful jobs then the clerks doing the jobs need to have the tools to do that job and if that meens we neeed to create new user right groups then we should do that. If we don't let them have the tools then how does that help any future RfA ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"The tools" sounds to me like something more than just looking at deleted contribs ... and we haven't gotten any movement on that in years of trying. I don't have a preference on that and I'm not saying you should stop trying, but I don't want to scuttle clerkship by throwing random tools into the mix, I'm only talking about seeing deleted contribs. That might give Mike Godwin headaches but it wouldn't get us stuck in the usual arguments against unbundling any of the tools that actually do something.- Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry it came across as such was not meant to be it was just a turn of phase. Codf1977 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you can clerk at CSD and BLP prod without being able to see deleted contributions or delete articles. ϢereSpielChequers 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ... and anyway, until we've got an established set of clerks and people trust them and the promotion process, the extra user-right is not going to happen anyway, so we better make it work. I just want people to know that we know that the request is going to come up, we've thought about the problem, and we have ways to make it work if the community ever decides it needs to happen. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)