Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 202

Archive 195

←

Archive 200

Archive 201

Archive 202

Archive 203

Archive 204

Archive 205

Poll on new user right

Based on the above discussion on a new vandalism patroller user right, we are now polling on whether we should persue the idea further. Link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiken drum (talk • contribs)

Poll has been closed as premature. - Pointillist (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally! More admins!

I don't know if more people are reading our need-more-admins discussions, but look - we have 5 legitimate admin candidates running at the same time! We might finally have a good month! Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had to wager, I would bet only two of those will pass, just from the percentages and where they are after the number of votes they've had. Possibly a third, though I would think a 13-2-4 start is going to have trouble making it, most candidacies that don't have a really hot start (six people out of 19 not voting in favor is a real problem) are heading for failure.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, just looked at it, not just the report at top of page, it is 13-3-5, which means you really ought to buy the black suit for the funeral.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Two out of six, I think now. Any candidacy at 80 percent at these stages is going to have problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How's that crystal ball looking now? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Or now? Just noting. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's good, but can we get community consensus about minimum content experience? DeltaQuad's RFA doesn't leave a clear position for future candidates. In the end, content concerns probably blocked that RFA but some sensible good faith supporters felt that opposes "are weak, at best", "awfully weak", "clutching at straws" and were "baffled by the level of this opposition". There was also an undercurrent that if you ask any question about content, you're suspected of demanding an absurdly high level of contributions, including GA's, FA's and DYK's. IMO it would be helpful to candidates if the community could achieve some consensus about minimum content experience for modern admin candidates. How might this be achieved? - Pointillist (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should being this up. I was planning on writing a new section exactly on this :p. I've seen RfAs opposed because someone created too much content, and RfAs opposed because someone created not enough content. I know it's hard to please everyone, but this is quite confusing. IMO, content should not be a major part of RfAs, since admin work doesn't involve creating content - unless the candidate has made some major error. As someone pointed out above, we want our best content creators working on content, not maintenance tasks. Netalarm^talk 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree your final sentence, but nevertheless it is vital that admins understand the pain it takes to generate content. Because of other activities, I don't do as much content as I'd like, but I try to check everything I touch and until an admin candidate has spent an hour fixing a single reference (or $20 buying an out-of-print book, or driven 50 miles to check their university library) I find it difficult to accept their power over contributors who have done all of those things. If we could find a model that would restrict newly-appointed admins to policing only the activities of IP editors and new accounts, I think much of the concern about admin powers would disappear. - Pointillist (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Generating content is painful? Really? Admins don't deal with good content, on the whole, they deal with bad content that needs to go. I don't know why it would take an hour to fix a reference, and of course it's the editor's choice to go out of their way to get a book. Admins don't really have powers, they have rules to follow and on the whole they do. And, I think if established users followed the rules, they wouldn't need any admin on their case. As has been mentioned, the best admins are the ones who want to get on with the nitty-gritty side of Wikipedia - administrating, not writing. Let's stop pretending that we only do writing here, because it's simply not true. Wikipedians take a great many roles, all very important, and none should be considered better than others. Aiken ♫ 00:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly my point: until you've spent an hour on a single edit, or gone out of your way to find a book, you don't really "get" how some of our best editors feel about content. That is the nitty-gritty: content and the administration of it. If by "bad content" you mean vandalism, bear in mind that the formula "anyone can edit" = "so IP's can vandalize" was just marketing to attract more contributors. It helped make Wikipedia a success but it isn't infallible: if we run out of admins the anonymous editing principle won't withstand the twin assaults of vandals who think they won't be detected and journalists whose proprietors hate us anyway. Our admins—all of them—need to be more than just vandal fighters and fixers of inappropriate user names. Let's stop pretending that an admin can be effective without demonstrable content competence. - Pointillist (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can "get it". Wikipedia isn't the only place in the universe where research takes place, and it's easy to empathise with writers. By bad content I mean bad pages - ones that end up deleted by admins. There's loads of effective admins with little to no "content" experience, so not sure what you're saying about pretending - it's true and it's happening right now. Aiken ♫ 13:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I too am afraid that some of these RfAs will just fail to reach the safe 75% threshold. Maybe it's time for the community to send a signal to the bureaucrats and lower the informal discretion zone down to 66-70%. It's a simple way of countering the increasing standards of RfA voters and it would probably yield an extra admin a month or so. Pichpich (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the time left, it looks like only 2 of them will pass. I think we should also make it more discussion based, where weak points are not given much weight. Netalarm^talk 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, people will just raise their standards. Aiken ♫ 00:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Two step solution: 1) lower the pass threshold to 60%, 70%, whatever; 2) stop allowing discussion under the voting headings - instead, move all discussion to the Discussion page so people who want to argue or ask quiz questions can do so there. Admit RFA is a vote, get more people to run by siloing the conversation, stop pretending consensus emerges from contested RFAs, stifle the broken-record chatter on this page about minutae that all sorts out randomly in practice. In real life elections, everyone has their own standards, and nobody thinks that's bad. Is Wikipedia too Dr. Seussian to try simplifying a process? Townlake (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't resist answering your last question: yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

With regards to #2: I disagree. A lot of oppose rationales are quite lacking, and people should be expected to defend them if they want to make them. NW (Talk) 02:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you believe these discussions actually produce consensus as opposed to stratified vote totals. This pattern of pretending is what will keep the Oppose section a battleground, the RFA process unwelcoming, and the ranks of admins justifiably shrinking. Townlake (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, discussions don't show a consensus. They do however highlight bad votes, which crats can then more easily ignore. I would rather not make RFA more of a popularity contest than it is already, and force people to account for their votes. Just see what happens here, here, and here when people don't have to justify anything. Can you tell me specifically why some of those candidates passed and others didn't? NW (Talk) 02:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? The bottom line is what matters. Part 1 of my suggestion is a concession to the fact there might be some more "lacking" opposition, and lowers the pass bar accordingly. However, at some point Wikipedia has to accept that some users are real people, and will oppose for non-intellectual reasons, and that's not necessarily bad. Townlake (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If the oppose is for something that clearly doesn't make sense or is without grounds, it's reasonable for people to challenge it and discuss it. As NW has also pointed out, this makes unreasonable votes stand out more so crats can ignore them. If I was to go Oppose, I just don't like you, the vote should be challenged cause it makes no sense - and in the end ignored by the crats. Opposing for non-intellectual reasons isn't necessarily bad? I have no idea what you're talking about, but if everyone used common sense, everything would be much better. Netalarm^talk 03:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the current format has its fans, and the Sisyphean task of advocating basic common-sense improvements isn't worth the effort to me. Have fun in the gauntlet, folks. Townlake (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the dwindling supply of new candidates will drive the point home by necessity that there are other and likely better models of managing Wikipedia. Dividing up the tool set and granting individual permissions that may be granted by a simple, much less involved process is more efficient and sensible. Few administrators care to get involved in *all* aspects of WP administration, most state here what part they are interested in and often it is rather limited initial interest. No reason to have them undergo comprehensive scrutiny, and if they want it later, they have shown a track record with a limited tool set and a judgment is much simpler to arrive at, based on actual observed behavior, not hypothetical questions in advance. It's hard to fathom why one would want to subject oneself to the current regiment just to fight vandals, and what not. Reading the commentary at times makes one wonder if many of the voters even do the research to arrive at their opinion or simply are "me too"s, copycats, agreeing with prior opinions that they like. The current trial of putting edits by anonymous users on quarantine until reviewed by someone with the reviewer status is a good example of what can be done. This should be expanded to more tools. It would allow prospective "full" administrators to grow into the responsibility with visible track record and produce a larger community of privileged editors than the current process. Kbrose (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the perennial proposals... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So? I find it a little baffling that an idea repeatedly and independently brought up by different contributors should be dismissed because many people think it is a Good Idea. Which it is. bd2412 T 15:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above many times ..one of the main problems is editors simply pointing to a wiki page and not giving an answer them self's. Looks like we are having a problem of "dogma" - no one is thinking for themselves and simply dismissing comments because they have seen a guideline about it. Moxy (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

↑What they said. Since when is "lots of people support it" a reason not to do something? – iridescent 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well to effectively fight vandals as an admin one needs to be able to block, delete pages and protect pages. I really don't see the point in giving one of these buttons to a user and not the others. Also these things have not gotten through because lots of people don't support it. When they do such as with rollback it gets through! Polargeo (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We could easily create a user right, say, vandalfighter, which allows the user to place blocks on new (say, with fewer than 5 edits, and less than 5 days) editors who may be vandalizing. This will hopefully alleviate the concern that vandal fighter admins have the power to block anyone, including established users. Vandal fighting, as an admin, is mostly blocking, with some protecting, and a little deleting. The protecting and deleting can be done by others. Likewise, we could create a "speedydeleter" role, where only recently created pages are able to be deleted. I can't see anything wrong with those ideas. Aiken ♫ 16:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So is a very large percentage of the discussion that is on this page. FunPika 18:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Qualitative review of RfAs of admins later de-adminned

Has anyone gotten all the RfAs of admins later deadminned and had a look at any common themes? I thought it might be interesting to see if there were any 'warning signs' or other threads.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Without doing a formal review, I've felt that the RfAs are either perfect (or close to it), or have the same issues that most of the RfAs have now (civility, article writing). There doesn't seem to be anything that stands out on them. (X! · talk)  · @099  ·  01:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think someone actually has run the numbers (there was a graph IIRC), and found basically as X! describes. The RFAs are the same as any other RFAs. --Izno (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being stupid here, but what does "deadminned" mean? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

De-admin-ed. Did you read it as "dead minned"? :-) Aiken ♫ 14:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too, but unlike Boing, I was too embarrassed to ask ;) --Kudpung (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha, my wording "misled" you (past tense of verb "to misle") Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins are "dead-mined" for different reasons. Some acted and applied in good faith and later screwed the pooch, others were playing us from "edit 1". I've often wondered if any warning signs could be found in the RFAs or the pre-admin activity of the "archtransits" but never checked due to the whole "20/20 hindsite" thing. Come to think of it, "edit 1" might be a good place to look, that's how "pastor theo" was caught. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my first edit was a hoax, and I think I turned out alright! Esteffect (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

New user rights

This proposal can now be viewed and discussed at Wikipedia:Vandal fighters.

I know fully well that this is a perennial proposal. Nevertheless, I am unaware of any recent suggestions along these lines, and none expressed in the way I am about to.

There are a lot of user rights on Wikipedia. These range from autoconfirmed to admins, to reviewers to bureaucrats and checkusers. Over the years, several functions have been successfully split off from the adminship bundle: rollback, ip block exemption, account creation etc. This means that, in the past, we have begun to split up the adminship tools.

Normally such proposals will suggest we split up the actions one by one: i.e., we have "deleters", "protectors" etc. I don't think that will work. What I suggest is we consider important roles that admins fulfil, and turn them into user rights.

For example, consider a vandal fighter. Many will have little content experience, and not much outside of vandal fighting. He might consider running for adminship to assist in blocking vandals that he reports to AIV appropriately. So he does. However, as we know, most people expect more than just vandal fighting. Despite the fact he is an excellent vandal fighter, he is asking for the whole package, and abilities that are beyond the experience he has. Some might argue he has no right to block established article writers when he has done so little himself. So, as with many, he fails, not because of anything bad, but because he didn't have enough experience for everything adminship gives. There are usually two choices the candidate faces: either continue doing what he was doing, or try his hand at article writing. But as we all know, people who don't want to write articles often don't because they simply are unable to. Issues such as plagiarism, copyvios, unreferenced articles, sloppy spelling and grammar etc, may well come up. This is because the candidate, still wishing to become an admin (just to fight vandals, mind), is trying to please the RFA crowd.

Who does not agree that this is a bad thing? My suggestion would be, to relieve ourselves of this very common problem, to create a "vandalfighter" user right. I suggested it somewhere above - they would, of course, have rollback, but also the ability to block new (say, less than 5 days old) accounts. Of course, in the role of vandal fighter, an editor might find the need to delete or protect a page, but the most they do is revert and block. Surely, a role like this would alleviate the perceived problem of "non-article writers" with power over writers?

There are other user rights that could be created. For example, speedy deleters could have the ability to delete new pages, and that's it.

Overall, I think that splitting up admin tools has much potential, and it has started to be done, but we need to look at it at a slightly different angle, rather than looking at tools individually which is what tends to happen. We need to consider the individual jobs admins do, and decide if any would be suitable to become a new user right. I'm sure most will agree that a role like "vandal fighter" with limited abilities shouldn't pose much of a problem.

Aiken ♫ 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a thoughtful overview, that has much to commend it. The block-new-users-only feature is new, at least to me. At first glance, I'd support this, and I speak as someone with a bit of experience in vandal-fighting. Jusdafax 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's technically possible, it would be a good idea, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support such a userright. One thing though, I believe you neglected to mention blocking IP vandals. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Logged in or out, they're still vandals. Aiken ♫ 18:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)New users, as in new usersnames, or new users, as in usernames and IPs newly editing? --Izno (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. If it's possible, I'd support it. It would enable people like TTTSNB to block guys without going to AIV. I am a bit of a vandal fighter but likely not enough to warrant the bit. Nonetheless, it would cut down on the backlog at AIV that plagues this place on Friday nights!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it suggested before that a new right to only block IPs might work, but perhaps blocking IPs and non-autoconfirmed users might be a better way to go - most repeated vandalism seems to be addressed by short blocks on IPs or by indefinite blocks on new vandal-only usernames. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Aiken's idea with high enthusiasm. It would perhaps be most practical to propose each new rights category one-by-one, rather than propose in principle that new kinds of rights be created. But this way of approaching the issue makes excellent sense to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything that takes power out of the hands of megalomaniacs is a good thing, but that's precisely why this proposal will fail just like every other proposal for unbundling has failed; the megalomaniacs won't vote for it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not speaking of taking power away from admins. We're just talking about... spreading the workload among people who are more than qualified for the specific job, but not enough for the wider array of tools. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a list of such proposals? I see this is listed at WP:PEREN, but maybe someone could prepare one at WP:Limited administrators. –xeno^talk 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support enabling vandal fighters to block anonymous IPs and non-autoconfirmed VOAs. Question is, if the implementation of this new "vandal fighter" user right is feasible, what requirements should we set for users who wish to apply for this user right? Obviously, users with "vandal fighter" rights would need to be held to a higher standard than users who simply have "rollback" rights. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Before we even go there, I think we ought to see if there is agreement that we should go forward with this proposal. We can discuss the hows and whens on a newly created project page. I expect, should it be implemented, it would be granted like rollback, and taken away as easily if misused. A full blown request seems over the top for a minimal role. Aiken ♫ 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"We're not speaking of taking power away from admins. We're just talking about... spreading the workload among people who are more than qualified for the specific job, but not enough for the wider array of tools." That's your interpretation TTTSNB, and not an unreasonable one, but history is against you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, and nowadays a pure vandal-fighter trying to pass an RfA is like someone trying to find a drinking fountain in a desert. There's hardly any chance of doing so. As a side note, nowadays I'm leaning more towards CSD and UAA work... (I checked my CSD noms earleir today... out of at least 144 nominations, only 4 were declined.) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not Auto confirmed and IP's sounds good. This one seems like it may actually have a chance!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the idea is "When everyone is somebody/Then no one's anybody." --Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's partly it, but it runs deeper than that. If an admin had to go through the RfA hazing then so should one of these upstart vandal fighters. We saw something of that already: "what requirements should we set for users who wish to apply for this user right?" Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, you'll never get admins to admit, then, that ordeal by fire and by water should be for other than members of the elect (I must be having an operatic day).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well of course there will be those Badge collectors who will use it as a stepping stone to RFA, but the idea in principle sounds good. As for "standards", I think that you have to be a MAJOR vandal fighter in order to get it. If someone who is like me, is a decent vandal fighter, has 100+ edits to AIV, and is a Huggler, gets the bit, they better be thoroughly checked to make sure that they do not accidentally, or intentionally abuse it. To be honest, I think that I, or people who have a vandal fighting record like me, should not be eligible to get this new bit because I/we simply do not vandal fight 60-100% of the time that I/we spend here.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stepping stones are perfectly ok, that's how the real world works, you work your way up in a company by accumulating experience and gaining privileges and responsibilities. It also makes the evaluation process a lot less unreliable when the user applies for another right, the user can be more objectively evaluated by what (s)he has already done with the prior rights. However, I am not convinced that this grouping is really necessary. For example, one gains 'rollbacker' status by showing some experience and dedication to the project. There is no reason that a good editor with track record of adhering to policies cannot be given a right to impose a 4, 8, or 24 hour semi-protection on a page to stop a persistent vandal from defacing a page. This should not require a lengthy community vote, this right could be conferred by very informal methods and this would be one of the most effective tools available often. This example occurs so frequently, that it's almost astonishing that a good editor does not have the tool available. I can't count the number of time this scenario has wasted editors' time waiting for an admin to appear to take action. Kbrose (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And thus, logically, editors should be able to block IPs or nonautoconfirmed for 4, 8, or 24 hours? And of course this should be granted by very informal means, but perhaps be a bit more difficult to remove? And there is no reason not to unbundle page moves and deleted revisions, so long as the editor has edited the article ten times? Needless to say, these "deputies" should be able to deputize others to help in their useful work, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your sense of logic, nor the intent of your post. Conferring additional privileges to qualified editors needs to be evaluated one by one. But it should be observed that the most powerful, most critical privilege conferred to editors is the permission to edit the encyclopedia, to change the face to the project in front of the public. Yet, this requires no scrutiny whatsoever. Protecting a page for a limited amount of time, even banning an anonymous user temporarily who is clearly defacing the project, is a rather minor action compared to being able to change content. Kbrose (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah so. And so that right should be restricted by some guy who asked permission from an admin or other who probably wasn't paying much attention, instead of having to demonstrate the trust and support of the community to restrict that Very Important Right?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the specifics of granting haven't even been discussed yet? –xeno^talk 20:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course they haven't. The tone of Wehwalt post reflects slightly the reason why these proposals rarely progress, namely an apparent resistance of existing admins to agree to a perceived dilution of their perceived privileged status. Rather than implement a trial of various ideas, these ideas are blocked by phony argumentation. Kbrose (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They must have forgotten to send me the key to the executive washroom. Are there other privileges? I haven't encountered many in 20 months as an admin. I don't think we even get a discount at Hertz.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Malleus would no doubt state that the average admin doesn't do much at Hertz and would rather have that discount at Tricycles Я Us.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the average admin probably does more harm than good, but that would be made much worse if they were allowed to drive rental cars, just because they appeared to be sufficiently mature for six months before. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on how evil admins are, I've never done a survey ("Hello. Do you eat babies?") ... but even if admins were evil, wouldn't it make sense that we/they would be more likely to agree to letting non-admins block new users as the number of admins dwindles? Sadly, I think Carl's likely to be right that there's kind of an average wiki-life expectancy, which would mean that extrapolating from his table, we're more likely to drop 200 active admins next year and pick up 11 than the other way around. I'd be more than happy for a trusted, competent member of the community to start blocking new users. It requires experience, communication skills, and the trust of the community, but it's not rocket science. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea - with such a right, an editor would only be able to block IPs and very new usernames, and would not be able to interfere with established editors. Not sure how best to implement it, but I think it does need an easy removal process so anyone abusing it can be stopped quickly. And acquiring the right would presumably need to be easier than RfA, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) This is something I never thought that I'd do, but I am supporting this proposal. It's by far the most sensible of all the unbundling proposals, and technically easy to implement. The functionality doesn't exist right now, but I'll commit a fix in a little which which should make this a nice easy configuration change. (X! · talk)  · @934  ·  21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Second the jaded support above. Aiken's analysis is on-point, devolution [aka unbundling] of the peculiar hodgepodge of admin rights is long overdue. Technical and implementation difficulties notwithstanding, this is a solid proposal worth pursuing. Suggest moving this to the village pump for serious consideration once it is honed. Skomorokh 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since there's (surprisingly) not been an outpouring of vehement opposition, it may make sense to move this to a subpage to be refined and developed before it is formally presented as a proposal. –xeno^talk 21:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite remarkable! Go for it, I'd say -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Make it so (?) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Captain, I shalln't be driving this one. Just throwing out the suggestion that a re-venue might make sense =] Of course, now that I opened my mouth there's some opposition below! =) –xeno^talk 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Oh hell no. Why should new editors be treated to being blocked by a less experienced admin-lite? New editors are the very lifeblood of this project. So, instead of an experienced administrator who can handle doing a good job with incomers, we instead pass off the blocking to someone who does not have sufficient experience to handle being given a global block button? That's backwards, to say the least. Plus, all this unbundling has had the unintended effect of making adminship harder to achieve. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go, there come the fear mongers. The idea is not that 'new users' be treated, but obvious vandals. Vandals are not the life blood of WP. In addition many editors are just as experienced and sensible as many admins, and those are the ones that get the right. Kbrose (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• If you're going to insult me personally, at least you could have the common decency of coming up with something that makes sense. Pop quiz; how many editors here started with zero edits? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• We would probably be limiting this userright only to people who have significant experience in the area in the first place. Presumably the initial uses of this userright would come under great scrutiny at first, to weed out any problems or inexperienced or sloppy users. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  And I would expect it to be limited to blatant vandalism only, and easily removable from anyone who abuses it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral - I'm unsure whether I should support or oppose the proposal. On the one hand, it will make dealing with persistent vandals far easier, but on the other hand blocks from the blue are one of the main causes of accusations (both real and unfounded) of admin abuse (the other being page protection). In other words, while it may seem good in theory, it may ultimately end up as more trouble than it's worth. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If we adopted "it might not work" as a guiding principle to rejecting new ideas, Wikipedia would not have gotten very far in the first place. A better one might be "If we try and fail, we can always go back; if we never try, we'll never know". Skomorokh 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'm going to oppose on the grounds that it is a procedural nightmare. In addition to the usual RFAs, you'll have a whole bunch of semi-RFAs in which people with some rights will be asking to get other rights. Gah! Looie496 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, it could almost turn out like that disaster, WP:PERM. Skomorokh 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not the only area that has potential. We could consider creating a "page deletion/restoration" role to allow more users to clean up AfD discussions, or a "page locker/unlocker" to cover those requests. Splitting the admin tasks into smaller user rights has the potential to be a very good thing if we can keep it simple. I would also recommend that said rights expire after a few months, though that's an entirely different topic to discuss. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

• Support - excellent idea!   — Jeff G.  ツ 21:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, I rather like this idea actually. It's a recognised weakness of RfA that some vandal-fighters that could clearly make excellent use of a block button are persistently denied it because they're uninterested in other areas, and the admin tools come in a one-size-fits-all bag. This is an excellent compromise. ~ mazca ^talk 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I already said this above, in a threaded comment, but I figure I'll say it bulleted here. Oh, and "it might not work" is Wikipedia's guiding principle to rejecting new ideas! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as long as we're all clear that you can't block without being able to see deleted contribs (you really need the whole picture to do it well), and with the recommendation that we call these people "clerks"; per tradition, we use meek sounding words like "bureaucrat" and "mop" when handing out userrights, and this is already a word in wiki-circulation. I'm a little disappointed that this is happening now instead of a month or two from now, when ... I think, I hope ... it will be obvious that UAA (or maybe RfPP or copyright, we'll see) clerk candidates would be ideal for this. In a clerkship vote, say at UAA, it's likely that 90% of the voters will be very familiar with the candidate's comments at UAA, so they'll know exactly who should be trusted with this tool. And so you'll get a vote that's similar in some ways to RfA, but hopefully better ... more voters will know and be focused on the candidate, and no one will be worrying about the candidate destroying the wiki. I didn't want to argue the point; I was pretty sure it would play out that way, and then we could all point and say, "See?" I wouldn't mind accelerating the vote at UAA so we could test this before (if) we create the new userright. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure: I just created a pointer from UAA, since there was a lot of discussion about a similar idea (clerking) recently. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Splitting up admin rights and spreading them around is a great idea. Many wish to specialize and we should not hold anyone back because of this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Try it for obvious vandalism - see how it goes - if it works well it could be extended.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose See below. No thank you. Blocking is way too powerful and the most abused admin tool as it is. See below. Tommy! [message] 22:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is quite a bit of support for this idea, we should move to a new page and post to relevant village pumps etc. I would move it but I can't think of a good, general name for the idea. We need to discuss what new rights we want (vandal fighter has been discussed here most, but there are other ones too like speedy deleter), how they will be granted, and even if there is enough support for the idea. Aiken ♫ 22:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to me because I didn't see this coming, but my two cents is that if you throw in deletion, you'll kill it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs to be limited for it to work... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Each right would be individual. That is, vandal fighter right, speedy deleter right etc. We can discuss which rights we want on another page. I'm not in any way proposing we have a user right with blocking and deleting ability... Aiken ♫ 22:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) I'd try to convince the community one privilege at a time; I fear it'll be difficult enough to get, even without throwing in a new and different position... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, well seeing as the blocking one seems the most supported, we'll go with that. I do admit, that it seems to be vandal fighters rather than speedy taggers who have trouble passing RFA. Aiken ♫ 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so where should we move this proposal? The village pump? A subpage of this talk page? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have a question. Would one be allowed to block new usernames that violate the username policies, usernames which one would normally report to UAA? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• If this is done, in my opinion, giving it out must remain the province of the Bureaucrats, and not within the scope of individual administrators. The 'crats need to "run" this much the same way as they run RFA. Also, perhaps there could be a provision that a regularly selected administrator could overturn any decisions made using this flag without fear of WP:WHEEL... Haven't formed an opinion on the overall proposal quite yet. Courcelles 22:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If a limited block ability is included, then we're going to get voters, and rationales, that we've seen so far only at RFA, so I would think crat-skills would be valuable, and that this is more or less the kind of thing the community had in mind when voting at RfB. But we should certainly ask them if they see it the same way. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This now has a project page, located at Wikipedia:Vandal fighters. We can discuss details of the proposal on the talk page there. Aiken ♫ 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I like it. Tommy! [message] 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• The key to this is reasonable and precise definition of the problem and the proposed solution. Start with the lowest common denominator that people can agree with. I see people are already horrified by the idea of users being blocked and what not. Look at all the tools available to accomplish a goal, say vandalism fighting. Implement a TRIAL of the least controversial tools first, just like the current Reviewer trial. I think in terms of vandalism, the most effect and least controversial tool is first to try a very limited (4 hours) period of semi-protection. I'd say almost all anxious vandals that deface a page give up after a short period of time. They don't come back after 4 hours and try again. Have the page automatically expire the protect status without editor intervention. If that doesn't help, and the vandal goes around to other pages, after a few of those, we can look at a one hour block or so. Make the process easy to understand for vandals as well as editors. A good new user should not have to fear being blocked even if they are anonymous. Kbrose (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed my opinion due to the tools essentially being a very light version of the sysop tools. I complete agree with Courcelles that it should only be granted by a bureaucrat too. Tommy! [message] 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Hmm, seems like it's harder than I thought it would be to implement the right. It's possible, and I could get it to work, but the problem is the dozens of places a "block" link is used in the interface must be updated. I've filed a bug at bugzilla:24817. (X! · talk)  · @999  ·  22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see objective statistics on this, but very many RFA supporters have argued that administrators mainly fight vandalism and spam by unproven contributors. If that's true, it makes sense to have a "vandalfighter" right that doesn't affect proven contributors (e.g. can't block them, doesn't have special status at AFD, can't delete pages and can't view deleted pages). This model might significantly reduce the number of full admins we need, so we can insist on deep content skills at RFA and ensure future admins have the trust of our most effective content contributors. If it is technically difficult to achieve, that is all the more reason to gather statistics about the admin workload required to handle unproven contributors. - Pointillist (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support per !X saying that it can be implemented, and my comments above. This is a wonderful idea. I'm surprised that no one thought of this earlier!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This has already moved to its own page. Aiken ♫ 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't there a risk here of making the RfA situation worse? That is, not only are candidates expected to have X edits across at leat Y namespaces, experience with XfD, CSD, ANI, RfA/B, AIV, etc, and have an encyclopedia knowledge of policy, but now also Z months experience in some type of clerk position. Editors choosing to demonstrate their character through clerkship is one thing, but it could easily become an expected criterion for passing RfA, meaning this sensible suggestion is twisted into a way to further raise the RfA bar. EdChem (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If we never try anything, we'll never learn. The discussion has moved to its own page. Aiken ♫ 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I like EdChem's proposal. Make it an official recommendation. Some people agree to be humiliated, tarred and feathered to get the magic button at all costs - they can just as well dance the vandalfighting dance for some time. Others will pass the RFA without any of these userright trinkets. The system isn't broken: profiling applies only to a certain level. East of Borschov 07:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can only see it elevating the status of adminship to further levels of esteem, and I'm concerned at any non-administrative class having block powers. Esteffect (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do people keep voting when there's a perfectly good project page to discuss on? Wikipedia:Vandal fighters. Aiken ♫ 01:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Because that page is hidden in a wall of text. I did eventually find it, and I've expanded (albeit, not in a particularly well-worded way) on the talk page of the proposal). Esteffect (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent idea. bd2412 T 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose see WT:Vandal fighters#My opinion for the long why. —fetch·comms 02:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

12 years old

I really don't want to offend anyone or anything here, but is it wrong that I think having 12 year old (and possibly younger) administrators is not the best way to run the project? I know they've past RfA like everyone else - but I already think we are scrutinising all the wrong things and every so often I get little confirmations, like this, that I was right. I just don't think pre-teen children ought to have the responsibilities and powers which go with being an admin. IainUK talk 22:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an issue with a particular underage admin, or is it just you don't like the idea of it? Aiken ♫ 22:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to see an underage admin block their parents. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The latter. IainUK talk 23:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't understand your comment. You say "every so often I get little confirmations, like this, that I was right". What's "this", exactly? Aiken ♫ 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha.. But I agree with IainUK, Tommy! [message] 22:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we even allowed editors under 13? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no age limit. We had a 13 year old *gasp* bureaucrat once. The horror, I know, and I think they still have the rights too. Aiken ♫ 23:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) The thing is, I'm not sure that there are any 12 year old admins here. I know they'd get shot down if they revealed themselves, but behavioral evidence should weed out most 12 year olds anyway. I think the youngest age that's common is like 14/15. I've always seen 12 as a hyperbole. (X! · talk)  · @999  ·  22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Aiken, what I mean is, the RfA process is such that we can give admin powers and responsibilities to a 12 year old without even noticing. IainUK talk 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if their on-wiki behaviour/editing patterns didn't identify them as being so young, they're probably mature enough to be an admin! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Phantomsteve. Personally I couldn't care less how old they are, as long as they did a good job. Frankly, despite all the unproven cries of "children make bad admins" and "teenagers would abuse tools", I don't believe I've ever come across an underage admin who actually abused or misused their tools. Aiken ♫ 23:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can really say that a 12yr old can deal with the responsibilities, and sometimes even pressures and difficult decisions that being an admin can involve. I would at least like to see someone get through secondary education before they start dealing with disputes and making decisions on bans etc. I think there are many cases where a kid could come across as a legitimate adult online - I don't think that makes it ok. IainUK talk 23:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In principle I tend to agree with you; however, it would be very difficult to make sure an editor is 18, short of requiring all successful candidates to identify themselves to the Foundation (an idea I don't like and that's one of our perennial proposals); that's why I fear the only viable solution is to evaluate how mature a candidate appears to be before handing them the bit. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about identification, but I still think pre-teen admins is a problem, and so it brings me back to my conclusion that the current RfA procedure needs to be changed dramatically to scrutinise the candidate strategically, rather than their operational contribution. IainUK talk 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but what's the objection to identification? The fact that there have been admins who were sockpuppets of previously banned admins is prima facie evidence of the need for identification, isn't it? Pointillist (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The objection to identification would be that Wikipedia is an anonymous (if desired) venue - only CU/OS/Stewards have to identify to the Foundation. OK, I have identified myself, but that was because as a user of the ACC tool, I have access to private information (IPs and email addresses) and it felt like the correct thing to do - but if admin candidates had to identify to the foundation, I suspect many would choose not to - they may not necessarily trust the people who will see their passport or id - after all, they do not know them, they cannot see them in person, they are not a member of a government department. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to not be sure about - we've been and done it on Wikipedia many times, and I don't see any long-lasting effects. Most young editors who even get nominated for adminship are probably (I'm stereotyping here) intelligent nerds, who enjoy writing encyclopedia articles in their spare time. They are probably very mature for their age. I think you should just go with the flow and assume that everyone is an adult who sounds and acts like one. If you find it wrong, it's not really your problem. Furhermore, we don't require any proof of age or identity, so it would be difficult to enforce. Aiken ♫ 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Iain you say pre-teen admins are a problem, and yet you have presented no evidence to support this theory.--Jac16888^Talk 23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jac, that is because I have no evidence. This is a view that I hold. Even if a pre-teen admin did nothing "wrong", I don't think it is right that they should have the pressures, powers and responsibilities involved. Bad behaviour is not the only reason for lower age limits. IainUK talk 23:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone put a speedy tag on this page - and, doing his duty as admin, a pre-teen starts to review the article, would you say that is ok? Or if there is a difficult dispute between two respected members and a difficult decision needs to be made, would he have the experience and skills to deal with it properly? There are many reasons why I think it is wrong to have pre-teens as admins on the site - it isn't about immature behaviour or disruption. I hope you'll excuse the example but I think it illustrates my point. IainUK talk 23:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I understand your point of view - however, short of requiring all admins to identify to the foundation and to be over (x) years of age, how would it be enforced? It's not fair to ask all candidates if they are of the age of majority where they live (the WMF have no age requirements for admins on any of their projects), and they could easily lie anyway. Also, if you decide the age of majority should be the cut off point - which one? Age of majority shows that if you live in the Isle of Man and are male, the AoM is 14 - whereas the highest AoM is 21. If you say they have to be of the age of majority, someone is Bahrain would have to wait 7 years longer than a male on the Isle of Man! Personally, I agree that some people may not be suitable for the "pressures, powers and responsibilities involved" - but to be fair, I know some 28 year olds, some 42 year olds, etc, who would fall into that category! Should we require a psychiatric evaluation as well? OK, I'm being deliberately facetious there - but the point is, unless they say they are that young (and/or show it in their discussions), how would we know anyway? And as the WMF have not seen fit to limit the age for adminship (and as of now, enwiki hasn't either), how would we stop them any way? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy solution, I'm just identifying the problem. And I don't think that a lack of an easy solution take the problem away. I think in the RfA we could place more of an emphasis on personal skills and experiences, in order to build a better picture of the candidate's judgement. I don't know what the best solution is, but I do think that even without identification, we could do better with our scrutiny than to let pre-teens through. But I accept that even if the RfA process were to improve, there is still potential that certain young people could get through. IainUK talk 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No you're not. It's a fictitious problem. There are plenty of grown adults who are not mature enough to handle some of the burdens of adminship on en.wiki. If we took your cunnilingus argument, would that mean that we would require Hugglers to be of the age of majority to revert vandalism on that article? Frankly, the many things that people think "children" aren't "fit" to handle are comparatively rare and often have to be dealt with by non-admins. We have no way of telling, short of identifying to the WMF, if someone is 7, 12, 18, 21 or an alien from outer space. Most people judge candidates based on their contributions rather than some arbitrary age threshold (and whose age of majority to use is another argument altogether). Basically, you're inviting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, especially since most young editors show their age one way or another and tend not to do well at RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... so you're suggesting that the candidate's skills and experience in real life should be evaluated? The first thing that comes to mind for me is that they could very easily lie about it. Again, as stated above, it'd be hard to enforce. Airplaneman ✈ 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one comment: Forcing underage admins to go underground reduces the amount of protection we can offer them. Not that they should say how old they are, but they should not feel obliged to state they are over the age of majority in order to ensure passing RfA. This will exacerbate the problem, since there is quite a large percentage of editors under 20 and if we make them all feel like they must be older to be accepted we are isolating a huge amount of our community- and those who need support most. sonia♫ 01:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've written on this issue before, as it tends to come up from time to time, and I wish I had a link to what I said previously. The substance of it was that it is right that we judge our contributors by their contributions and their anticipated future contributions, rather than by their chronology. That is the attitude I hold toward all positions on Wikipedia; even the limitation that one must have attained majority to be a checkuser or an oversighter or more recently an arbitrator is in principle a derogation from that principle, though an understandable and (at least in the former two cases) a justifiable one.

Our teenage adminstrators (I don't know of anyone who's made it at as a preteen) have all the responsibilities and the powers of any other administrator. One of the responsibilities of any administrator, though—I have written this in arbitration decisions—is the obligation to self-select from among all the administrator tasks that our hundreds of administrators must perform, those that he or she chooses to perform. For the most part, this selection is based on one's individual aptitudes and abilities, of which age may be a part as much as anything else.

For example, suppose that a finely balanced AfD must be closed dealing with an obscure topic in, say, vector calculus. In general, an administrator who knows nothing of vector calculus will generally not be well-suited to closing the debate and would better leave the matter open for someone who does. It does not matter whether the reason the administrators knows nothing of vector calculus is that he or she is an English major who has never studied vector calculus, a senior citizen who has forgotten vector calculus, or a high-schooler who has not yet reached vector calculus; the impact is the same.

Relatedly, I have strongly urged some younger administrators to steer clear of dealing with certain types of situations, such as users who have made credible legal threats, and leave those to the admins who are chronological adults to address. In my experience, most of the younger administrators, who believe strongly in the equality of their status within the project in numerous other respects, are perfectly willing to accept advice of this nature. Similarly, there are topic areas that I myself would not address for reasons unique to myself, such as disputes on issues that could impact directly on clients of my law firm. It is not the minors alone who need to use good judgment in recognizing when they should stay clear of some particular editor or some particular subject or some particular dispute.

The other aspect of the impact of administrating Wikipedia that's often raised, is that we can agree it's undesirable for a younger person to spend too much of his or her time administrating, or in editing, Wikipedia (or doing anything else online). But it's almost as undesirable for an adult to make the same mistake. When I see a long chain of quality edits from someone who is obviously a younger editor, I find myself thinking that this individual is improving our encyclopedia and hopefully learning something valuable in the process—but I also find myself hoping that he or she is editing Wikipedia in what would have otherwise been his or her video-game time or social-media time, rather than his or her book-reading time or ballplaying time. I've given that advice on a page that I wish had a little more prominence, and I hope that some folks are taking it to heart. But I don't think it's something that we can paternalistically enforce at RfA time.

And I, at least, would be a hypocrite to try. Too many years ago, I was the stereotypical nerdy kid with the glasses, who might thumb through some interesting articles in the encyclopedia to wile away some time on a rainy say. (Sadly, sometimes, perhaps even on a sunny day.) I can only ask myself with wonderment how it would have worked out I'd had the opportunity to participate in creating the encyclopedia, whether through writing the articles or providing administrative support to those who do. So in sum, while I appreciate the good intentions of those who raise this issue time and again, I see little upside and much downside that could follow from changing our policies in this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As a point of interest, what is the age of our youngest administrator? Furthermore, I suspect that users under the age of 13 years old may legally be unable to hold a membership without parental consent (certainly the case on child-oriented websites), which I imagine that the Wikimedia Foundation is already aware of. Esteffect (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm says on his User page that he was 11 when he started editing Wikipedia, and he was an admin within a year - so there's one example of a preteen with admin responsibilities and powers. I don't have time for a long reply, but I would like to say I'm all for encouraging young editors, I just don't think they should be given admin status - for the points given above. But I accept it would be hard to manage, however I think we could manage a far better way of scrutinising RfAs. IainUK talk 01:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If Malcolm was an admin, he doesn't appear to be one now, and I know of a few others. It would be interesting to see the reasons why. There a re also other teens who have been admins and are not now. Perhaps a bot could work out how many teens and preteens have been given the bit and then had it taken away again.--Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm... [1] Malcom's an admin. Courcelles 04:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ilyanep - admin at 11, 'crat at 12. And still here with 7 years of editing under his belt. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I remember him being around in 2005-2006. A lot of websites do have a "You can't be under 13 years old for legal reasons" sort of requirement, though, so I'm wondering if the higher profile Wikipedia that we have today could really allow that. Esteffect (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The "you can't be under 13" rules are because of COPPA: if your website is requiring users to provide personally-identifying information, there are a number of hoops you must jump through to collect it from children under the age of 13. It's simpler just to say "nobody under 13".

Wikipedia doesn't require users to provide this information. --Carnildo (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. COPPA applies only to commercial websites and online services. Kingturtle (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda: At this rate of editing he'd need another twenty years to even consider approaching request for adminship. Ah, he already is? The point: examples from the past don't always help in understanding present-day realities. Anointing wikipedians with meager editcount was once acceptable. Now it's not. "Consensus" on age may just as well change, regardless of any examples from the past. East of Borschov 07:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Brad, I couldn't have said it better. Age should not be a factor in determining adminship here. If an editor can prove to the community that he or she is competent in Wikipedia policies and related matters, cordial and willing to learn, then that should be enough. Admins have no high-level authority or access, i.e. access that checkusers have. Being an admin is no big deal. Kingturtle (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So far the only "argument" in favor of discriminating against admin candidates who are children I could determine is that this position might require them to read material unsuitable for children. But that has been refuted above already. Apart from that argument, do you have any others that are not simply "I think it's wrong" rephrased? Disclaimer: I, like most of those above, do not care about the age of a candidate if they have proven their maturity (just as I would oppose an immature candidate who was older than 18 years) but I'm curious why exactly you think the biological age is a relevant concern as opposed to their actual mental age and maturity. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Judging "mental age" or "maturity" by whatever someone posts here makes about as much sense as judging their gender, or income group. In fact, children are quite used to being told off, and usually try hard to fit in with whatever they believe the behavioural norms to be, so arguably have an in-built advantage at RfA. In truth though no rational person can possibly argue that 12 year olds are mature in any meaningful sense of that word. That you or others may be willing to be deceived into believing that they are does not affect that simple fact. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, recently, someone has pointed out that an admin was abusing/attacking an user's divorce and appearance, all in an off-wiki forum. The admin, who was previously desysopped, became an admin again after their 6th RFA (and that was conducted this January) where they received 55 opposes, and 181 supporters who, for one reason or another, trusted the user's judgement. My question is this: would it be so impossible/difficult to find a minor (eg; 12 years old) who has better judgement + maturity than that displayed by this particular example? If it's not so impossible/difficult, would it fair to discriminate against a minor due to their age? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, can you explain why all minors should automatically be considered immature? I understand that you and others feel that no one can argue that minors are "mature in any meaningful sense of that word" but simply stating this as a fact does not make it an argument. I have known 15-year olds that behaved completely like 20 year old adults and unfortunately more than a few 20 year olds that behaved like 12 year olds. Regards SoWhy 17:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You have set up a straw man, but what's worse you mischaracterise those who do not share your rather peculiar view of biological development as discrimination. Is it your view that western governments are discriminating against 12 year olds when they do not allow them to drive motor cars, take out loans, or buy alcohol or cigarettes? What about handguns? Is it discrimination not to allow 12 year olds to carry concealed weapons? Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Malleus, the fact is that all minors are immature by their very nature. They aren't adults. Thus they are immature. They may act mature, some may even look it but biologically they are immature. Aiken ♫ 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously most, if not all 12 year olds, are not fit to do a lot of things, be it IRL or on-wiki. But I also appreciate that users who are more open to the ideas of making specific exceptions in specific cases can argue it is a form of discrimination - treating them differently on the basis of the one characteristic that is out of their control (though I'd say it's worth arguing that the different treatment is not necessarily unfair, if at all). Incidentally, one can only ponder over the question of age in regards to Wikipedia matters given that a lot of users don't reveal those sorts of details. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to SoWhy: Because by any objective measure they are immature; neurologically, physically, and emotionally. To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of all available information. Surely you don't find the argument that because someone can pretend to be mature (however you're defining maturity in the wikipedia context) then they are mature, are you? Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Until we develop a magic wand that allows us to tell when how old somebody is simply by what they type into WP, we will have to go with what we've got and trust/hope that grossly unqualified or immature candidates will be filtered out by RFA. I imagine if I had tried RFA when I was 12 my first attempt would have made me very upset and turned me off WP forever. Most 12 year olds can't handle that level of harsh criticism of their actions. Neither can a significant percentage of adults. The ones that can are welcome to go ahead and be admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn! Malleus won't let me get a word in edgeways , he's said everything for me - again.--Kudpung (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There have indeed been many problems caused by child admins. There have indeed also been many problems caused by adult admins. Disputing this is pretty foolish. Sensible people will usually agree that as a general rule 12 year olds are not well suited to positions of responsibility. Sensible people will also usually agree that there are exceptions to the general rule. There's probably nothing to be said on this issue that hasn't already been said many many times. Friday (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite. There's never going to be any agreement on it. People have their own opinions and standards and that's all there is to it. Aiken ♫ 16:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that never in all of my time here on Wikipedia has such a thread disgust me to the point that I must make a comment in some group's defense. Society as a whole has come up with an arbitrary age that proves one's maturity. I cannot go one day without seeing a "You must be 18 years or older to call", "Must be 18 years or older", "No minors allowed", "You cannot do X, have possession of Y or have a driver's license until Z" statement. And that's not counting comments like "Because by any objective measure they are immature; neurologically, physically, and emotionally.", or "I just don't think pre-teen children ought to have the responsibilities and powers". This "age of majority" varies from nation to nation or from state/province to state/province and this fact alone under-minds the effectiveness of determining the maturity of a human being through their days spend on this planet. Who are we as humans to determine how or when nature will make another human fully "mature"? One fatal flaw that this project continually makes is it's overall discrimination of so-called "minors", "children" and "adolescents" who's very nature of being in such a category are determined by a certain group of people who are considered "adults" by the law, which as I have stated before, is subject to change between different regions. In the middle ages for instance, "kids" were considered adults by 14-15 and some had children of their own by 15-16! Sure there is a link between one's age and their maturity or lack thereof but people cannot group every single "minor" into the category of "being immature" yet several people do it on this site and in the real world everyday. It is this fatal flaw in our system that will one day come back to haunt this project. I cannot stress this enough, we are driving away this Project's future contributors and many people's sefishness and narrow mindedness are preventing them from realizing it.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you not considered the reasons behind age limits? We can't very well say "You must be *this* mature to do this..." It's not measurable. They're convenience, and like it or not, children are biologically immature.

As for driving people away, if children are driven away because they couldn't get adminship, then it's probably better they weren't admins. It's not about being selfish, it's about considering the project's best interests. Would you want children running Wikipedia? I know there are many teen admins, but generally they aren't noticed because they don't act their age. What it comes down to is personal opinion. Some just don't like the idea of it. I'm not one of them; as long as the editors act like a mature adult, they may as well be one for all I care. Aiken ♫ 16:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Passing or failing an RFA is not what is driving them away, it's comments like the one's that I saw above that are. I understand the reason behind age limits but they are for things that could actually result in injury or death if handled the wrong way. Adminship, Bureaucratship or even this new "vandal fighter" proposal are not life threatening and the implementation of "age limits" on such petty things is quite frankly, overkill. Sure Children are biologically immature" but that does not make all children biologically immature.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have said some abuse the fact that NPA and CIVIL are basically ignored on RFAs. It's definitely unpleasant but it happens to every unsuitable candidate.

Some consider Wikipedia to be a like a professional workplace. It isn't, but they think it is. Would you see a 13 year old working in, say, an office or factory? Would it be appropriate? Bear in mind Wikipedia is not a "petty thing" - it's one of the most visited websites in the world.

'Sure Children are biologically immature" but that does not make all children biologically immature' Actually, it does. There may be some who are physically and mentally mature, but biologically they are not. Aiken ♫ 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. I see excellent candidates being mistreated in RFAs all the time. some pass and others do not. Furthermore, what does "biologic maturity" have to do with the ability to push a few extra buttons or do other things that people want to restrict here?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that you have swallowed the fiction that being an administrator is just about pushing a few extra buttons proves the point far better than I ever could. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just a figure of speech Malleus. While adminship should be considered "not a big deal", in reality, it is to some extent. I have not "swallowed" and "fiction that being an administrator is just about pushing a few extra buttons" at all and you know that based on your interaction with me.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This 'children' thing is very arbitrary. Anyone who has researched their family history will almost certainly have found ancestors about 150 years ago at work in the mill or the factory from around 12 or 13. Out in the country, children on farms worked from a younger age. Two of my ancestors were working in the family trade (bootmaking) from around 10 years old. The age of consent at the start of Queen Victoria's reign was 12. Children were only barred from purchasing alcohol at the start of the 20th century. Boys as young as 14 could enlist in the army or on board ship up to about 1880 - my great grandfather and two of my mother in law's uncles enlisted at the age of 16. In the Falklands War, at least one member of the UK merchant marine who lost their life was only aged 16. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Were those ancestors in charge of the old factories and mills they worked in, able to hire and fire? Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was introduced to a 12-year-old yesterday and I thought wow he could be a Wikipedia editor. Seriously, I forgot how young 12-year-olds are! Being an admin requires discretion and judgement. There is a reason you have to be over 18 to run for office. The fact it would be hard to prevent really doesn't make it any less wrong. And I like the flowery theory of age is just a number etc. but no, seriously now, kids are kids! IainUK talk 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIR, please. If they can do the job, go for it; if they're immature and unclueful, GTFO. Competence is required. —fetch·comms 02:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Via my friends and family I know a number of teenagers, adolescents, and younger children. Some would be perfectly capable of editing Wikipedia and I believe would do so responsibly, others I wouldn't trust to do so seriously. Age is not in my view the prime consideration here, yes people tend to become more mature and responsible as they age, but they do so at different rates. Of course Politicians when setting rules for driving and drinking have to take cognisance of age as a variable, both because it is available to them and because unlike us they don't have the luxury of being able to make a considered decision on each individual. ϢereSpielChequers 11:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there potential of us running afoul of the US internet privacy law that protects those under 13? FWIW, I was an admin at 15 (5 years ago) and didn't have any major issues with adminship. There are probably some things that younger editors should probably defer to those older to do (dealing with pedophiles, dealing with users that have been known to issue death threats, etc.) as a matter of safety, however. --Rschen7754 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow-moving edit war over A3RO's recent votes

See also: Wikipedia:ANI § User:A3RO

It would be ideal if the community came to a consensus as to whether recent votes by A3RO (talk · contribs) should have a #hash mark before them, or if they should be :indented. There's a slow moving edit-war ongoing across several RFAs. –xeno^talk 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A3RO has been blocked, not banned, and there appeared to be opposition to a ban before the discussion was closed. I'm not comfortable indenting !votes of blocked editors. I'm far more comfortable leaving it to 'crats to decide how much weight to give to individual !votes. TFOWR 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I initially thought we should indent it, but responding to and indenting trolling only increases the drama. If someone writes a silly oppose, it might just be better if everyone stays quiet. There are no prizes for passing RfA unanimously (perhaps to re-inforce that we should consider leaving out the "count" from our chronology pages). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the user in question has opposed at Fainites', Dabomb87's (mine), and Nikkimaria's RfAs. The !vote is currently indented at the first, and is counted as normal in the last two. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether one considers it a prize, or appropriate, there is the listing at WP:100 (nnn in unanimous support). Whatever the outcome, the votes should be treated in a consistent manner. –xeno^talk 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there some big secret set of extra admin buttons you get if your RFA was unanimous? Mine wasn't, so I'm just curious if I've been missing out on the "nuke wikipedia" tab all these years. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes me wonder, what does Special:Nuke do? Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This tool allows for mass deletions of pages recently added by a given user or IP. Input the username or IP to get a list of pages to delete. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people like Pedro and me can see that page, so it can't be the secret unanimous-support-hidden-page-prize. ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I should not have heard, I heard that the first rule of the secret admin button is: do not talk about the secret admin button. They never did tell me what the second rule was... –xeno^talk 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's the same as the first rule. --John (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, if you got through unanimously, you get the t-shirt with "administrator" spelt correctly rather than the one which is spelt "adminnistrator" - or was that just my shirt? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indenting votes made before a user is blocked just reeks of dishonesty. X! has twice in a few days shown that he does not have the judgement to be a bureaucrat. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indenting votes made simply to be disruptive is appropriate regardless of whether or when the editor is blocked. Resolute 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your mind reading skills are clearly superior to mine. I do not presume to know what the motivation of any editor might be. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

These kind of comments are not appropriate. He was clearly being disruptive, and now he is blocked. Please drop this issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So how exactly was the vote disruptive? Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The user disrupted numerous AFDs and RFAs with ridiculous, rude and nonconstructive comments. It was obvious trolling intended to result in a response that it has produced numerous times. This is disruption. Unfortunately, this discussion is also part of the problem because it is encouraging the particular user and future trolling.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The user has disrupted nothing at all; it is editors like yourself who are being disruptive, by insisting that oppose votes that will in the end almost certainly be discounted should be removed because you don't like what the editor has said elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That they posted vague or odd comments to multiple RfAs is a description of what A3RO did, not how it's disruptive. The act in itself is not disruptive. In a process decided by consensus (RfA is not a straight vote), where the closing 'crat is supposed to weigh up the arguments on each side and gauge consensus, one perturbing vote is not disruptive. To call it such is speculating on A3RO's motives. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then you should unblock the user since you don't believe he did anything wrong.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought not to encourage wheel warring and instead try listening to what's been said. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment is not necessary. You seem to have a civility issue. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, this proves my point. Anyways, comment as you will, but I will cease to feed your trolling encouragement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you is de facto incivil. I suggest that you try consulting a dictionary. The civility issue is one that you ought to consider very seriously yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors who have trolled RFA, XFD, etc with useless arguments have long been blocked for being disruptive. The issue is not the vote count - indeed, anyone capable of becoming a crat would simply ignore A3RO's comment, but as we've seen in these RFA's, repeated useless comments create side discussions of no value, "slow moving edit wars", ANI reports, etc, and waste everyone's time. That is a textbook example of being disruptive. No mind reading skills are necessary. Resolute 01:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TFOWR in that blocked users should not have !votes indented (unless they're specifically blocked for disruptive comments at RfA, obviously). As the blocking admin said here, the block was not just about the RfA votes; it seems that the majority of problems occurred outside of RfA. The RfA votes were very weak as it is, and I wouldn't think they would hold much weight in the eyes of a crat. But do they have the right to maintain an opinion at RfA. If the comments did play a role in the block, however, I believe they should be indented. Indenting all of the !votes prior to a discussion regarding them was probably not a good idea. Swarm^Talk 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of users expressed that the vote should be indented at the ANI discussion. The user is blocked for the duration of the RFA. There is no need to allow the illegitimate vote to stand. Also there is no need for further discussion on the matter, as this is exactly the intent of the trolling.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The !votes were purely disruptive and should not be counted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive or not, they were not cast in violation of a ban or a block, so it should be the closing crat's decision what to do with them. People should stop indenting or removing !votes in any scenario where it's not clear-cut because that's exactly what causes such discussions and edit-warring with no benefit whatsoever. Regards SoWhy 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SoWhy, and indeed said as much a few days ago [2]. Indenting causes needless discussion, as we can see here. As I noted above, somewhat with tongue in cheek, if an RFA passes it passes - you don't get bonus buttons for unanimous support. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The user indicates here that he did it to disrupt (to be an "attention whore"), for what that's worth. Agreed it might be useful to establish a consensus position on this, with the default being the votes stand. --John (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks of this A3R0 situation, I feel it only fair to all three candidates to treat the opposes the same - ie, count them all or don't count any of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the least that these civility warriors ought to have done, but it was obviously too much to expect. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility warriors? Isn't that an oxymoron? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly it's not, because most of them are blind to their own incivility. It's rather a farce. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's be realistic here for a minute - counting it or not counting it doesn't appear likely to affect the outcome of any of the !votes. If there's suddenly a huge pile-on of opposes on one or more of them, fine, maybe we'll talk about this again then. However, consider this: if the !votes in question are disruptive, discussing them at such great length, both here and on the individual RfAs, is compounding the disruption. Count them all, don't count them all, but don't make a drama-fest out of it. If A3RO truly is a troll, then all you're doing is satisfying him; if he's not, then you're satisfying everyone who likes to point at Wikipedia's often needlessly acrimonious "debates" and snicker. </stands down from soapbox> Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The only issue here worth discussing is the judgement of a bureaucrat who felt it necessary to indent the vote of a blocked editor in one RfA but not in the others, and the credibility that gave to others who chose to follow the same path to corruption. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does this even matter? No crat is stupid enough to count that as a serious oppose; the candidates were all doing fine, anyway. This discussion is really just a waste of time, because the closing crat is the one deciding in the end anyway. —fetch·comms 02:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It matters because a bureaucrat did not remove votes even handedly. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Then someone talk to the crat, not complain about it here. It's not like a crat is going to close a request as unsuccessful due to a troll's lone oppose, struck or not. Whoever thinks it's a big deal should read WP:DENY and WP:COMMONSENSE. —fetch·comms 03:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not check that bureaucrat's talk page before mouthing off here? Has that bureaucrat recognised that he fucked up? Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I did; my point was, why was this thread not closed earlier (and why was it really needed in the first place?). Anyway, it's over. I'm going to sleep. —fetch·comms 03:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, X! re-added the #hash mark, unindenting or restoring the vote (i.e. adding it to the tally). Since consistency was achieved both ways in a trickling fashion and the candidates (to their credit) don't seem to give a toss, I suppose this can be marked resolved. Any discussion over whether (so-called) disruptive votes should be indented and what actions bureaucrats may take when disagreements or inconsistencies arise would be best discussed in a more general fashion. –xeno^talk 03:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So as I said, votes were not removed even handedly. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nikkimaria. As long as A3RO's votes are handled consistently (as they are now, after some dithering), I couldn't be bothered as to whether they count or not, given the circumstances. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the closing bureaucrat took note of this thread when closing Fainites, but they have eliminated A3RO's vote from the tally [3]. Since this represents an official bureaucrat decision, I have applied consistency to the remaining open RFAs of the same character. –xeno^talk 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Establishing a more general rule for the future

Not that this makes much of a difference to anyone in the grand scheme of things, but since it's been raised as an issue, I propose we go with:

• IPs: can't vote (existing status quo)
• Banned users: can't vote (ditto)
• Sockpuppets: can't vote; vote is removed if sock discovered before RfA closes (ditto)
• Subsequently blocked users: let the vote stand to be dealt with by the closing bureaucrat, though a short note may be appended at RfA if the block reason is relevant to the RfA (as in the case we were just discussing)

Any support for this clarification? --John (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Support Great idea!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 03:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Sounds good. Swarm^Talk 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support generally, with a dash of IAR whenever appropriate. —fetch·comms 04:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support and definitely clarifies things. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support this proposal and agree with Fetchcomms that IAR could help, in some rare cases. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 10:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support, with the "Fetchcomms proposal" too. TFOWR 13:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Somewhat support in-theory all sounds fine, however i do believe IP with a long edit history should not be excluded. Although rare there are IP's that simply refuse to register, but have a great history here. So i would say we need to say something like IP with less then 2000 edits or less then 3 months cant vote. Moxy (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, that becomes needless instruction creep. It's so simple to register and there's not really much excuse not to. If you want full benefits of Wikipedia, you need an account. Like it or not, IPs are pretty much treated as second class citizens in the wiki world. Aiken ♫ 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   I also think it's covered by WP:IAR - there's at least one RfA I can think of where an IP !voted with barely a murmur of dissent. TFOWR 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

9. Support, including IAR per fetch-comms. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. I can't vote on RFAs, but I assume I can vote on a vote about RFAs. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    Heh! You were one (of three) IPs I was thinking of, that I'd have no problem with an WP:IAR response to your !voting at an RfA. TFOWR 16:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    I tried to psuedo-vote in the discussion area rather than the support section, but I got shot down. Maybe now that I have a userpage...67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    67.136.117.132 was also in my mind, as a respected user with perfectly good reason for editing as an IP. I'd still favour an experiment to explicitly allow IPs to comment and indicate support/oppose (perhaps in the Discussion section as was attempted). At least until it was demonstrated to be disruptive, I'd rather we attempted to be inclusive, and it would avoid having to invoke IAR each time. The 'crats will be familiar with these exceptional cases, and it would give a little more dignity to valued contributors who have chosen to now edit as IPs. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    I wouldn't be against that, but I think it would require a wider consensus than the discussion here will provide. I mainly wanted to focus on clarifying the blocked user vote indenting issue that one or two folks have identified as a problem. --John (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed, John, and I apologise if I gave the impression that I was trying to coatrack it onto this discussion. It was merely something that occurred to me, and I felt might be worth flagging up for the future. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    No need to apologize, it's a good idea; hasn't it been discussed before though? --John (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

11. Support -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support --Rschen7754 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• It may be worthwhile to amend the proposed clarification to "Subsequently blocked users: let the vote stand to be dealt with by the closing bureaucrat". This would prevent edit-warring by RFA participants while the RFA is ongoing, and allow the closing bureaucrat to exercise discretion based on the unique situation. IAR would of course, be available, as well as discussions at WT:RFA regarding instant cases. –xeno^talk 14:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, amended. --John (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes versus !votes

Just an idea to shoot the breeze - could one way of de-dramatising RfAs (particularly those that are close to unanimous and there are one or two opposes) be to reduce the extent to which it is considered an exercise in voting? Should we consider:

• Not recording the final "tally" on a closed RfA.
• Not recording the final tally in the chronology pages.
• Not recording RfAs on WP:100.

It is, after all, not meant to be a vote. So why have a formal tally? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If other people are like me then they: 1) Enjoy numbers and statistics; and 2) Think that recording information is superior to not doing so, whether it be for historical or statistical purposes, for gauging trends, etc. That's what I think the purpose of the numbers is. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with point 3; not with 1 or 2 though. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, RfA wouldn't be a vote at all, but at present it's so transparently a vote (as compared to how similar group weigh-ins are evaluated) that this wouldn't be productive. Tne voting aspect needs to be tackled before removing the tally will work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Access Denied. WP:100 is an achievement based solely on number of votes one receives. While some pure "votes" (such as "# ~~~~") may hold no weight in a 'crat's eyes, the fact they count towards an award is ridiculous. Swarm^Talk 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:100 is an award? My RfA's on there, do I get a certificate or something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure is! Just email me your bank information and I'll have your certificate sent to you right away! Swarm^Talk 04:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA is a vote, and it seems to be meant to be a vote for the sake of consistency and fairness. +80 passes, -70 fails, anything in between the bureaucrats make a random decision based on which bureaucrat you get and what they've recently read. But for some reason, enough of the community imagines RFA as a consensus-building exercise to block this reality from formally being recognized. Townlake (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Duh, it's a vote. User:MZMcBride/Memes#X is not a vote. And, I like numbers and statistics and whatnot. Anyway, RfA seems to be going great these last two weeks. Maybe if the Signpost runs another article, we'll being voting more and more every day (sp. !voting?). —fetch·comms 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not true. There have been cases of -70 passes, depends on how popular you are. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been bouncing in and out of RFA for a couple years, and I can recall one that passed with under 70. There may be more recent ones, in fact there probably are, but they're sure the exception to the rule. Townlake (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have much opinion on the whole voting and tally thing, but I think it's worth recording things like percentages and number of participants etc because, as 67.136... says, they can be useful for measuring trends and things, for example to see how RfA has changed over the years- from Jimbo's "anyone who wants sysop, just email me" to holding every mistake anyone has ever made against them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any benefit in these proposed changes. But I think it would make RFA more of a serious review of a potential administrator if some of the incivility and and the more spurious opposes were removed by the closing admin. It isn't unusual nowadays to find me in the oppose column at RFAs, but sometimes it is embarrassing to be in the oppose column. I hope that every oppose I've made has included a clear civil explanation as to why I think the candidate's contributions indicate that they are temperamentally unsuitable or not yet sufficiently experienced for the role; Sadly I don't think that all opposes are both civil and diff supported. I suspect that such opposes make it easier for candidates to pass with little scrutiny by discouraging other more serious opposes, and prompting supports along the lines of "I find the oppose section unconvincing". Also looking at the proportion RFA candidates who use pseudonyms, there seems to be something about the system that deters editors who edit in their own names from running. My suspicion is that it is one thing to have an RFA on the internet under a pseudonym that you only use for Wikipedia, quite another to have that in your own name. So a cleanup by the closing crat might make the process more inviting for editors who use their real names ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it makes much difference whether running under a pseudonym or one's real name. I edit under my real name (well, my 2 initials and surname) and I went through 2 RfAs, both of which I found rather gruelling (though the second far less so than the first), but I don't think I would have found it any better or worse under a pseudonym or as User:Harry Mitchell. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding WereSpielChequers' observations about pseudonyms: That's an interesting point. I wonder if the proportion of pseudonyms you see among RfA candidates would mirror the proportion of pseudonyms among the general population of editors? Like HJ Mitchell, I also edit with an abbreviated version of my real name (initial plus the Croatian spelling of my family name). This is deliberate to foil google searches for my actual name. I hesitated to start an RfA for myself for many reasons (the main one being, why be a janitor?), but I must admit that if my account used my full real name, I'd be unlikely to nominate myself at all. I don't really know why the idea makes me uncomfortable, but for me it isn't "something about the system" as WereSpielChequers suggested. This is just a personal view to contrast with HJ Mitchell's. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:100 is a trophy, just like people consider Did You Know? entries as a trophy too. Esteffect (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have stats to reinforce my perception that realname accounts are rare at RFA, though I think it would be an interesting if complex task to measure this. Of course accountnames that appear to be a realname may not actually be so and some accountnames that look like pseudonyms are actually based on realnames, so its hard to be definitive. But I've approached quite a few possible candidates about running at RFA and I have had candidates editing in their realnames who've been reluctant to run because of concerns about having an RFA in their realname on the internet. I'm not sure if the fact that I have a driving license is publicly available, but I'm pretty sure that there is no blow by blow account of the test, let alone one including the question I fluffed, and my driving examiner was rather more courteous than some of our RFA regulars. ϢereSpielChequers 16:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to hear that it an issue for some people. When I chose my username, I had no idea what RfA was (or what an admin was), so I certainly didn't expect to be one a year an a bit later. Is there any particular reason (general question) people might be more uneasy about an RfA under their real name than about editing and being involved with WP generally under the same name? It's interesting to note that one fairly new admin had a username change not long after their RfA from their real name to a pseudonym, but there must be a fair few admins who edit under their real names or, like User:Thumperward, openly disclose it on their userpages. I guess there's be no way of gathering stats on it without interviewing every single admin and hoping they're honest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I can hypothesize one reason: employer snooping. An RfA candidate may fear being found by his/her employer, and the employer may assume that an admin on Wikipedia, as opposed to a regular editor, equates to a time suck that impacts the employee's productivity at work. I'm self employed so it isn't an issue for me, but I can see it becoming an issue in a job search, because the first thing employers and recruiters do for an interesting applicant is Google the applicant's name to see what comes up. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"an admin on Wikipedia, as opposed to a regular editor..." - wishful thinking. Most personnel clerks (of the advanced variety that can type in google searchbox) wouldn't know or even see the difference. East of Borschov 14:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that hypothesis was the only explanation I could come up with. I'd say it depends on the organization. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One option is to have a very common name, John Smith or whatnot. Also, I went through the successful RFA archives. Of the 1515 successful ones between January 1, 2005 and now, 140 appeared to be using a full name as their moniker. That's 9.2%. 174.52.141.138^{Also 67.136.117.132}22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, I wonder how that compares to a random sampling of the general population of editors? I'm willing to bet that the proportion won't be statistically too different. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would be reluctant to use my real name on Wikipedia, even more so as an admin. I'm not worried about employers (or friends and coworkers) discovering my participation in the project; I am worried about the harassment to which I would be exposed from the population of individuals on the Internet (including, unfortunately, on Wikipedia) who range from 'slightly loose screw' to 'totally insane'. Even before I ran for adminship, I received an entirely earnest confidential email from an editor who cautioned that certain articles were monitored by Russian security services, and that I might be endangering my safety by reporting the truth about Russian government actions. I have been harassed and threatened on-wiki for years by a disturbed individual whom I blocked for sockpuppetry and abuse; if my real name were linked to my account, would I (or my employer) be receiving real-life hate mail? I know of at least one case of a current admin who has encouraged off-wiki harassment of another administrator. Unfortunately, being blocked (or even being cautioned) brings out the 'crazy stalker' in some people, and it's impossible to know who those people will be in advance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've only been following Wikipedia Talk (at RfA etc) for less than a year, and I've already heard plenty of stories about editors and admins being pursued by nutters off-wiki - and it does seem to be admins specifically that they go for. Add to that the numerous bodies opposed to Wikipedia in general, and the sites dedicated to digging up whatever dirt they can find, and I'm not at all surprised if people don't want to be admins under their real names. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I gathered two separate off-wiki harassers in 2 years, long before coming an admin so real names are a no-no if editing anything controversial. As an admin you are almost bound to be doing something someone won't like.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of my on-wiki harassers are administrators; no names, no pack-drill. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And know for something completely different

Has anyone lost the bit twice (to surrender or otherwise) and then come back for the third ring? Dlohcierekim 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, now that you mention it .... :) Pedro :  Chat  18:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Pedro, I now know why I like you...  Frank  |  talk  18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it because your sigs are palindromes? (X! · talk)  · @902  ·  20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I misspoke. And actually get the ring? If so which? Dlohcierekim 20:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a no-no, and I just know that right now it wouldn't happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you meant to say "and I just now that right know it wouldn't happen." :P ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you define it. I've only passed RFA twice but I've been de and then re-admined on two other occasions.©Geni 23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The moons have aligned...

As of right now, the percentages are 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, and 100%, in that order. (X! · talk)  · @833  ·  19:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This might very well be the best streak of RFA's I've seen in a while. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah good. Will someone please give Chicken Little her bus ticket home? After that, I suggest we take this talk page to AfD, with the process fixed, there's nothing left to discuss!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do hope that RFA becomes less abrasive in the future; however, I would need to see more evidence (successful RFA's to great candidates who would otherwise be shot down for not having 10,000 edits in every namespace) in the coming months to be convinced that RFA is 'fixed'. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone ought to tell Fainites that, as the previous RfA in the sequence, they actually passed with 101% and hence are now the new admin king. ~ mazca ^talk 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's true. I am a god.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I've seen everything. 174.52.141.138^{Also 67.136.117.132} 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like 2012 came early. — ξ^xplicit 00:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'll agree that RfA is broken. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Every time one of these big long talk page discussions about how broken RFA is comes up this is what happens. A bunch of new admins get pushed through, there is a general agreement that things aren't as bad as all that, and then the next instant there are no nominees it starts all over again. We've got to keep nominating people if we want to head off the next round of hysterics. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the suggestion that my self-nom RfA is being "pushed through". It implies that I timed it, that the outcome would be different had I nominated myself earlier or later than I did. When I saw the Signpost article about a lack of admins, it took me this long to decide to take the plunge. If it means anything, I haven't followed RfAs. I was completely unaware of the history or drama going on here. I had never looked at the discussions on this page until I nominated myself. I may have looked at one or two RfAs some years ago, I don't recall. I didn't even read examples of successful and unsuccessful RfAs before nominating myself, because I wanted to be judged as I am, not how I might want to be perceived. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Requiem for the Vandal fighters proposal

nd it came to pass that long-established Admins developed outside interests, committed to relationships, or mirabile dictu completed their studies and had to work for a living.

ii. But once again there was a drought at RFA, and the usual suspects beat their breasts, and cried that the mop should be granted without let or hindrance, even unto those who eschew the sweet pain of trying to find a Reliable Source.^{and cite it properly}

iii. Others hardened their hearts, saying that content was king and after all, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Hearing this, the crowd considered the vandalfighters proposal afresh. They saw that it had Not Been All Bad. And there was a great muttering and murmuring, but still nothing was decided.

iv. Yet from that point forward, the spirit of the vandalfighter proposal pervaded the world of RFA. Every content-poor candidate was challenged to argue why they should enjoy full admin rights when "vandalfighter" was all they needed. Few could make an effective case, so the number of candidates fell even as the need rose further and further. And the original promoters of VF were sorely troubled, because they were among the keenest supporters of Wikipedia, and could never rejoice in its sufferings.

v. In the fullness of time, vandals recognised that few editors were watchlisting minor BLPs, and that active admins were spread too thinly to work effectively on minor infringements. Some stubs were entirely unsupervised, yet indexed by Baalble after every change. A great cry was heard in the heathen citadels of 4chan and beyond: "Wikipedia is undefended", and untold multitudes arose hoping to have a laugh with the most vulnerable articles, at least until IPv6 took hold. And great was the optimism of the spammers.

vi. The foundation labored long and hard to consider the matter, and—magna est vis consuetudinis—declared that...

to be continued - as revealed to Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am awed. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 14:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• A shoe! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is it just me, or does "Vandal Fighters" sound like a Japanese video game? -- Atama頭 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Certainly a lot of New Page Patrollers think it's a game, especially when you follow their talk and the swapping of barnstars for the most kills, and biting of established mature editors ;) --Kudpung (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

signpost

I think after last months article, that a follow-up needs to happen. So far we've had 7 successful rfa's in august, with 6 more looking to pass by the end of the month. We've had 8 unsuccessful one's, but 6 of them were notnow closes. This appears to be the time to run.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Every time I see a suggestion that "now is the time to run", I think about it. And every time, I come up with the same answer: No, thanks - I'll wait until VF / clerkship / whatever passes and apply for that. I'm open to reasoned argument, but .. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent events appear to have born out my persistent contention that we do not need to drop the pass bar. For the right candidates, a pass ain't so hard after all... --Kudpung (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a follow up article is a good idea... but a "now is the time to run!" is probably a recipe to get a lot more marginal candidates. I think the crop we've currently had is reasonably good. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to burst bubbles, but I think the latest spree is over. Dlohcierekim 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• And the problem isn't over yet either. What prompted all the bruhaha of the sky falling over the lack of admins was a stat showing 799 active admins. Well, as of today there's 802 [4]. I.e., not much change at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I like to think that the signpost article tempted a few very good candidates to run, and there are various other ideas that have come out of this. I'm not around much the next few days, but I'm thinking of writing a follow up article for the signpost after next. I'm confident that there are a few more editors from 2006/7 who we can persuade to come forward, but the real trick will be persuading the the editors who started in 2008 and early 2009 to run. ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely look forward to a follow-up, as this has been an issue I have been following most of this year. I (being that I started in 2008) wouldn't even consider adminship at this point, I simply wouldn't be willing to go through a zoo of an RFA until I felt absolutely confident about it (if ever). You'll have a heck of a time persuading others from that time period to do so (hopefully some qualified ones indeed do come forward) Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

August is looking a lot better than March did. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it certainly does look like the Signpost article has done a lot of good - it was a nice piece of work - and I think a follow-up could well help to carry the momentum forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers, perhaps your next article could cover why one would want to run. If you want sell something, tell people why they should buy it.--ClubOranje^T 12:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll

Foregoing archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 200#799 active admins

I've just done a quick read of this thread and, well, to be frank, it's not clear just exactly how many editors here think the above-mentioned concern is legitimately a problem. While indeed voting is evil, I believe in this instance, it would be beneficial if we could have a quick show of hands. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who believe the lack of active administrators is a problem

1. I think that both choices here are too black and white: it is not a huge problem, but it is certainly not not a problem. The backlogs are there, WP:AIV, CAT:RFU, the white and blacklists, &c. I'm also not saying that there are no other solutions possible left and right, but it remains that some actions need to be done by very established editors, and a lot of those things need to be done with an admin bit .. and I believe that that needs a steady, significant influx of fresh admins. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. In some areas, such as AE I see a fairly small circle of admins carrying a rather large and, I imagine, demanding workload. It takes time and ability to get sufficient reflexive command of our policies and a feel for 'what works' and how to ensure that actions are interpreted as being constructive that fewer 'new' admins could spell trouble down the road as we look for as Beetstra says very established editors. Unomi (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3. It's already a problem and it will get worse. The lack of admins puts an extra load on the currently active ones and this can lead to admin fatigue. Sure, it would be nice to have more successful RfAs but one more question we should be asking ourselves is "how do we keep the current admin corps?" Also less admins means an increased perception of power. Pichpich (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
4. It is a problem insofar as it keeps causing lengthy discussions like this one, distracting people from improving the encyclopaedia. :) More seriously, I do think we could generally use more admins in many areas - we certainly aren't at the point where we can see 'we've got enough admins' - and in that sense, the dearth of admins is a problem. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Per Robofish. Often times, it takes hours to have an RPP request actioned, by which point, lots of vandalism and BLP violations have taken place. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Intermittent backlogs; too much workload for dedicated admins; less patience for handling disputes and teaching our wiki ways to passionate but disruptive editors; danger of group think without a steady influx of newcomers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Close to disasterous, we need dozens more rright now! Bearian (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who believe the lack of active administrators is not a problem

1. It is not yet a problem in terms of backlogs, though possibly in terms of community health. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. It doesn't seem to me to be a problem right now, because everything seems to be working ok -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3.  – iridescent 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Not a problem (unless we consider the amount of time spent on this perennial discussion). It is overly simplistic to believe that the number of active admins is a useful barometer, especially when we see that at least 701 of those 799 active admins also appear on the list of most active users in the history of Wikipedia. If the project actually starts to suffer in a way that is directly attributable to the raw number of active admins, we'll figure it out then. In the meantime, we should pat ourselves on the back for being part of a project that continues to improve.  Frank  |  talk  12:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Well I have just looked at my usual haunt speedy deletions and there is no backlog. Any daily backlog which builds up there always gets removed when America wakes up (recently the level for considering it a backlog was reduced from 75 to 50, I have no idea why). I then noticed someone commenting on this page about AIV backlogs so I thought I would have a look and I noticed AIV was empty and there is nothing for me to do there. Because I work on European time I only ever seem to get a small handful of really difficult AfD decisions left for me so I rarely close AfDs as a newish admin, unless I can devote a spare 45 minutes. Polargeo (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
6. I'm yet to be convinced that admin-related backlogs are currently any larger than previously, when there were more active admins. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
7. The decline in the number of active administrators is merely a consequence of the decline in the number of active editors. We should get used to the idea of wikipedia having fewer edits and fewer editors. Fewer admins is a not overly concerning result of that. However that does not mean that I don't think RfA "standards" can be a little high some times. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Yet to see any firm evidence that there's a problem. We may not need as many admins as a going concern as we did as a startup, especially with advances in bots.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Don't even see that there is a lack of admins. If there is a slight one, it is not a problem yet. Or at least no more so than it used to be. (X! · talk)  · @052  ·  00:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
10. I see the occasional backlog at some of the areas I look at, but even if we had 10 times the number of active admins, that will still happen. Some admins go away for a while and come back (for example, I've been away for pretty much the last month and a half, due to the birth of my son - that's been more important than Wikipedia!) - real life takes precedence over enwiki, but that doesn't mean that all our "non-active" admins will not be back! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Admittedly I've been more busy in content space, so am not sure that there have been any admin-related backlogs of ongoing concern, but suspect there haven't been (??) However, I do believe there is an issue in lack of active admins in pages with ongoing sanctions and difficult areas (at least there was when I was an arb and I suspect that still holds true). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
12. I don't think the quantity is an immediate problem. My greater concern is the quality.--Kudpung (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the number of active administrators continues to decline it will at some point become a problem.

1. Yes. We need enough admins to do things like delete pages and block vandals. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes. Clearly it will, if it continues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3. I am afraid that this is obvious. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Well, um, yeah. sonia♫ 09:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
5. -- Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 10:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Unless we find a way to replace them with a very small shell script. Unomi (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
7. It is hard to put one's finger on a "problem", but I find it problematic that a small number of administrators are handling a large majority of the tasks. We are all susceptible to burnout and if numbers continue to decline, increasing workloads will fall upon those that remain - in turn causing more burnout - in turn causing more to reduce activity or leave - in turn causing more burnout on those left - and so on - eventually we may enter a tailspin from which it will be difficult to recover. –xeno^talk 13:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Eventually. However, I don't think it's simple to quantify how many we need, even as a proportion of the total number of active editors, due to increased automation of certain admin tasks and increased complexity of policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
9. In the longer term. We're at the stage where we have the luxury of actually experimenting with the adminship process (rather than contemplating) without the pressure of having to get it right first time. We don't have to take it, but if we do not, then as a collective we will be fools for not doing so. The notion that people will voluntarily lower their standards at RfA is nonsensical. Alas, the way wikipedia works, you will never get consensus on change unless all but two options have been categorically ruled out. And judging by people's attitudes to change, one of the options would have to be "do nothing", which is usually popular. --WFC-- 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
10. As of now, the number of active administrators is not a problem. However, if this decline continues it could eventually turn into a problem. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Of course it will become a problem. I think once we're below 500, we'll be in the shit. You can only ask so much of users before they crack. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    That would be a good thing though wouldn't it? It would force the system to change to a more rational system of governance, which clearly won't happen otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    Judging by what happens in other projects, once we drop below functional levels the foundation will step in and appoint sufficient admins for this project to function. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    Which is the opposite of desirable, as the community may have no say, and candidates whom have been rejected previously could be appointed. Esteffect (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

12. Does anyone have any idea how much of the admin workload is fixing problems caused by IP editors and newly-registered accounts? If those problems ceased to happen, how many active admins would be sufficient? - Pointillist (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Eventually. This is years away, though. (X! · talk)  · @052  ·  00:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Eventually. Connormah^talk 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
15. It would. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Isn't this stating the obvious? Even if the number of active administrators was declining by 1 a year, "at some point [it] will become a problem". However, I do not think that the problem is anywhere in the near future -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    The decline is more like 100 a year. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

17. Clearly Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Agreed with this view. Orderinchaos 16:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Yes, eventually. Having fewer active admins around could potentially result in higher average amounts of workload for the remaining active admins, and there's only so much that one individual admin can do. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Theoretically and broadly yes. Not sure what number is the critical number though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
21. It will eventually if we are not able to make the process less humiliating, and more objective. What we might get is more quantity but a drop in quality.--Kudpung (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Yes, but the Vandal Fighter proposal is not a solution. Esteffect (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Obviously, absent any rising number of admins to counter the decline, it will more or less become a problem. Wait, aren't declining numbers of oversight always a problem? There won't be any people left to block vandals! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
24. The trend for the last couple of years has been disheartening; March was a particularly bad month with only 2 successful candidates out of 26 (December and January were pretty bad also, with only 6 of 26 passing in each month). August looks like it will have a much higher than 50% success rate, and if the current nominations close as expected, we should have 13 successes (not to jinx anything). That's at least a return to the 2009 norm, so unless this relative "boom" is a fluke we may see the trend reversing. -- Atama頭 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

    This relative "boom" is likely to be a response to the recent Signpost article, and so is unlikely to represent a long term reversal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

    I thought about that too. I also thought that maybe seeing the success rate would encourage other people that "you can do it too". I guess we'll see. -- Atama頭 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

25. Yes, it will become a problem at some point. Probably sooner rather than later, given that Wikipedia continues to grow in size and popularity. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
26. We need people to maintain order. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Makes sense. How soon it'll be a problem is another matter. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
28. This obviously makes sense. I have a few suggestions which may help: Why not make smaller, but similar permissions (user group rights) which can be given to non admins to perform such tasks? Rollback was originally an admin tool, and I believe, if they don't as yet exist, the deleter right, block right and other such rights may help. Otherwise, maybe a group of 'crats could work together with Jimbo as a team to promote highly active users into admins, with little or no community consensus. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    How about a set of requirements for the user to meet to help with that promotion team? Additionally, admins could find such users who meet the requirements, and recommend them to the team for adminship approval. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 13:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    This has been extensively discussed already many many times. I suggest you spend a little more time on wikipedia (say 1 year) before coming to any conclusions. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

29. Obviously. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. The wording of the options above is faulty. There is not a clear lack of active administrators. Sure, if the number of active administrators fell to 4, one could assume problems would follow. But the wording of the first two options above suggest where this poll is intended to lead the reader. Townlake (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   The last sentence is entirely true. --WFC-- 14:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Agree that the wording of the first two questions is flawed and intentionally or unintentionally comes off as a Push poll. Third question is pretty obvious. Going to have to decline to participate. Jusdafax 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   I added the third option because I thought the poll with its two options was at best a distraction. Of course the difficult thing is that we don't and can't know when the decline will turn into such an embarrassment that the foundation will step in and appoint admins as I believe they've had to do on other wikis. There are so many variables - how active are the admins we have, how evenly spread are they in their hours of activity, whether we can somehow make admins more efficient, or use bots for some of the things we need admins for. My fear is that we will get over-dependent on a small number of hyper active admins, and when they get burned out or overwhelmed we will need a lot of new admins to replace them. But unless we change direction we will at some point hit a major problem, and it would be good to get that agreed or flush out the reasons why people disagree. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

2. I agree with Townlake, and furthermore, insufficient research has been completed on the issue. We need more info on: "how many admins there are on Wikipedia in total", "how many admins have left Wikipedia", "how many admins took admin actions each month", "how many actions have been taken each month, and the reasons for any decreases or uninvolvement from certain areas by each admin", "the reasons why certain veteran admins have never entered certain areas", etc. etc. This data then should be compared with the RFA stats. If we were to elect more admins who are going to be unwilling to enter those areas where they are needed, or who are unlikely to have sound judgement in one or more of those areas, then I wonder what the point is in worrying about how many admins are elected each month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
3. I don't see the problem. New users come (like me), and older users move on; big deal. There will always be talent coming and going. All we can do is nourish the new and experienced users and hope for the best; this is an open and unpaid project afterall. Tommy! [message] 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   The issue is that we have an imbalance and the number of active admins is falling rapidly, and what few new admins we have are rarely new users. We have almost no admins who joined us in the last 18 months and few who joined us in the previous 18 months. This isn't an issue of turnover, this is an issue of decline. ϢereSpielChequers 10:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

4. I agree with Tommy2010 that there is always turnover in online communities, and we need to “nourish [both] new and experienced users and hope for the best.” And I also agree with Ncmvocalist that further research is required (my boss once said that if you cannot measure something then you should forget about it). Bwrs (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is in fact a lot of discussion and info gathering underway at the moment (for example). Although it might be locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, at least it's a start.--Kudpung (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A very important question

I have wondered this for a long time. Why is it that almost everyone who comments in an RfA puts their !vote in bold at the beginning of their comment? It seems rather redundant, since there are already section headers that say what all of the !votes are in each section. Does anyone have any ideas as to why people do this? And I apologize in advance for wasting everyone's time with this rather trivial question. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Some believe that bureaucrats are swayed by the Oppose, Strong oppose, Strongest possible oppose from the Master of the Galaxy nonsense that so many seem to be tempted into. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the formating break helps me quickly get an idea of how things are going, find the start of each !vote, especially when my eyes are going numb. Dlohcierekim 21:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard an ancient legend that that's when you're supposed to get off the computer, but I'm sure it's just a myth. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No doubt it's just a myth; there's no way that could be true. And Malleus, what do you mean "some believe"? I thought that everyone believed that? Are you saying it isn't true? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've tried it when voting here in the UK, where we still do it by putting crosses on bits of paper. No matter how hard I press on the pencil, my vote only seems to count as one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Teh sooper sekret burakat formula assigns a point value to the strength of the bold, the length of the initial support/oppose comment, the time of day, the barometric pressure, and the "uberwikiness" of the commentor. So, for example, If Dweller giving a Support is 5 points, then Bastique giving a Master and Commander of the Galaxy and Universe, and BEYOND!!!!!!! support is worth 500 gazillion points, auto-sysop, auto-crat, and the keys to the executive washroom in the OTRS lounge. The aforementioned is solely humor and has no resemblance to the truth. -- Avi (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just a convention from other voting venues, such as AfD, where the "keep" and "delete" arguments aren't segregated. Then it's easier to identify them by the boldface word. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably to do with the fact that RFA is a vote (though everyone pretends it isn't). At AFD (which is not a vote), the comments are usually bolded still, probably a habit from the days when it was one. What really bugs me is not the adjectives so much, it's when people "switch" from Oppose to Strong oppose, or whatever - as if it makes the slightest bit of difference. Aiken ♫ 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes a big difference. In two ways. One, it influences other !voters, who may be persuaded by arguments put forward. And secondly, bureaucrats have from time to time noted that adjectives are helpful in tight decisions. --Dweller (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

However, the difference it makes may not be what is intended. An editor voting "Strong Oppose" makes me approach their argument with greater scepticism that I otherwise would. What annoys me especially is editors voting "Strong Oppose" (typically with an aggressively phrased rationale) on obvious NotNow RfAs - that's playground bullying behaviour. CIreland (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right and particularly where they switch to strong oppose after they fail to close per NOTNOW [5]. just rubbing salt into the wounds :) Polargeo (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"...bureaucrats have from time to time noted that adjectives are helpful in tight decisions..." Dear me, I hope not. What happened to looking at the arguments presented and the consensus found? Aiken ♫ 13:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what they're doing. --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For example: if a large number of participants weighed in as "weak oppose", then an RFA in the "discretionary zone" is more likely to be closed as successful as a result. This is confirmed quite often by bureaucrats in closing rationales. –xeno^talk 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though for the sake of clarification, the adjective isn't the end-all/be-all; obviously, a !vote of "Strong Oppose I dislike the shade of orange in the candidate's signature" wouldn't cary as much weight as "Weak Oppose Candidate states that they want to work at AfD, but their answers show that they don't understand our deletion policy." The adjectives are usually reflective of the comments that follow them, which is why we've got three 'crats here (myself included) saying that they pay attention to them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

...so I can stick with the dark oranje then?--ClubOranje^T 10:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• A bold one or two word summary at the start makes it very easy to read diffs in isolation, whether reviewing via the page history, or by a user's contributions. This applies equally at RFA and XfD. Also, as per Dlohcierekim, this formatting style is much easier on the eye than a wall of uniformly formatted text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Playground is indeed the operative word, especially when you check up on the !voters and question posers and realise just how many of them are children.--Kudpung (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

<sigh of contentment>

Delighted to see six RfAs running and even more delighted to see them all currently "green". A pleasant interlude in a decidedly awful day. --Dweller (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, today's weather alone is enough to make it a dreary day, let alone having to work an extra three hours at work. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's perhaps what happens when those who might oppose are chased away, or their arguments dismissed by bureaucrats. I've long wondered why wikipedia doesn't just ban all oppose votes as disruptive, unless the candidate is generally unpopular of course. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the current surge of good candidates coming forward is nice. One might even pretend for but a moment that the overall atmosphere at RfA has changed; that RfA is now a pleasant, fun, world of positivity :P. Swarm^Talk 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That'll be the day. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAICS from the recent unopposed RFAs, it's a piece of cake when candidates have sufficient content skills in addition to the traditional process and policy experience. - Pointillist (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It also helps to block unpopular editors expressing unpopular opinions. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the system is far from perfect. But there's aren't so many dodgy admins active nowadays, and over the past two years content has become more necessary for candidates, so I think things are going in the right direction. I'm beginning to accept that promoting unpopular opinions on wikipedia requires more planning, intelligence and self-control than I'm prepared to invest day-to-day. If I had that much self-discipline, I'd rather get the benefit of it in real life than here anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, it is in perfect order: [6] —Soap— 12:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hooray, RFA is officially no longer broken! :-) Aiken ♫ 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Its great to see the number of active currently active RFAs rise to near the 2005-2007 average. But I think we need a little more than that spike before we can consider the drought over. I'm hoping that August will see the highest number of RFAs of any month this year, and it could even reach the 2009 average. But we'd need to have a month of RFA having 5 or 6 in the green before I'd accept RFA had been repaired. ϢereSpielChequers 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to have 12 successful RfA's this month. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 20:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We unfortunately don't have all greens anymore. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks like all RfA needed was a little promotion. Ever since that Signpost article more editors are aware of other ways they can help improve Wikipedia. Maybe it's not that people fear RfA and that's why there was the drought, it's because RfA wasn't getting good enough PR. -- œ^™ 03:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GSorbyDesroid opposes

were much more civil and helpful than others I've seen it previous snows. I thank the participants for that. Dlohcierekim 13:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Although all snows should be like this, I think it has a lot to do with this user's potential. With a lot more XP and some guidance, I'm sure they would make a great admin in the future. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely..by the way, Tyrol, an anon (probably a toll) found your oppose and thought XP was hit points or whatever it means and I reverted it. Recommend writing out experience :) Tommy! [message] 18:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call, I hadn't even thought of that when I wrote it! Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG... EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Solution against the broken external links: back up the Internet

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. WP:VPT is the place to be. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For two years, http://wikiwix.com allows the French Wikipedia to read the external sites, which URL are in its article, even if they're stopped, thanks to a link [Archive] after each URL. Today they're proposing to extend their backups to us, and it's working on the French Wiktionary. Could we please get a consensus to install it here? JackPotte (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you want to seek consensus for this request here instead. –Grondemar 21:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it. The Village Pump is definitely the place for this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Done, sorry for the initiative but the last time I found the idea important too, but I was completely ignored. JackPotte (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of articles created

One of the latest excuses to oppose somebody is by pointing out they created "only" 7 articles, or whatever. What's the purpose in mentioning this? What's the ideal number? 10? 50? 50,000? And here's when it gets silly: what if all 7 creations were of FA standard? Doubt the opposer bothers to check this. But, if they had 50,000 creations of unsourced BLPs, it wouldn't be an issue at all. This is a very poor way of evaluating a candidate indeed.

I'm just bringing this up so that hopefully people will become aware of how absurd it is, and stamp it out before it becomes a fad reason to oppose with. Aiken ♫ 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just what I'd expect from a user who has only created 8 articles. BigDom 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So you agree with quantity over quality? What is the number you require? Aiken ♫ 13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We all know it's sometimes hard to tell, but I think that response was very much tongue-in-cheek.  Frank  |  talk  13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Spot on Frank, I wasn't being serious! I do like to see evidence of article creation, seeing as a successful candidate will be "in charge" (at least, they would like to think they are) of article builders and vandal fighters alike, but I don't have a value set in stone. BigDom 13:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah that's good to know. I think some article creation is good, but pointing out "only" seven articles as an excuse to oppose when the candidate has GAs and FAs to their credit is a bit pointless. Aiken ♫ 14:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, quality is definitely preferable to quantity (says the user with over 1400 creations...) BigDom 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as we are talking about one or two opposes I would just go to their talkpage and discuss it with them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is inaccurate; users with many unreferenced BLPs have been earned opposition for this. –xeno^talk 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm seeing a big problem with people valuing quantity over quality. They would rather see a high number of low quality articles rather than a few good quality ones. Same with edits to articles - some choose to make lots of little edits, and others one big edit to improve articles significantly. The latter would be penalized because they didn't have a higher number of edits. Ah well, it's always another reason to say no :) Aiken ♫ 14:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think sometimes we are too quick to think "His name is on the first revision" equals content creation. Well, it can, but it can also undervalue those who take existant crap and whip it into compliance with norms, or take something in reasonable shape to a GA/FL/FA standard. Both of those are quite legitimate content work, and a candidate who does a good deal of that can show very few article creations. Courcelles 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very true, and in fact I think it's significantly more difficult to expand an existing article to GA or FA than it is to take one there from scratch. Perhaps a better metric might be how many of those created articles have amounted to more than a sub-stub hill of beans. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just another weak oppose (see discussions of the last weeks about that), and the 'crats should simply ignore these in their verdict. If oppose reasons don't span further than that .. let me be clear, I know spammers who have created more than 7 articles, all deleted, it is easy to create 50 articles without references on hardly notable people, just to get your count up. There are editors who create 1 or 2 articles, and have a helped on a number of GA/FA articles. There are editors who have neither, but still they do know the policies and guidelines, they have done a lot of work on articles which will never get to FA/GA. This type of counting just does not say anything. Yes, it says something if someone has only created articles which are all deleted, or when there is no proof at all' that an editor has ever significantly expanded a handful of articles, or brought articles to FA/GA, or created articles. But seeing them separately is not a reason to oppose, and I am afraid that such opposes are mainly done when there is nothing else found (these numbers are easy to find ...).

The issue is, that sometimes I have the feeling that following !voters pick up on one mistake or one bad point, and then the opposes start to pile up, all on the same reason. Ah well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread was created based on my opposition in a recent admin application Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Connormah_3#Oppose I would like to remind that the number of articles created was not my only problem. Please read carefully my opposition: it's based on number of articles created (7), DYKs (1), GAs (1) (although it seems like it might be two) and FA (1). This is too little for an admin applying in 2010. I know a plethora of contributors who have way more than that, and those should be the ones running the show. My oppose may indeed be a weak one, but I consistently need the help of admins in content related disputes. The best contributors in that area are people who are substantial contributors. However these people are drawn little to adminship because they don't want to dirty their hands with the job, which sometimes is quite demanding. As a result the creation of content in Wikipedia suffers and the quality of it depends on the people who insist the most with their edits. I find it very hard to have people come and review an RfC. I would like to see admins run there and be the first to give their opinions. I would also like a better functioning Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, but it seems like admins are little drawn to these things. I don't like admins who just use the tools to block and ban people, I would also like to see mentoring skills in them. Why can't we have more leadership skills in admins but only police like behavior? --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"This is too little for an admin applying in 2010". I don't agree at all. It is possible to be familiar with content/articles without having achieved status on certain articles, or created n articles. I actually agree with many of your points, particularly about admins who act like police officers. But opposing candidates like the one mentioned won't actually help the situation. That particular candidate has the experience. Not every person wants to be an admin, and I can think of numerous article writers who wouldn't ever apply. Penalizing those who do apply, when they have experience in what you want, won't help anything. If you want article writers as admins, persuade them to run. Aiken ♫ 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't it obvious? Anybody who doesn't meet certain special standards are grossly incompetent. I've uploaded just one image. It's obvious I don't have a frickin' clue about images, how to license them, use them, etc. Also, 17% of all of my edits have been deleted. That's just not possible unless I was a vandal creating all sorts of useless, rapidly deleted articles. I've also created just one article that actually stuck. I don't have any FAs, or even GAs. I have less than 50,000 edits, and I only have four barnstars. I'm incompetent. I should be blocked, as a threat to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, only one image?? Aren't you that guy that spends most of their time on here dealing with images? :-) Aiken ♫ 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ayup. I'm obviously grossly incompetent in that arena, having uploaded just one image. Of course, my point is the idea that you can judge a person's ability by how many articles they have started is ludicrously absurd, and anyone that attempts to apply such a metric to an RfA vote should be laughed off the forum. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think most of the questions and objections on these things are pointless and stupid and the whole RFA process has become needlessly officious and pedantic. It's certainly a lot of fuss and palaver for something that's supposedly no big deal. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that admins, like janitors, can make life quite uncomfortable if they want. It then takes a great deal of fuss and palaver to de-sysop them (there was an admin last year who had been blocked twelve times before his bit finally got cleared). Calling adminship "the mop" or "no big deal" doesn't reassure editors as much as it used to. - Pointillist (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely, which is why insisting applicants have at least N articles created to their name will provide a cast iron safeguard against such miscreants. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't buy the "article created" test at all. It is making articles encyclopedic that counts: just being the first person to create the stub doesn't automatically make you a better person. Anyway, improving other people's work is a better test of admin readiness. Someone who only creates articles from scratch wouldn't have the experience of interacting with others. Some content experience is a necessary condition for adminship, but it certainly isn't sufficient. - Pointillist (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why "What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?" is question 2 is beyond me. It really should be a late additional question. Kingturtle (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It's a way of asking what the candidate thinks is important about the project; and it tells the voters (I'm not going to pretend that this isn't a vote) what they've done to advance those goals. While I think think focus on you must have 1 FA and 3 GA and 2 DYK... is harmful, I don't think the question as posed is problematic per se. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume that Kingturtle here was being a bit cynical .. Indeed 'What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?' gets completely ignored when editors are plain counting number of articles created, and counting number of DYK, FA and GA's anyway. That question should plainly be replaced by 'How many articles did you create, how many of those did you get to FA or GA, and how many did end up at FA or GA at the end, how many DYK did you have (any of the new articles?), and in how many other FA or GA class articles did you participate? (hint: if you have less than 10 articles here, and your number of DYK, FA, GA is less than 2 each, or less than 5 in total, then don't bother to go through this RfA)'</massive dripping sarcasm>. This is just plain absurd. The editor creates articles, the editor worked in the field of FA/GA/DYK, do we have any doubt that such an editor is not understanding (and following) our core policies and guidelines (well, I generally don't read that from such opposes)? If all these numbers are 0, sure, then that might become a question (but still, then go by the answer of Question 2, and look at what they are proud of and what articles they significantly worked on ..). If that plain counting is not accompanied by some form of "I can't find any significant content creation, and you've not worked at a good handful of articles expanding them significantly at all, I can't assess your knowledge of our policies and guidelines" then such plain counting opposes should be plainly ignored by the 'crats (and I really hope they do).

As TenOfAllTrades says, and repeating my earlier point, this type of opposes is harmful, I have now seen a couple of RfA's in the last couple of weeks (some did pass .. and I am happy about that), where you see one opposer finding one minor point, and suddenly the opposes pile up .. 'as Opposer X found that one mistake, I have to oppose as well.' (hint: we all make mistakes, and most are not fatal (even when made as an admin) .. if the mistakes pile up, perpetuate, or the editor/admin will not acknowledge the mistake .. thén it is a problem, but one mistake (amongst a significant number of similar edits), even a relatively big one, is not a serious reason not to trust the editor), it is nitpicking. I repeat, and that is what I said in earlier discussions regarding the slowly declining number of active admins as well, those counting criteria are over the top (if they do not look at any other significant content creation which is not related to the plain creation of articles, DY/FA/GA's etc.), the majority of those criteria sets are totally incomplete anyway (they are teinted strongly by the fields one works in, totally ignoring any other fields where the to-be-admin will have power (even if they say they will never work there, well, some to-be-admins say they are not going to delete articles, but they still will get that power, and still opposes arise of the type of 'does not get involved in AfD's'); and believe me, I have seen the admins dropping by in those areas on which they were not judged in an RfA); if those were strict expanded that set to all fields the admin has power, >95% of the editors should never, never pass; 6 out of the 7 that are now open would NOT pass my criteria by FAR (funny: guess which one would, actually), they all miss, IMHO, crucial experience in an area where they DO get the power (and I actually don't trust them there ..))!

It is about 'trusting the editor to know the policies and guidelines and not to abuse the powers'. A measure for that is NOT plainly counting the number of FA/GA/DYK/created articles .. c'est le ton qui fait la musique, not the length of the track, not the number of notes used, not even BPM rate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dirk, I salute all you said :) The article count only counts if vote counters take the trouble to take into account the quality of the counted creations. Far too many of them are indeed a 'sub-stub hill of beans', and unsourced or badly sourced BLP. It's not about the number of FA/GA/DYK, it's about content, basic format, and naked URLs and about candidates who expect someone else to come along and clean up for them - it's like prefects and fagging (British English) in in a British boarding school of the kind I went to. There is no excuse for promoting an admin who doesn't know, or won't apply the basic principles of article creation, and a !voter who !votes simply to outweigh the well founded oppose! votes based on such principle, is a hypocrite. There are too many active admins who I would't vote fo today, and a great many who would SNOW by today's thankfully high standards (even if those standards are based on the wrong ideals). Yes, it's about trust, and if we can't trust an editor to respect the rules of creation, how can we trust them to respect the rules of the tools?-Kudpung (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not, actually? The far lesser standing rank of "autoreviewer" requires 75 articles created. If one sysop equals ten autoreviewers, this will make a nice rounded threshold of 750 created stubs, no less. It's not that difficult. East of Borschov 16:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And here we go: Are 50 stubs "better" than a full-time review of an existing article?

IMPO telling me that someone has created too less articles is just a lack of arguments. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer is just so you don't waste npps' time, right? If someone is a pure vandal-fighter or npp or something why bother with autoreviewer? There would be no point in asking for autoreviewer if you weren't creating lots of articles. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To continue your point, the trouble starts when "someone a pure vandal fighter or npp" not known for anything else applies for the coveted delete button. And all the hell of "personal check lists" breaks loose. Make the informal article creation hurdle mandatory, like the infamous unwritten edit counter. East of Borschov 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not sure I've understood what you mean by that, but anyway:) I not convinced an article creation count is helpful, but if we are forced to have one, it should require that the new article has sufficient reliable sources to prove notability and no "unsourced BLP" concerns. Any new article that didn't satisfy those requirements should arguably count as a net negative at RFA. - Pointillist (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled aka Autoreviewer is indeed an efficiency whitelist for newpage patrol, if I were not an admin then I doubt if I'd qualify for it. So if some people want to increase the status of those who widen the pedia by adding new articles as opposed to deepening it by improving articles; May I suggest that instead of opposing candidates at RFA who wouldn't qualify for the Autopatrolled flag, you argue for Autopatrolled to cease to be part of the default admin rights (and start a convention that admins can't give that right to themselves). ϢereSpielChequers 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are in violation of a policy so obvious it isn't worth linking the page in question. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you refer to as obvious. Could you link it? Jonathunder (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to question the more basic point of requiring article creation as either a formal or informal criterion for adminship, by looking at the issue in two ways. First, isn't it possible that the focus on the creation of articles is something that becomes ever more difficult as Wikipedia grows? That is, let's imagine you're someone like me, who's content area interests are not in entertainment, sports, India, Africa, or any of the other areas that are either still desperately in need of major articles or are continually expanding with new topics. How would I go about creating new articles? For me, maybe 5-6 years ago it might have been easy to find new topics to write about, but now it's far more difficult, I'd have to create articles of more questionable value/notability, and would have far more difficulty in finding enough reliable sources for the article to meet my own standards. I'm not saying that there aren't a billion more articles to create, nor that the number of articles needed will ever significantly decrease, but merely that the topic areas in which those articles will be needed is not necessarily a set of areas of equal appeal to everyone.

Second, could someone explain to me the supposed fundamental connection between adminship and article creation (and/or improvement to GA/FA status)? Does that mean there is no place for an admin who works at the encyclopedia primarily from the other direction--that is, whose value to the project is in keeping out the bad stuff, rather than bringing in the good stuff? Or, alternatively, an editor who is good at improving articles from poor to decent quality, but isn't necessarily interested in the step to go from decent to outstanding? And, finally, since improving most articles to that level requires access to sources greater than a simple internet search can provide you (i.e. JSTOR, LexisNexis, a serious library with books in a language you understand, etc.), isn't requiring such work a way of biasing adminship towards a certain socio-economic class? So, why is that part of WP work considered so important that lack of it means an automatic denial of adminship?

Apologies if I'm bringing up something that was addressed long ago; feel free to just point me to some archived discussion if that's easier. I'm just trying to understand how/why the community seems to value certain things more than others in RfA decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a totally fair question. I've opposed a number of people who have practically zero involvement in the article space despite having some very good contributions elsewhere (these are almost always editors who confine themselves entirely to reverting and reporting vandals). An administrator has to know the ramifications of his or her actions before they can make informed decisions with the tools, and how those decisions will affect article development. When there are two editors, each one claiming that the other is being disruptive, an administrator might have to look over the edits they're making to make a decision and if one of the two editors is plainly not doing anything to improve the article then that should be taken into account. An experienced article creator would be better able to recognize who is actually being productive. Aside from a lack of knowledge, there's also often a lack of empathy... I'll admit up-front that I'm a lot more lenient on an editor who is being very productive compared to an editor who has done very little to improve Wikipedia, even if both editors are currently being disruptive in the same way. I think that administrators should show more leniency for that reason, because ultimately we are trying to get an encyclopedia built. An admin who doesn't get involved in that side of things would be less likely to cut a break for a productive editor. I often make the analogy of the baseball umpire who has never played a game of baseball in his life; he may know the rules inside-and-out, but wouldn't you feel more confident about an ump who knows what it's like to play the game? -- Atama頭 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good analogy, Atama. - Pointillist (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I suppose there are as many different POVs about content contributions as there are editors who !vote at RFA, but fwiw I've never considered raw article creation or DYK count when participating. I believe "improving articles from poor to decent quality" is a great value to the project, even if it doesn't reach GA. Your work on Kevin Hart (poet) is developing well: if you can deliver something like that every few weeks you shouldn't have much problem with content opposes if you ever go for the mop. - Pointillist (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)