Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 211

Archive 205

←

Archive 209

Archive 210

Archive 211

Archive 212

Archive 213

→

Archive 215

DAGNABIT! RFA is working again...

Looks like a candidate is cruising to an overwhelming pass. I'm not feeling the lack of anyone we dinged...more that we dodged bullets and kept standards high. Being a moderator on this site IS A BIG DEAL.  ;-)

TCO (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

5 days to go, you've probably jinxed it now! AD 21:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope we don't promote any moderators.... I don't mind giving somebody a mop and asking them to wipe up messes, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well there are some OK people, no jab intended, but I was just over at ANI and they were more interested in drama wars than Main Page template help. Walks like a duck, quacks like one. It's moderating a website...TCO (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I was willing to help with your template request but had less than 20% confidence I wouldn't break something. 28bytes (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You are a good guy.TCO (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Howcheng needs a helper though. Have had to bug him several times in a row on things (other).TCO (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't have moderators on en.Wiki, but some other Wikipedias call their admins librarians, or directors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that way my RfA is playing out means that the process not broken. I've read every single RfA (pass and fail) since 2009 as part of my analysis for WP:RfA reform 2011, and I found myself more aligned with the passes than the fails. However, as one of my old teachers once said - "Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean you are intelligent, just that you are good at IQ tests". It doesn't change the fact that editors have quit over RfA, and I can tell you that the two opposes have had an effect on me, I have certainly had bad faith thoughts with regards to them. I can only imagine how hard it must be to have an RfA where the majority opposes. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So you can imagine how I felt for a week on my RfA ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

People gots too much "want to be a moderator" here. And if they don't want to be part of the community unless they get to be one, I say good riddance. You want a radical proposal for RFA? Eliminate self-noms. Maybe require an admin or even a crat to nom someone. You'd still let the community check on candidates (although lots of sites just have direct appointment of moderators) and cut down on some of this wannabe a moderator crap. And the people leaving with the big black boxes were weak tits. We dodged bullets with not accepting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If only someone would suggest something like that. There's discussion on it already, and I think that it's well thought through. Also, if you require a nom from an Admin, it leads to a proper clique... When my RfA is over, I'll be writing a bit of an essay about nominations, I've got some ideas there. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything wrong with self nominations. What the candidates should do however, is is read this at least six months before they want to run for office, and what we should do is introduce a low bar to prevent the very obvious NOTNOWs from wasting their and our time. Wikipedeia is not an Internet forum - it's the world's 7th largest web site, is an an encyclopedia and not a social gathering, and does not appoint moderators. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Two RfCs for allowing bureaucrats to remove the admin bit

Two related Requests for Comment are now open to discuss giving bureaucrats the ability to remove administrator user permissions under specific circumstances. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag proposes enabling the technical ability for bureaucrats to do this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy proposes the specific policy conditions under which they would be allowed to use that ability. Please visit both RfCs to give your input. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not broken enough

We have 3 candidacies heading to overwhelming passes. I even opposed one (I oppose a lot though). I actually don't feel inclined to exert some evil troll stir things up power...but even if I tried, I think they would all pass. What is wrong? TCO (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not bad, but I would like this even more. jorgenev 01:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the reason is that many candidates are ready by the time their RFA comes along. To gain adminship, you do not need to be a perfect editor who has never made a mistake in your life. You need to have a clear understanding for the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Adminship is not a godlike status, it is a set of tools.Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

RFA is a 7 day process, so to average one new admin a day as we used to, we need the norm to be 7 in the green at any one time. 3 in the green would have been a unusually poor day in 2005-20007, especially in a month where its day 13 and we've only had 1 success so far. RFA is broken in various ways, but not so broken that we can't get a trickle of over qualified candidates through. Three at the same time is better than it has usually been in the last couple of years, but it is nowhere near what it was when RFA was healthy. ϢereSpielChequers 12:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a moderator a day! But there are a lot of articles that need work. Even core articles. TCO (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrators are not moderators. All they have are several extra tools that allow them to perform maintenance tasks. These tools could be damaging to the encyclopedia, and that is why we have a process to determine if a user can be trusted with the tools. Granted the process is indeed broken, but until we decide on a better solution we are left with this broken process. And yes, there are many articles that need improvement, but that is not what administrators are for. Administrator candidates don't need to know how to write Good and Featured content. While it is useful to have knowledge of these processes, administrative work is about maintaining the encyclopedia, not building content. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak on TCO's behalf, but perhaps they were arguing from the opposite position - that people should get on with article-writing instead of pushing for adminship.

Personally, I tend to agree with your point - the admin tools seem to be more about maintenance work which is (at least partly) orthogonal to writing high-quality content; maybe the production of high-quality content is not an appropriate metric for good admin candidates. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, though, Wikipedia is supported by volunteers. We are all volunteers, and as volunteers we volunteer in the things that interest us and we are good at. I, personally, am not good at writing; even when using sources. The ambiguity of describing a concept escapes me and I struggle a lot. I enjoy maintenance work because it seems like the policies and guidelines surrounding them are more concrete. To ask a volunteer to do something they have no interest in seems counter productive.

I understand some of the folks who want to see content work in administrators, but I dont think anyone should be poorly judged outside of that context for not contributing to articles more. If I was required to contribute to article space to be an editor, I am not sure I would volunteer here. I would find it more frustrating because of my mind's limitations to portray concepts in prose and that would eventually drive me to leave the 'pedia. That I can come here and tweak minor fixes, a few CSDs here and there, offer an opinion, and maybe add a few citations to an article really is what I enjoy doing as an editor. It gives me a few hours a day to relax my mind and work on what I feel are the no-brainers. I am considering getting involved with reviewing GAs, starting with DYKs first, because I can apply policies to existing articles and review them. But you'll never see me write a GA quality article. I simply lack that talent.

Unfortunately, my career goal is to eventually be a science fiction writer so this lack of talent is a giant road block for me. Perfect example to my point right now is Jimp who primarily works in templates. I dont feel it's fair that he's being judged on article work. His interest is in templates, he's devoted extensive time into them, and asking him to do something else that doesn't interest him is counter productive and hurtful to the encyclopedia. His current niche requires administrative tools to be effective and he should be granted those tools.

My point is, we need to keep the volunteer attitude in mind when we judge folks. For someone like me who gets involved in deletion discussions, and CSD tagging, I understand why contribution is important. For someone like Jimp, I dont feel it's as important. Wikipedia benefits best with editors doing the things they enjoy and are most passionate about.--v/r - TP 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

TParis, I couldn't agree more. Very well put. Tyrol5 [Talk] 11:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Count me impressed. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 15:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a new moderator a day, but we could certainly use a new admin a day. The more admins we have the closer we can get to the ideal that admins are just editors with a few extra tools who occasionally mop things up. More admins also means using our volunteers time more efficiently - once a vandal has been reported to AIV every additional vandalism they do before they are blocked is a waste of editor time. I think we now have consensus at RFA that adding referenced material is a basic skill that pretty much every serious candidate should have, but going beyond that and requiring high quality content from our janitors risks judging them on the wrong criteria. We've had a number of prolific and effective vandalfighters leave or dramatically reduce their editing as a result of either the "must have significant contributions" argument, or worse the "automated percentage is too high" lobby. I think if we ever got to the point where we had to ask every FA nominator to do 5 hours huggling for each article they nominated at FAC we'd regret discouraging our dedicated vandalfighters. ϢereSpielChequers 11:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Beautifully put. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, nthing this. --causa sui (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you who do if the vandal situation stopped?

Obviously if improving articles does not float your boat (and there are HUGE existing opportunities for improvement work on all sorts of core topics, that go wanting now), then you might need to leave Wiki, as "what you find fun" would be gone. I gues you could play video games or talk on forums? Is this perhaps also the draw for the "IRC crowd" that Sandy bashes? TCO (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC) O

To answer your question in three letter acronyms: AFD, MFD, RFD, SPI, UAA, NPP, CSD .... To answer further, the help desks, user permission boards, mediation, arbcom clerking or indeed just commenting at WT:RFA for that matter. There's a lot more to Wikipedia that adds value that is not adding prose. For sure it isn't the primary reason we're here - and I grant you that editors that spend their lives commenting at ANI aren't probably embracing the "Wikipedia Spirit". But I'd challenge you to disagree that the editors whole help out at the reference desks aren't doing a bloody good and useful job - yet they don't create content.... Pedro :  Chat  16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom clerking! God that whole RFArb thing is the biggest waste of tailchasing time around! That is like the archetypal example of drama-board waste of time.TCO (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...just read the rest of your comment. Unfair of me. Yes, I think the help desks are very good value and a good way for people who value socializing over workingriting to contribute to the project. Still...I would challenge the self-referential and excess manual approach we have here at Wiki. When I see the comment about "X got there to tag something before me", I see a misdirection of goals. What really matters is what helps our READERS. Not having "stuff to do". For instance, think how BAD our search feature is here at Wiki. How much sheer volume of inquiry could be reduced with a decent search engine? [Or for that matter, how many people would find what they want, and for now don't even come to help desks, but walk away unsatisfied? Note: I DO value having the help desks...but how much better for all concerned if the response to inquiries could be less on low value items? Even justg a lower percent? And more on trickier questions.]TCO (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And yes...I get it that this is a drama board and me typing here is an example of the "sin". It's actually because I feel the "flesh is weak" urges myself, that I can understand our wanton Wikians.  ;) TCO (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If all the vandals retired tomorrow, there would still the seemingly infinite influx of completely good-faith but completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia content that floods new page patrol. And the people who do things like this. A not insignificant amount of mopping time is spent cleaning up after people who have every intention of "helping." It's relatively rare for, say, two vandals to edit war with each other. Or for a vandal to edit war with a good-faith user for long before being blocked. On the other hand, there's no shortage on WP:ANEW of good-faith users intent on improving the encyclopedia by ensuring the article they care about is the "right version". If all the vandals and spammers went away I think we'd have our hands plenty full just dealing with well-intentioned people. 28bytes (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the time has come to require user accounts. Lots of forums require that. I just think we have too many admins and wannabe admins and processes that are bought into the sheer manual work of all this crap (don't really want it to go away). But then we have a LOT of very poor content here.TCO (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's been tried. 28bytes (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There's an element article calling you...TCO (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as long as people are confused or dickish to each other I'll still have a place here. I suppose dispute resolution and helping new users write articles is also not very valuable. Alas. --Danger (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a pretty insulting and ignorant comment TCO. I'm sure you're well aware that Wikipedia isn't just made of articles - as Pedro says there's a ton of behind the scenes work, which many people happen to enjoy doing. Nothing will stop vandalism short of verifying every account, and that won't even stop it completely, so it's a pointless scenario to bring up. This just sounds like more hating of editors who choose maintenance over articles, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Real encyclopedias aren't created just by writers. There are typists, researchers, editors, publishers etc. All with an important role to fill. "Bashing" people who don't write articles is unfair when such people are often crucial to the success of our project. AD 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO, how many hours have you spent on this page arguing about how adminship is broken and every editor should spend all of their time creating or adding to articles? You state that editors who comment on talk pages/help desk want to use Wikipedia to socialize. I checked your recent contributions and 47 of your past 50 edits were not in the mainspace. 6 of them were on this page. Now, cooperation is great, and I'm not using those edits stats because I believe they are bad. I point them out because they disprove your point that only mainspace edits improve the encyclopedia. paraphrased in my own words of course, and I'm sorry if that was not your intention When you spend over 10 percent of your last 50 edits talking about how adminship is broken, vandal fighting is not as important as improving articles I would disagree with this statement, as I believe vandalism removal is an improvement, and how many editors just want to "have fun" on Wikipedia, you are being hypocritical. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I am wrong. TCO (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO, spend some time looking at the Special:NewPages. It will be a real contrast for you. You'll soon learn what a load of "£%% is created around here, and the talk of creating good content is really icing on the cake. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just can't grok it (no I did not look where you told me to look). I mean look in my sandy sandy box for the article on solid F that is under construction. That is not good shiznet?TCO (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And the award for "Most Incomprehensible Post of the Year" goes to... --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Like every large community, Wikipedia needs a whole range of people with a whole range of interests and skills in order to function. Consider the medical profession - yes, we have family doctors / GP's, and very, very valuable they are, too. And, in the old, old days, we had 'wise men' and 'wise women' and such, who did most of the medical care for their community, and did it well. But today, for many reasons, we need people whose speciality is in orthopaedics, or cardiac, or ENT, or neurosurgery, or cancer, or - you name it! The community cannot - no community can - function well, let alone brilliantly, without specialists, and who are we to start judging when one specialist is 'more important' than another? It's a team effort. Everyone who contributes, in any way whatsoever, is a valuable member of that community. Let's make sure that we value everyone's contribution to the community, even if we don't personally have that particular area of interest and expertise ourselves. We need all sorts, really we do. Possible a better example: yes, we need people to build wonderful new roads - but if we're building wonderful new roads, we also need people who are happy to make sure the signposts are easy to read, people to create new maps, people to make sure that potholes are filled in, people who pick up the litter so road-users don't break their necks in it, people who make sure that bandits aren't lurking in ambush along the sides of our wonderful new roads, people who clear the road quickly when there's a crash ... we're all important. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As a file namespace specialist, I often feel that my work is less appreciated than the work of article writers. I get this mostly from reading RfAs, where a small but vocal number of people demand that potential admins meet an ever increasing standard of content writing, an artificial bar which I myself will never reach. It hurts to know that after spending hundreds of hours clearing backlogs, often numbering in the thousands, of all manner of issues, that I will still be looked down upon by some people as being less of a contributor. There are about two to three dozen people (out of about 10,000 'active' editors) that devote a significant amount of their time to files. Without these people, who make sure images have useful descriptions, specific names, and are legal to use, Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is today. However because a large enough group of people don't understand, don't want to understand, or understand and ignore what we file workers do, there is a certain air of gloominess among the file workers I know. The motivation to stay and do what is, in all honestly, often incredibly boring work, is not very high. TCO, as you started the thread, I am going to specifically single you out as one of the "only writing matters" crowd that so often is a source of discouragement. When you start threads like this, implying one group or another isn't valuable, you hurt Wikipedia. Please don't do this again. The file workers, vandalism fighters, coders, copyeditors, template makers, portal people, photographers and performers, clerks, mediators, chapter leaders, and everyone else that plays subtle but important roles in making Wikipedia a functional and excellent project, on behalf of all of them, please don't do this again. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Really, all we have to do in order to appreciate the value of any particular kind of specialist input is to ask ourselves, "What kind of a mess would we be in without that kind of specialist input?" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't just be in a mess, there would be no Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Precisely! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Today while going through a backlog, I found two images without licenses that had been so tagged for a week. I deleted them under CSD: F4, found free alternatives, uploaded those to Commons, and replaced the image links in the relevant articles. Prose? No. Waste of time? You tell me. -- Selket ^Talk 04:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not waste of time. And far from worthless or in any way "less important". This is what I mean - valuable, vital work - and should be recognised as such by everyone. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Answering point made by Alpha Quadrant and others, I would include "people", "communication", "decision making" skills to the list of essentials for most admin work. "People" skills helps interpret/understand situations that they are stepping into. Communication and people skills makes it much more likely for the decisions/ actions taken to have the intended effect. Also a strong sense of duty...that handling it properly should and does override all other considerations, tendencies and emotions. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This point is rather moot because the vandal situation isn't going to improve unless something drastic happens. (And no, I do not support forced registration.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think forced registration would reduce the need for vandal-fighting-administrators? - Pointillist (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think forced registration would reduce the need for vandal-fighting-administrators? But it would create a need for paid content creators. I really wish I could find an article on the number of edits by anons compared to edits by registered users, but Wikipedia would lose a lot of content creation if anons were forced to create accounts. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I don't think your suggested ratio of edits would be a meaningful statistic. It doesn't measure anonymous contributions by editors who either (a) already have a registered account but aren't logged-in for this session, or (b) would be happy to create an account if that were a requirement. If you could filter out those two scenarios from all recent IP contributions you might find the remaining edits wouldn't be worth all the time wasted fighting vandals. - Pointillist (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A small number of people can get a job done more easily, but not as quickly. A large number of people have to jump over a lot of red tape to do the same things, but bulk means they do it more quickly. Perhaps Wikipedia has been drawn up in so much of its own success that it has simply red-taped RfA above and beyond the practical limit. Truly the limits on everything are becoming increasingly more ambitious compared to the greener, less "mature" Wikipedia from 3 to 5 years ago, and RfA (and FAC, somewhat) are just case-in-point. ResMar 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

But the articles are BETTER now! It kinda blows me away that you see participation as the goal of Wiki rather than the product. Srsly. Step WAY BACK and consider this. Do you want to go back to that "let's put on a show" time and just have crap product?TCO (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why we had this lengthy discussion not too long ago (still trying to figure out how to implement it). We're not all lost; some of us (like myself) happen to enjoy doing work that benefit from use of extra tools (I'm not an admin, and I wouldn't consider running until at least next year, but it'd streamline my NPP work a lot). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some intensive NPP again over the last three or four days. It won't show in the logs because I have been leaving the obvious 'OK' articles for others to patrol. There are no statistics that can measure the quality of the new pages unless they are properly tagged for attention and recorded in the cats that the templates automatically augment. The sum of the exercise is that almost all the articles I patrol are fit for deletion from one process or another and a disturbing number of those that have been visited are tagged with the wrong CSD templates or have been passed as 'patrolled' when they should have been tagged for some reason or another. Just tagging articles with an 'orphan' or a 'no cat' tag is not helpful.

I personally believe that there is too much emphasis on getting new editors to join Wikipedia at all costs is misplaced. I am sure that there is no shortage of serious new editors. The problems are, as I have stated elsewhere, that good new articles are on the decline because most of the traditional encyclopedic articles have already been written, their editors and authors work quietly in the background on improvements, and the prolific creators of reasonable new articles are autopatrolled. This drop in new articles and serious editors naturally reflects on the availablity of those who could/would make suitable admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism and RfA

With yet another excellent candidate distressed into retiring after being attacked with totally unfounded accusations of plagiarism, I thought it might be useful to talk about the issues's unfortunate wiki history in relation to RfA. (unhelpful paragraph on history removed)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/E2eamon had the appalling spectacle of an excellent contributor being told by several opposers that he not only fails to make the grade as an admin candidate, but that hes not even a good editor and should be blocked for plagiarism! What makes it worse is that the plagiarism accusation wasnt merely weak, it was totally unfounded. I hope this thread doesn't upset Sandy. I participated briefly in the FA process a while back and IMO Sandy is one of our very greatest assets. She gently guides the sometimes difficult artistic personalities that hang out on the FA boards with a tact that Id say compares favourably with several senior managers earning 6 digit salaries, with the end result being our fantastic flagship content. That said, her accusation of plagiarism was worse than worthless. Its important to understand that close paraphrasing a couple of sentences is not plagiarism providing you properly cite the source. As Wikipedia:Plagiarism clearly states: You can avoid inadvertent plagiarism by following these three rules: ...Add in-text attribution when you copy or closely paraphrase a source's words"

In particular it can be good practice to stick fairly closely to the source when you're relaying technical information. When one looks at the actual four examples given in the accusation its even more clear that they are totally unfair to the candidate: Point 3 isnt about plagiarism, point 4 is arguably a case of close paraphrasing though IMO entirely appropriate, and anyway it wasn't introduced by the candidate but by another editor only the previous day! Point 2 is the worse of all:

• 2) DYK 1973 shooting in South Jamaica, Queens is plagiarized from here at least, - When one checks that out its evident that not only is it not an example of plagiarism, there isn't even any significant close paraphrasing!

Hmmm...wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare this revision to the source? I think the story is a little different in that case. I'm not saying that we should chase off everyone who shows the slightest lapse in judgment - really I think it should be pretty rare to chase editors away - but I also don't think it's reasonable to call Sandy's oppose "worse than worthless", at least not on the basis of this particular DYK objection called out.  Frank  |  talk  01:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Its deeply unethical for the project to distress candidates who have volunteered years of quality service into retiring for no good reason, and it squanders a very valuable resource. As a small concrete change, I propose we change Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter#About RfA so it encourages folk to be sceptical of oppose comments, rather than discourage the very valuable badgering of opposers. Specifically, we could change:

Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

To

When accessing how much weight to place on 'oppose' comments, extreme scepticism can be safest even if the comment is supported with diffs and made by a highly respected member of the community. Only accept negative statements about the candidate if you have personally verified them.

This may help avoid an impressive looking oppose triggering a RfA and wiki-career ending pile on, when in reality the oppose has all the analytical rigour of a squashed grape! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, although in my opinion a simple change in policy is not enough. Plagiarism has become the modern equivalent of McCarthyism in the WP:RFA process. Nothing more, nothing less. While I agree that those actually guilty of plagiarism should have their admin bits revoked, and possibly banned. I agree that those who libelously throw around the accusation (which can be career destroying in certain fields) be similarly punished. Dave (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I guess the flip side is most of these false accusations are no doubt motivated by a heartfelt desire for high quality standards coupled with the natural tendency of folk to make mistakes when they're working too fast. So I wouldnt personally support sanctions against false accusers unless they're very obviously intending to smear an editor (perhaps except when the accusations are made against someone editing in their real name, then there's no excuse not to take extra care). FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had some close paraphrasing issues from my early days on Wikipedia, and thus from experience can say that it sometimes doesn't even come from negligence. I was trying to avoid violating WP:NOR, and consequently made a close paraphrase. (I've since cleaned them up, BTW.) If I hadn't realized my errors and tried an RFA in January, for example (would have been NOTNOW per time active, but ignore that for the sake of argument), it would have been very discouraging to get "Oppose, you should be indefblocked!" !votes. I wouldn't have retired, as it takes a lot in real life, let alone the internet, to get under my skin, but it still would be relatively discouraging. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I can be a catch 22. If someone is out to trash your wikipedia reputation, if you don't repeat exactly what the source says you are accused of violating WP:OR. However, if you do say the same thing as the source it's plagiarism. Yes there is a happy middle ground that most of us either learned at school or figured out over time. However, at RFA, is someone is on a rant and out for blood, they can play that game. Dave (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reaper, You make a very important point about the tension between OR and close paraphrasing/ plaigurism. If all our content guidelines are interpreted harshly, its maybe impossible not to violate one of the other. I think that was recognized by the policy writing editors which is why the plagiarism guideline mentions the problem and says close paraphrasing is allowed. Except for certain scientific and technical articles close paraphrasing should rule out FA status as we like original writing but unless its done to the extreme its not a reason to think anyone would misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Stumbling across a paragraph that sounds familiar and confronting the person on their talk page who added it is certainly noble intentions at work. However, what honor is there in scouring an RFA's candidate's contribution and voting oppose at the first (and only) instance where three consecutive words from the article appear in the attributed source. I've seen a dozen or so instances in the last few years where such a thing has happened (and yes on a single instance) where the pitchforks have come out with "confess your sins now or burn forever". I see nothing honorable about that at all; no benefit to wikipedia has come out of any of these. We've lost good editors who have done absolutely nothing wrong, or made a mistake but one that's easily correctable. It's merely someone trying to pump up their wikipedia reputation at the expense of another. I'm not denying that plagiarism is a problem in wikipedia. It very much is. However, in some circles it's become in vogue to smear candidates with questionable accusations and this also needs to stop. Dave (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Didnt realise its happened as often as that, perhaps opposers to make demonstrably false accusations more than once should be topic banned from RfA then? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As I was one of the opposers, and have done so more than once, let me share my point of view. First, I'm not an admin, have never sought adminship, and have never asked to seek adminship. I've spent a fair chunk of time in the past year scrubbing pages that were plagiarized by a single editor - I've only managed to scratch the surface of the damage that's been done. For that, I've been harassed, work I've done has been vandalized, and I've asked to have my user page deleted so most of my work can't be seen. Yes, this is an extreme case, but it also goes to show that this is a serious problem we need to confront. As for the less egregious problem of close paraphrasing, in my view, there's no place on wikipedia for close paraphrasing. For one thing, Wikipedia is held in low regard by academics, and when close paraphrasing exists on pages - something a professor would not tolerate from a student - then it does little for our reputation. Rewording takes a little more time, a little more effort, but is important in my view. Hypothetically, if an editor churns out a few articles to satisfy the content criteria of RfA - and let's be honest, we're building an encyclopedia here, this is a writing project - then they should take care to do it as well as possible. I understand that often editors don't know when they are close paraphrasing, but to have those who point it out called McCarthyites is not helpful, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Truthkeeper88's comments 100%. One lesser-considered problem with plagiarism and close paraphrasing is that since we license our content for others to use, we're implicitly encouraging other people to propagate the copyright violations. Even Facebook mirrors us now. We should take copyright violations seriously in an RfA candidate, since that's the one of the main things, along with BLP violations, that can get us sued. Low edit summary percentages and high automated edit counts may or may not be legitimate things to nitpick a candidate on, but if an editor is essentially stealing the work of others by reusing their copyrighted text verbatim or almost verbatim without making it clear it's a quote, and we don't bother to check to see if a candidate has done this or is currently doing it, that puts the project at a very real risk. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not trying to deny the seriousness of close paraphrasing or plagiarism, and I fully agree with Truthkeeper88 and 28bytes. I'm just saying that the comments of "indefblock" for what was probably a good-faith mistake on E2eamon's RFA were just a little over-the-top. That said, his lack of any attempt to clean up the issue is also inappropriate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, maybe you could try to get the close paraphrasing essay promoted then; it seems to take a much more negative view of close paraphrasing than the plagiarism guideline. Id hope the attempt would be firmly rejected by the community, but if not at least it would maybe cause a relaxation of our OR policy or encourage the more frequent use of quotes. Anyway the point of this thread isn’t about close paraphrasing, its on the way unfounded oppose comments can lead to a wiki career ending pile on.FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The close paraphrasing page was completely rewritten a week ago. Given the title of the thread, what is this about, just so I'm clear? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Feyd, it's entirely possible to write articles that contain neither original research nor close paraphrasing. I'm surprised you disagree. 28bytes (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Truthkeeper88, if you feel nervous about being stalked off-wiki for cleaning up another user's plagiarism, feel free to email me about it and I'll make the edits, as I don't give a hoot who tries to annoy me off-wiki. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being stalked off-wiki, I have been harrassed on-wiki, which some degree is beside the point. The amount of clean-up is staggering - I suggest editors familiarize themselves with the cases at CCI to see exactly what needs to be done. It's a much better use of time, in my view, than having this discussion, or suggesting that editors are topic banned from !voting at RfA, which does nothing but create a chilling effect. And, ReaperElement, thank you for the kind offer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban suggestion was only for those who repeatedly make extremely serious false accusations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In your view has that been done recently? Again, I've opposed based on close-paraphrasing recently, so just trying to get some clarity here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very recently in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/E2eamon and the evidence showing this is linked to and discussed in the first post of this thread. I hope it hasnt came across as if Im trying to say folk ought not to oppose for genuine cases of close-paraphrasing (much as i would personally not oppose for that reason). FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just found it, and yes, that's exactly what it comes across as. Softening would be helpful - it is a serious issue, whether or not we want to confront it. Those who do confront invariably take a hard hit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Ive softened it by taking out the historical section, which I guess may unfairly associate opposers with the dispicable historical off wiki harrassment, which isnt fair as of course many opposing on these grounds have entirely good intentions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you (Feyd) are so adamant that there was no plagiarism in the case you quote, as it seems very plain to me that there was. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(re to Truthkeepers above). I make no apologies for my words of "McCarthyism". However, I appreciate your situation too. I suspect it comes from the fact that our experience is on the opposite side of the fence. I've only been involved in cleanup of plagiarism for articles I've worked on. I suppose I'd be more passionate in your position. However, I know of two RfA's that both Feyd and I were involved with in 2009 that had superfluous plagiarism accusations. I'm not sure which of those Feyd is referring to. However, suffice it to say, in both cases it was blatant and coordinated (via Skype) McCarthyism. The full extent of which was not known at the time, but has since come out in the various ArbCom and other hearings that followed in related and tangential issues with the people involved. There's no point in going into specifics. Most of the people involved have either left or been banned from wikipedia since that time anyways. Dave (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just one more step on the road to outlawing all opposition in RfAs. So an editor retires after having been caught out plagiarising, rather than addressing and fixing the problem. So what? Good riddance. Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Malleus, I couldn't have been any clearer that the retired editor did not commit plagiarism. Please dont waste our time defending the indefensible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Malleus is right. You've presented a case from two years ago that not everyone might know about to make a claim that the wording of opposition at RfA should be changed. As such, an editor such as myself might decide to stop participating in RfA, and quite honestly, I haven't a clue what happened in 2009, but I'm not part of a cabal out to get plariarists/ or those who paraphrase closely. I am, on my own, concerned about the amount of close paraphrasing I see here, and deeply concerned that it's elephant in the room no one wants to confront. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The case from two years ago is historical background, the reason for the wording change the pile on that followed on from a clearly false accusation of plagiarism, and the many other related instances which are effectively a serous form of slander. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Plagiarism, the first sentence states that "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit" - excuse me if I'm wrong, but I see citations to the articles of the candidate, and Plagiarism ≠ close paraphrasing with citations. Connormah (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm correcting you; to avoid plagiarism you have to attribute the material, as in "according to ..."; it's not enough to tag a citation on the end, which acts merely as a source for the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What Malleus said. If you add some text into an article, you are implying that you are the author of that text, unless you explicitly indicate otherwise. It's possible to plagiarize but not violate copyright (e.g. copying verbatim from a public domain document), it's possible to violate copyright but not plagiarize (e.g. adding an extremely long – but properly attributed – quote that exceeds reasonable fair use exceptions) and it's possible to both plagiarize and violate copyright (e.g. copying verbatim – or close to verbatim – from a copyrighted document without making it clear you're doing so.) 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting if you or Malleau can provide even one example where E2eamon failed to provide a warrented in line attributation (as in "according to ..." ). Even for FA class articles its common not to do so for basic facts; an inline cite is sufficient. And its not plagiarism to closely paraphrase one or two sentences of very ordinary pedestrian writing without using quotes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the work - at little later, when I'm done with what I'm currently doing. But, all FAs now have plagiarism/close paraphrasing spotchecks, as do PRs. Perhaps you were unaware of that. In fact my most recent FA was not promoted until spotchecked, so this is not entirely correct. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, I am very confused. You keep referring to false claims of close paraphrasing/plagiarism. Which one is false? You seemed to indicate that this does not contain a close paraphrase of this, but of course it does contain close paraphrases. Note specifically the first half or so of the "Shooting" section. Is that the only one that you thought was false? I can see why you missed it, it is difficult to find since the RfA note did not point out the section where the close paraphrase is. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The plagiarism accusation was false. There was a very small ammount of close paraphrasing. For the specific example in your diff I said no 'significant close paraphrasing'. Correct me if Im wrong but the only sentence from the article you could possibly mean would seem to be "There were also smaller demonstrations accusing Shea of racism outside the courthouse during the trial. {cite}" which you're seeing as a close paraphrase of "As the verdict was announced seven pickets marched outside the courthouse, accusing Shea of racism."  ? If that was plagurism then heaven help us. Im retiring myself for the weekend after this reply. Abject apologies if there's any obvious I missed and have been guilty of making false accusations of false accusations! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This from the source article: "As the boy fell, he supposedly passed the gun to his stepfather" with the exception of a single word, is worded verbatim in the article. This is a classic example of close paraphrasing. There are ways of overcoming this, as I stated earlier, but they require a bit of work and energy. I shall now go scrub the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction, that's the wording in the article, not the source. However, the larger point is that it was claimed at the RfA that this was proof of "blatant plagerism" (direct quote). Nobody here is disputing that that is close paraphrasing that I can see, but the claim that that was blatant plagiarism is false.Dave (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've corrected. When a single word is changed in a sentence, and a string of sentences are presented in the same manner, it becomes a manner of semantics, quite frankly. I've fixed the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but thats incorrect - eight words are different not just one! The article says "As the boy fell, he supposedly passed the gun to his stepfather,{cite} but it was never found. {cite}" The source says: "As the boy fell he appeared to pass the gun to his stepfather ...... A police search of the scene turned up no weapon. " Granted there was verbatem reproduction of two four word clauses, but otherwise the sentence was well paraphrased. Granted that single very ordinary sentence could have been better paraphrased but surely that doesnt count as border line plaigurism let alone a blatant case? FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it not "blatant"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FH, that quote is not even from the section that I tried to direct your attention to; no, it is not what I meant. In addition to the line Truthkeeper88 mentioned, we have "Shea fired three times at the pair when the boy appeared to draw a gun"(WP) vs. "Shea said he fired three times at the running pair when Glover appeared to draw a gun."(The Day - Jun 13, 1974) and "they matched the description of a pair of men wanted for a taxi robbery"(WP) vs. "they resembled descriptions of two men sought in a taxi robbery."(The Day). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The recent RfA ended before I had time to review in detail whether what occurred was what I would regard as plagiarism, so I have no opinion about the candidate, but I agree entirely with how Malleus and 28bytes described what is and what is not acceptable. I did briefly see Sandy's comments in the RfA, and I think the same message could have been communicated in a less bitey way. No way should we discourage opposers in RfA, but we should encourage civility. I'm OK with editors who start out naively about plagiarism and then improve, but I feel strongly that we should not be lax about plagiarism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish; plagiarism is, obviously, bad. But so is incivility, especially at RFA which are infamous for being "hell week". The candidate probably should not have passed the RFA; then again, they should not have been bullied into retirement either. I do agree that many opposers will see an influential editor opposing with a TL;DR paragraph of text, and put "per" to make it easier to pile on. Often this is a tactic to gain favour with this influential person. But whether what they wrote is true, relevant or useful doesn't matter, it seems. It's easy to hyperbole about not being allowed to oppose, but it's not true at all. All votes should be qualified, and when slanderous remarks are made on a whim, often by somebody with an axe to grind, it doesn't help the process one bit. Some editors oppose quite often and do so civilly; they express their opinion in a calm, polite manner, in a way which makes the candidate realise there's an issue, but doesn't bully them and make them feel small. These opposers don't get picked up on, and often supporters will switch because of these people. On the other hand, we have opposes which launch into personal attacks, false accusations, slanderous remarks, uncivil comments and an incredibly angry tone. These opposes will get picked up on, and rightly so. Many will often support just to counter them. AD 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you agree with me (thanks!), I just want to clarify that I do not think that description applies to what Sandy wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think much of Sandy's frustration comes from the fact that she's almost always the only person to do the research to see if a candidate has been plagiarizing. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the particular comment applies to above; what I'm discussing is just in general. If more people took the time to look - especially at the time of the article becoming a DYK, FA, whatever - then more people would become aware at how important the issue is, rather than it just looking like a minor thing. AD 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

People do take the time to look for plagiarism at FAC, but as for DYK, well the monster has to be fed, no time to check anything there. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fact-checking this: two different submissions are flagged for "copyvio" at T:TDYK right now:[1] and [2] – one of them rejected, the other awaiting a rewrite. A few links to proof when you're making those sweeping accusations about DYK would be welcome. Sharktopus ^talk 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two out of how many? Facts would be useful if you're determined to ignore the obvious truth. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure!. That case in point is one of a highly influential editor with numerous advanced permissions. But I take your point that FACs are under a lot more scrutiny than DYKs. AD 21:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It was the Grace Sherwood incident that resulted in the introduction of checks for plagiarism at FAC, although from memory that involved copyright violations. Some processes attempt to learn from their history, others do not. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of conscientious editors at DYK who follow DYK's guidelines instructing them to look for copyright problems. Heck, I used to be one myself, before I got so tired of hearing the DYK-bashing that I figured, fuck it, I'll spend my time working on tasks that are more appreciated. 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the number of simple grammar and spelling errors in many DYKs I very much doubt that the typical reviewer even reads the article beyond what is necessary to verify the hook, but I digress. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

After the Grace Sherwood incident, it occurred to me that there were more problems than just simple spelling and grammar errors, in not just this project's DYK output, but the output of the FA process as well. Of course, to say so is heresy. Insulting the "DYK regulars" was (and still is) all the rage... but criticism of the FAC regulars for failing to deal properly with these issues... well, that sort of criticism produces outrage. Strange that some people develop such an emotional attachment to one camp or the other, after contributing to both. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so strange if you consider the absurdity of Wikipedia being "governed" by children on a power boost. Now that ought to produce outrage, but it never does. Why do you think that is? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so. People whose maturity is questionable, can fail an RfA. Not once, but twice! That's a safety valve - the community can turn down people whose maturity is questionable, but whose personal opinion of their own maturity (and "right to govern") is sky-high. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that instead of throwing stones, Demiurge go to FAC and start spotchecking articles, as is required since the Grace Sherwood incident. It's time-comsuming and not fun - some people do it every day. For free. And some people clean up the mess, every day. For free. Help is always welcome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper88. I'm a bit busy referencing unreferenced BLPs right now, but sure, I'll do you a deal. You review one article at DYK, I'll spot-check one article at FAC. (That is, in addition to the articles I already spot-check at DYK, the plagiarism I've already caught there.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deal. I'll go do it right now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done two. Don't expect I'll be very popular in the morning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all very well saying "oh yeah, come help us review, you're very welcome", because whenever I've gone to FAC I've been made to feel very unwelcome indeed, and I know I'm not the only one. It's no secret that non-FAC regulars are often ignored or considered less seriously than regulars there, so why should I bother wasting my time there when I have no idea if my comments will even be looked at? AD 15:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably a valid concern that you should raise on the FAC talkpage instead of here. I thought Demiurge's challenge to me was appropriate and what's clear after looking at two DYK and finding problems, is that reviewers are desperately needed across the board - but this isn't the place for that discussion, imo. It is a very important discussion, though, I think, and good that you raised your concerns. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely not an FAC regular (only one submission to FAC), and I never had any issues at all with them. The times I've seen comments ignored are ones that do not pertain to the FAC, opposes that are not actionable, or supports for an article that does not meet the criteria. I've also seen this happen when all the nominators and their friends support their own article, and, obviously, those supports should be ignored. I'm sure SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) can probably explain this better than I can, and I hope she does! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"...or supports for an article that does not meet the criteria..." If that's the case, then surely it should just be one person reviewing? Who is qualified to decide whether an article meets criteria or not? The answer is, everybody. Anybody should be able to review an article, and vote in support if they think it meets the criteria, without the fear of their vote being ignored, or even worse, ridiculed as is often the case. "...when all the nominators and their friends support their own article..." This happens all the time with FAC regulars, and yet with non-FAC regulars the article fails. AD 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason non-FAC regulars commonly see their supports ignored is because they do not provide any critical commentary about why the article meets WP:WIAFA. This is even stated directly on WP:FAC: "...the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and...such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support." A more experienced reviewer then shows up and offers a lone oppose stating exactly why the article fails the FA criteria and offering reasonable, actionable objections to the articles promotion. If the comments are not resolved, I am relatively certain that the article will fail. As mentioned before, SandyGeorgia can probably answer better than I can. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This dialogue might help you understand the FAC process and why articles can be failed even with five supports and one oppose. The point I'm trying to make is that non-FAC regulars aren't shrugged off because there is a cabal, but because they commonly don't offer critical commentary as to what and how they reviewed the article with their supports. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism and RfA break

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches and WP:Plagiarism

This thread is much too long, so I quit, but 1) thank you for the kind words FeydHuxtable about FAC; 2) it is most concerning that some don't see plagiarism or close paraphrasing in such clear examples; and 3) this caught my eye as I skimmed:

I think much of Sandy's frustration comes from the fact that she's almost always the only person to do the research to see if a candidate has been plagiarizing. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, d'oh. Unqualified supports at RFA are a problem, DYK is a huger problem (plagiarism central, shoddy content contributions used to fuel the climb up the grease pole at RFA), and that other editors support without even a cursory look at the content used to fuel an RFA is most frustrating ... I come along 20 or 30 supports in and find that no one even looked at content, and then I'm expected to mince words? The frustration is at the supporters and enablers, not the candidate. I don't know who said anything about "indef block", but it should be expected that anyone found plagiarizing should offer to clean it up or face sanction. And children who haven't completed high school can rarely be expected to understand the fine lines between citing content correctly in one's own words, close paraphrasing, plagiarism, copyvio, etc. Why is it that RFA supporters don't check for this, since it's so basic-- a pattern that is so easy to find? Child wants to be an admin, child writes DYKs that aren't correctly sourced or cited and/or include plagiarism, close paraphrasing or copyvio. RFA supporters don't bother to check: lather, rinse, repeat, then shoot the messenger. Anyone who says we didn't get on this or take it seriously at FAC is not paying attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about DYKs, never did, do not, and won't. However, some of us are working very hard now at ways to convince children that RfA is not their playground - in the nicest possible way of course ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about children, it's about editors who plagiarise. I know some find it hard to understand, but adults make errors as well as children (cf User:Rlevse) :) Plagiarism was clearly not checked at FAC until Grace Sherwood came to light. Who knows how many other FAs passed before that are full of copyvios and plagiarism? Has someone gone through and checked every single one? Doubt it. You can make DYK the scapegoat, but it's editors who simply don't understand how to use sources properly that's the problem. DYK bashing is becoming tiresome to say the least, when it's not the cause of the issue. AD 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC) And yes I would expect someone to "mince their words" (aka use tact) when talking to someone in that situation, especially a child, rather than talking down to them as if they were a piece of sh*t. AD 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

According to stats, 24% of editors are probably not old enough to have children, or to have worked with them to any extent, so they may not know how to address them properly. Not an excuse of course. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One point here Sandy. RfA is about the community stating whether they trust the candidate to hold the mop. Every editor's standard required for the trust is different and the supporters (should!) have checked the areas that they consider a priority and not seen anything brought up in the oppose section.

So, if editors have taken the time to thoroughly check specific areas such as a candidates deleted contributions, CSD record, UAA record, AfD record, temperment, interaction with other editors, levels of drama at ANI, overall levels of edits and so on, but none have reviewed the actual content creations that doesn't make their supports invalid.

I personally believe that admins should have created content, because if you are going to be deleting content/blocking users, you should understand what's like to put the effort in. I don't see that they need to write great content though (depending on what they plan to do with the bit) and I'm more concerned about how they handle discussion of plagiarism or copyvios than the fact that they've actually made it. But that's just me. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just one last point from me - Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism includes the following example:

  Sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution.

  The guideline suggests such a sentence not only doesnt need attribution it may not even need an inline cite. So if copying even a whole uncreative and uncited sentence is not plagiarism, then copying a handful of simple phrases like "he passed the gun" along with an inline cite ,is even more clearly not an example of intellectual theft - even if it does count as insufficient paraphrasing. Id encourage anyone who doesnt agree with our plagiarism guideline to head over to the talk page and try to harmonise their views with the rest of the community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree on two counts. First, the example may contain eight words, but it only contains three concepts – a subject, an action and a date. For many subjects, there are multiple alternative words that can be used, but when it comes to a proper name, there is one choice. Similarly, when it comes to a generic action, there are often alternative word, but "born" has few option in this context. As with a date, other than the two main conventions, which may already be dictated, there isn't much choice. In contrasted, even a short phrase like "he passed the gun" could be rewired in several way, (he handed over the gun, he gave him the pistol). Second, it wasn't just that phrase, but a longer phrase, and could easily have been rewritten a number of ways. I sometimes find myself looking at a phase, and struggling to find a different way to say it. This is sometimes hard when looking at it; I've found it helpful to step away, then come back and write a sentence without looking at the original, and it is often very different. I'm sorry that the editor left the project over this incident; I hope the editor will come to realize that the phrasing was not acceptable, return to the project and learn from the experience.--SPhilbrickT 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then how many different ways can you write "Example died in 1977"? --Σ ^talk_contribs 20:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Provide me with the context and I'll tell you. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be careful of making too much wine out of sentence-long close paraphrases. The public cases in academia that have been scandals have usually involved more substantial amounts and a pattern. (e.g. Professor Wegman, Dershowitz, etc.) Not making a comment on the example in case, here. Only that I would really have to look in detail at our article and the source, to see my impression. And I would also want to look a bit at the totality of work to see how often the bad examples occur. Whereas for a longer example, I don't even need to. It's smoking gun in that case. [Also, realistically, an isolated sentence espeically if sourced is not a serious legal danger.] Not in any fashion excusing poor practices. Just my honest take, that when these gotchas are raised, I find myself needing to dig and look at the materials more to form a judgment on context and all.

My bigger concern on a close paraphraser is not the "pillar shaking", but that it implies the fellow does not thoughtfully analyze and write! (Sort of like the people who build a Wiki article mostly from a single outside website (thinking of the fellow who did one one some NASA launch facility). So, I opposed the fellow, before the Sandy source check, on content, from just wanting to see him develope a bit more "meaty" writing. I think this is important because if we get too much of a culture and a power structure that does not understand what real content creation involves, we move away from the real activities needed for content creation. Become more a social game website. And I like a (good) gnome. But even the gnome, I want to see that he can at least a few times experience the more integrative tasks.TCO (reviews needed) 17:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like too much "playing gotcha." The shrill "Blatant plagiarism" labelling of the candidate seems over the top and inappropriate. Driving him away from the project was not a good outcome. Direct quoting of material without attribution would indeed seem like an attempt to steal the work of another writer. Paraphrasing and citing of facts? Not so clear an effort to steal. Education is a more appropriate response if facts are cited, since facts per sé are not generally considered intellectual property. How often has the candidate too closely paraphrased, and was there at least a citation? If it's a rare action, with many more appropriate edits, then it might be a lapse from working too late into the night, when he should have stepped away from the keyboard and gotten some rest rather than trying to finish a draft of an article. "Zero tolerance" is a concept which in the US educational system, at least, has resulted in silly penalties applied to students for minor lapses. In cases where there are actual facts which need to be included in an article and cited, it is unclear what can be done other than a direct quote (with quotation marks and citation) or paraphrase with citation. Chemical elements were discovered by some scientist in some place in some year, and they have certain physical properties. Generals led military units composed of certain numbers and types of forces in certain battles with certain outcomes. Cities are located in certain places, have certain populations, and particular things are known about them and their history. Individuals have certain known facts about their life histories and achievements. To make up an example, if the source says "The SS Unlucky left Escanaba Harbor on November 1, 1958, with a cargo of 100 tons of iron ore, 500 tons of bauxite, and 500 tons of coal, and foundered and sank in 300 feet of water in a 70 mile per hour gale 40 miles from land,, with the loss of all 20 persons on board. The wreck was discovered in 1998." I don't see how relating the place, date, cargo, or weather are any type of plagiarism, since the facts are not really the creative work of the writer. Some suggestions I found which are intended to prevent plagiarism are idiotic, when they say to "just write down individual words, not sentences." I would have written down the facts, cited them in some order in an article about the SS Unlucky, and been labelled a plagiarist. The alternatives are to paraphrase or vary the word order (evil per this viewpoint), to leave out facts (and leave the reader less than fully informed), to make up facts: "The crew panicked on the quarterdeck when they saw the big wave approaching" (bad because o.r.), or to intersperse multiple sources, like a weather report, or a registry listing of the ship, or the captain's name from a different article, while still including all the facts from the the same one source (no effective difference, but some folks' idea of scholarship). If the source is more opinion than fact, I agree. If a review of Joe Artist's painting by Kurt Kritik says "The interplay of light and shadow was shimmery and refreshing, but the refulgent orgiastic depths of the charioscoro smacked of Seurat's punctillism, and the perspective was reminiscent of Chinese perspective," I would pretty much have to quote-mark a quotation and cite in an article about Joe Artist. If I cited the review and wrote "The work received critical praise for the use of light and shadow, and French and Chinese influences were noted" it might well be tagged as containing information not in the source. If by contrast an article said where and when a crime occurred, which way the criminal ran, which officers fired at him, where the bullets struck the fleeing suspect, and what the outcome of the trial was if he survived, a cited paraphrase of some of the facts (who, what, when, where) would not be "blatant plagiarism." Anyone who has created articles beyond stubs or disambiguation pages should understand this. Edison (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

One error in DYK

What a load of crap on this page: first off, the statements about FAC are just wrong, period. One incident does not a trend make (and correcting shortcomings in the process that allowed it to happen is precisely what we're not seeing at DYK). Second, plagiarism is by no means the only problem at DYK, nor are Fredhuxtable's examples typical of the blatant outright plagiarism and copyvio one finds at DYK. No, at DYK we also have sensationalism, non-reliable sources, and inaccurate representation of sources on a daily basis. Here's the latest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a point about some DYKs being inappropriate, but this is obviously not the right page to be discussing it on. Tarnishing the whole of DYK and all its contributors with the same negative brush is not appropriate either. There's a lot of good stuff going on there; perhaps you could suggest some ways in which it can be improved (other than scrapping it completely) at the DYK talk page. AD 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, AD. It would have been great if, when finding one problem DYK hook, which was about as far from a scandal as one can imagine, SandyGeorgia had reported it at Main Page/Errors so it could be repaired quickly. What she did instead makes it clear she is more interested in campaigning against DYK than she is in the integrity of the Main Page. DYK makes occasional errors, as does every other part of Wikipedia. I am considering asking for SandyGeorgia to be topic-banned from her Wikipedia-wide dissemination of misinformation about DYK. Sharktopus ^talk 11:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly hyperbolic but it's unfair to suggest she is not concerned about the integrity of the main page. I think the issue is the fact that DYK does not seem to be learning from its mistakes and improving, which is what FAC apparently did. But we're off topic. AD 11:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that Sandy alleges DYK is not learning from its mistakes and improving. Recent improvements include a reviewer's guide for novices, suggested here and the plan (not yet implemented) to improve accountability by creating AfD-type subpages showing the history of each nomination, discussed most recently here and supposedly due for coding soon after July 22. I agree this is off-topic, except that here is one of the places where accusations are being posted in the most inflammatory terms, so it seems not unreasonable to offer up a brief answer. Sharktopus ^talk 12:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to topic ban SandyG from this discussion may turn out to be the worst suggestion you could ever have made on Wikipedia. All you demonstrate is what we all know, that she's right but you don't want to hear that. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a stupid moment of grumpiness, I agree. But I guess I'm just the kind of guy who would prefer marriage counseling from somebody who tries to find things I could do to improve rather than from somebody who runs all over town telling the world that my marriage is doomed because I do the deed daily with four ponies and a pink French poodle, when in fact it was just that one time last year in Reno, and it wasn't four ponies and a French poodle, it was one French divorcée with a pink pony tail. Sharktopus ^talk 23:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I find myself in total agreement with Malleus Fatuorum so rarely that it warrants a comment. DYK is broken, it has serious issues on a weekly basis, and the attempts at peer review and peer vetting have fallen flat regularly. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that there is a general level of quality difference FA>GA>DYK in terms of conten coverage (I put this first priority), prose, formatting, and incidence of copyvios. One can take the attitude that all Main Page links should go to "paper publish" quality articles (basically, say Featured Articles or maybe GAs). But you can also step back (not meant as a silly argument, really a point of mine) and say look at the site itself! The vast majority of people are Googling in and regularly coming to articles that are clearly half written drafts. Also, for example, the links within a TFA blurb often go to articles that are very spotty.

I'm too stupid so far to figure out what we should do. I don't really buy the ZOMFG bad content was linked from the main page argument, given we have those interior links in the TFA and just tolerate bad articles as a Project all over the place, rather than working them up and then putting them public. (Also consider that Raul regularly runs old articles at TFA that would not pass an FAC, by a good margin.) On the other hand, perhaps there is a strategic purpose that the Main Page can serve in being a bit of a "standard setter" that over time drives better practices. I think FA as a project has had a real benefit in this way to articles throughout the 'pedia. Then on the gripping hand, I wonder if we should just leave people with what makes them happy. You got a group of DYKers pumping out articles. They're better than the average start article. Is it worth it to take their toy away? People value their Main Page time. Just like I get tomatoes thrown at me when I favor notable topics over obscure at TFA and FP.TCO (reviews needed) 17:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see my subheading was changed to an inaccurate one (about *one* error in DYK, LOL-- they occur daily, and they are egregious and they are a scandal). I also see that those who argue that DYK shouldn't be argued on this page continue to argue it on this page. I also note a hilarious call for me to be topic banned-- have at it !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that the easiest solution is to have a large buffer; have each day's DYKs stuck on a page for a full week, so that people like Sandy can look in on them four or five days before they go live and raise concerns. I don't see the rush to get DYKs out. Not that I see the idea being adopted, but it's worth a mention. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably shifting from "DYK" format (so many of the hooks are boring anyway, might as well just change the leadin) might make sense. Then go to 24 hour format. Then put 3 GAs on the page. The explicit (named) difference of Featured ("better") and Good ("good") would ameliorate the quality difference (that and the 3-1 split and being lower down). The only bad part would be taking something away from people that they love. Those are really some friendly, kind souls over there. Guys like Material Scientist blow me away that they can do DYKs themselves, prep for others, AND fix my images at Graphics (plus being a Ph.D. physicist). I do think it's a serious concern to be grabbing something away from people who are working hard and contributing (the average DYK is much better than the average new article for instance). I'm torn. Almost wonder about just putting GAs on the page and pushing DYKs further down. (Probably have GA directors as well, place could use it for other reasons...leadership drives results...the belief in random self assembly to quality is flawed.) Then again our news links and OTD links often go to poor articles also.TCO (reviews needed) 22:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC on reconfirmation RfA standards

The semi-recent reconfirmation RfAs, as well as Hersfold's take on them in his RfB, bring up a dispute which I believe the community as a whole needs to settle. For anyone who dosen't know the background to this issue, see Q15 in Hersfold's RfB, specifically 15D and 15K, the links are there.

If a current or former admin runs for RfA, are the standards for judging the success of that RfA to be the same as or lower than the standards would be if the RfA was for someone who had not previously been an admin.

I'm deliberately not going straight to polling, as I believe that there might be a greater range of options than just the two I listed. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the standards should be the same. Having said that, I do think it would be prudent to more closely scrutinize !votes to ensure they are based on policy and not merely a form of vindictive reprise for an admin action which itself was policy based. My76Strat ^talk 07:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think before you get to the standard at a reconfirmation RFA, we should first establish consensus that reconfirmation RFAs are acceptable, and in what circumstances. If we still have people voting against candidates merely because it is a reconfirmation RFA, then the standard should at least be adjusted accordingly. Some consideration also may want to be given to the issue of admins who have developed enemies from appropriate use of the tools. I like the idea of a level playing field, but at the present, that may justify a lower standard in strict percentage terms. Monty₈₄₅ 07:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Monty, in over seven years on Wikipedia, this is the first time someone edit-conflicted me to say almost exactly what I wanted to say, so a tip of my hat to you =) Regards SoWhy 08:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I believe reconfirmation standards should be just as strict as an initial RFA; however, bureaucrats must analyze !votes which oppose solely because it is a reconfirmation RFA. Really, every RFA is like this in that there is no bright line and bureaucrats must take oppose and support !votes with a grain of salt. Ryan Vesey contribs 22:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see any honesty in that distinction. As Demiurges's intentionally insulting comments above suggest, perhaps allowances ought also to be made for the second, third ... RfAs of those whose previous RfAs bombed. Not. Whatever the standard is, it needs to be applied uniformly, with no exceptions. Malleus Fatuorum 08:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably urinating into the ventilator to say this, but I'll say it anyway. We shouldn't need reconfirmations at all, so the issue of where the bar is set seems unimportant to me. (An administrator who sincerely wants feedback should go to WP:ADREV, and RfA regulars should contribute feedback there.) What we do need is administrator recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it pretty jaw-dropping that after ten years of this project, people will still try to defend admin-for-life culture. Skomorokh 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The question – is it a good idea to make this editor an administrator? – remains the same. It is only the evidence used to answer the question that differs. Bureaucrat discretion has sufficed in the past, I don't see a formal discussion as being necessary now. Skomorokh 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that it hasn't sufficed at all. Both of those reconfirmations (^demon and SarekOfVulcan) were incredibly controversial. ^demon had 63% support, more than ten points below the traditional cutoff. SarekOfVulcan, at least, could be justified because he'd be on the borderline if the "oppose because it's a reconfirmation and therefore a waste of time" votes were discounted. Yes, there is always going to be controversy, but 63% goes well beyond discretion if prior adminship does not factor in. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two controversial RfAs does not a problem make; it has yet to be established that community standards for reconfirmations are so confused/disparate/unfair as to render appropriate bureaucrat judgement unreasonably difficult. Skomorokh 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where I'd put things on this one. I'd probably pass with a higher percentage than those reconfirmations, but less than my original RfA--as I suspect many administrators would. I think the biggest problem with reconfirmation RfA's is that they are triggered when someone has done something wrong. Not when e.g., two years have elapsed, nor when a user has just gotten accolades for doing something really cool with the tools. They're almost universally triggered when a group of editors is very unhappy with something the admin in question has done. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• I tend to side with Jclemens above. It does seem to me that these reconfirmation RfAs tend to be triggered by extreme dissatisfaction on the part of other editors, generally up to the point that they honestly believe the admin in question has behaved in such a way as to merit de-sysop'ing or, possibly, in some cases, as a form of harassment. I would think that the dissatisfied editors would be the most likely to vote, and, in the event that the dispute involves some content related questions, it would certainly be possible that any individuals who share similar opinions in the content dispute might also be more likely to vote, and that this might rather easily skew the results to some degree or other. My own personal preference in matters of this kind might be to either request ArbCom review of the matter in question, because they clearly have the option of de-sysop'ing admins. Alternately, I suppose, short of ArbCom, it might be possible to perhaps involve any uninvolved editors and/or admins who are regularly involved in arbitration enforcement, on the basis that they might have slightly greater experience with the do's and don'ts of policies and guidelines than that of most other editors. My own personal preference probably is, if such were possible, perhaps having some uninvolved experienced editors or admins "appointed", perhaps by the community, perhaps by ArbCom, to resolve the matter, based on evidence presented to them regarding the conduct of the arb in question. In all honesty, however, at least as an individual, I tend to think myself that these reconfirmation RfAs might be in fact the single least likely to succeed means of resolving such matters as those which trigger reconfirmation RfAs. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm of two minds on this. There are some who believe the saw that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", but there are others who follow "a new broom sweeps clean, but the old one knows the corners." Users who run the RfA gauntlet, despite repeated assurances that having the mop is WP:NOBIGDEAL, rarely want to run it again, and having an admin willingly offer themselves up to that level of scrutiny borders on outright masochism (no offense to those who recently did just that; it's just my take on the matter). So here's a possible third option, one I'm not sure anyone has looked at, and I'll apologize for how this will be phrased in advance, since I'm sort of brainstorming it as I write it. How about, in order to keep the bit without routine reconfirmation, there's some sort of "recent activity" threshold, the same as there is with the ACC Toolserver? The particulars would need consideration and consensus to implement, and there may be some technical challenges involved for recordkeeping, but it would certainly solve the potential security issues with inactive admin accounts. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with inactive accounts. Inactive accounts that didn't disappear under storm clouds can get their mops back just by asking a passing 'crat. This is about the pass/fail number for reconfirmation RfAs. We want people that have not been admins before to hit upwards of 70%, with 75% or even 80% being much preferred. However there is an opinion by some that once one has been an admin, reconfirmation numbers can be lower. Apparently 63% isn't too low if one has already been an admin, even though it's too low if one hasn't been an admin before. If nothing else, this only reinforces the 'admins as an elite club for which many rules do not apply' theme that is oft mentioned. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I understand where you're coming from, and as I said, I was brainstorming that concept out on the fly. I don't think there's going to be a single solution that solves the question of reconfirmations in one shot. Rather, I'm seeing a need to take the overall question of "admin for life" and break it into smaller parts, such as "admin for x years before reconfirmation" and "y% Support !vote threshold needed to reconfirm", or maybe even divide things down even further. The first question that would have to be answered, though, is still going to be "admin for how long, exactly?". That is also likely to answer, once and for all, whether the premise that "adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL" is still a truism, or if it's devolved into a cliché. I'd like to think it still holds true, but I'm known for being altruistic at times. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• The tools and duties of an admin have changed very little over the years, however the expectations that come into play at RfA have increased over time. Adminship is a big deal because the community has decided that it is a big deal. That is the only reason. While many of the justifications that people use as to why it is a big deal are legitimate, the community has gotten so caught up in Adminship being a big deal that attempts to modify it, or anything around it, including the RfA process, tend to fizz out. All of that is besides the point. I'm trying to talk about RfA standards and you're trying to talk about admin term length. Both are topics for discussion, however yours would best be served in a new thread. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's make sure we're both discussing the same variety of fruit here. Are you seeing an issue with the RfA process overall, or just a need to define admin reconfirmations? Looking at the last couple of paragraphs, you're giving the appearance of a moving target. And while my own comments' focus may have been misdirected, and I'm not anywhere close to offering any solutions, I'm still going to hold to the premise that the answer will come in small stages, rather than any single, all-encompassing policy change; the latter will most assuredly meet exceptional resistance community-wide. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm stunned that you're not following me on this. I am looking for one thing and one thing only to be addressed here, the issue of 'crats closing as successful reconfirmation RfAs where the support level is below what would be closed as successful for non-reconfirmation RfAs. I happen to be agaisnt it, but I wanted community imput. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC

• Okay, definitely with you now, and amazingly, I'm in 100% agreement, on the premise that anyone coming to RfA should be held to the same standards and thresholds for successful closure. (Amazing what a couple of cups of coffee can do for the brain cells.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Should he be able to do this?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a non-admin be able to close an RFA per WP:SNOW? Personally, I think only admins should do that unless the candidate withdraws their nomination. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Any editor in good standing may close an RfA that's clearly not going to succeed. There once was a time when, by unwritten convention, it was only usually admins who did so, but anyone can. The candidate can always revert if they so desire, but as long as the closer does it properly, and informs the candidate, it's fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that increased admin control over the mechanisms for gaining access to adminship would raise concerns about a clique. (Not necessarily well-founded concerns, but hey - perceptions matter too). If an RfA really is snowballing, then it shouldn't need an admin to make that call. bobrayner (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If an RfA is going so badly that SNOW could be legitimately invoked, it dosen't matter who closes it, it needs to get closed as fast as possible. If it dosen't, pile on opposes will just make the whole affair just feel more awful for the person running. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only echo the thoughts of the other users here. If you have a problem with the outcome, that's one thing, but saying only admins can SNOW close an RfA? Nope. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to toss out the comment that it is possible to close an RfA too early... some that were ultimately successful started out horribly but once people thought about it a little more things turned around. Especially when the opposes are based mainly on activity levels or edit count and not examples of poor behavior or poor policy understanding by the candidate. I worry that the definition of SNOW is being stretched to mean "opposes outnumber supports", because that can change. These three requests very well might have been "snow-closed" by someone eager to do so if there had been two or three more opposes at that point. The only reasons to "hurry" a close, I think, are if voters are being cruel (in which case, a talk page request that they reconsider their comments might be better), and a truly disruptive or clueless request where even "moral" supports are in short supply. 28bytes (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly aware of that point of view. However, only one person since 2009 has been made an admin with less than 3000 edits, and in this case there were twice as many opposes as supports. The opposes has also started to become pile-on, there was little or no constructive feedback coming out. We have to remember that we are dealing with people, and that if the feedback they're getting is no longer helpful, then it's just hurtful. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the most recent two closes; mine was more of a general concern. I think the RHM22 example shows that people are willing to accept relatively low edit counts if they think the candidate appears to know what they are doing... but it may take them a few days to accept that, and early returns may just capture the people who absolutely won't accept it, while the ones who will are still mulling it over. 28bytes (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. If someone had closed RHM22 at the point you showed, I'd have reverted it myself. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, it's interesting that all three examples had a now-indef-blocked sock in the support column; if they'd been ferreted out earlier, the opposes would have outnumbered the supports at that point. 28bytes (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Some insight may be gained by consulting these statistics. They show what is likely to SNOW/NOTNOW, the edit counts, the length of tenure, and the voting score at closure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought: should there be formal minimum requirements for SNOW-closing an RFA (say, something like a minimum of 10 contributors, and at least a 2:1 Oppose to Support ratio)? Or would that just be process creep? I guess so, but I just wanted to support the point that it is possible to SNOW-close an RFA too early, and would-be closers shouldn't be too quick to do so. I don't agree with Sven Manguard above that SNOW RFAs 'need to get closed as fast as possible'; no RFA needs to be closed early, it's just a matter of convenience. Concerns that the candidate's feelings might be harmed by allowing their RFA to receive too many pile-on opposes seem a bit overblown. Robofish (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC):I don't know if that would be too creepy, but I do think many editors are over eager to close an RFA as SNOW. Most RFA's closed this way seem to have lower than average activity at the beginning which means that editors are thinking about it. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had 3 valid opposes at my RfA and they certainly had an effect on my feelings. And mine went overwhelmingly well. Given the number of people who have left after an RfA, I don't think it's an invalid concern. I do happen to think it's a bad idea, and should be left to judgement. Let's face it, a snow close can be overturned. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A snow close can be overturned, but that's likely to provoke drama, and not necessarily the kind of drama that's beneficial to the candidate. Personally, I'd rather exercise a little more caution, and only snow-close when the avalanche is really quite obvious. If a candidate has 4 supports and 6 opposes, hey, it's unlikely to go well but there's a possibility that the RfA might turn around as an answer is clarified or some great work is uncovered in their history; but if a candidate has 1 supports and 9 opposes, the chances of a turnaround are minuscule - we can have a lot more confidence that a snow close is the fairest and most humane closure. If in doubt, stand back.

Formal conditions for snow-closure are just instruction creep, imho. Apart from the really really obvious ones (where rules would be redundant) there's a big grey area (where rules would be controversial, and might exclude candidates who have some modest chance of turning round their RfA). We don't need detailed rules for everything. bobrayner (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My complaint is not that it was closed by a non-admin, but rather that the RfA was transcluded and untranscluded during a single weekend, leaving those that do not normally spend their weekends online unable to participate. I think we need to recognize that those who are online every day, and those that are not online during the weekends may have different voting patterns. Dave (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't going well, and based on these facts rather than the voting pattern, it would have been most unlikely to succeed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My only problem with how this went, is that it was closed while I was asleep. I had no chance to counter some, IMO, ridiculous rationale as to why I should not be an admin. For example, someone noted that an article stub I created 6 years ago, was still not all that great. (?) Leaning on actions of mine as a novice Wikipedian is a really poor way to go about assessing a candidates potential worthiness as an administrator.

I will admit the obsessiveness over edit count bothers me, and seems like a poor criteria for considering the worthiness of an administrator, but maybe that is the only (or even, most readily accessible) information some people feel they have to go by. Cherry picking bad edits is certainly something that deserves counter-argument. Contention with edit counts for a 7 year veteran is certainly worthy of a cogent counter-argument, but I never had the chance. I was under the mistaken impression that I would have seven days to be considered. I expected much opposition. I was prepared for it. But while I was sleeping, my nomination was closed (apparently to save me from embarrassment?). I have not re-opened it, because those who weigh in seem to only spare the effort of looking at edit counts rather than the quality of edits and cooperation with other Wikipedians. (i.e. people seem obsessed with raw numbers rather than looking at the quality of the candidates interactions with Wikipedia (a laborsome task, no doubt)).

From this experience the RfA process looks dysfunctional to me and does not have any mechanisms for creating a diverse adminship. That is a battle I am not willing to fight right now. I still believe I could be a valuable admin, quite possibly a better than your average admin. If I really want to pursue this, I'll have to make a better case in my RfA. Looking back, my RfA was a bit lazy and weak. There are sharper, more cogent points I could have made (and those I will save for some later date if I am still interested). Overall, the process has left a bad taste in my mouth about the process itself and has decreased my desire to be an admin.
To address the headline question, I wonder if a regular editor might really have the experience to know when is the right time to close a RfA. If they do, why are they not an admin? An EASY way to resolve this, which has been already mentioned: "The candidate can always revert if they so desire, but as long as the closer does it properly, and informs the candidate, it's fine." I'm assuming that was done (haven't looked at all the activity during when the RfA was closed), so that is reassuring.

To summarize, I don't feel this was handled right, but things don't always work out as one would wish. If it means enough to me, someday I will reapply. This probably sounds arrogant, but I think the community needs me, more than I need the community. That's not something I can easily translate into an RfA. It is based on the rudeness and incivility I see among current admins. How I see some admins flout their adminship as if it were a Barnstar. Adminship requires humility, cooperation and reconciliation, IMO, not sky-high edit counts, nor expert knowledge. Having said that, I don't know that my activity would even show those traits anyhow, but that is my opinion.
Yours truly,
--Timl2k4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timl2k4 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I didn't properly sign my comment! Way in over my head! ;) --TimL (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of K.W.

Damn, you got a raw deal. Your Denial of Death article was never an essay; it was obviously meant as a summary of the work. Does Kiefer.Wolfowitz realize how condescending his question #6 was? Zagalejo^^^ 04:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He started the article, and left it in the state where it "read like an essay", a good essay as I granted. However, WP requires secondary sources, and this was a chance for Tim to fix a short article. (Of course, I did not state that the article was a WP User Essay.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that he realizes his own condescension given this comment. Also refer to this conversation in which he seems to reveal that his whole problem with the article was the author's point of view on Schizophrenia! I guess I had the feeling of a "drive-by opposition". I will not reopen the RfA, as many wise folks have suggested, I will give it some time. There is no rush on my part to become an admin, but there seemed to be a rush to close any discussion of it. ;) --TimL (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Condescension is an inappropriate but understandable response when an new, usually good-hearted, and energetic editor displays petulance. In this case, Tim quoted a policy which he had not read, to justify his reverting me on my own talk page. 08:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to be treated as an equal, when you have not had the manners to alert me of this discussion or to bother to read the history (of Tim's inappropriate edit and misguided quotation of policy) and correct him?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My only lasting frustration wrt to the above comment, Keifer evidently has no problem with the article but with the book I chose to summarize! Quoting him: "The article lacks references, and the book is shit and so isn't worth my time. Is that clear?". It is frustrating to have childish opposes on your RfA, which you can't respond to, and then it gets closed. --TimL (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tim, I have to approve your latest quotation (of my previous judgment), that you are out of your depth.

First, you seem to misunderstand the English word and as either/or: Your article lacked references and the book is apparently junk. (My brief and pointed statement came after Tim's badgering, which had been indulged long enough.)

You cannot see the problems with the "article". I have been doing clean up for the last months that I have no need to apologize for not working on an article about a book which apparently offers a pseudo-scientific account of schizophrenia; I have little interest in spreading confusion that may delay persons from seeking competent health-care, while they wonder about Brown's hero bullshit. (I have similarly no interest in herbalist bullshit, which has helped to kill people, who delayed seeking competent health care.)

This discussion has occurred without the courtesy of a notice that you all were discussing me. This is particularly obnoxious given the personal attacks and violations of WP:AGF, here, by editors supposedly familiar with WP policies.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer has never been the most collegial of opinion-aters at RFA or ANI (I've not seen his article work so won't comment on that), and in my experience he does even go out of his way to piss people off. It genuinely surprised me to learn, a while ago, that he has a clean block log. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to stop your hypocrisy and review WP policies. Without understanding WP's blocking policy, what business do you have discussing anything here?

If you remove your personal attack and violation of WP:AGF, then you may remove this.

You are welcome to review my article work. You might learn something. Compare my start class article on Gustav Elfving with your articles on Swedish hockey players, which link to Swedish sources directly and which don't translate floor hockey.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're only proving my point for me. Drop it, Kiefer; the stick was dropped 10 days ago, and your decision to attack me now only reinforces what I said. StrPby (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please abide by WP policy and remove your personal attack and violations of AGF. Please also apologize for not alerting me of your abuse.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If at all possible, I'd suggest letting it go. Kiefer's stopped worrying about the page, has clearly had enough and walked away. There are much more important things to worry than his opinion. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Resumption of previous discussions

While I empathise with wanting to counter the opposes, it is not fair for a candidate stop editing with an RfA looking like this and come back to find it like this - note E2eamon hasn't edited since. Because yours was Snow closed, you arrived back to find a closed request, you could take the feedback or discuss it with the user, but pile-ons were averted. I do think it was handled correctly, but the fact that you so eloquently summarised your postions makes me feel you will make a fine administrator one day. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sentiment! I can see the need for something like a pause button. In the example you gave, it seems like there were some (allegedly?) legitimate concerns, but the invective and pile-on made me sad. Looked like a public lynching. --TimL (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what SNOW aims to prevent: the discouragement pile-on comments can generate. Please don't be discouraged. The SNOW was done so you can walk away, keep editing, and perhaps try again some time in the future. Jonathunder (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Notes: I entirely agree with Tim that admins should not be viewing their admin access as an award. As administrator status is not a trophy, not an entitlement. So adminship requires humility, cooperation and reconciliation.
Also when an RFA gets closed correctly by any user. The RFA closure must not be reverted by any user (not even the candidate). -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by correctly - since SNOW closure is a judgement call. If you mean procedurally correct, then I disagree. As it happens, I wholly endorse your closure, but if I disagreed that that SNOW was appropriate I would have not hesitated to re-open - and I say that as an editor, not an admin. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Any correct closure may not be reverted by anyone. That's what I meant. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

...which fails to clarify. Your closure was not incorrect, therefore at some level by implication was correct, but still could be legitimately reverted by the candidate.--ClubOranje^T 10:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a reference for 'must not'. All I can find is this: Any user in good standing may close nominations early if a promotion is highly unlikely and they don't see any benefit to leaving the application open.. There may not be much more movement on the page after it becomes clear that it will not succeed, but any candidate who really wants to, can insist that its stays open and runs to the bitter end. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that Wikipedia very rarely deals in absolutes - that's why we have WP:IAR. However, when Dusti asked for a SNOW exception, it was seen as a pointy request. Are you sure that a candidate can insist it stays open? Worm^TT · (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Candidates have insisted RFAs remain open (or be re-opened) long past reason in the eyes of RFA regulars. I've never seen that turn out well, and IIRC, some editors have retired after the pile-ons. I know of at least one that was blocked, and I seem to recall there are more in that category. Frank  |  talk 11:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's quite rare that candidates may actually want to reopen their SNOWed RfA, and besides, we certainly don't want start a new trend - I was just curious about Porch's statement: The RFA closure must not be reverted by any user (not even the candidate), because I've never come across anything like it in policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the opposite of such a statement is true. In absence of a formal bureaucrat closure, the candidate should be able to keep their RFA open if they so wish. NW (Talk) 14:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung - I suppose it's a matter of semantics, but I'd characterize it as "occasionally" rather than "rare". We've had a number where they were SNOWed and then reopened, usually by the candidate. I've never seen one that was SNOWed and then successful, although some were successful on a later RfA. (I also know of one RfA where SNOW was discussed - right on the page with a note about how it went from 2/5 to 31/5 and was ultimately successful. The implication I took from it was that 2/5 is sometimes seen as SNOW territory. Three years on, I think that's even more true, but I don't have data to support or dispute that feeling.)  Frank  |  talk  16:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with a WP:SNOW close is that there's really no "bright line" point at which a given RfA becomes an obvious snow close; it's left to the judgment of the user considering such a closure. Here's how I'd envision the process in a perfect world...a registered user (since they're the only ones who can !vote) looks at a given RfA, sees it's going poorly for the candidate, and communicates on that candidate's talk page. Three options are offered: the user offers to close per WP:SNOW, suggests the candidate withdraw and then closes the process as "withdrawn" if the candidate agrees, or if the candidate doesn't want to withdraw leaves the RfA open. The trip-up is that anyone considering a snow close of an RfA needs to communicate with the candidate before closing the RfA. Realistically, how often does that happen? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of must not, I am also unaware of such wording anywhere in policy and would disagree with it. Most people whose RfAs are SNOW closed understand, but again - some wish it to remain open because they don't necessarily believe the opinion, and others have legitimately used it to get feedback. These latter cases are thought by most to really be editor review masquerading as an RfA, and some do start that way and then get acrimonious...but some remain open quite collegially. Of course I don't have links for any of this, but I could find them. Next week, maybe.  Frank  |  talk  16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Frank brings up an excellent example above: given an RfA with 1 support and 5 opposes, should it have been SNOW-closed at that point? Or given a little more time to see if things would turn around for the candidate? 28bytes (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the example diff, I first see several concerns regarding lack of experience. But then I look back over the total number of !votes, and I see less than ten, which IMO is too few to accurately determine a SNOW-close probability. My own (as yet unwritten) criteria put the cutoff for closure by either SNOW or WP:NOTNOW at a minimum of twenty !votes, with no more than three supporting, and at least 48 full hours open. (Those criteria are flexible and will vary based on both the commentary provided by others and my own examination of the candidate.) Fast-forward to the actual closure of the RfA in question, and I see a successful RfA, with strong supporting consensus developing just a day after the RfA opened. And I also see why 28bytes picked this particular RfA as the example, namely Keepscases' comment: "Please don't make hasty judgments when an RFA has just begun. Can you imagine if someone had invoked WP:SNOW?" So I would summarize all this by cautioning users, admin or otherwise, to not be too quick on the SNOW-close trigger. And with all that said, I'm still in favor of non-admins being able to close RfAs under SNOW, and possibly by extension, NOTNOW. But this caveat must apply: err on the side of caution. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think 28bytes picked it because I had linked it above....it's one I was fairly intimately involved with and interested in :-). You can bet those first 24 hours or so were nervous-making! Agree with your assessment, which is why I posted at all...SNOW should be carefully applied. And also agree that it isn't and shouldn't be an admin-only task.  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have closed within a couple hours, but that only applies to very new editor with <50 edits applying for adminship. Commonly, all they get is "Oppose - WP:SNOW <SIGNATURE>", and twenty of those !votes would just drive them off. It's far better to close quickly and to point them to how they can help Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A bureaucrat's perspective

I must say that I do not understand why this RfA was closed prematurely. When deciding whether or not to close an RfA early, I try to use the following criteria:

1. RfA has little to no support, or the opposers are far in excess of the supporters.
2. No new points are being raised in the oppose section, and most new opposers are simply citing other people's opposes rather than giving a new reason.
3. The user appears to be getting very upset/angry by the feedback that is being left and/or may be scared off from Wikipedia by edit.

Note that the criteria "doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing" is not explicitly included (although it is included implicitly in point 1).

I realise these are my own personal standards and not included in WP:SNOW, but I feel as if this is the essence of how SNOW should be applied to RfAs. The purpose of SNOW being applied to RfA is not "close discussions that won't pass". If it was, you could apply SNOW to an RfA that has equal numbers of supports and opposes, but I doubt anyone would say that SNOW applies to such a discussion.

None of these criteria were met by the RfA in question. Quite the opposite in fact; he had quite a bit of (moral support), the very last oppose raised a new point, and in fact Tim was not upset by the RfA but was upset by the closure itself!

It has been established by the many reconfirmation RfAs that have been submitted in the recent past, an RfA is a good place to go to get (brutally honest) feedback on your editing. It looks like Tim was getting some decent feedback when this RfA was closed, and it's a shame that it was ended so early.

I would ask that users carefully consider the criteria I've listed above when closing an RfA by SNOW. It is almost always invariably better to leave the discussion open too long than close it too early.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the perspective Deskana, I'll certainly be keeping it in mind. I do wonder, however, about feedback that is given whilst an editor is off-wiki. I gave an example of E2eamon above, where he left wiki with half a dozen opposes, and when he came back the next day (18 hours) there were 20 odd. E2eamon withdrew the nomination and retired.

I honestly think that RfA isn't a good place to get feedback - it's too brutal and unrelenting. Furthermore, the feedback is rarely constructive and if you don't have the skills to take constructive information out of negative comments (which the vast majority of people don't), it's effectively unhelpful. I'm not saying that RfA comments should be constructive, mind - they're designed to highlight concerns to the community, not to help the candidate improve (though I know many voters try to do both). Worm^TT · (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was very careful in how I formulated that sentence. I did not express whether or not I felt RfA was useful as a feedback measure. However the reconfirmation RfAs show that people do feel it is useful for feedback though. That RfA also generates useless feedback does not disqualify it either. in my opinion; it's relatively easy to filter out all the useless feedback and only take the useful feedback out from it if that's what you want it to do.

Regarding the opposes, it is impossible to predict how people would respond to certain things. Some users may not be put off by having 100 opposes on their RfA, whereas others may be put off by only having a single one even when there are 100 supports. That we have no idea how people will respond to an RfA is also, in my view, means we have no justification in taking action closing their RfA unless it is no longer generating any useful feedback at all, which was my point in my original post. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Think the speedy close was based on too much RFA reform discussion and a group reinforced view of how awful RFA is. Sure, close the 100 edit guys or the like. But for someone like this, better to let the candidate make his own call.TCO (reviews needed) 04:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:X!/RfX Report

User:X!/RfX Report isn't showing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CWH and I can't figure out why. Anyone have a clue? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the report broke when it was added to WP:RFA earlier today. I've undone the change, and we'll see if it gets updated now. I also manually added CWH in. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't Ohms Law's addition [3]. My own theory is the bot doesn't like underscores [4]. in 18 minutes we'll find out if I'm right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

CWH's RFA just got snow closed, now we'll never know. Curse you, TPAris! --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did see it on the report, but sorry I ruined ya'all's experiment. ;)--v/r - TP 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Extend RFAs before closing as "no consensus"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

SNOW close. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Thread retitled from "Run Strat's got an idea".

An idea has crossed my mind, and I hope some feedback will ensue. I think we need to modify our process to allow significantly more time for an RfA before closing it as no consensus. Inability to reach a consensus is as much a failure of the participants to the discussion (if not more so) than the candidate. There are ways to do this and the benefit would be that close RfA's will not always be doomed to the small percentage who can not reach consensus for their oppose but instead just enough to make the majority unable to reach their consensus objective. The seven days is fine for consensus support or consensus oppose, but "no consensus" should automatically receive more time to see if they can. Or the candidate could withdraw. IMO My76Strat ^talk 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support I propose we modify the title of this to "Run Strat's got a great idea". I think a no consensus close should stay in place until consensus is reached. If that is too long, or consensus can't be reached, it could be closed at 2 weeks? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment (edit conflict) Technically, as I understand the RfA process, a candidate may withdraw at any time until a bureaucrat closes the process out. The bureaucrats also have the option to examine a "close" RfA and discuss it in a 'crat-chat to determine success or failure; I believe that to be a discretionary function of the 'crat corps. And I don't recall the candidate, nor the final outcome, but I do recall a RfA that closed very close to the threshold sometime in the last few months which was then discussed by the 'crats for a couple of days. If the !votes are running that close to the threshold, would more time really affect the outcome if the 'crats decide they want to examine it longer themselves? It might have the adverse effect of discouraging a candidate from either allowing the process to complete or re-submitting (in the case of an unsuccessful RfA) later on. It's a fine and blurry line, and I'm not really sure it's constructive to move it arbitrarily. Just my 2p worth, save up the change for a root beer or something. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be Lear's Fool (talk · contribs)'s RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - It would just prolong the agony. RFA is stressful enough as it is (and I am currently unopposed, and could hardly image what the suspense would be like at ~70-75%!) Additionally, unless something really bad suddenly turns up, the percentage rarely changes much after around 4 days. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree here with RE. A week is a very very long time to wait - I don't know how N5iln is managing! The last thing we want to do is extend. If it's close, let the crats decide. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, crats already can extend an RfA if they believe further discussion will be useful to determine consensus, for example when there was a surge of new discussion just before the RfA is scheduled to end. There is no reason imho to make this mandatory. Crats are tasked to make such decisions and I think we can trust most of them (except those who have not edited for 5 years maybe) to know when extension makes sense and when it would only "prolong the candidate's suffering". Regards SoWhy 14:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would have written exactly this. We can do this if we deem it necessary; I see no reason to formally codify it into a guideline. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose more or less per SoWhy. We entrust the bureaucrats with the responsibility to determine whether a consensus has been reached to "promote" the candidate. If the candidate does not achieve consensus, the default is not to promote. RFAs are subject to heavy scrutiny and heavy participation; it is unlikely that extension would change an outcome, and in close cases it would be better to have careful weighing of the arguments by several bureaucrats rather than to decide by the typically small number of editors who come late to RFAs if they indeed could shift the balance. As SoWhy notes, bureaucrats already may extend discussion if they believe discussion is insufficient, which is not the same as not establishing consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support the idea Oppose a written rule per SoWhy.--v/r - TP 17:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Nope. There is enough discussion and fluttering after 7 days. Break some eggs, make an ommellete and just make the tough call. Hiring decisions get made all the time and there is never a perfect process and we don't need to spend infinite time (and it would still not avoid mistakes if we did). All that matters is the statistical outcomes and if we are generally accepting the right users and refusing the wrong ones.TCO (reviews needed) 17:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The community's time is better spent reconsidering the candidate for a second RfA in a few months.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the rule per SoWhy, support the concept, but as determined by 'crats. We expect our 'crats to know what to do, let's assume they do.--SPhilbrickT 17:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with much of the above dissent, It just seems that continuing along this rational undermines the notion that RfA is "not a !vote". If it is a consensus that is desired, time (perhaps more time) to reach that consensus should be afforded. If it is "not a !vote" (in name only) then the current system is fine, and I do trust the crats discretion. If nothing else, a "no consensus" close should allow the candidate to attempt RfA2 as soon as they desire, even the next day. My underling motive is that "no consensus" is a close that should prejudice the process, and not the candidate. I do not view involvement as a "waste of time" by any measure. Respectfully, My76Strat ^talk 18:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not play games with words here. RfA is a vote. It has been a vote for as long as I can remember. Bureaucrats are given the ability to discount certain votes or types of votes, and even assign additional weight to certain votes (all based on, hopefully, only the content of the vote). This is how they make close calls. How am I so sure RfA is a vote? If a candidate has 50% support, but all of the opposes are... well... worthless and all of the supports are well crafted and glowing reviews, the candidate is still going to fail. If a candidate has 90% support and all of the supports are "per nom" and all of the opposes are well crafted and raise serious concerns, that candidate is still going to pass. Sorry, that's a vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose—I think the discussion is usually played out by 1 week. Sometimes there really just isn't consensus. I suppose if new and interesting things were happening right up until the deadline it might make sense to oppose, but I think this is rare. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No consensus generally means we've hit a stalemate where the community neither trusts nor distrusts the candidate with the tools. It's much as how I might feel about visiting a doctor in another state who I know nothing about. I wouldn't distrust him since he is a doctor, but I also wouldn't let him operate on me right away without seeing how he works. Same is true of RFA and forcing the community to decide, when it's decision is "we're not sure" seems like a bad idea. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's unlikely the extra time would help resolve anything, but it is likely it'd create additional stress and DRAMA. Still, it was an idea worthy of discussion, My76Strat.  Chzz  ►  22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per SoWhy. For close RfAs, I think it's better for the crats to thrash it out amongst themselves than to extend the debate, but that's just my preference. I don't think there have been sufficient examples of poor bureaucrat judgement on this matter to require a change in the status quo.  -- Lear's Fool 04:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are absolute correct, and never have I observed a situation, or meant to imply any measure of poor judgement. I am thankful regarding the time vested by each esteemed contributor who has shown their feedback, so it can be said, "the matter received significant consideration. I certainly could not have asked for more. Best regards, My76Strat (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The bureaucrats do the job just fine. There is no need to extend these so-called "no consensus" RfAs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: It's interesting to note from all the statistics that have been gathered here that other Wikipedia projects have a vastly superior turnout to the poll pro rata to their size, have minimum qualifications for voters, and minimum quorums for an RfA to be legitimate. Our problem may be one of publicity. Even based on my RfA - which was generally well participated - many prominent and/or prolific editors who know me well enough to support or oppose, have mentioned that they did not vote because they were not aware of it. Like any voting system, RfA is a tombola - some closures might be based on low quorums that may not represent a true consensus at all. That said, the stats referred to may demonstrate that participation is on the increase and that it is no longer exceptional to be a member of the '100+ club'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting RfA nominations

Hey folks. I just thought I'd post here to get some comments on WP:Request an RfA nomination. I've been thinking and I think this would be helpful for candidates. It's non-binding, and could be seen as a personal editor review. It does mean quite a lot of work, but I think it would be another helpful way to reduce the number of not now and snow closures we get. Even if it stops one doomed request or encourages one fearful good editor to become an admin, surely it would a good thing? Worm^TT · (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea, and nice job putting that together. The cynical part of me thinks that the people who most need a pre-RfA review (i.e. those who plow through the flashing, shouty WAIT! page without reading any of its links) aren't going to read this either, but as you say, if it can prevent one needless bloodbath, it's worth doing. 28bytes (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to echo 28's congratulation to Worm for doing such a good job (and the other part, too). Do make sure there are links to the essay in places where it might be noticed by the intended audience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Stuck it in a few high profile spots. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Worm. I think this could help a number of admin hopefuls. Maybe this could work in concert with admin coaching and some of the users at WP:HOPEFUL. Perhaps the essay could mention something about new admin school for users that are serious about learning all they can before attempting an RfA. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, very good idea. Let's watch carefully, I suspect this may even bring a rise in our monthly nominations count. -- œ^™ 04:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. I added links to Template:RfA Navigation and Wikipedia:Requests. -- œ^™ 04:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn't expect such a positive response, nor for so many people to sign up given the amount of work required. Thank you all who have commented and signed up and do feel free to add anything into the essay that you feel is missing. Worm^TT · (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting concept. It would definitely stop potential NOTNOWs or SNOWs from getting their feelings hurt by going through with an RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If it stops one bad request, then it's hard to dispute that it's a net positive. And on that basis I support its creation and existence. But it's important not to overstate the impact that this will have. While this is a decent small step, the bigger picture is largely unchanged since Jimbo lashed out against it nearly six months ago. —WFC— TFL notices 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I missed that lashing. What was the gist? — Satori Son 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:RfA reform 2011, there's quite a lot about it there and the quote is the second item under essential reading. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've been out of the RfA loop for a while... — Satori Son 15:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to Worm for having the idea to create that page. :D -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a good idea. However I would prefer to see a more definitive statement to the effect "An editor will not nominate you if they believe that you are not ready". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was certainly trying to get that point across with the essay, and with the sentence at the top of the list, but if you think there's anywhere else it should go I'd welcome you editing the essay yourself. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea overall, and it should reduce the number of NOTNOWs or SNOWs. Although, what happens if an inexperienced editor adds their name to the nominator list? Also, experienced users may be discouraged from running if the person they approach has unusually high standards. Some people on the list may want to protect their reputations by only accepting to nominate near-perfect candidates. Epbr123 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, excellent, brilliant stuff, Worm! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added this sentence: "If they do not feel that you are ready, they will not nominate you, and they will explain why." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Untranscluded RFA from new user

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CA Mendeleev: not sure what the procedure for dealing with these are, though this one does seem likely to be a waste of time if pursued. --88.104.47.107 (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably notify the user and suggest they withdraw?--GroovySandwich 10:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Muffin But he has six barnstars, including the Admin Barnstar! (That he gave himself across two accounts!) That means he's truly mop material. I... have no idea if his RFA is trolling or if he legitimately thought that would work. The bar for human intelligence gets set lower and lower with each passing week these days, so anything's possible. Anyway, since it's 3:45AM and I'm inevitably going to throw up in a few hours, here's a crudely drawn comic that perfectly describes my commute to work every day. SLASH Muffin Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 08:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning a bureaucrat bot to handle the procedural removal of inactive administrators

Interested parties are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Cratbot for desysopping inactive admins? Discussion for possible idea, not actual request. –xeno^talk 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No nominees?

Why are there no nominees? PumpkinSky talk 20:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a very high volume of people who want to run the gauntlet of RfA. However, we do average a few each month; wait a little while and another RfA hopeful will arrive. An empty list doesn't mean that the page is broken. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"gauntlet of RfA" -- that's an interesting phrase. Based on that and the few RFAs I've read through, I'm not surprised few people want to run through it. PumpkinSky talk 21:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Gauntlet is nice. Most people call it hell week. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was Wikipedia:Requests for agony? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is quite obviously a very big deal. Crazynas ^t 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do people make it so hellish? That certainly doesn't encourage quality users to accept a nomination. This makes it seem self-defeating.PumpkinSky talk 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrators are, effectively, for-life appointments. As a result, a lot of people (in my opinion) are less willing to "take a chance" on someone, and so minor faults become glaring ones that can tank less-than-perfect candidates. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hellish?? War is hellish, famine is hellish; RfA is a number of users scrutinising your edits, occasionally pointing out some mistagged or overly-hasty speedies Jebus989^✰ 21:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hell is a psychological construct, not a physical place. Therefore no doubt for some the experience of being disabused of the idea that they're useful and trusted members of the Wikipedia community is at the least rather stressful. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The alleged requirement for more full admins seems to be based largely on a "need" to combat vandalism and other anti-social edits. Other solutions exist. The idea of a limited admin role without jurisdiction over established logged-in editors should be reconsidered. This could become a probationary stage before RFA, thus addressing concerns about making a life-time appointment without appropriate behavioural evidence. - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect there'll be a nom soon. I am pretty certain one silly editor was recently foolish enough to accept a co-nomination to run the "hellish gauntlet". ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to open a concession for heat-resistant undergarments, specifically marketing to RfA candidates... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You have some test pairs I can try out? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Body armor might be useful for running a gauntlet. --John (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It must past the safety committee's inspection first. If not the candidate wearing it may be opposed for their lack of wisdom in not following proper procedure. Lambanog (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

But, but, but. The safety committee is corrupt! jorgenev 06:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been playing with the idea of nominating myself for adminship for a few weeks now. What does everyone think? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to use the idea that has been proposed in #Requesting RfA nominations above and ask someone to nominate you instead, so they will review your contributions. Regards SoWhy 10:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll echo the comment of SoWhy, for several reasons. Nominated candidates often do better, but that's partly because a nominator is likely to poke around enough to weed out potential NOTNOWS, and provide useful advice.--SPhilbrickT 18:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps read WP:RFAADVICE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Great! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship threshold RfC

An RfC to determine the threshold for successful Requests for bureaucratship is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. All of the community is invited to comment. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126#RfA decision

RFA regulars not already watching Jimmy Wales' user talk page should be advised that there is an ongoing discussion there (yet again) about possible RFA reform. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had such discussions in the proper place where they can easily be found in the archives, rather than on user talk pages. Perhaps we can move the discussion here?--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Could we please make one simple change: instead of voting support/oppose could we change that to ready/not ready or now/not now? This will be kinder to the candidates. Everyone who wants to be an administrator should get the chance, when they are ready. If an editor is not ready, voters should explain what additional skills or experience are needed, or what change of approach is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 05:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that, although well-intentioned, this may not be best for candidates. With some candidates it's clear what needs to be done, and that is often made clear already. However, some candidates will never reach the standard that many !voters expect; some will spend a few years working on something that scores little RfA karma then they'll get bored and semi-retire; some have a serious error in their past and it's difficult to judge when they'll be considered rehabilitated by RfA standards; and so on. We could try to change the standards of RfA !voters so that the goal is within reach of every editor, including the non-anglophone ones, the drama queens, the single-issue pov-pushers, and the edit-count obsessed ones whose rapidfire edits leave a trail of destruction or degraded quality; but that would not be easy. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the now/not now version would have the same problem. It doesn't require users to tell an editor that they will someday become an admin (later); however, it is a surface change that sounds slightly better than "oppose". A clear distinction would need to be made between a "not now" !vote and a WP:NOTNOW !vote. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, your comment exemplifies whatis wrong here. We should not be calling editors names such as drama queen or POV pusher. Even if an editor has problems keeping calm or maintaining NPOV, there is always hope they could improve and be promoted. Maybe it will take a long time. maybe they will retire before they are ready. It is not civil to label people and call them names. I wish our bureaucrats would be stronger about enforcing civility at RFA. Ad homeinim attacks should be removed. It is possible to raise any concern without the name calling. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As a non-controversial way of trialing the idea, perhaps those editors who wish to do so, and only those editors who do, could simply try using terms such as Not ready or Not now in place of Oppose in those instances where they think it's appropriate. No one is stopping anyone from doing so. If it works well, it will catch on, and if it doesn't, it won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to edit the policy page and the template to replace Support/Oppose with something better. These words contribute to a hostile environment. In addition, I would like to add a statement that bureaucrats will (consistent with existing policy) remove (or strike) any votes that include uncivil statements, such as calling the user a name ("drama queen") or personal attacks in the form of a negative statement without supporting evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC) and (15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC))

I would oppose the full removal of votes.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

RFA is not a zone where the normal rules of civility and no personal attacks are suspended. If something is removable, it can be removed. If the comment is not removable, but improper, then it can be struck out. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In theory at least, the crats already have the latitude to discount !votes that are not grounded in policy. So I think Jehochman's proposal is basically in line with policy and could be implemented right now. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) My concern is with the vote itself. Reasonable redaction I don't have a problem with, but I don't want to see someone with 55% support get lifetime adminship because at the last minute a crat rolled through and entirely removed 15 votes because they felt the language was intemperate, and threw the percentages the other way. Your change may have addressed that depending on actual application.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem you're going to run into is that, by definition, the RfA process (and, by extension, the RfB process) calls for the opinion of the community, which makes it a unique venue in the entire Wikipedia project. Any other area where input from the community is requested also requires that input to be substantiated in some manner. While I agree that WP:CIVIL should be enforced throughout the project, and arguably even more stringently in RfA/RfB discussions and !votes, it's going to be a very, very hard climb to get some of the RfA regulars to separate personal opinion from the process. I'd even go so far as to say this may be one of the core problems of the RfA process as it currently exists, as those !voting aren't required to support their !votes, or their opinions or rationale for those !votes, with demonstrable logic and reason. So it's not unheard of that a user with whom a particular candidate has had a kerfluffle can pop up on that candidate's RfA and state their opposition to the candidate's acquiring the mop based solely on that one kerfluffle, instead of evaluating the entire body of the candidate's work on the project. It's up to the closing bureacrat to evaluate the merits of each !vote, of course. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To attempt to address Cube Lurker's concern, a 'crat should not pop up at the last minute and strike votes. If votes are improper, the voter should be notified and given fair opportunity to place a new vote. "Not trustworthy" can be replaced with "Actions such as [diff][diff][diff] do not inspire trust. You need to avoid doing that in the future." Language matters, a lot. Criticism without evidence should not be allowed. If we have become complacent about this, now is a good time to raise our standards and enforce existing policy. Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, including calling RfA vote, votes. In XfD there is the presumption of !v, I do not recall there ever been an RfA closed with anything less than a super-mega mayority, clearly a democratic process.

An idea that might make the process slower but more focused, might be to have a three-phase voting process:

1. Initial votes, one week period, crats decide to close normally or that there is the need to enter extended voting process at their discretion.

1. One week evaluation period in which 'crats decide which votes are valid or invalid according to bright-line criteria, not 'crat discretion. As this happens the voters can also modify their votes according to the comments by crats.

1. One week reconsideration period - those whose votes were subjected to revision are given the opportunity to fix the issues, no new votes are accepted but voters can change votes. 'Crats close normally.

I hate being bureaucratic, but bureaucrats are in charge of this process for a reason, it is bureaucratic. :)--Cerejota (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I find that to be excessively over-complicated and a waste of time. Access to the admin toolkit is not powerful enough to warrant that kind of overkill; you're talking about three weeks of people's voluntary time. I favour the opposite approach, whereby admin rights are assigned like almost all other user rights, by simple request which is fulfilled or declined (by a bureaucrat at this point), and the de-adminship process can then come in an RfA-like discussion where the community can weigh in on every detail ^{Not the time/place for this proposal} Jebus989^✰ 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Read my exact proposal at Jimbo's its pretty much what you struck out. Am saying, in the mean time, lets do something. I see your point, but then what do you propose. Without directing it at you personally (hell it seems we are thinking some of the same thoughts) one thing that does grind my gears is the tendency shoot down proposals without doing anything else, even when acknowledging the need for change. And these process wouldn't take three weeks of people's time. It would take basically the same amount of time the current RfA process does, except it would be extended over a larger period of time - but the actual work at most would take at most 10 minutes more. Which is about half an hour of time a month at current rates...--Cerejota (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure the terminology is so much the issue, as the responses (how they are worded, the tone, etc) - and often that has to do with the editor in question (how many people they've rubbed the wrong way. It's a situation that tends to escalate. I, for one, had problems with only one oppose of mine; and that was due to lack of effort on the opposer to see why certain edits were labeled as vandalism (long drawn out discussions at AN/I promising the editors blocks for disruptiveness and content blanking as vandalism; MULTIPLE reverts/edits to blank, plenty of reason, and already discussed before-hand at ANI)... but that's not so much that opposer's fault; it would take a bit of digging through the talk pages to find all the details, the AN/I links, etc to realize the actions were supported and decided at AN/I and elsewhere.

Nonetheless, that brings up an interesting thing about the process. Extensive responses are "frowned upon" - yet snap judgments are often made at AN/I. And once one person makes such a judgment, others often "support" or "oppose" based on that without doing any of their own research. This is problematic in various respects, whether it helps someone achieve a successful RfA or they fail to.

The problem, of course, is that rationale is important - especially in weighing which !votes to include (such as "he reported me for being an ass! I oppose him being an admin!"). I'm not sure if a "clarification of actions" stage would be helpful (me as an example, since it's fresh in my mind and easily accessible; "Why did you mark these edits as vandalism?" !vote pending on explanation) - though I originally suspected that the "addtl questions" section was supposed to be used for that, but I've seen all too often (as well as experienced) such is not always the case. Obviously, this does not apply to all aspects ("You have no article edits"), but on actions where judgment is called for, I think it does. I think those are the most important ones to get answers for before passing judgment on a candidacy. The only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is that a candidate accepts, one week (3 days, some time frame) is allowed for those who wish to contribute to the RfA to (a) ask the general questions we normally see, (b) ask the judgment questions such as "Why did you do this when this happened? What's your rationale?" - THEN the RfA candidate starts to answer questions (not before).

Next big (maybe biggest?) issue is criteria, of course. I personally think the most contentious one, edit count, actually is a win-win either way. An editor with a massive edit count/GA/FA count, etc, can be very helpful in helping other editors or fixing article issues for disputed articles. One without (but with an understanding of how things work) on the other hand, makes a great person to keep the backlogs down (and yes, there have been nights I've seen BIG backlogs - but then again, if you look at the times I edit, you'll see they are the wee hours of the morning). As well, they make someone most likely to be able to take impartial action based on the probability they have not edited any articles that there are conflicts on. Also, comparing the two, a high content contributor seems to tend to still concentrate on those areas moreso than they do on cleaning up backlogs or dealing with issues requiring impartiality. Someone who has the understanding of how to do so, but wants to concentrate on more of the back-end grunt work is the someone who will pick up that slack.

Point is, other than the most basic of criteria, and an aptitude test to test someone's judgment of what they will run into ("How would you tag this?", "Is this vandalism? How (or would) you warn the editor?", "Who is the person who should be blocked here?", or similar), most of the other stuff really doesnt seem to float in any way. I can find pros and cons for all the other "criteria" people have been applying. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Summary (via analogy) of my excessively verbose stuff above: If you're in college, you don't get graded before the test. You get reviewed, you get the questions, then you get graded. I'm not sure why (except for follow-up questions brought up due to concerns or !votes) other questions are not asked before !voting takes place, instead of during. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Written College exams are not interactive so they make a poor analogy for RFA. I think a better analogy is a job interview, if it becomes clear that the candidate is unsuitable then you don't continue the interview unnecessarily. ϢereSpielChequers 07:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Because of the suggestions made by Jimbo related to this thread, and my desire to see it through, I am starting a draft proposal at WP:ALTRFA. All comments to the talk page are appreciated and needed. Any help would also be appreciated. My76Strat (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:RFA2011 and in particular to WP:RfA/DEAL - think you are duplicating efforts. In fact, I would suggest we merge WP:RfA/DEAL and WP:ALTRFA--Cerejota (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that WP:RfA/DEAL seems to cover this topic. I don't know how to best resolve the duplication, but agree that it should not be separate. My76Strat (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would just merge the two, by switching the redirect WP:ALTRFA and the main article to the Wikipedia:RfA_reform_2011/Sysop_on_request article, leaving a note on the talk page as per merge. Also, go over the text of Wikipedia:RfA_reform_2011/Sysop_on_request to change what I call "new admin role" to "apprentice admin" I like that name - is like apprectice wizards and stuff ;) I would do all of this, but I think its better you get the credit for the edits - if you stuck just let me know at my talk page. --Cerejota (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! My76Strat (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have merged the two. Again everyone with input is asked to participate. Also there is an essay that reaches out to strong potential administrators located here. I am sure we all know some good prospects. My76Strat (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical perspective

Hey, I'd just like to point everyone at something I have been working on that you might find interesting: WP:RFABETTERBEFORE. jorgenev 23:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your page says "even when candidates were being promoted at levels that we now think would think today are ridiculously too low to promote at people were complaining that RFA is too hard". Who is "we"? I am not convinced that the level at which candidates were being sysopped in 2004 was "ridiculously too low" even if it was substanially lower than it is today.James500 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Idk. Candidates passed with ~500 edits in 2004. jorgenev 01:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Jorgenev, this is some very interesting research, which I had no idea about. Thank you very much and kudos for doing it. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In the very early days, one candidate passed with one support vote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me it wasn't a self-vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Wikipedia's population and media presence was not nearly today's size, so it makes sense. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at it through the other end of the telescope. That administrator is still an administrator, and that makes no sense at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does it make no sense? Have they failed in their duties? Are they inactive? Have they abused their tools? These are questions that need addressing when looking at the community's prerogative to reclaim the mop, and more besides. There's no "one size fits all" answer for either handing someone the mop or taking it away, which is why there's a RfA/RfB process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You've asked a question that you could easily answer yourself. Who is this admin? What they done since their "promotion"? When were they last active? Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smith03. Still an admin, still editing today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting research. I think it will also be interesting if anyone could supply a similar list of RfA comments which are hellish/hazing/shameful... It is taken as a given in discussion, but I rarely see any !vote worthy of those strong terms Jebus989^✰ 09:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some thing are best not repeated and though wp:Pillory is somehow still a redlink which through some Freudian slip of the computer referred me to the five pillars, listing people who've made mistakes is rarely a good idea. Aside from concerns about muckraking there's also the issue that if you are going to criticise someone specifically by saying their comment was hazing or shameful then you need to tell them, and while these sorts of comments don't crop up in every RFA, they do turn up in enough that it would be unfair to single out one or two editors. So if someone did take the trouble to trawl through RFA history, dig out the worst comments of the last couple of years and then tell the authors, I suspect we'd have an epic dwamah filled thread with at least the following ingredients. A series of editor defending their remarks as less contentious than certain other remarks by editors not previously involved. Two editors agreeing that each others comments whilst close to the bone were fair comment. Three or more subthreads and attempts to generate statistics or devise a special RFA version of wp:civil. And enough potential admins reading the consequent threads to reduce the average age of the next 6 months RFA candidates by a decade. ϢereSpielChequers 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seriously suggesting a name and shame essay. I just think it's been too easy for everyone to jump on the bandwagon and paint RfA as this unimaginable nightmare of grievous insults, when in reality it's often mild-mannered nitpickery which just happens to upset the candidate or their supporters on occasion Jebus989^✰ 18:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes most RFAs are civil, and most opposes are reasonable. But the occasional crass and incivil oppose happens often enough to give the place a bad reputation and deter most of the potential good candidates from running. It would be wrong to criticise everyone who Opposes at RFA, just as it would be wrong to confuse effective opposes with incivil ones - some of the most vitriolic opposes have been pretty much counter-productive. ϢereSpielChequers 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

However, given that I was once accused of being incredibly rude for mistakenly referring to someone as young in an oppose (which was for poor communications skills, rather than for being underage), I think we need to remember that civility is a social construct. The whole Oppose vs Some other phrase that's theoretically nicer debate illustrates that. I do think that maybe a little more active clerking might help, but at the end of the day I do get the feeling that people who get upset are upset at not being supported, rather than at the detail of the oppose. And at the end of the day, that might just be indicating that maybe this is not the role for them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just want to say very interesting research, and thank you for doing it. Swarm ^{u | t} 20:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming and shaming? Well, User:Protonk seems to think we should post a list of the drama mongers. He also feels that by not posting that list, we are acting like a huddle of kids in the corner of the schoolyard. And if that ain't inciting drama enough, at least Malleus will have the satisfaction of believing his fears confirmed that Wikipedia is run by child admins. One thing is for sure, all we're practically left with is children running for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

the more administrators there are the better

I concede, before being told, that this is lightly off-topic. But in relation to the comments above about an admin being created with only a single support vote (?!vote) can I point out the criterion extant at the time, which is to say June 2003? The policy was then "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better." It is different now, but commenting on decisions taken eight years ago under a different set of policies is not a meaningful way of progressing the discussion.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a smaller and I gather more trusting community then. But the aspiration to grant adminship widely is I believe a good one. Providing we filter out those who are likely to misuse the tools then yes I'd agree that "the more administrators there are the better". However that is now an isolated and almost maverick view, the current debate is between those who are happy with a dwindling supply of admins and those who seek to stabilise numbers. I accept that we can run this place with far fewer admins than we once had, and I don't know big our safety margin is. We might get away with far fewer admins before the site runs into serious trouble for lack of admins; Or we might have an incident tomorrow where there were insufficient admins active to deal with it promptly. I think it irresponsible to try and run this place with a minimum number of mops when mops are free. ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If our current admin selection process is not smartened up enough to encourage mature, experienced candidates of the right calibre from accepting to be nominated, new admins will be appointed by a cabal of salaried WMFers - and we'll have no say in the matter. All those in favour please comment at WT:RFA/RADICAL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's only if they feel like doing it... we know where that can go. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wow" is all I have to say

I've closed the below thread. With respect to Mr. Keeper, who is only the latest person to start one of these (I may have started one myself a while back), the monthly compliant threads generate a lot of heat, rehash the same arguments, and generally serve no purpose but to create tension and sour relations. That's not the intent, of course, but it's what happens every single time, and it's what has happened this time.

There are subpages with different reform proposals floating around, if you believe there is a problem and want to work on fixing it, find one of those. If you don't believe there is a problem, don't. Either way though, please, please, please stop these pointless monthly fights.

On behalf of pretty much everyone who watchlists this page and hasn't commented below, Sven Manguard Wha? 08:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ok. So. At one point, me - Mr. Keeper, was in the "top 10" for most edits to this talkpage for Rfa. I semi-retired from this entire website nearly 2 years ago. I still edit - although mostly as an IP, which by the way is far more rewarding (but I digress), and I rarely log in other than to chat about baseball on my talkpage (thanks Jimbo for the free userspace...). Anywho, to get to the point, this talkpage is as ridiculous, if not moreso, than when I left it in 2008/9. Good grief, doesn't anyone have anything better to do than complain about how broken RfA is? RfA is broken, yada yada. Feel free to discuss if you must. I very likely won't be checking in again anytime soon. But seriously people. Life comma get one. Keeper | 76 02:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe RFA's golden age ended in 2008.--178.167.234.60 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The RFA process will inevitably be the subject of most threads, since this is the RFA TALKPAGE. Seriously, just coming here to complain about how much people complain seemed like a good way to spend a part of that life you are talking about? End pointless topic.--Atlan (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Yes. I keep seeing the same phrases over and over: Unimaginable nightmare. Hell week. Ritual humiliation. <<<an insulting part of my comment redacted>>> Honestly, if you can't face criticism, ignore the irrelevant stuff and address the valid points of the criticism in a calm and civil way, you should grow up. That's how it works in real life and that's how it should work also here. People's opinions are not always packed in a rose gift box, and if you can't stay on top of things, the RfA is not for you. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a fine balance to be struck between pointing out that RFA is broken whilst suggesting how to fix it, and exaggerating how broken it is and thereby risk deterring some candidates who would actually have an easy time at RFA. With only one successful RFA in the last month and only 39 so far this year, there can be no real dispute that RFA as a process is broken in that it is producing insufficient admins to replace those we lose through desysops and retirements. But it isn't so broken that no one can get through. I wouldn't recommend RFA to someone who edits in their own name, but if you use a pseudonym and are as overqualified as some of the recent successful candidates there is little risk in stepping forward. ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Vejvančický: If you can't face criticism without sniping back with a rash of sarcasm and insults then you should try harder to respond in a calm and civil way. Is that how you respond to criticism in real life?

Only now I face your criticism, my previous comment was of general nature. I can't help myself, but I consider comparing the RfA to hell or to an "unimaginable nightmare" as laughable. I'm sorry if you (or anyone) feel insulted by my comparison, I did not realize how grossly offensive my comment could be. Now redacted :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@no one in particular, I hear the phrase RFA is broken a lot, for years. So often that it's become a truism with no effort to back it up. When it is backed up it's usually claimed that it's a hard process to go through and that good editors are unwilling to do it. But as I asked on Jimbo's page where it came up last week, where are these editors? RFA is a hard process mostly because editors who aren't ready have a hard time of it. Editors who are ready sail through. The thing that needs work is filtering the nominees better. RxS (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RxS, since starting request an RfA nomination, I've had 5 editors approach me and I have approached a 6th. Whilst I would rather not mention names, there is certainly a portion of the community who would consider becoming an administrator, but certainly have a fear of the process. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a strange assumption there that the hellish nightmarishness of an RfA lies entirely in nominating yourself (?). How can a number of people going out of their way to enter into an RfA be proof of them fearing of the process? Jebus989^✰ 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For my part, the assumption was anecdotal. I was unwilling to put myself forward, even when I did, I was expecting to be borderline. I sailed through (pretty much), and I probably would have 3 months earlier. I have heard the same thing from other editors. There is no more of a nightmare if you nominate yourself, but if you have someone who nominates you, you at least know that you're thinking along the right lines. It is relevant that none of the people who have approached me have a previous RfA. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair reply. So (potentially) instead of a paralysing fear of !voter brutality, those candidates were just unsure that they were ready for an RfA, and they wanted reassurance. That brings up a separate issue of unnecessarily high standards (which I entirely agree is an issue and needs addressing) Jebus989^✰ 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Vejvančický, Im not aware of any half successful non-military real life org which would tolerate a selection process as overly critical as RfA. Too much criticism demotivates and hurts confidence; it's a pointless squandering of our most valuable resource. In the orgs Ive worked at (mainly Siemens, Whitehall, O2 and Credit Suisse) execs who lead and select teams are trained in the importance of softening criticism and ensuring its always constructive. Its good to give and receive about 5x as much praise as criticism. And not just offhand comments like "incredible work", but detailed specific praise so folk know you've given them real attention.

I agree. Unfortunately, the majority of people here aren't trained in constructive criticism. Wikipedia's position is incomparable to any of the subjects mentioned in your comment. Here, anyone can comment almost everywhere. The openness and consensus-based culture has immense benefits, but it also has some considerable disadvantages, which is visible not only here at RfA. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the art of constructive criticism would be a good subject for an essay? :-) But you're right we cant force folk to be nicer, though reforms like Jehochman suggested sound worthwhile, also reducing the passing threshold to something reasonable like 50%. Not only would that be a good way to replenish the ranks, it would make it harder for a small group of opposers to add insult to injury by coupling their criticism with what could feel like a formal rejection from the community. Alas sceptics always seem to come out of the woodwork to block substantial reforms, so unless the new task force pull off a miracle we'll likely have to wait for Jimbo. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if my respected colleague WSC is saying this, but I strongly disagree with the idea excessive criticism ought only harm those who edit in their real names. If you're on Wikipedia enough to have a realistic shot at RfA then a fair bit of your persona is invested in your account even if its anon. Its not just real name users who sometimes retire after being savaged at RfA. DGAF is a healthy attitude but most cant help being social creature who care what others say.

@RxS I also challenge the view that editors who are ready sail through - some do, many dont. If RfA really was good at sifting the ready from the unready, then borderline passes ought to show a higher incidence of de-syspoping and I understand this isn't the case. One also has to question a process that rejects such obviously competent, thoughtful and well balanced editors as SMarshall or RichardCavel. Btw, in the orgs I mentioned sysops are often selected without even a tenth of the scrutiny we subject candidates to, and this includes for senior rolls where mistakes can disrupt multi billion dollar revenue streams and essential services to millions of customers. Jimbo ought to know this as he used to work in an investment bank too. Roll on the day when he reforms RfA by force majeure! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

But in those companies people can be fired at will. And it's not like they'd hire some bum off the street to make million dollar decisions. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, firing people here is not as easy as in the US. In Europe it is often more difficult. Probably rather more difficult than getting Arbcom to desysop an admin. That doesn't mean you make recruitment unpleasant, if anything the reverse. Afterall incivil opposes rarely scupper RFAs, they just deter good candidates.

I wouldn't argue that there are no implications for pseudonymous editors, merely that they are generally less serious than for people who edit in their own name. I'm aware that we sometimes lose good editors because of their reception at RFA. I first noticed this over a year ago whilst trawling RFAs from several months earlier looking for people who might now be ready for a second run. I hope that as a nominator I can prevent that by only nominating people who are sufficiently overqualified to easily pass, and by not nominating those who edit in their own name. It would be great if we could improve RFA to the point where one could commend it to all qualified editors, but I for one wouldn't do that now.

I don't know how the military handles these things, but no organisation I'm involved in real life has this harsh or public a recruitment process. As an organisation we have problems with retention of editors and in particular we are no longer as good as we once were at welcoming editors into that amorphous community of the active wikipedians. I am pretty sure that RFA is part of that problem. ϢereSpielChequers 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree WSC. @Hot Stop – the other point Id make is the really harmful actions – promoting libellous or grossly misleading information, harassing valuable editors, etc - can already be performed , and countered , by the "bum on the street". As bad deletions are easy to reverse maybe our over caution stems from fear of bad blocks? I understand some mature editors despise the thought of some kid with only a fraction of their experience and expertise being able to block them. Perhaps something like making it routine to erase bad blocks from the log would help allay those concerns? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The key to any reform is to just do it without asking permission. Most things get done around here happen that way. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Did anyone actually read the inital post before they turned this thread into the typical WT:RFA circle jerk?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Swarm likes this (I promise never to use that template again) Swarm ^{u | t} 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, folks, we can discuss this on or off topic forever. But the point is, this is an encyclopedia. It needs to be maintained in good order and, whether Rfa is broken or not (for the record, I think it's not) this maintenance appears to happen. Anything else is surely secondary. So let us not discuss whether RfA is broken or not, let us look at whether the encyclopedia is broken or not. Is it? Because that is really all that matters. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the pedia is broken, on most counts I think it is better than last year and much better than the year before. But I consider that we've proven RFA to be broken. At peak we had 1021 active admins, today we have 746 unless we fix or replace RFA then I predict that within 12 months it will drop below 700. In 2008 we appointed 201 admins, in 2009 121, in 2010 75. This year it is heading for about 50. This is the talkpage for RFA, it is the logical page to point out that we have a problem with RFA and encourage people to fix it. The evidence is that RFA is broken. I think it is time for people to accept the evidence and start trying to solve the problem, or check the evidence for themselves and try to pick holes in it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well said. No, Wikipedia isn't broken, and yes, we are doing fine, but how long will that last? A continuously growing encyclopedia needs a continuously growing number of admins, and what's happening is the opposite. Our number of active admins is decreasing and the number of newly appointed admins is stagnating. Sure we're fine at the moment, but how long can the encyclopedia be maintained with this trend going on? The as the number of admins declines, so to will that level of maintenance Wikipedia currently recieves. As that happens, who knows what the consequences will be. Now, I'm not implying that RfA is the source of all problems or that fixing it will permanently "fix Wikipedia", but it can't be implied that RfA's brokenness doesn't effect Wikipedia in the grand scheme. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I lurk on this page and I disagree with WereSpielChequers' opinion regarding RfA. I do not believe that RfA is broken. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.