Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 182

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 175

←

Archive 180

Reducing opposes - create the Custodian role.

Its possible some of the prejudice against candidates with a lack of bomb proof audited content contributions could re reduced if an equivalent promotion was available for content builders who might not be trusted with a block button.

The custodian

Same formal and informal protection against blocking that administrators enjoy.
Same move page ability.
Same view deleted content ability.
Classed as admins for the purposes of wheel warring.

*An extra attribute being they are community sanctioned as having a good grasp of the policy and practice of creating quality content. Which is arguably partially the case with admins, but not as I understand it explicitly so. So while they still have an equal say with everyone else, their views in discussion concerning content are not to be treated lightly.

Unlike admins they wont have a block or delete button, as they are not meant to perform mopping or security functions.

Selection

If we had some quantitative limits, such as a minimum of 5000 edits and a min of 5 Good Articles, perhaps we could lower the % threshold to say 55% , and then combined with the lack of scary buttons just about every qualified and interested content builder should be able to pass! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly would anyone want this role? They can view deleted content (which is useless, since they can't delete or restore it) and move protected pages, pages which are normally protected for a reason. Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Im pretty sure they'd be able to restore deleted pages ... anyone, even a non-administrator, can do that. Maybe not salted pages, though; we'll have to ask what FeydHuxtable meant. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes they could restore the same as everyone else, and they wouldnt have to ask an admin to view the content. But thats more a minor attraction. Reading the comments over the months Ive been taking part in RfA, one gets the feeling some content contributors feel under valued as they're not admins. When 3rd parties write about us they say being an admin is like a badge of honour, i know not everyone feels that way, but some might. A custodian role could be a form of recognition. Another desirable feature for those that sometimes get into disputes is it offers the same protection as being an admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any policy that inplies that their opinion on content has more weight then other good faith users. Discusions on content from new user, admin, crat or founder should always be judged on merit of the arguement. Not the Rank of the user.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We could drop that part then. But dont admins have some kind of extra weight when they get involved in dispute resolution due to the fact they've been community approved? Or is it purely as they carry a big stick? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They carry a big stick. Admins are specifically not more important than other users, and their opinion is not meant to carry any more weight. Ironholds (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins who act like they carry a big stick often have it taken away. Frank | talk 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It probably varies between users in how they view admins comments. IMHO it's a dangerous path to tread to treat certain users opinions as having higher weight in areas that aren't specifically related to the use of admin tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratched that bit, will be interesting to see if it helps the idea take off.

Because of its limited powers, FeydHuxtable, it would be necessarily viewed as a stepping stone to the sysop bit, and thus create all sorts of problems - Custodians feeling entitled to pass their RfA, increased bureaucracy, and just an overall extension of the RfA process. People with the title, not being able to do much, would essentially just have a badge that says the community sort of trusts them, but not quite, which is a bad thing. Besides, lower standards are close to non-consensus; 55% is 45% oppose and, while that may be good enough for a Presidential election, it wouldn't fly here. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For some, but as well as limited powers it would also have limited duties as there would be no extra preasure to do mopping and vandal fighting, so might be ideal for some? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It would be more than a badge if people actually used the tools. The point here is to help out the editors who don't frequent the mire of AN/I but spend most of their time working on articles. They come across instances where being able to move and delete pages would be useful, but because of an intimate knowledge of stuff such as blocking policy, they don't always pass RfA. De-bundling the tools would have the benefit of making them more accessible, allowing more people to use them. That would actually make it less of a badge; what's so special about roll back for example? Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) Nothing at all, but that's in large part due to its lack of community vetting and Twinkle! This proposal doesn't give the ability to delete pages to Custodians, which gives no advantage when finding such pages. My comment was that it gives so few actual abilities, the title would be the largest aspect to it - I feel the issue with badge-wearing lies in the holder, not the viewers. I'm not necessarily opposed to doling out moving over redirects and viewing deleted revisions to trusted users, but I am to making a pre-RfA RfA step. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's not going to be much of a badge if a lot of people have it, and since there are fewer buttons, there's less to worry about so should be easier to get. I don't like the title, but I actually think it's the least important element. If the tools can be handed out to more users to help them, then they should be. If they use it as a means of saying "I'm better than you", then it becomes a problem. But, if it's easy to hand out tools, it should also be easier to withdraw them. Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I interpret the proposal to drop the threshold to 55% as (crudely stated): an attempt to lower the bar for an intermediate tool set. I'm very sympathetic to the concept of an intermediate step to sysop that would be easier to attain, but I'll suggest that can be accomplished without lowering the threshold. (I agree with Armory's concerns.) While I've only !voted in a handful of RfA's, I've read quite a few to get myself up to speed on community views. I think I've seen some who oppose, out of concern that the candidate might not be fully ready for all tools. It isn't hard to imagine that their oppose might be a support if the tool suite were smaller. So it is entirely possible that some of the unsuccessful RfA candidates - getting, say 65% support for the entire admin tool set, might get 75–80% if the discussion was about a more limited tool set. I'm not yet familiar enough with the complete admin mop and bucket set to know what would make a good custodian set, but I'll suggest that leaving the threshold substantially the same as for admin would still result in an easier bar to hurdle.--SPhilbrick T 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right it might not need the threshold to be lowered, though that would be only fair if it required a minimun number of edits and ammount of audited content. Anyway Im not suggesting it should be seen as an intermediate rank, more of an equal rank but for someone focussed on content building and with less interest in general administration (perhaps in some cases lacking the temperment for it as is the case with some creative types, though this need not be the case). FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Question - what are the "... formal and informal protection against blocking that administrators enjoy"? Administrators should be held to the same standards, if not higher standards, than any other editor. Are you implying that administrators are granted some kind of special dispensation to break the rules and get away with it? Shereth 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Historically, they have been. Nev1 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They should not be, nor should the misguided notion be granted legitimacy the way it is here. Shereth 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but they effectively are. The "protection" element of the suggested custodian role is something I object to strongly as as a rule everyone should be held to equal standards of behaviour. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Two things that would probably go wrong, I am sure there are more:

This wouldn't give the custodians any protection against blocking. It would simply add a new line to the table:

Editor class	Score
Vandalism block	1
Custodian	20
Admin	50
Giano	100
Ex-arbitrator	200
Sitting Arbitrator	500
Jimbo	1000
Formally correct 3RR block	20% of a normal block

I am not sure about the exact scores, as I am not taking part in this game. But I am sure the real scores reflect approximately the risk involved in a block.

I doubt that many prolific content contributors would be interested in such a formal status. But you could try to start with an introductory offer: 20 additional free barnstars for every new custodian in the first week!

PS: One reason candidates may fail if they don't produce any content is the suspicion that they may be interested in the exact scores in the table above. Hans Adler 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That made me LOL, id also place Giano twice as high as admins. Anyway with this model both Custodian and Admin should be seen as equals on 50 points. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh gesh

"Same formal and informal protection against blocking that administrators enjoy." That made me smile. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's the main thing Ottava :-) I understand admins have a technical ability where they can unblock themselves, so they are formally protected from accidents and also blocks by a compromised admin account? Informally, arent folk reluctant to block admins? Im aware its happened to many standard editors but only of one case with an admin, which provoked quite a reaction. I agree admins should be held to higher standards and Jimbo said so on his talk page, but maybe other admins take much longer to assess the overall situation before making a judgement. Am probably missing stuff, anyway its an advantage as content writers could then feel on an equal footing and some might be less inclined to oppose young editors being promoted due to the thought of them being able to boss them around later on. Im sure only a few would think like that, and no ones going to admit it, but this is how some folk think! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not formally protected - an admin unblocking themselves is verboten. Shereth 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise that was what you meant by "formal and informal protection against blocking"; it needs rephrasing as it sounds like custodians would be exempt from the same behavioural rules other editors are held to. I don't know if admins are able to unblock themselves, but they shouldn't be able. Compromised accounts are the exception, so the best way to deal with blocks by a compromised admin account would be through AN/I or an unblock request (the ability for admins being able to unblock themselves could be open to abuse). Nev1 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I should maybe have just have emphasised they'd be on an equal footing with admins regarding blocks, and at the same time clarrified that they'll equally be exspected to behave to a higher standard. But it needs to sound as appealing as being an admin, to a content building type. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The only "footing" administrators should have with regards to blocks is the fact that they issue them; all rules pertaining to being blocked technically do and should apply to all administrators. Trying to lure people in to an admin-lite position by dangling this carrot in front of them is a terrible idea, as it is granting legitimacy to a terribly misguided concept. Shereth 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes admin-lite is a bad idea, the new role will work best if its seen as being equal in rank - with a few less powers but in compensationary fashion less duties. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am kind of curious as to what a "custodian" actually does? In terms of duties and activities, it looks like this is more of an honorary title than anything else. What, specifically, are the admin "duties" that you are suggesting be granted to this user group? Shereth 20:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a royalty thing. Sir Tan | 39 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the feeling I'm coming away with. Not enough XP to hit Lord yet, eh? Shereth 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If we need to spell it out the remit of the role could be to address content issues - Curator would be an alternative title. The role will contrast to the general mopping and security duties of an admin. So in this way it might seem more desireable to some, compensating for the lack of powers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate people thinking outside the box so I hope you don't take this the wrong way. That description sends a chill up my spine. We don't trust admins to have special authority over content. Now we'd be giving someone who up to 45% of the community doesn't trust authority over others in content decisions?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec, resp to FeydHuxtable) This still doesn't answer my question. What roles or rights are to be given to this position that allows them to address content issues? Saying their role is "to address content issues" is woefully vague. Shereth 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking there would maybe be a duty for them to focus more on content building than the average editor, but not that this would be measured or in any way enforced. Does the role even have to defined? Maybe its best not to due to the authority issue cube lurker raised. The ideas more about equal status for content builders so they dont feel under valued, rather than trying to create a new role. Anyway Im off to bed before I wear out my welcome. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

so it's essentially a "hat", even though the key part of adminship is that it shouldn't be treated as a hat. I oppose this idea as something that is badly thought-out, vague, powerless and goes completely against the grain of how userrights should work - it affords little or no additional abilities, exists to make content editors feel better and makes them more "important" or "respected" than other users. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

+1. Shereth 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:PERENNIAL#Hierarchical structures. Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I always read proposals for new hierarchy, not so much because they have much of a chance of passing, but because sometimes you see problems being identified that could be addressed. I don't see any new, fixable problem in the above discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this would be a benefit to the project as a whole, and I do see potential for increased confusion and additional layers of unnecessary bureaucracy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

Keeping with the recent push of proposals, I'd like to propose that +sysop is given to all Wikipedia users. Let's just promote everyone on Wikipedia, that way we don't have to worry about someone opposing over legitimate reasons, or about bureaucrats doing their job and not counting any irrelevant vote. Maybe then, we could even promote some of our current bureaucrats to +god, allowing them to Special:Kill anybody who tries to touch Jimbo. iMatthew ^talk at 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We tried that back in 2001, it failed. It's a perennial proposal. (X! · talk) · @101 · 01:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are legal reasons why we can't give everyone access to deleted pages. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a better idea: why not demote every single admin to a regular user for a day or two and see what happens. It will be like WP:NODRAMA but enforced. Or we could have every long-term admin demote themselves for a day to see what life was like back when they were just a 'lowly reg'. Maybe it will make some appreciate more what privelages they have. ;) -- œ ^™ 05:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Knowing who needs to be "taught a lesson" and how best to do it is a completely different skill set from the skills learned at RFA; that's more in line with what people learn (or fail to learn) at ANI and Arbcom. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I like IMatthew's proposal. Then everyone will have to go through an Un-RfA, or a Request for Un-admin, to have the tools taken away. Oppose User looks like they could do with some more aggro. Support User has way too many mainspace edits. – B.hotep •talk• 20:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were a clever vandal, and this proposal were enacted... I can think of a bit of vandalism that could be carried out in under 10 seconds, which would significantly interfere with Wikipedia's usefulness for hours, and which would take days and days of person-hours to correct. Let's not create the conditions where that's guaranteed to happen, over and over and over again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Ageism

Based upon the feedback of several users, I've tried to revise the essay to take into account their concerns/questions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the Wal-Mart part, because I think it exaggerates the issue a bit. Take, for example, the "[o]n Wikipedia, a single mistake might garner national news in a heartbeat," piece. Although this is technically true, I'd be surprised if anyone who was given the tools (and hadn't gone insane) could think clearly and make this kind of mistake, age regardless. RfAs are there to make sure we don't get these kind of people. However, you did add this: "[w]hat studies about populations cannot tell us, however, are the attributes of a specific individual," which I think is a great point to make, and is my personal view on the Ageism issue. I think it was a net positive. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand but don't share the view that we need to be especially vigilant about the impact that younger editors are having on, say, article quality. But a question more relevant to RFA is: can I convince people not to vote against me just because I express my views on younger editors loudly? Usually, the answer is no. People go with their gut when they see something that looks like any of the traditional biases that we inherit from our ancestors (bias against people not from our tribe, the "battle of the sexes", the "generation gap"). In fact, the tendency to make a snap-judgment on what is and isn't bias is itself an inherited instinct. Fortunately, there's some easy advice that will keep you out of trouble on this score, the same advice in Wikipedia as anywhere else: don't loudly proclaim the "truth" about ~~religion~~ religious affiliation, race, nationality, gender, sexuality or age. If you're one of the few people who really feels a need to say something noteworthy on any of these subjects, then please protect yourself by doing your studies and presenting your findings in a scientific context, and even then, be prepared to encounter a lot of resistance. E. O. Wilson got huge resistance (including a bucket of blood thrown on him at a conference) for research that suggested that some differences might be innate, and Larry Summers, current Director of the White House's National Economic Council, had to resign as president of Harvard over a statement he made about gender differences. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The essay is a bit lengthy to me as a non-native speaker of English, but I generally agree with the basic frame. If its content is more tied up, I want to translate it for another language Wikipedia. I'm lucky enough not to meet immature teenager admins on English Wikipedia, but well..on other language Projects and Commons, I've met three terrible and trollish admins who are all under 18. In one notable example, the admin was indef.blocked after his repeated vandalism to Wikipedia as a sock IP out of stresses over his university entrance exam.

Many people believe that people who are younger are more prone to being immature....Science shows that when comparing adults to 16 or 17 year olds, as a population, the minors are more:

"impulsive"
"aggressive"
"emotionally volatile"
"reactive to stress"
"vulnerable to peer pressure"
"prone to focus on and overestimate short-term payoffs and underplay longer-term consequences of what they do"
"likely to overlook alternative courses of action."

These descriptions are what they did...so well, Balloonman could revise his essay a bit? :-)--Caspian blue 02:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Attracting more supporters – notifying projects?

Reading South Bay's thread Ive been contemplating what other options we have to boost the number of supporters. Posts in VillagePump and the like might work, but Ive a feeling they could backfire and end up attracting too many opposers - any method that fails to bring in at least 3 supporters for every new supporter will not be a net positive.

An interesting idea was raised at Headbombs RfA where he suggested we let his projects know about the RfA. There's has to be advantages to this, and if there's no strong objections raised, the next time I see a good candidate who is a project member up for promotion I'll be neutrally inviting said project to offer their views on the candidate. Could work? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Between this and the thread below, I'm concerned about the general concept. That it's a good thing to increase supports and reduce opposes. This should be acomplished by having candidates who are clearly qualified, not by any artificial means. It scares me to think of some of the editors who could slip through if active steps are made to turn RFA into more of a rubber stamp operation.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Question - why do we want to "attract more supporters" and "reduce opposers"? The very notion of trying to "tweak" RfA to increase the overall percentage of support for candidates seems to me to be silly at best. The whole point of RfA is to determine whether or not the community trusts a candidate, not to make it easy to become an administrator. Shereth 18:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The implicit premise was that RfA is broken because many good candidates don't get promoted. Not a view I expect to be shared universally, but I don't expect it to be dismissed as silly! Lets have some respect. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This idea, like so many other perennial (permensual?) ideas to reform RfA, probably won't get much attention unless you can point to examples of good contributors who should be administrators but failed their RfA's for very wrong reasons. That said, I think every RfA reform idea is worthy of discussion and shouldn't just be discarded without serious consideration of its potential ups and downs. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats okay with this idea, as I dont need consensus - as long as a majority dont object to the idea as a form of canvassing I'll go ahead and try it out when an opportunity arises and if it works it might catch on. For the custodians idea, Im hoping folks will have their own ideas of deserving candidates as specifying them might do more harm than good. It was a bit of a long shot anyhow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the candidate would be very happy about that, especially since as you said it could well backfire and lead to more opposes. Also, to clarify, I was replying to all of your ideas, not just this one, but didn't really know where best to put my reply. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it would pay to evaluate how well the candidate interacts with fellow project members before hand. I think it might have made the difference in the case of headbomb. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It becomes harder for a candidate who has edited WP for a long time to pass his/her RFA. When one edits WP for a long time, he/she will create enemies and make more blunders than someone who has edited WP for say 6-7 months. In Headbomb's case, he has edited WP for a long time. RFA is not broken for someone who applies for adminship after editing WP for 6-7 months, but it is broken for someone who applies for adminship after editing WP for 2-3 years. It should have been the opposite, but the current RFA process is not friendly towards candidates with lots of WP experience. AdjustShift (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(re to FeydHuxtable) If "RfA is broken because many good candidates don't get promoted" the proper thing to do is attempt to discover why they aren't being promoted and attack that problem at its source. Artificially increasing support while decreasing opposition in this way does little to address what is actually wrong, while creating a new set of problems in substandard candidates being promoted. Shereth 20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is possibly the sort of problem best approached sideways? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem isn't being addressed, it is merely being covered up while creating additional problems in the process. Your assertion is that something is causing well-qualified candidates to fail - this assumes your definition of "well-qualified" is the correct one. Have you considered the possibility that such candidates fail because the community does not share your opinion of their qualifications? In either case, this is not the correct way to handle the problem. Shereth 20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think there are clearly identifiable root causes for why RfA is broken, which can be individually and directly addressed, it would be great if you could define them. I personally dont think there are - the atmosphere here is over critical, sometimes it seems folk are opposing due to grudges rather than an objective evaluation of the candidates ability to do the role. As has been said for many your chance of passing goes down the longer you’ve been here. In short - a somewhat toxic atmosphere, even if it has improved somewhat these past few months. These arent problems to be tackled head on. But , if we can increase the number of positive participants, the atmosphere will further change. And to a degree, the root problems will clear up, as this place will start to bring out the best in folk due to the improved atmosphere. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do not believe RfA is "broken", in spite of the frequency with which that phrase gets repeated. I do believe it is deficient in numerous ways, and there is always room for improvement - but I don't think it is broken. RfA is undoubtedly a toxic place, both for candidates and for participants in general. Do I know how to address it? No, I don't - if I did, I'd have proposed it long ago. Still, artificially increasing support for candidates across the board doesn't actually fix anything. Trying to counterbalance vitriolic opposes with solicited support is like sugar-coating poison - it might taste better at first but it's every bit as toxic. It's not an antidote. I'm sorry that I don't have any answers to offer but the only legitimate approach to the issue is to discover the source of the toxicity and try to treat it, rather than gloss it over. In other words - I strongly object to this proposal, not because I have a better solution, but because what is being proposed here is not a solution at all. I really have no desire to continue badgering you, and I'm sorry if it comes across that way at all - so I think I've made my point and I'll let it be at that. Shereth 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for showing the custodian idea had no legs. Unless others raise objections I'll still be running with project "project" though, when the time is right. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominators asking questions to their nominees at RfA

Are nominators at RfA allowed to ask their nominees questions? --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 11:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think so - I've seen candidates ask themselves questions before. Ironholds (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I can see why it could be a good idea - if, for instance, you think there's a misinterpretation among some opposes that could use additional clarification from the candidate. ~ mazca ^talk 11:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The nominator would also be in a good position to ask an excellent question to help highlight the qualities of their candidate in ways that may be difficult or awkward to do in the nomination itself, or that might be taken more seriously in a question. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. ;) — Ched : ? 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, noms might want to ask questions that they themselves had before making the nomination... (although they should already know the answer via their own due dilligence.) EG I remember a candidate whom I had questions, so before noming them I reached the point where I felt that I knew how they would answer the question. So I asked that question to ensure that they answered that concern. (I can't remember if I asked it in the actual RFA or if I asked it on their talk page when I gave them the template to accept the nom.) Also, noms do not know everything. I have been surprised at some of my candidates answers in the past.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support as (co-) nominator?

Should someone who (co-)nominates a candidate also add their name to the "support" section? Different people handle that differently, and I don't see any value in diversity in this case. I don't care which way we do it, it is just one of these things that need to be decided one way or the other. — Sebastian 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no rule against or problem with it; I've added my name to the support section of every candidate I've nominated (four so far). --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, nominators have always added their names to the support column. Dekimasuよ! 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)h

"Always" is such a tricky word; a regular on this page has failed to do so on occasion. But still, I'd agree that in the vast majority of cases, nominators do support their candidates. Frank | talk 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" ?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I Tawt I Taw A Puddy Tat! I did! I did! Frank | talk 17:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally see nominators supporting; and on the one occasion I've nominated someone so far I supported. As far as I'm concerned it's the correct way of doing things - while RfA is not a pure vote; it does have number-counting aspects - so given that a nominator pretty much by definition strongly supports the candidacy, they belong in the support section from a numerical point of view. ~ mazca ^talk 17:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mazca has hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed here as well. Though we may not always like it, numbers do play a role. GlassCobra 00:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is kinda stupid... the nom/co-nom are defacto supports and should be counted as such regardless of whether or not they indicate so under the support header.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My point, exactly. It makes no sense to distinguish between nominators who added their name to the support list, and those who don't. Both need to be counted. Personally, I prefer the latter, because the former feels pushy to me. But seeing that a majority here seems to see doubling nomination with a support vote as "the correct way of doing things", I guess I should do the same, and also notify the other co-nominator. I also feel we should add that to the instructions to avoid such confusion in the future. — Sebastian 17:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind nominators being able to 'vote' support. I'm also glad that we managed to move away from the trend of "have 5 billion co noms" without much trouble. In that omnibus RfA survey last year, I suggested that a simple solution would be to give no limit to nom/co-noms but not allow the nom or the co nom to actually tally a supporting vote. Since the 'problem' of excessive noms never arose the solution never became necessary, so I didn't bring it up on WT:RFA. Protonk (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's neat and tidy if they actually start the list. i hope crats rememer to count them if they flrgett to vote. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My nom forgot to support me ;>. –xeno^talk 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do recall a RfA where the nom eventually struck his support during the "hell week" because an edit/comment/action came to light that the nom had not been aware of when he started the RfA. I don't remember the candidate, nom, or details; but, IIRC it did have a rather large impact on the swing in !voting trends. Personally, I think that noms !voting is acceptable and even preferred. — Ched : ? 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the infamous DHMO 3? Regards So Why 11:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AHHhhh. Actually I believe I was thinking of a less ... (high profile?) RfA, ... but that would be a great example as well - in fact, perhaps the best example. ;) — Ched : ? 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the DMHO3 case would be one of the worst examples, the nominator had concerns going into the RfA but still made the nomination because of friendship/peer pressure/moral lapse/stupidity/etc. The case you were thinking of was probably SchiftyThree where the nominator changed his support to Moral Support after information came to light that the nominator was unaware of.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See, for me, that would be a cause for alarm. If a nominator, as someone who had a lot of faith in the candidate, gets moved to oppose, I would certainly reevaluate my position if I had supported. Otherwise, I think it's odd for a nominator to not support his/her candidate, especially if the RfA is borderline pass/fail. hmwith t 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the mindset that a nomination is an implicit support, and I've said as much in the past. If a nominator feels compelled to add their name to the list of supporters in a more explicit fashion, there is no harm in doing so - but I kinda doubt you're going to see a situation where a borderline case gets tipped to success by a nominator's explicit !vote. Shereth 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideally we could just count any nominations as a vote and move on, although Shereth is right that however we count nominator votes is unlikely to have an impact on the outcome. The DHMO case illustrates that we don't live in an ideal world, though. The nom in that request withdrew his support, and that did have a significant impact on the outcome. Luckily I don't think this issue is something we need to worry about or address, but if that changed we would need to be careful of assuming that nomination always equals a support in the final tally. Nathan^T 22:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks B-man, I think that was the one I was thinking about. On sort of a fork here, I wonder how many folks check back on an RfA that they've already voted on. I'd imagine that the noms do, but I've seen many a RfA where diffs come out after the 3rd day or so which might have a strong effect on a person's !vote. Usually, I try to check back if I !vote in the first day or two - but I'm not so sure that maybe some people might just cast their lot, and never look back. I wasn't around for the DHMO fiasco, (so I can't say how I would have voted) but I admit that if I had supported early, and then found out some things latter that were reason for opposing, I might have felt a bit like an idiot. ;D — Ched : ? 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

References to nationality/gender

I don't like big debates around here... most of them just clutter my watchlist and cover things that have been covered in the past. I'm not going to suggest that we adopt a certain policy as regards !voting or anything like that; consider this a request instead of a demand. Please think twice before referring to the gender or nationality of candidates as a reason for supporting their adminship requests. Sometimes it sounds insulting, and sometimes it sounds unprofessional. Gender and nationality are really not that important to adminship. Hopefully there are other reasons you choose to support; please consider writing about those instead. Dekimasuよ! 13:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nationality can be important because it impacts on timezone. Most admins are from the "western world", leaving a five hour gap between 2 and 7 GMT where we have fewer admins around to handle problems. Promoting admins who fulfil the requirements and are from certain nations can be extremely helpful, meaning nationality does (somewhat) impact. There was a discussion a while back about specifically searching out candidates from certain timezones - no idea what happened with that. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Most users are from the "Western world", so there are also less problems created during that time period (I say this as an admin who is active during those hours). Anyway, that's not a question of nationality (I say this as an expatriate). There's a difference between saying that we need someone for certain hours and saying "we need more Fooian admins", and it's the second one to which I object. Dekimasuよ! 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can personally object to it all you want, but there's not much you can do about it. I agree with you, for the most part. It's sort of like trying to force people to hold doors open for other people - it's rude when they don't, but you can't really make a crusade out of it ;-) Tan | 39 14:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to plead guilty to mentioning being in favor of "Fooian" recently. I don't find anything derogatory in a "support" with a bit of levity on occasion; but if I'm in error, then I'll apologize. I've seen quite a few mentions in the support section which really had no bearing on the qualifications of a candidate, and usually it's appeared to me to be simply an effort to lessen the tensions that come with a RfA. I agree that we do want to present a "professional" site to the public, but if a good faith edit is made with good intension's, then I think that should be tolerable for the most part. Actually, I find the oppose votes because of nationality/gender/religion to be more objectionable than the support one. Just IMHO — Ched : ? 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

addendum - I also include "real" reasons I support as well. — Ched : ? 14:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Actually, I find the oppose votes because of nationality/gender/religion to be more objectionable than the support one" - I agree but of course under a consensus based discussion "Oppose - is British" should have exactly as much weight as "Support - is British" - i.e. none.

I do agree that the timezone thing is a possibly valid argument, but to be honest more relevant for, say, Checkusers or Stewards where our "cover" is thin. And the timezone one inhabits is not totally related to your active editing time. I'm active from 06:00/07:00 UTC and I'm a Brit - whereas I see other Brits active at 3am. Pedro : Chat 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. — Ched : ? 14:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is another valid reason for supporting people based in part on nationality... WP:GLOBAL. I know that there have been a few times where I've sought out admins who are explicity from specific countries because of issues related to their home country. One specific case involved an AFD where there were two people from some small country that were debating fiercely over the merits of a foreign language source. I was able to find a person who was an admin on both the EN wiki and the language specific wiki to get insight into the debate. It proved invaluable towards reaching an amicable resolution to both parties. It was particularly valuable, because the admin was able to help bridge the gap between the two users. One was apparently more familiar with the EN wiki while the other was more familiar with the language specific wiki. Both were writing in a foreign language but couldn't communicate because they were making assumptions that the other party understood the policies surrounding Wikipedia, not realizing that the two Wiki's have drastic differences related to article content. The admin was able to explain those differences---and I think his being an admin helped those two users. While being an admin isn't a position of power/authority, I felt at the time that the two users saw it as such which helped quell the heated debate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (I Want to say they were from some ~~slavic or serbian speaking country~~ finland or Sweden.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if this was going to come up, but I think you made the most important point: an administrator shouldn't use tools to influence a content dispute, so an administrator with an understanding of a particular place or language should be no more important than any other editor with an understanding of a particular place or language. Bringing an administrator into a content dispute shouldn't be better than bringing an editor into a content dispute. On a functional level I understand what you are saying about the respect administrators are usually afforded and that it can be used to positive effect. Dekimasuよ! 15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely true that we need more female administrators, if for nothing else than to shake the reputation of being a dumping ground for young male computer nerds (whistles innocently). Females also tend to be more considerate and thoughtful, so I think it's reasonable to say "Support, we need more female administrators" in a respectful manner. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Females also tend to be more considerate and thoughtful... clearly someone doesn't know many females :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs)

Just makes me think of this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Woah, I hope you're not comparing my lighthearted comment to that situation?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cube lurker, clearly someone spends time with the wrong type of females. hmwith t 18:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Corporations bring in experts that train employees in the basics, and it might not be a bad idea to bring in one of those guys to chat from time to time, but the basic idea is really very simple: we know from archaeology and anthropology that human societies are/were fractured along age, gender and tribal lines, and we inherited instincts from them ... not just the tendency to be prejudiced, but also the tendency to be suspicious that someone else is being prejudiced. Once people get the idea that you've got "issues" with people of a different belief, color, age, gender, or whatever, they can be very resistant, even irrational, about changing their minds. So: sure, if a disabled or female or Asian or (U.S.) Republican or older person shows up at RFA, I would think you could get away with this with no problem (paraphrasing): we don't have a lot of admins like (whatever), and in theory, your success here might encourage others who identify with you to believe that they can succeed too, and that's a plus ... it's not a free ticket, I'm supporting you because you meet my requirements, but it's one of the things I consider. What you don't want to do is to pick one of those categories and talk about it a lot ... and I agree with Ched that saying that any category is a minus is a lot more likely to get you in trouble than saying it's a plus. If you mention any of these categories in any context, make it clear that it's a minor consideration. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC) added "paraphrasing" 12:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I share the view expressed by Dekimasu. We should select admins based upon whether they meet the requirements, and not based upon any quota, hard or soft, for or against. I accept that Ironhold may have a point about timezones, but the proper way to consider it is to consider timeszones, not nationality. IF someone does a study and the study concludes that we have a significant disparity between need for an admin (as a first approximation, I assume the needs are proportional to edit counts), THEN we should consider what to do. Even if true, I'd prefer an approach based upon searching for qualified candidates, over an implicit relaxation of requirements.

The point raised by Balloonman is more on point, however, as has been argued, the need is for an admin qua editor, not admin qua admin, so there may be better ways to address this need than relaxation of requirements. I hope the gender comments were a joke, but in any event, we support on the basis on the actions of the nominee, not on any statistical presumptions (I hope.)--SPhilbrick T 21:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should only allow admins who live in Equatorial Guinea. That's the only requirement that matters. Oh, and they must be Bubi. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Activity update

Just a note that as of today there are 903 active sysops, this is down from the high of 1,021 reached on February 28, 2008; there have not been this few active sysops since March 3, 2007. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cue headless-chicken attitude, squawks of "the sky is falling! the sky is falling" and fifteen suggestions about how Adminship Is Broken But I've Thought Of This Great Way To Fix It, No Honestly, It Isn't Even At WP:PEREN Yet. Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gahhhhhhhh!!! The sky is falling!!!! Runs around like a headless chicken. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

Yeah...... but weren't they really the less-good ones? I mean, maybe the remainder have just become more efficient, so it's like lowering our BMI! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In 2+ years time the number of active admins has only varied from 903-1021? Wow, that is quite a tight range really: ~960±6% --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So the active admin corps has fell by 11.5% over an 18 month period thats seen worldwide internet usage rise by about 15%. Thanks Mat , helpful to see the figures are in accord with the intuition of so many. The "ritual heart" of our encyclopaedia really has been having a hard time. Lets hope the optimists are right, and that we stand here at the turning of the tide. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few reasons to not panic just yet:

It's partly a time-of-the-year thing: August has always been a slow month admin-wise.
There's a large number of semi-active admins and as a group their contribution is probably significant.
The abuse filters and adminbots have helped lower the workload, at least in some areas.
Long-term semi-protection is much more common and that also means less admin-actions.
I can't back this up with actual stats but given the slowing rate of successful RfAs, I think the average experience of admins is going up which I would hope is a good thing.
Editing activity on en.wiki is on a slight downward trend.
Admin backlogs are not way out of control. When I started out as an admin, we used to celebrate when the speedy deletion backlog fit on a single 200 entry page. RFPP, AIV, UAA, 3RR, PER are also in decent shape as far as I know.

That being said, we can't continue the downward trend indefinitely. Certain tasks are being handled by small admin groups and we should be worried of consequences of departures in such areas. As an example: Xdamr (talk · contribs) closes most of the CfD discussions nowadays and someone will have to step in quickly if he leaves or takes an extended wikibreak. I'm also concerned that a thinning out of the admin corps will lead to a downward spiral where remaining admins are under more pressure and start leaving faster. And of course, RfA is failing miserably. The solution isn't some super-smart reform of the process or a super-efficient desysoping mechanism. We just need people to stop being über-picky jackasses. Who knows, maybe doom and gloom about the RickBot stats will help in that respect. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that we have a dangerous level of reliance on single individuals for key areas. DragonflySixtyseven is the linchpin of page patrolling, and most other functions have only one or two admins who even understand how they work. Also, we have 29,000 userpages that need admin review at Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages since the community rejected bot monitoring. We have 20,000 cut-paste moves that need hist-merges at Wikipedia:New histmerge list. I just spent 2 months going through Category:User-created public domain images from October 2006 and found that three years after they were uploaded, there were still 2,000 copyright violations. So, yes, I agree the places you listed aren't backlogged, but we still have admin backlogs elsewhere! MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the discussion about the temp user pages bot? I'd be interested in learning why it was rejected... I also don't really understand the point of deleting the pages in the first place. Seems like a major waste of time for no real gain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:User_page/Archive_4#Proposal_to_not_delete_talk_pages_for_all_indef_users and Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_34#Deletion_of_indefinitely_blocked_user_talk_pages should point you to all the correct places. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Shows how much I know... Ignorance is bliss! I didn't know that bot help had been rejected for Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages but I suspect that people who opposed are not exactly lining up to clear the backlog manually... (but should we really give a rat's ass about that backlog?) You're a new b'crat though so perhaps you can blackmail newbie admins into becoming history-merge experts. All kidding aside, increased awareness of these problems might knock some sense into RfA participants who insist on rejecting candidates with the slightest perceived flaw. The concept of "net positive" only makes sense if one understands that limiting the number of admins leads to very real problems. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear its going to take a few more discussions re our current drought of new admins before we agree to change. Even though we are now nearly 18 months into the RFA drought there are probably still some who don't yet agree that RFA is broken. But one point I would challenge "The abuse filters and adminbots have helped lower the workload, at least in some areas." The abuse filters have reduced the amount of vandalism that needs to be reverted manually, but does that reduce the admin workload? I suspect it mainly reduces the workload and experience opportunities for wannabe admins. Unless I'm missing something we still rely on admins to block, and are more reliant on them to delete as that is no longer partially botted. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I might be naive but I still think the filters help. From a vandal's perspective, I would guess that automatic reverts are probably a bit of a turn off: you have no time to show your friends that you wrote "poo" in the middle of the article and it's no fun to tell a filter to eat shit. That puts a small dent in vandalism but more importantly on recurrent vandalism which is where we need blocks. Some filters also save time for admins on the look out for long-term vandals with a simple pattern. I'm sure the filters help in those respects but I'll concede that I might be wildly overestimating their impact. Is someone or some bot tracking the rate of blocks issued per day? Or for that matter of admin actions performed per day? That might be a good place to start measuring how bad the situation is. You also make an interesting point regarding experience for wannabe admins. However, current trends at RfA seem to be putting less emphasis on vandal-fighting. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3 clearly shows that it's not enough but I also can't recall an RfA that failed solely because the candidate had no vandal-fighting experience. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right that the filters will have some positive impacts on the admin workload, and that pure vandal fighters rarely get the mop. But I strongly suspect that vandalfighting is a very important route to getting involved in the community, and I fear that blackboxing it could further reduce our already low supply of RFA candidates. Ϣere SpielChequers 03:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of those 'middle of the road' activity admins (well, probably closer to median activity than mean) and this concerns me. It's not fatal, but we (just like any other organization) depend on a few people to function well. I don't actually think the solution lies at RfA. We aren't turning away those workaholics who slave away at niches unless that niche happens to be huggling, in which case we are turning them away only slightly more than we ought to. Let's take this opportunity to engage in a thought experiment. If we froze the pass rate at some agreed upon time in the past (say, July 2006 for grins), how many more admins would we have today (Assuming attrition rates don't change and that we can't have fractional admins)? Obviously this thought experiment ignores the possible deterrence affect that strict RfA standards may have, but it's good in a pinch. Does anyone have RfA stats handy? Protonk (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Up to March 2008 we were appointing about 30 admins a month, since then we have been appointing about ten a month, so we are three hundred down on where where we would have been - of whom perhaps two hundred would be active. So if it weren't for the drought at RFA we would probably have increased our active admins since Feb 08 from 1020 to circa 1100 instead of seeing them fall to barely 900. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Well RfA specifically can't make people want to be admins or participate enough to discover adminning. What I'm interested in is looking at the historical pass rates and applying them to current application rates. I know we can't isolate the chilling effect of RfA difficulty, but we can do a better job than comparing admin creation rates. Protonk (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Long-stale request for adminship

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Questchest. Fairly obvious WP:NOTNOW case. Can an admin do whatever needs to be done with such requests? Thanks, cab (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In truth, there is nothing to be done. There is no reason to close an adminship request that was never transcluded on the main RfA page. We should leave it as {{stale}} and move on. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It could probably be deleted. Declined nominations usually are after sitting a while. Tim meh (review me) 15:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Earwig is right, there isn't anything that needs to be done. It is possible that this user would prefer to hang on to the page in the event they want to run for adminship in the future (though to be honest it doesn't look like they are headed that way). In any event, it might be courteous to ask the user in question if they are keeping the page for any particular reason. Shereth 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it into the editor's userspace. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Perhaps the dumbest question Ive ever heard somebody ask in a rfa was "How often do you eat tomatoes and was it delicious"?? South Bay (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Which RfA? Who asked it? Is it still there? No context, no answer m'fraid... GARDEN 20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that is a dumb question. I mean, clearly they were delicious, so why even bother asking? Sheesh! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, with a little mozzarella, basil and balsamic vinegar... never edit hungry. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 20:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's so depressing seeing big ol' cleanup tags at the top of all three of those links... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The construction of the question would leave something to be desired I feel...... Pedro : Chat 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't not see a problems with it. ~ mazca ^talk 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Better question: "If you were a tomato, and you saw an edit war brewing over fruit, would you feel it was a conflict of interest for you to intervene?" Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My question at this time would have to be: Does "Garden", considering the relationship to "tomatoes" constitute a conflict of interest or at the very least are they a Wikipedia:Vested interest, and should they recuse from both "support" AND "oppose" of "tomatoes" in the future? :P — Ched : ? 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, potential vegetable/fruit POV conflicts could be troublesome. I think it should be mandatory that we ask all future RfA candidates if they are animal, vegetable or mineral. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:HeinzRulez: Do you think that File:Tomatina.jpg is an appropriate image for use in Wikipedia? Also, if your RfA is successful, will you agree to not use your admin powers in ketchup-related articles? Jafeluv (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel compelled to mention that I had nothing to do with it. I don't like tomatoes. Keepscases (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! :-) Tan | 39 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA closing time

The issue of when an RFA closes comes up. See User_talk:Pakaran#Jake_RFA for background. It's a difference in the acceptance time and time posted to the RFA page and the bot can be wrong. It should be 7 days from the time posted to the RFA page. Is there a way the bot can be fixed for this or do we just need to make nominators more aware and watch the ending time per the bot more accurate? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Rlevse. Yes, the bot can be fixed (it could, for example, identify what closing time is posted on the RfA page after "Scheduled to end"). However, I believe User:X! runs the bot, so you need to ask him if you actually want it to get changed. I'd suggest leaving a message on his talk page. In future, you can bring up bot-related issues at WP:BON. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Am posting in poth places. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I only just discovered which RfA was in question (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jake Wartenberg for those interested). And I think the bot actually has it right according to the scheduled ending time. For example, take Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maedin, the ending time was updated to 10:49, 28 August 2009 when accepted. The creation time was 19:35, 20 August 2009, which would put the ending time at 19:35, 27 August, but the bot puts it at the correct time of 10:49, 28 August 2009 (see User:X!/RfX_Report). The problem at Jake's RfA is that he didn't update the ending time when he accepted - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But in this case Jake accepted 6 minutes after creation? -- Pak aran 00:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so there was no real need to update the ending time, as it would have only changed by six minutes. The reason it looks wrong on the RfA is because, although you closed it at the correct time of 01:22, 24 August, the text you put on the page says you closed it at 01:20, 23 August. I'll correct this in a tick - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. So basically there were two issues - the clock on my laptop, which I believe I was going by, may have been slightly off, and I put the wrong date on. Can I just say I'm grateful to everyone for working with me to figure this out? -- Pak aran 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine :). You may also want to check your "date and time" at Special:Preferences, I currently have mine set to server default. And then you can enable the wiki-clock (in Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> User interface gadgets -> Second one down), and use this as the clock for all on-wiki time-related "stuff" :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And of course don't forget you can use five tildes to insert the date and time in UTC (as opposed to four tildes, which inserts your signature and the date and time, and three tildes, which inserts only your signature). So you would write, for example, "closed by ~~~ at ~~~~~". --bainer (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I closed about 6 minutes early based on the time the RFA was transcluded to the main page. -- Pak aran 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally it is time of acceptance, but time of transclusion is likely better. Prodego ^talk 03:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's complicate it more, that'd depend on if the acceptance was done before or after the transclusion ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely time of transclusion (adding to the RfA page), because an RfA should never be added if it hasn't been accepted. And if it's accepted and not added, then it's not supposed to be edited by anyone but nominators and the nominee. - Taxman ^Talk 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Taxman. Nobody should be voting on or seeing RFAs if they have not been transcluded (other than the nominator and nominee, of course). --Deskana, (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I altered the closing date on my RfA (diff given above by Kingpin) to the time I accepted, and not the time I transcluded, because the instructions specifically said to, WP:Requests for adminship/Nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else. For me, the time difference was only 22 minutes, but others might be losing out on more substantial RfA time. Maedin\^talk 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, then someone edited those instructions in error. There have been multiple discussions over a range of times and places that have held the time the RfA is added to the main RfA page is the starting time and 7 days from then is the ending time. - Taxman ^Talk 13:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected and hopefully clarified the instructions. They were correct in two of the three places, I corrected the third. - Taxman ^Talk 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Time for "OpCom"?

Not sure whether this idea has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that the only real solution is to have adminship managed, not directly by the whole community, but by a committee elected for the purpose -- an "OpCom". The committee would be given the power to assign and remove admin rights. I feel that this would both lead to a more rational process and make it easier to remove the buttons from admins who misuse them. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A process by which admins can be removed is currently in the works. An administrator is someone given additional buttons because the community trusts them, not because a Committee does. Such a process would undermine the entire basis of adminship. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You should also check out WP:PEREN. Ironholds (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What would be the basis for removal? Would it represent a lack of trust by the community that didn't exist when the user was promoted or would it be for less controversial reasons like not performing enough admin work?↔NMajdan•talk 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be for "having lost the confidence of the community". Looie496 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

More bureaucracy is not a solution. -- œ ^™ 22:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The process should be made more simple and streamline, not more bureaucratic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you make it more simple and streamlined? Forbid people from asking questions? Looie496 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I once proposed letting each person ask only one question. I don't know if it would make the process more streamlined, but it would sure make it easier on the candidates. Tim meh (review me) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if "making it easier on the candidate" is something we need to aim for, but regarding the questions: I was asked several questions by three separate users at the very beginning of my RfA. My RfA now has only has one day left to run, and yet I still haven't heard a peep from them. I could have swore that the point of asking the questions is mainly to help the asker to determine their stance on the adminship request, not to remain silent. I have no idea if my answers weren't good enough or if they couldn't be bothered to come back and read them. I didn't get asked very many questions, but others get asked dozens; if a majority of all of those questions never have any feedback from the askers, then the whole "asking questions" system needs to be reviewed, in my opinion. Maedin\^talk 08:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maedin, I was actually waiting to see if anyone thought your answer to my question indicated a conflict of interest problem at all. After 70 unanimous supports, I'm convinced there was no problem. Keepscases (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The answers provided might not have been reviewed by the people who asked the questions but the questions may allow others to make up their mind better or save them from having to ask the same questions themselves. As you say, "making it easier on the candidate" should not be our concern when assessing to change RFA procedure: If a candidate is scared away by, let's say, 15-20 questions (which is "many" for most RFAs), then they are not admin material anyway. The questions are integral to RFA to assess candidates and that some people ask them without reviewing the answers is unfortunate maybe but for the possible benefit of others !voting in said RFA. Most RFA regulars when encountering a candidate they have no opinion about (and/or never heard about) will usually read all those questions as well as reviewing the other !votes and the candidate's contributions before !voting themselves. Regards So Why 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise that it may help others decide, but if that were the motivation, then the questions could be a little more user-friendly. I find many questions asked to be obscure in the extreme or to be aimed at a particular asker's own soapbox, and therefore of little use in assessing a candidate; some questions even border on the completely irrelevant. For the editors actually asking those questions to not return with feedback is just a waste of time and effort, isn't it? Not just for the candidate, but for those reading up on the answers only to find that the question was unanswerable or too vague in the first place. I realise that I may be in the minority opinion, and that's ok, and it isn't even a strong opinion—just a slight preference for a more efficient RfA forum. Maedin\^talk 09:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As noble as that thought is, we will then have the same problem as with "irrelevant !votes": Who decides whether someone is allowed to support/oppose for a certain reason? What is relevant, what is not? There are no objective definitions for relevance and as such, it's impossible to create a rule that for example says "only questions relevant to the RFA may be asked". Because that soapbox you mention might be useful to the asker even if not for anyone else. And of course, it's very hard to create a rule that says "you can only ask a question if you later return to assess the answer" because it cannot be enforced. On a side note, on your RFA someone asked questions after they !voted. By your argument, they would not have been allowed to do so because it does not help them assess you, the candidate. In the end, the idea of limiting questions to relevance is a good idea in theory but impractical and impossible to implement. Regards So Why 10:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's all fair enough; I accept that it's unenforceable and too restrictive to ever be implemented. I wasn't thinking that rules should be put in place, but that guidance on questioning could be. After all, we only say a word or two about questioning and I think we could afford to elaborate on it; what's expected, what to ask, what to do afterwards. But of course even that might not change anything. Maedin\^talk 10:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion — if an administrator has clearly lost the trust of the community (and by "clearly" I mean the consensus is demonstrated that they shouldn't be an admin anymore), why don't we request a steward to desysop? If they've clearly lost the community's confidence (by a large majority), then they shouldn't continue on as an admin. I suggest working it into policy that an editor can be desysopped if they aren't trusted without having to get ArbCom to make it official. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

M&E, see WP:RFDA for a desysopping system proposal. → ROUX ₪ 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of that proposal; it's been around for quite a while now (I think EVula was going on about it back in... March?). I haven't heard much of it for months. I am not suggesting a reverse RfA where you vote Support, Oppose, or Neutral to desysop somebody. That would still be a bureaucratic mess and one we're better off without. I'm suggesting... well, you know how a community ban is enacted, right? There's a consensus for it (usually built at AN or AN/I), thus it's put in place. That's sort of the idea here, except it's more of a "consensus to desysop" sort of thing. It goes without saying of course that the consensus for them to lose the tools is very, very clear. I'll give you a couple examples of where I think it can apply (I hate to bring these incidents back to light): Bedford is a former administrator — he was desysopped by Jimbo in August 2008 for edit-warring at WP:DYK. Discussion regarding the events leading up to it is located here. And another, more recent example I could give is Aitias — this is the sort of consensus that would ideally be shown to a steward when requesting for an editor being desysopped involuntarily. Notice how Friday is asking ArbCom specifically to desysop, because they are the only ones (besides Jimbo on occasion) who can officially make that call; as is being discussed at length here, we shouldn't need ArbCom to commission a "desysop paper" when an administrator has very clearly lost the confidence of the community. It simply isn't necessary, it's more time-consuming bureaucracy, and it continues to build within ArbCom the impression that they are the governance of Wikipedia, rather than a dispute resolution body. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I also disagree with an OpCom, but couldn't we make it so that, in order to vote, users had to have more than, say, 200 edits? I know that these !votes are not weighted in consensus, but couldn't we actually make it a policy? ceranthor 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Who gave you the idea that !votes by people with few edits are not weighted?

If a newbie points out grave mistakes the candidate made, the grave mistakes do not change just because the one pointing them out is a new account. RFA is a discussion (although I know people keep forgetting it) and in a discussion, you do not ignore people just because they do not meet arbitrary criteria... Regards So Why 14:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

True, though I think that in general votes from new/inexperienced users (especially SPAs) tend to be given less weight than those by established editors. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't want to stop anyone from commenting there. hmwith t 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

SoWhy, that is the exception. I should have been more specific, I meant when an IP or new;y registered user is piling on to either section. New users often don't have a good grasp of what an admin should be (not their fault, we have so many policies and guidelines to learn), and despite the fact that they have little weight in this case, I don't think it's quite fair for the candidate to get pile-on supports from someone who isn't able to properly assess them, or get opposes for the same reason. ceranthor 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is most dangerous to think that the age of the account or the amount of edits reflects in any way on a user's ability to assess something here. More dangerous even is to try to codify this bias into rules. If they make useless !votes, they will be treated accordingly. But so will useless !votes by experienced users. If an experienced user writes "Oppose John Doe (talk)" it's equal in weight as if the !vote were "Oppose Joe Newbie (talk)". Regards So Why 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All yuo people are dancing on the head of a pin. You should try NotVoting in an RfA with a well thought out, evidenced comment when you're not logged in, or logged in under a new account. People are very quick to strike your votes, call you a troll, call you a sock, block the account, etc etc. And, from what I've seen, arbs just COUNT THE NUMBERS. Really, take a look bak over a few RfAs to see the 'weight' given to the notvotes that we all suggest shoud get different weighting. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)struck my commmentd ecause I'm typing under the influence of tramodol which is probably a bad idea.NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that you were under the influence of a tramadol, but I just wanted to make sure that you knew for future reference that it's 'crats who close RfAs (see WP:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures), not members of the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps this was just a slip of the under-the-influence tongue. :) hmwith t 13:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No more committees. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Protonk. The RFA process is frustrating to go through, but it probably should be, as a sort of "final exam" on how the candidate deals with difficult situations. Personally, I don't mind answering the questions as long as they have some relevance to adminship, or make me laugh. Sure, some users will always try to make sure the candidate passes their "pet criteria" but if they are the only one who has that specific criteria it's unlikely they alone could sink the candidate. And, as we've seen a few times now, users who persistently try to hold candidates to standards not supported by the community tend to get banned from RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And then we'll probably need a committee to determine who would be on the OpCom. I don't think adding levels is the best solution. Useight (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid the idea of an "OpCom" gives a small group of people too much power. An administrator will work in areas which affect the entire community, and support from the broad community provides legitimacy and acceptance to the tasks they are carrying out. An "OpCom" promotion to adminship in spite of serious objections in the community will cause major resentment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the difficulties in determining whether a user has sufficient trust to become an administrator, I would like to know how the proposer suggests that this "OpCom" be appointed. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Crats rarely function like a committee; Arbcom is a committee, but only because it's hard to see how we could do without an Arbcom and because they work so hard and are intimately aware of the downsides of committees. If some new committee were created that was supposedly better than the rest of us at performing some task, and if they actually succeeded in their work ... if they got little resistance, performed well and got praise ... then there'd be no stopping the proliferation of committees. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Stifle, clearly if there were an "OpCom", the members would need to be elected in the same way as ArbCom members. The ArbCom election process strikes me as more rational than the RfA process, and gets much higher participation levels, so I see this as an advantage rather than a problem. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting suggestion, but not one that I'd be willing to support. The fact that admins have, effectively, got tenure means that we can make decisions that are correct but unpopular without fear of an axe hanging over our heads. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)