Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 102

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 95

←

Archive 100

Curriculum Vitae?

Is providing your real life CV required on RFAs? Vodak has made several repetitive questions on recent RFAs asking this question. Miranda 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I find the question a little personal, and I'm not sure it's relevant. I've included some basic, publicly available information to answer the question, but if consensus permits, I'd feel happier if someone could remove the question entirely from my RFA. I'd strongly encourage other nominees to omit any personally identifiable information from their answers. - Papa November 1 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit personal - the majority of users keep their identity private, and a lot of others dont but wouldnt give that information out to strangers anyway. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone should be forced to answer a question like that if the answer requires that personal information be given out. Captain panda 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I would like to add this should be allowed on arbcom/checkuser/oversight/steward/etc requests (where they have released their identity to everyone, not just the foundation), just entirely optional. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But if someone actually opposed if you don't answer the question... --Dark Falls ^talk 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When Malber started asking nominees how old they were, folks started encouraging them to respond with "old enough", which nullified the question. Any bright ideas, here? "Qualified enough"?--Chaser - T 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody should feel compelled to submit a CV or personal information, and opposes on this basis will be treated accordingly. Andre (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that Andre is on top of the privacy policy. Good to know that such opposes will be... treated accordingly. Until (1 == 2) 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Asking age is borderline reasonable, although an RfA is highly unlikely to fail because someone won't disclose it. Asking for personal information (age isn't personal information, really) is completely unacceptable. -Amarkov moo! 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that asking it is unacceptable at all. People don't have to answer anything that they don't want to. A.Z. 03:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can. But asking the question at all encourages an answer, even if it's not mandatory, and there's no good reason someone should want a CV to evaluate a candidate. -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point. Some administrators put their full names online, but many of us remain anonymous. Some of us make blocks of angry people who may try to contact and threaten us in real life. Even if the name is unknown, a CV could make it much easier for a disgruntled, blocked editor to track someone down. While I understand the desire to evaluate someone based on their real credentials the way a prospective employer does, I think the potential costs outweigh the benefits. Vodak is a new editor, and no one has talked to him yet. I think he might be receptive to this issue and will invite him to this discussion.--Chaser - T 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodness no, this is absolutely improper. I should think the 'crats ought to delete any such request out of hand. Failure to comply could generate spurious oppose votes -- "what do they have to hide", and the like. Raymond Arritt 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pressure on editors to reveal personal information when not necessary should be strongly discouraged. Thankfully, I very much doubt that failure to comply would generate RfA opposition. Pascal.Tesson 05:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should start requiring CV's from all applicants. Then we could really evaluate candidates and get even better oppose rationales, like: "Oppose: Publishes too many short papers in low-impact journals instead of consolidating results into fewer, more meaningful papers." Or: "Oppose: Has been at the assistant professor level for 19 years now." Maybe letters of recommendation, SAT's, and transcripts too. MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd better clarify that to be sarcasm, if not there WILL be people who don't get it. – Chacor 05:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It was sarcasm, which, as always, is ideally suited to online media. Oops, that was sarcasm too. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Driving record, medical history, and tax information should also be required. Lara ♥Love 05:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Throw in Social Security number (if from the US), bank account number, applicable passwords to your account... —Kurykh 05:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. One must have damn good reasons for needing admin tools to go through all this. I didn't even take the SATs... so I guess I don't qualify. :( Do ASVAB scores count? Lara ♥Love 06:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget: Fingerprints, breathalyzer results, and naturally ... urine sample. Proof of direct descendance from Jimbo wouldn't hurt, either. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is everything so tiny? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following answer: "Please consult the various archives of my contribution history. For a summarized version of my qualifications and a more detailed elaboration on my history on and opinions of Wikipedia, please refer to my user page." After all, they do constitute an account's resume on Wikipedia. —Kurykh 05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Userpages can also serve the function of CV's - often, editors will mention projects they belong to, featured articles they've worked on, stubs they've started, or other things they're interested in or proud of. MastCell ^Talk 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing has not been properly considered: what if a user has no real world CV? For instance, I am only 12 years old, and have no CV, as such, except for a high schooling education in progress. What then? It would seem unfair if some had to provide information when others couldn't. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're a paper boy? Seriously though, if you are 12 years old you'll likely fail RfA cv or no cv. Pascal.Tesson 06:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Lara ♥Love 06:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. Does anyone remember Ilyanep, who became a bureaucrat at thirteen? Even among those who believe age is a factor, it is not an automatically disqualifying one.--Chaser - T 06:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats quite a bit of prejudice - have you even looked at my contributions? And would one not consider my contribs if I did submit an RFA, or would one just oppose purely based on the premise of my age? Also, remember Magnus Animum. 12 years old and sysopped. (Or maybe he's 13 by now, I don't know) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I'm not saying I would oppose solely on age. I would review your contribs and talk page. However, I have opposed partially based on age (in the past couple days actually). He was 15 and his edit history was unimpressive. Though I think age would play a factor, regardless of edit history. At least for me. I may support, but it would be with careful consideration. In glancing over your contribs and talk page, you look like a solid editor. It's just a matter of maturity... not that adults are guaranteed to pass that criteria. Lara ♥Love 06:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't know about User:Ilyanep. I think User:Natalinasmpf became an admin at age 14. I was impressed. Most 12 year olds would not make good admins. However, that does not mean that no 12 year olds would make good admins. --Richard 06:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant: I do in fact think that 12 year old admins are unlikely to have the required maturity and level-headedness to be efficient admins. Which is not to say I'd systematically oppose every 12-year old because exceptions can exist. In any case, my comment was not meant as "You'll fail your RfA because I'll personally make sure you do" but rather "you'll fail your RfA because the community as a whole is generally reluctant to pass 12 year olds". Pascal.Tesson 07:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand and perhaps, in certain cases, despite my own age, agree with the appliance of ageism in respect to one's support or opposition at an RFA. I just do not agree with it if it is used as a non-exceptive reason to oppose a user's RFA, as it is, in my view, a form of prejudice when contributions and maturity are not reviewed in coupling with examining a user's age, if it able to be examined. Let actions determine someone's ability to do something, if age, and the perceived immaturity that comes with young age, seems to have little influence on these actions and contributions to this encyclopedia, which anyone can edit. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless people are very, very careful about the clues they give (and I am not), consulting the various archives of an editor's contribution history probably will yield enough information, coupled with a few Google searches, to put together a C.V. for anyone who has been around the real world for a few years. In that respect, the 12-17 year olds may be the only ones who are truly anonymous. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My cv would state that I am Barnaby Bear's secret lovechild, and since I am 47 years old I am also one of the few users of the Bombay Time Machine Corporations "Way Out and Back Again Machine". For proof I will post a picture of Bombay (now Mumbai) on my userpage... Can you disprove it? LessHeard vanU 09:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Your userpage states that 'I am Mark James Slater. I was born 30th October 1959, in West London. I am married with two children. I now live in Cornwall, United Kingdom.' ;). No, seriously, you have a point - so long as someone hasnt posted material on their space saying that they are just a normal person. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A CV is pointless because it doesnt matter whether your George, Osama or Norm its you actions on Wikipedia that matter. As for age you dont need to be 12 years old to act like a child some the most annoying vandalism comes from people who are considered sane responsible adults in real. Gnan garra 12:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we don't want as sysops the occasional adult behaving like a 12 year old but by the same token we don't want to promote 12 year olds unless they are of that very rare breed that don't behave like 12 year olds. Pascal.Tesson 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why a real-life CV is relevant to Wikipedia at all. They're two totally different 'worlds' as it were. And some folk might not want to be identified regarding their real-life selves. A bad, and relatively unconstructive idea, sorry to use those words, I really am, but that's what I think. To be honest, I wouldn't really mind putting my real-life CV on - I'm a college student doing Drama, English and Geography at A-Level standard. Not much else to say other than I got 9 GCSEs at grade C or above. Other's won't want to reveal their true selves though, and, even more importantly, how do we sort out the liars from those who are telling the truth? Lra drama 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's completely irrelevant, and there'd be no way to tell who was lying (as with the Essjay controversy). I personally did not give out my age, or any other personal information, until I had already passed RfA. As Gnangarra points out above, candidates should be judged 100% on their record on Wikipedia. If they have demonstrated maturity and good judgment, then there's no reason to oppose them based on arbitrary factors. Walton^One 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AD, frankly if you don't give out your age, no one will know you are 12 years old. In all seriousness, it will be an uphill battle for you to gain adminship at 12, despite all the egalitarian rhetoric that people espouse, just because they fear (quite legitimately in some cases) that a 12 year old may not have enough real life experience to cope with the twists of, well, here, or some other reason. I myself don't care about how old you are, just how mature you are (and I can attest you are quite mature for your age). I myself was sysopped when I was 16, so age isn't much of a factor to me. —Kurykh 16:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I feel that copy/pasting the same question or comment to multiple ~~AFDs~~ RFAs is a way of attempting to alter the ~~AFD~~ RFA process without a consensus (e.g. Kurt). If you feel something should be added to every ~~AFD~~ RFA, then bring it up on this page. Otherwise, every candidate should be looked at individually. CitiCat^♫ 19:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean RfA, not AfD. Walton^One 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what happens when you try to edit while you're filling prescriptions. CitiCat^♫ 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Refill on cowbell? the_undertow ^talk 00:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: While it has sparked a healthy debate, I do wonder why Vodak felt they needed to know this of the current crop of applicants. Is it against WP:AGF to consider that in a few months, when the edit summaries are buried back a few pages, that an application for adminship will show a nice healthy interaction at WP:RfA - with no need to go into the actual work of evaluating an applicants record? I just had a quick look at their contribs, and they haven't made any further edit on any RfA they asked the question. If anyone thinks this comment is out of place for this discussion please feel free to remove it or request that I strike it. LessHeard vanU 20:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Citizendium! - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What is a Curriculum Vitae, is it the same thing as CV? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CV is the abbreviation of curriculum vitae. —Kurykh 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I found out. If you people had used the word "Resume" (with all applicable accents) I would have gotten it :) How does this apply to the project? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

*cricket* Look up and down this thread and you will see the backlash towards this idea. —Kurykh 03:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I thought this thread meant a CV with regards to something wiki-related. I didn't know it meant an actual CV :) Well, I am against it. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Vodak

This simple question has created a rather interesting debate. No doubt the posing of this voluntary request for qualifications for mere administative status on the English Wikipedia likely has caused much amusement on the part of those at Citzendium. I believe, however that that project will be about as fruitful as Nupedia.

As for those opposing the optional request for a CV, I wonder upon these few points:

Do you believe that the goal of this project is to create an academic quality encyclopedia?
Do you believe that participating in this project is, or should be, a semi-professional vocation?
Do you truly understand what a curriculum vitae is, that it does not ask for truly personal information like name, age, or date of birth?
How can you say an editor is trusted if you know nothing personal about them?
What are your real criteria for adminship? Arbirary edit counts? Participation in contentious deletion/policy debates? Quality qrticle writing?

Vodak 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're stating that someone should be judged on their real life job and education? Wikipedia has plenty of high quality editors that are still in middle school, as well as plenty that never received an education. The only time Wikipedia should be requesting a resume is when they're hiring. As far as your questions 1- No, it is an encyclopedia, but only forks of the project (such as Wikipedia 1.0) will ever be able to be academic quality. Everyone would like it to be, of course, and it can only get better, but the fringe areas will always be riddled with problems. At the same time, an academic quality encyclopedia wouldn't have nearly as much as we do, you'd never find an article on Mike the Headless Chicken in Britannica. 2- No, it's volunteer work. Wikipedia shouldn't be limited to experience, because that takes away the entire point of being free, and is incredibly biased towards people who can afford to get an education. 3 & 4 - These directly contradict each other, don't they? How can you know about someone enough to trust them, without any way of making them personally identifiable? And how does knowing the work someone has done help you know something personal about them, besides gumshoe work to invade their privacy? Do you believe that someone who has worked at McDonalds for half their life, but been an amazing Wikipedian should not be deserving of the tools, or that someone who has consistently violated NPOV and other policies be made an admin because they attended Harvard? Can you even come up with ONE reason why this would help you decide between why a person SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT be made an administrator that isn't completely and totally biased? --L-- 13:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate and dangerous to encourage anyone to release any personal information on Wikipedia. I recommend that anyone who wants to be admin keep their personal details a secret. Wikipedia has a privacy policy and that applies to admins too. You can judge a person by their contribs(almost always ;->) so you don't need to know any credentials. I don't think there are many real life resume items that would relate to Wikipedia anyways.

As for providing just credentials without an personal information, that has been a disaster in the past. Ones credentials should not play a part in Wikipedia other than you having the ability to find citations others would not. I could call myself the foot rubber of the king of france, but it should not effect my admin status, or even my editing of foot or France. Ones work experience is off topic. Until (1 == 2) 14:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with Vodak on this matter. If administrators were academic judges of the correctness of content, then I may have agreed with you, but in reality, the sysop role is to merely to enable other editors to create a great encyclopaedia by removing bad content, and holding back vandals etc. It's far more relevant to look at the nominee's history on wikipedia than external qualifications. In my case for example, my academic qualifications help me edit articles on quantum electronics, but are almost completely useless for deciding when to remove poorly-sourced images. On the other hand, the many edits I have accumulated in this area hopefully make me trustworthy in administrating images (but conversely won't help me get my work in Physics Journals!). Thanks, Papa November 1 15:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand Vodak's reasoning here. However, I do not support it at this time because there is nothing to stop someone from fabricating an entirely fictitious resume. Since very few people are willing to post identifying information that could tie their editing to a real world persona which could be held accountable by an employer, posting an experience-only resume, which includes limited, or no private data would encourage every 13 year old going up for RfA to declare themself a PHD in whatever topic they chose. As a 30 year old, who owns a house, is married, and holds a respected corporate job, I would be seriously biased against an editor if they posted a resume demonstrating they are not experienced in the adult world. However, if I had no personal information on the same user, I would only pass judgement based on their contribs.

I honestly think the great thing about Wikipedia is that editors can contribute in anonymity, and have the sum of their actions judged objectively by the community as a whole. Someone might have 14 degrees, but be a complete pompous fool when it comes to acting as a sysop (in as much as a 13 year old could be, well, a 13 year old). Personally, if I had an article deleted, I would feel far more comfortable knowing the admin who deleted the article simply applied a rational, well articulated, and reasoned approach to this deletion. Age, life experience, and career path in many cases might have very little bearing on how an admin acts in this regard. Hiberniantears 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In what world does a CV not contain personal information? Even if I gave you my CV without my name, address, current employment, and publications, there would be enough there to make it very easy to obtain those things with a few mouse clicks. Still, I agree with the sentiment expressed by others that experts here have a tough time; there's almost an animosity on some important levels to expertise. But that has nothing to do with adminship. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of an RfA. You don't have to list your actual school, or actual employer, or even country of origin. "advanced degrees in political science from top ten American university, plus 25 years of professional experience, and numerous published papers in major research journals". However, I still think anyone can make any of this up, in this digital medium. At the same time, I am sympathetic to Vodak's point because the very existence of Bosnian Pyramid, backs up those views expressed by others. Hiberniantears 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that a CV could be fabricated I think two factors might dissuade someone from attempting this: the burden of carrying off the ruse and the consequences for those who have tried and failed. At any rate, there has already been a confidential process suggested to vet claims of credentials. Vodak 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

... and that proposal has, I think, been rejected. I don't agree that history would dissuade people from forging a resume. Essjay was an admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, and ArbCom member, and he was initially defended by Jimbo. He took a fall only because a) he himself publicized his actual identity, and b) he'd specifically traded on his presumed credentials in content disputes. If he hadn't "outed" himself, or if he hadn't explicitly leveraged his credentials, he'd probably still hold all of his offices. Hardly a cautionary tale. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as we look at Wikipedia now, it is one of the few true meritocracies left in the world. You could get turned down for a job because you had, say, narcolepsy, or cerebral palsy, or autism, or whatever, but if you make good contributions to Wikipedia, you will not be looked down upon because of any physical/mental conditions you have. Personally, I feel that curriculum vitae are irrelevant because they can be fabricated so easily, and because, as Hiberniantears said, you can be a Harvard professor and be a pompous prat on Wikipedia, or you can be a brilliant teenager and a really good editor. Also, it essentially destroys the meritocracy that can allow a high schooler, or whomever, to be judged solely on the merit of their contributions, and not on their real-life experience. It may or may not be relevant for any individual. Neranei ^T/C 17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I agree. I could create another account, edit constructively for a few months and apply for RfA saying that I'm a graduate of Yale and have an amazing job for some huge corporation, blah blah blah. That shouldn't improve my chances of getting admin. I'm a high school grad, some college (from my time in the USAF), wife, mother, former Wal-Mart slave, current waitress. All-in-all, unimpressive. However, I have a love for knowledge and enjoy Wikipedia. I consider WP my hobby and spend most of my free time here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. That should make me as qualified for admin as the Yale grad with the corporate job... because, for all anyone here knows, we could be the same person. Lara ♥Love 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Note that I am not a puppet master. I'm just using that as an example.

I would expect your CV to say something about your experience in the USAF and your experience in the school of life. Interesting background information, and admirable, but hardly enough for anyone to independently identify you. Vodak 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, being identified as Person X isn't as important as the fact the Wikipedia is a meritocracy. I know, I seem quite attached to that idea, and that is due to reasons I outlined above. I have to ask you this: Would it affect your vote to find out that Candidate X is a 14-year-old with cerebral palsy, or a Yale graduate with a job as a research scientist? Neranei ^T/C 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Note: I am neither a 14-year-old with cerebral palsy, nor a Yale graduate with a job as a research scientist.

Wikipedia isn't a meritocracy, it's a collborative open source project. We're not talking about conditions or criteria for someone to be allowed to edit. Depite the naive four year old concept of adminship being no big deal, I think that given the new powers over BLP articles granted by the arbcomm that we should be taking a closer look at who we give that power to. Would you trust a 14 year old with that discretionary power? Vodak 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If their history of work on Wikipedia merited it, yes. A person's CV says almost nothing about how well they understand Wikipedia policy, how well they handle conflict on Wikipedia or how committed they are to the project. All of those questions can be best determined by examining contribution history. -Chunky Rice 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) Ah, yes, this is why I so vigorously contested Jimbo's verification "proposal" - Appeals to Authority; I am a scientist with x years background in y subject so my reliable sources are so much more relevant than your reliable sources... Admins should be promoted on their demonstrated ability, not what they may be paid to do elsewhere. LessHeard vanU 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC x 2) I don't consider my time in the USAF relevant to my edits on WP. Nor my job history. I don't even consider my education relevant to my edits here. An editor doesn't have to have a degree in English to be a copyeditor. An editor doesn't have to have a degree in science to edit science articles, or a degree in history to edit history articles. There are so many tasks to be done on WP, it doesn't matter what your background, there's something for you to do. Adding admin tools to that doesn't require anything more... or at least it shouldn't.

The single most important factor, in my opinion, is edit history. As I've previously stated, I don't think edit count necessarily means much, it's about the quality and constructiveness of the edits. If an editor's edit history shows that they contribute constructively to a somewhat broad range of areas, can work collaboratively and remain civil, that's all that should really matter. It's a matter of trust... not qualification based on real-life experience. The only issue that I feel should be weighed by real-life experience is maturity... and that should show in the edits, without any information given, because given information is not necessarily accurate. The 14-year-old who acts like an adult could just lie about their age because they can pass as the fabricated age when one reviews their contribs. And the 35-year-old who has a tendency to be a jackass may be honest about his age, but come off as a 14-year-old lying about his age. So disclosure of information is meaningless. It's the equivalent of OR in an article. Without a reliable source to back it up, there's nothing to prove its accuracy. Lara ♥Love 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The rationale that people might lie is not a good reason for not asking a question. We're not talking about ability to edit, or even to the ability to make quality edits, we're examining what makes someone trusted. What is your criteria? Vodak 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would trust an 8-year-old with admin tools if their contributions showed that they could be trusted. Now, I doubt that there is an 8-year-old with contributions that merit adminship, but, hey. you never know! As for Wikipedia not being a meritocracy, the definition of meritocracy is:

1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. Or, perhaps, age? 2. a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced. 3. leadership by able and talented persons. If we take that "elite group" to mean admins, then Wikipedia is a meritocracy. Admins get promoted based on the quality of their contributions, not whether or not they hold a college degree. As long as someone shows maturity, coolheadedness, knowledge of policy, quality edits, and suchlike, then their curriculum vitae/job experience/whatever are irrelevant. Neranei ^T/C 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This question made me uncomfortable. Since just editing simply based on your education and life experience would violate WP:OR, a real life resume is completely irrelevent. It doesn't take a Harvard education and 30 years of job experience as a nuclear physicist to check reliable sources and facts, spot vandals, and clear backlogs. hmwith talk 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the WP:OR connection. Education in an area probably will help you write an encyclopedia, but is probably irrelevant to performing admin duties. Neranei ^T/C 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) Vodak, you asked me "What is your criteria?" - I believe my comments for which this question was a response to answers this question. Lara ♥Love 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from L

What valuable information does a person's CV provide that indicates whether they are acceptable for adminship or not? How does a CV show the person to be any more trustworthy than a guy off the street, given that it can be easily forged? How does a CV show that someone is more or less capable of performing administrator actions and behaving as an administrator should, both by themselves and given they can be easily forged? How does a CV show the quality of a user's contributions, given that we have plenty of young editors that can make great contributions-- and again given they can be easily forged? --L-- 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is relevant to adminship at all. As I said to Hmwith, it may be relevant to article writing, and that's great, as long as you don't violate WP:OR, but it has very little to do with janitorial duties. If I may use Anonymous Dissident as an example, he is 12 years old, and is an excellent editor who will make an excellent admin. He does not have a college degree (to my knowledge) and is still a great editor. That proves something to me. Good question, L! Neranei ^T/C 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:the_undertow

For some reason, this discussion does not sit well with me. Since this entire project is voluntary, I don't think anyone would really appreciate being dissected nor put under a bright light. I'm happy to answer questions on my talk page, but even my tacktoos drew a few commentaries and raised eyebrows - and that would be a mere drop in the bucket compared to the scrutiny of my wonderfully eclectic CV (or whatever we are calling it these days). My education, my leisure activities and my resume wouldn't really make my understanding of copyvios nor AfD procedures any stronger (nor weaker). AGF is thrown around here, but maybe it should be less a colloquial term, and more an adhered to practice. In pertaining to RfA, unanswered 'optional' questions, such as these, can and have been a reason to oppose. I don't want any user to feel he/she must reveal personal information in order to convey goodwill and transparency. Life is either work or play. Since we are all volunteers here, wikipedia must be play, and therefore is for fun, correct? Yes it's important, serious, and productive - but it's still fun. Since I have fun here, and you are my playmates, I see no need to ask for credentials, as I will have fun regardless, as long as your editing is in good faith, your knowledge of procedure is forever getting better, and your interest in the project is the same as mine - to build an encyclopedia. the_undertow ^talk 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well stated. Lara ♥Love 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! Neranei ^T/C 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Vodak blocked

I have blocked Vodak indefinitely following confirmation that this account is a sockpuppet of User:Malber, who is presently blocked for using a sock to disrupt RfA with Harry Potter spoilers. Malber previously put similar questions to RfA candidates, asking them to disclose their age and/or qualifications. He appears to be trying to make the same point now that he was then... WjBscribe 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. I am glad that this issue is closed. Miranda 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! An honest attorney could never post his or her complete C.V., which normally now includes such personal information as an attorney registration number, business email, direct extension, sample client information, and notary public license number. Now all of this, combined, could be used to steal a client's identity. I wondered why someone would want that information, and know we all know, i.e., to invade privacy. Bearian 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My successful RfA

Instead of spamming the talk pages of everyone who ~~voted~~ participated in my recent RfA, I think it would be better to simply post my thanks here. I'm very happy to finally be an administrator. Over the last couple of years, Wikipedia has truly become an important part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to work on something like this. Now, I feel humbled that I have been granted the "mop and the bucket" so I can hopefully be a bigger help to the community. I assure you that I do not take my new role lightly. I truly want to thank each and every person who ~~voted~~ participated. It was an interesting process and I feel that I, in a way, was able to meet many other users that I otherwise wouldn't have encountered. I hope to see you guys around in the future. If anyone out there ever needs an admin for whatever reason, don't hesitate to drop me a message. Thanks again! --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here, have Husond's mop and bucket - you deserve them! Remember though, I'm watching you :P Giggy ^Talk 07:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, probably not, since people rarely watch this talk page. Just post it on your user page and people will see it there. Miranda 11:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You could post it on the talk page of the RFA itself. That way everyone who commented should see it. Majorly (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is probably the best place to put the thank you notice. While this page is widely watched by people interested in RFAs (contrary to what Miranda says), posting notices like this worsens the signal-to-noise ratio here. Anyway, congratulations, and happy blocking, deleting, protecting, and editing! Kusma (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we start a new page devoted specifically to RFA thank-yous at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thank you? That way, people (like me) who enjoy reading such things can do so, and people who'd rather not be bothered don't have to be bothered. Shalom ^Hello 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. It's a little hard to know exactly where to thank people. For what's it's worth, I think I'll also put this on my RfA's talk page. --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed. Someone tries to find a "better" and less intrusive way to do things, and people tell him off for it. By the way Majorly, that assumes people watchlist all the RfAs they comment on - I don't know about others, but I don't always do that ;) Giggy ^Talk 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. By the way, congratulations! Neranei ^T/C 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, though one probably better suited for userspace than project space (though it's a bit of a toss up). If you're curious, my RfA thank you can be found at User:EVula/admin/thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is stupid, but is there any kind of Administrator's Sandbox where new admins can practice with the mop and bucket? --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can try blocking yourself, and deleting/protecting/etc a user subpage. I was considerng making a admin sandbox on the toolserver, but per rules I can't. I might ask sometime. Note that blocking yourself isnt permanent, you can just unblock yourself again. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can unblock yourself while you're blocked? --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't get any ideas. That's the quickest route to becoming a WP:FORMER administrator :) -- Renesis (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Blocking an admin does not remove their ability to perform admin actions, so yes you can unblock yourself. Caution: If you should ever find yourself blocked while you are an admin, do NOT unblock yourself. Extremely high likelihood you would lose your admin status if you did so, for abuse of admin privs. --Durin 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can[1]. Try it for yourself. I've also messed around on User:WiIyD, which is a nasty sockpuppet of mine. Wily D 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/New admin school - it's not quite finished yet, but worth a look. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for sockpuppets to block, you can try User:Bishzilla and User:Iana-ray Zasta-day. Just don't tell User:Bishonen and User:Riana that I told you to do it. :) Shalom ^Hello 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was first given my mop, I created a little guinea pig page in my userspace to delete and have my way with. No specific space is actually needed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I very rarely vote on RFAs but I have this page watchlisted and with regard to testing the tools check out my block log ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by James086 (talk • contribs)

How embarrassing, I rarely forget to sign. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder about closing RfAs

If you're going to close an RfA for a valid reason (such as a candidate withdrawing, which doesn't require a bureaucrat's involvement at all, or a painfully obvious case of snowballs), please be sure to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions. There are several things that need to happen for failed noms and not all of them are happening to the RfAs I've been watching (which is all of them).

I'm not pointing fingers any anybody, and I certainly don't want to come across as pissed off by any stretch of the imagination, but if you're gonna help out, first of all thank you, but just make sure you're taking care of everything, not just slapping a template on the RfA. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not talking to me, right? :-) I suggest editors just leave closing RfA's to you, a bureaucrat, or someone of equal experience with RfA's. --Boricuaeddie 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I know I closed one today after the user asked me to and untranscluded. I didn't use a template though - I couldnt remember it, and ended up copying from another RfA. In future, I think i'll just leave it for others. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did one of these last night, and I think I closed and archived it correctly. In general, if I miss a step, please let me know. Shalom ^Hello 05:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Do Neutral !votes count? Looking at the 'crat noticeboard, It shows no sign of counting these !Vs. Why do we have Neutrals? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They do not count in the percentages, but, as some b'crats say, they take a look at the neutral votes when dealing with borderline cases. —Kurykh 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how'd you count a neutral in percentage-wise anyway. But yeah, it's mainly for borerline cases, I'd think. Wizardman 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think that it's ideal, and neutrals are there for people who aren't sure but still want to provide information... but realistically, it's mostly just for counting in borderline cases. -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Percentage isn't what determines promotion, so neutrals play a role in determining the community consensus. They don't carry as much weight as supports or opposes, obviously. Andre (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can see, Neutral !votes are really pieces of text that should be part of the comments section, but that want to gain more attention and express their inability to decide "which way they should lean" -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they have a purpose even if they don't "count" per se. Sometimes I have concerns about a candidate which I want to express in definite terms, but I don't think they're strong enough to merit an Oppose. For instance, if a candidate was experienced and hardworking, but their answers to the questions had indicated excessive willingness to use IAR and "common sense" instead of following the policies and guidelines, I would vote Neutral; it wouldn't be a fair reason to Oppose, but I'd want them to take note of my concerns. Walton^{alternate account} 15:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Walton about the role of the Neutral section in RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So how many 80.0001% or greater RFAs have you closed as no consensus? --W.marsh 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes use neutral to state an early opinion, and then move from neutral to oppose or support later, as more evidence/concerns/admiration emerges, or based on answers to questions. Sometimes I remain undecided, or evenly balanced, and will remain neutral. Carcharoth 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside how bureaucrats deal with neutral !votes, they can clearly influence other contributors, as support and oppose !votes do. --Dweller 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I recall an RFA where 4 or 5 people opposed per my neutral vote... so you have a point. Sometimes someone makes their argument but just thinks it's enough for a "neutral", others think it's enough for an "oppose". It causes nightmares for "not a vote" language people I'm sure. --W.marsh 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I recall an RFA where 3 people supported and 3 opposed based on the same comment of mine. If that doesn't indicate problems, I don't know what would. Then again, I was pretty borderline myself. Prodego ^talk 05:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral comments can however change the course of an RfA at times... I seem to recall at least 1 RfA where I made a comment in the neutral section and there were at least 7 opposes because of the point I brought up. The power of neutrality shouldn't be knocked :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"The power of neutrality shouldn't be knocked" sounds like the national motto of Switzerland New England ^{Review Me!} 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I use the "neutral" section mainly when I've changed my !vote (generally when someone I've supported then does something that's not quite bad enough to change to oppose, but that makes me no longer comfortable supporting. Moving it to Neutral with a note is IMO less messy than a strikethrough — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the word "neutral" implies the comment to have a numeric value (of 0). It would make an awful lot more sense to title these "comment" instead. Or indeed "abstain" if that is what the author wishes to do. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies

Can someone please sort out Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies? I was planning on doing it myself but I really don't have the time. There are 30 RfAs there. --Deskana (banana) 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done Majorly (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it perhaps make sense to convert it over to a system similar to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, in that everything is dated and noted (rather than just a "here's everyone promoted in <month> of <year>")? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a lot more useful. I think NoSeptember has a page of dates and stuff on one of his subpages. Majorly (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I converted the rest of the transclusions to links, though EVula's suggestion may prompt everything to change soon anyway. Oh well.--Chaser - T 05:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I started reformatting the oldest section, September 2004.[2] I much prefer the informative version to the just the names version, but I'm at a loss for what other information to convey (with the failed RfAs, you can always say why the RfA was unsuccessful, but these are all successful). Would it be worthwhile to find which 'crat promoted each editor? Should I drop the year from the date (saying as it's redundant to the section header anyway)? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This may help. Singu larity 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

EVula, both those things you suggested are fine. Although you might have to look in the rfa history to see who did the promotion pre. Feb 2004. Majorly (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but close enough to the general theme about records of adminship candidacies. I was wondering, Majorly, if you had any plans on updating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats/Stats - the thought occurred to me that if people are looking for guidance on whether they might be "experienced" enough to stand, a handy link somewhere more prominent to this page of yours would be very useful. Potential candidates could then see how long it had been since someone with a similarly "low" edit count or "few" months of editing had been mopped, and it might be a useful guide for them (and for those commenting at RfA) for how their candidacy fitted into recent trends. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't, no. I'm too busy in other places to be updating it, but anyone is free to do it themselves, if they are interested (including the main stats page which is about 3 months out of date...) Majorly (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of "EVula Doesn't Want To Go Batshit Insane", I think I'll instead list whoever closed the RfA; much easier to figure out and, in about 99.9% of the cases, it's the same person as the promoting 'crat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A much fuller example is Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies#August 2007. I'm gonna keep going, since nobody has cried out that the existing format is preferred. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

"you should not give in to evils, but proceed ever more boldly against them". Is it just me, or are the comments by User:Neil Larson suddenly apperaing on RFA's regarding nominated candidate borderline if not actual trolling? I replied to one and he's replied back but I'm not feeding anymore. The antithesis of Kurt Weber of course - everyones entitled to an opinion and I'm sure the 'crats will ignore it but it's hardly constructive. Pedro | Chat 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm certain he's only here to disrupt and confuse people. Personally, I think things like this should be indef blocked and let people get on with writing an encyclopedia, but unfortunately nobody asked me --Lu c id 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A new user on 16th July, who has decided to come back and oppose these nominations. I'm going to block. Majorly (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Majorly. Pedro | Chat 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Lu c id 09:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Note I have indented the oppose comments on all affected RFA's. Pedro | Chat 09:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... a troll who phrases his comments in classical Latin. Evidently we're attracting a more highbrow class of disruption these days. :-) Walton^One 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Now if we could just get personal attacks in the form of "I am of the high-minded opinion that you, sir or madam, are of both sub-par intelligence, and engage in coital activities with members of your own gender." EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding to my talk page "Insults not in the form of rhyming poetry will be ignored and blanked." ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Very fine idea, Until. This sort of thing just doesn't cut it anymore. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always had a softspot for vandals who employ Dactylic hexameter... Hiberniantears 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As Aaron said, "insults in rhyming couplet will be kept and treasured forever."--Chaser - T 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been done before: [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I must stress that RfA comments are not and cannot be disruptive in and of themselves. Such a block does not fall under our blocking policy. I do not wish to wheel war, but I urge you to lift this block. Andre (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, did you review Neil Larson's non-RFA-related contributions before indefinitely blocking? Mike R 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A comment you made on your talk page indicates that you did. You state, "This is different to Kurt Weber though; he is an established user, who does lots of article work. This new user was adding stub tags and fixing links. Also very new, so no need to let him continue his disruption here." This is a weak argument for indefinitely blocking a user from whom the majority of contributions have been helpful and constructive. Mike R 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting in an RfA based on an unpopular viewpoint is one thing. But this reason doesn't even make sense. Maybe he shouldn't have been indefinitely blocked, but... -Amarkov moo! 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I also find the indefinite block to be an overreaction. A simple warning or a 24 hour block may very well have had the same effect. The rest of his edits seem reasonably constructive. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No reason to block. His opinions will be given due weight by the crats. Friday (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, nobody overrule the block for now. Checkuser suggests something odd is afoot and the block might help me figure out what. Not giving any statement on the appropriateness of block, however. --Deskana (banana) 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course he should be blocked. Have you looked at the users edits outside RfAs? See here - he's basically clicking random article and fixing stub tags, shuffling sections around rather needlessly. He's made edits for 4 days. That is the 15th and 16 of July and August. Now, we already have enough users around disrupting the RfA process without this nonsense. I blocked him because a user who has been with us for four days really should not be making those kind of comments on RfAs. It struck me as blatant trolling. Normally, a troll will go straight to the RfA page and make a disruptive comment, but Neil has done very, very minor article work. The kind of work I could easily do if I were to start a new account right now. Someone with that level of experience, making those sort of comments on RfAs, just simply don't exist. He's a sockpuppet of someone, or just a clear troll but I don't understand why people want to unblock this unproductive editor. For more disruption and silliness? I really don't see the point, and I stand by my block. Majorly (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, there is a lot of oddity surrounding Neil's contributions. I think the block was a bit fast (the disruption was relatively minor), but I won't be the least bit surprised if it ends up being upheld by checkuser evidence. I think Majorly's suspicions about Neil's contributions are pretty spot-on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off topic comment For the record I consulted with Majorly and we were in agremment of my indenting of the comments by Neil. Should anyone feel I was in error with this, and his opposes should stand in the numbering (as they do after all still stand on record), I will gladly revert my actions. Pedro | Chat 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems obvious to me this is someone who has been around before; I even have a goofy theory about who it is. But having another account isn't abusive unless you misuse it, right? If someone who was not currently blocked, but wanted to make a fresh start, just opened a new account and started editing, letting the old one die, that's not abuse if I read WP:SOCK right. In fact, if they both edited simultaneously, but in different areas and never interacted, it seems to me that might be frowned upon but still legal too.

I say wait for Deskana's evaluation, but if it turns out not to be someone who was already blocked, or who has been editing that RfA under another name, then an indef block (or, really, any block) for being, at most a little pointy is, in my opinion, too harsh. --barneca (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This did indeed turn out to be an ... alternate account of another user. There's a longer discussion on ANI. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Side point on disruptive RfA comments

Leaving aside the question of whether it was right to block the user, I think Majorly and Pedro were quite right to indent his/her comments. I strongly disagree with Andrevan's comment above that RfA comments "cannot be disruptive in and of themselves". I agree that reasoned and rational RfA comments which fall outside community norms, such as those of Kmweber or A.Z, are not disruptive. However, posting utter nonsense and fragments of classical Latin to RfAs is disruptive. And I strongly disagree with the attitude of "his comments will be given due weight by the crats" expressed by Friday and others above. Bureaucrats should give equal weight to all comments given in good faith; they should not make decisions on what constitutes a valid or invalid rationale. On the rare occasions when a disruptive or bad-faith comment has been made on an RfA, it should be indented and disregarded; this should be a community decision, and should not (IMO) be done by a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats should not be decision-makers. They should simply implement the will of the community. Walton^One 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear those words coming from you Walton. Of all people, I'd have expected you to have been opposed to mine and Pedro's actions, and I'm very pleased we agree on this. Majorly (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Walton, that's a fair and reasonable assessment that gives appropriate balance to the various competing interests at stake here. dr.ef.tymac 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you all for your support. As a non-admin I did check / consult with Majorly before taking that action and he was in agreement. I would never wish to indent or strike any comments by others at RFA but in this once instance I felt it was justifiable. Pedro | Chat 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's far better IMO for you (as a non-bureaucrat) to indent the comments, rather than for the bureaucrats to decide whether to disregard them. I think this discussion has shown that your actions were in line with community consensus. Walton^One 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very, very good concept, that helps further separate the sense that 'crats are above community consensus. I still think there are times where the 'crats should use their discretion when weighing arguments, but the community exercising their right to identify and remove disruptive !votes is even better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What then is the role of the crats? Surely we have them instead of vote-counting bots for some reason? And.. they will give RFA comments the weight they feel they deserve, with or without any individual editor approving of it. Friday (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also.. I suspect most of the disapproval of weird RFA "votes" is really just people being annoyed that someone dared oppose one of their buddies. Notice that support votes with completely stupid reasons rarely attract the kind of attention that stupid opposes tend to get. A.Z. is the only one I recall who's gotten raised eyebrows for support votes. Friday (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the oft-cited "no big deal," many feel that anyone who's reasonably experienced and has kept their nose clean should be presumed qualified until shown otherwise. Thus, supports don't need to be as persuasively justified as opposes. Raymond Arritt 18:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, to be fair, one oppose vote is essentially equal to three support votes. So perhaps it's appropriate that it gets three times the criticism? -Chunky Rice 18:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. In other words, in an ideal world, it should be given out liberally. But of course, not everyone is suited to the role, nor wants it. On Wikipedia, and indeed the other Wikimedia projects, most users are positiove happy people, willing to give someone some extra boring tools if they ask for them. Others, of course, like to oppose for dodgy reasons. These users forget how trivial adminship is. It's just a website. There's no big deal about this. English Wikipedia is probably the toughest project to get adminship on. There's no particular reason why this should be, but it probably is. This is because there are too many negative people unwilling to support a user getting a really dull set of tools, that, even if abused, can always be reversed. Majorly (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I'd be way more willing to hand the admin tools out very liberally if it were possible to remove them again as easily as they're granted. Friday (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is why we should have a Requests for desysopping process, where the community can discuss whether someone should be desysopped, and make a decision in the same way as RfA and RfB; a steward would then close the discussion, and desysop them if there was consensus to do so. But anyway, I don't think it's that much of an issue. Remember that our one rogue admin was desysopped after something like 19 minutes, and all the damage he did was reversed very quickly. IMO, the damage to the project from failing good candidates outweighs the damage from passing bad ones. Walton^One 13:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. ArbCom is sometimes too unwieldy and slow for such a task, and an RFC rarely creates a peaceful resolution. bibliomaniac 15 Prepare to be deleted! 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out why so many people insist that we can't have a community-consensus-based desysop process. I've heard no objection more solid than "Gosh, we can't do that- it's never been done before!" Friday (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made many, many times before. It was used years ago; see [4] and [5] for reference. It was deprecated. There's a number of discussions about the topic in general over the years. As I recall, one of the main points of opposition to the idea is that administrators do a job that virtually by definition ruffles people's feathers. Having to not only conduct your job but to do it with an eye towards preventing your being, in essence, voted our of offense handcuffs your ability to perform. Also, if there is an administrator that is acting out of line, ArbCom is well capable of dealing with that situation. --Durin 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

←(unindenting) But we have a community-consensus-based desysop process. The community gets together every year and approves a slate of Arbitrators. Those Arbitrators, armed with a mandate from both Jimbo and the community at large, evaulate evidence in a cool and deliberate fashion, and are empowered by tradition and community trust to render decisions about retention of adminship (among other things). Any member of the community is free to bring a case before ArbCom.

A Request for Deadminship might as well be called a Request for Lynch Mob. A time-limited free-for-all where all of the participants would either be digging up as much dirt and creative libel as they could find on the target, or attempting to smear the other participants as thoroughly as possible before the clock ran out. Oh, and the canvassing—oy. Every borderline troll and disgruntled editor would be invited and encouraged to participate as an involved party. Every old grudge between the Requester, the target, and between each of the participants would come bubbling to the surface. Picture the ugliest, roughest, mudslingingest user Request for Comment you've ever seen. That's what a smooth Request for Deadminship would look like.

This all leaves aside the question of whether the Bureaucrats or Stewards would want the responsibility of presiding over such a bloodbath. If you thought the knives came out when they rejected an RfA with 75.2% support, wait till you see the pitchforks and torches when they start calling Deadminships. And good luck to any would-be Bureaucrat that puts his name forward; all the quibbles about 'discretionary ranges' will shrink to nothing in comparison with the arguments about proper attitudes toward Deadminship. If you stick the Stewards with this responsibility instead, where does that leave us? I doubt they want the trouble, and Stewards are less accountable to the en-wiki community than our own Arbitrators are.

I've asked something like this before, but I want to know what advantage an RfD (in the style of an RfA or RfB) has over Arbitration. I hope and expect that a call for deadminship would compel the editors making a request to run though a similar procedure. That is, they would be required to make clear and coherent statements of the problem(s), and present in an orderly fashion diffs and logs to support their claim that the admin had violated the community's trust and standards. I can't see the advantage of a shortcut to deadminship, when we already have a reasonable, coolheaded, deliberative process in place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If such an RfD process were to exist, I would hope that the same standard of consensus would apply, ie., an 80% support for deadminship (or whatever the percentage is for determining a consensus to promote) being required to deadmin an editor, otherwise, there would be no consensus. Bloodbaths notwithstanding, this would at least prevent most grudge cases from resulting in a loss of sysop status, and require a true widespread loss of trust by the community. - Crockspot 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You make a reference to an ugly, rough, mudslinging RfC, saying that we should avoid any RfD process because that's what it would end up like. Problem is, to bring a case to arbcom, you must have an RfC, and RfCs against admins are the ugliest, roughest and mudslingingest ones. Actually, in an RfD, that would just be the end of it, whereas if you're doing arbitration, you have to go through the same thing again. -Amarkov moo! 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What if it were done similar to the arbcom? a desyscomm, elected in a similar way as arbcom (or expand arb and make a sub committee?) and that's their mandate - to ride herd on deadmins. --Rocksanddirt 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucratic growth for a non-needed process. We already have ArbCom to cover this base. If they feel overloaded by such problems, they can request help. But, the number of forced de-adminnings over the years is so small that I doubt such a request would come up any time in the near future. There's a reason that de-adminning someone is not easy. Admins conduct work that puts them in the line of fire. Many of them become the object of much hate and derision...for doing their job in a polite manner. If we have an easy process to de-admin people, we might as well close up shop. We'll lose some of our best administrators this way. --Durin 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting easy, but maybe a bit faster than arbcomm. The general arbcom proceeding takes a couple of months as they are looking at all sides of an issue. This would be a restricted set only looking at the administrative actions of an administrator. I think more and more a subset of arbcomm would be better to weed out the fairly frivolous deadmin requests from the ones where abuse has take place. If there were a process, there would be more deadmin'd people that is for sure. The current arbcomm cases seem to have at least one or two admins discussed for remedy sanctions in maybe 1 out of 5 cases it seems. Generally, arbcomm "reminds" them to do better, but enforcement by deadmin is threatened. --Rocksanddirt 22:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping

Many people have pointed out above that a formal Requests for desysopping process has the potential to turn into a mudslinging session for trolls to attack their least favourite admins. That may be true. But consider this: in the real world, in a free country, the holders of power can always expect to be the targets of mudslinging, excessive scrutiny and unfair criticism. This situation is tolerated and even encouraged, because it's better than letting the holders of power act with impunity. I, as an administrator, know I can expect criticism, just as I would expect criticism if I were the holder of a position of power in real life. While it might degenerate into mudslinging (as user conduct RfCs already do), I think it is necessary and desirable to have a community desysopping process, run along the same lines as an RfA or RfB. Not a committee - we certainly don't need more elites.
Further, I know some people have argued that because the ArbCom is elected, it's an accountable body trusted by the community. But this doesn't hold water in practice, simply because the timescale on Wikipedia is so different to the real world. The ArbCom is elected every year. In a year, several hundred new users will have turned up, learned the ropes, and become admins; several hundred others will have become disillusioned and left. Large numbers of current established users were not yet Wikipedians at the time of the last ArbCom elections. Unlike a country, Wikipedia does not have a long-term body of "citizens"; this is why we have WP:CCC, and why the ArbCom is so often an arbitrary body whose decisions do not reflect what the community wants. So, in conclusion, we need a community desysopping process, a "Requests for desysopping", that will be binding and will operate independently of the ArbCom. Walton^One 11:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the above analogy is that Wikipedia isn't the real world. Everyone here is a volunteer and admins aren't paid a dime for their efforts. They don't hold any real power other than access to a few buttons. With over 1200 admins, it's not an exclusive group and there are no formal requirements. Comparing admins to elected officials just doesn't make sense. When admins start getting paid a comfortable salary and receiving special perks, perhaps then we can expect them to endure "...mudslinging, excessive scrutiny and unfair criticism." Until such time, we should focus on preventing abuse by trolls and let the ArbCom continue handling desysoping. Chaz ^Beckett 12:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the differences between Wikipedia and the real world are exaggerated. Yes, we are all unpaid volunteers. However, we are also a large and structured community. Admins may not get a salary or "perks", but we do exercise power, and there have been plenty of documented instances of abuse of that power. Some users don't want to be admins, just as some people don't want positions of power in real life. But those of us who have chosen to take on this power, and exercise it, know that it is accompanied by a responsibility to be accountable to the community for our actions. I also think that the emphasis on fighting trolls is slightly problematic. Like other such designations, "troll" is a subjective term - and, just as even hardened criminals are given a fair hearing in the real world, even hardened trolls should be given a fair hearing on Wikipedia. Like I said, I, as an administrator, am absolutely willing to be responsible and accountable to the community for my actions, and to be criticised (hence why I set up my admin review page for people to comment on my record). The exercisers of power must be held to account, and all members of the community must be protected from abuse of power. Walton^One 13:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaz is right. The problem with the analogy is that administrators do not hold "the power" thus necessitating natural accountability, checks and balances, and acceptance of excessive scrutiny. While administrators have tools that other users do not, the holder of the power is still the community. This serves as the check on administrator power. Who brings cases before ArbCom? The community. Who makes the statements? Who brings the evidence? The community. This is as good a desysopping process as any, unless you want a system that is open to abuse. -- Renesis (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, arbcom does a great job of reminding admins that they have tools, not authority. I don't see the problem. Also, this has been brought up about 25 times, and have never even come close to reaching consensus. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you want a system that is open to abuse... All systems are inherently open to abuse. And, while in theory I agree that it's the community and not admins which holds power, this is less and less true in practice. Thanks to the "discussion not vote" crowd, admins can basically close XfDs however they like. Yes, there is DRV, but this, too, is closed by admins on a "non-vote" basis, meaning that the closing admin can disregard opinions they disagree with. Likewise, with blocks, admins have some discretionary power in handing out blocks.

To clarify, I'm not accusing any admins of deliberate abuse. But in many situations, two individuals may have radically different views on the best way to improve Wikipedia. Both may feel very strongly about it. (BLP, for instance, often produces such situations). If one of these individuals is an admin, they may well use their tools to implement their preferred course of action - and this has happened lots of times in the past. In situations where there is no clear-cut "right" or "wrong" side of the debate, we need to reduce the power of admins and increase that of the community. A Requests for desysopping process is the only way to do that. Walton^One 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that all systems are open to abuse, but not necessarily the same magnitude or type of abuse. I've yet to hear any proposals for community desysoping that wouldn't easily be gamed by trolls or others that have a grudge against a particular admin. When attempts are made to design proposals to solve this problem, the solutions either resembles a bureaucratic mess or a committee very similar to ArbCom. Chaz ^Beckett 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why we have WP:DRV and WP:RFC and even WP:RfAr if needed. We can deal with admins who do what they should not. Can I ask where arbcom has failed us? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the reality is theres 1200 odd admins and the actions of any one can easily be undone any other. If admin was to go a rampage of mass anything the damage is easily reverted thus limited as if its nothing more than that of normal vandalism we see every minute. Any process that makes admins easy targets is actually going to be detrimental to the project, arbcom is effective and bureaucrats are available for extreme cases. I havent seen anything that warrants a process outside of the current processes. Gnan garra 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I explained, I wasn't talking about admins who go on a "rampage"; those who deliberately cause damage are very rare, thankfully. However, a lot of admins have strong views about the correct way to improve the encyclopedia, and will do what they think best, regardless of the views of other members of the community. They are acting in good faith, but it's still a bad thing - sadly, WP:IAR actively encourages this sort of situation by giving admins an excuse not to follow procedures properly. We need to give power back to the community. As to your latter points; ArbCom may be "effective", but as I explained earlier, it's not sufficiently responsive to the community, and ArbCom decisions may not reflect what the community wants. And don't forget that only stewards, not bureaucrats, can desysop. Walton^One 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're seeking a process to desysop admins who are acting in good faith, but possibly without consensus? This seems like a case where the community almost certainly shouldn't be the judge of whether the admin is desysoped. There's so many accusations of people acting "unilaterally" that we'd likely be flooded by desysoping requests. If you're concerned with the ArbCom not being responsive enough, it would probably be more effective to craft some proposals to improve the ArbCom's handling of admin cases, rather than trying to create an entirely new process. Chaz ^Beckett 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you provide a few cases where you believe that the ArbCom was ineffective, but a community desysop process would have been effective? Chaz ^Beckett 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not Arbcom. In the admin-related cases they accept, I think they do well, even when I do disagree with the decision. The problem is that Arbcom (understandably) is not willing to give out sanctions unless there is some abuse. And the cases which need a community desysopping process are those where an admin loses the trust of the community without actually abusing admin tools. -Amarkov moo! 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has not failed us. Our desysopping process is entirely adequate. Anyone who isn't controversial enough with admin buttons to get desyopped by arbcom doesn't need desysopping. Politicians and that sort get paid quite a bit to do their job, and the mudslinging is an expected part of their job. There is no need for us to make it so with Wikipedia. As others have said, we volunteer to do our best for the project, there's no need to subject people to that. I'm quite strongly against any sort of new desysopping procedure. --Deskana (banana) 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If a Request for Deadminship process would be a bloodbath (it probably would be) and ArbCom's deadmining process is not quick enough or harsh enough to satisfy everybody (there's no denying that -- see above), how could we put the "no big deal" back into the sysop bit? That's what we're really talking about here. There are a lot of editors who would like to have the buttons, and would do some good with them, but somehow those buttons have become too big a deal to be given out unless we have an incredibly high amount of trust in the editor. How, other than a Request for Deadminship process, could that be changed? Vadder 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom may be slow (God, yes, very slow) but do we have any actual evidence that it is not desysopping enough people? Most of the arguments above seem to rest on a proposed massive limiting of admin discretion (and due replacement by bot), and the consequent argument that admins are not sufficiently bot-like. Moreover, even if there were evidence that not enough admins are being desysopped , surely then the more logical step would be to look at the system that is promoting unsuitable admins. Moreschi ^Talk 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a system that didn't promote unsuitable admins. But the reality is that it's really hard to see how good someone will be as an admin until they actually have the tools. And I do believe that Arbcom is not desysopping everyone that should be desysopped, because they (perfectly reasonably) will only desysop for serious abuse of admin tools. That fails to account for good faith misuse, or people who are just not trusted anymore. -Amarkov moo! 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Whis is it important to be able to remove the tools from people who have not misused them and for which there is no indication that they intend to in the future? What is the harm that comes to Wikipedia? If by 'not trusted anymore' you mean 'not trusted to use the tools correctly anymore' then that's a different kettle of fish. (Of course, you would need to be able to substantiate that claim with evidence of some sort, which then means that the ArbCom process would work....) But if by 'not trusted' you mean 'people think he's a bit of a dick', then the process becomes the bloodbath grudge-match that I'm afraid of. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do mean "not trusted to use the tools correctly". The problem is, that doesn't necessarily involve abuse of the tools, and Arbcom won't sanction an admin just because the community disagrees with their judgement. -Amarkov moo! 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point is one that I was going to make. For example, I see one admin who has speedily deleted many articles that I think clearly did not meet the standards for CSD. When questioned about a particular action, his/her typical response is something along the lines of "see WP:N", rather than giving any insight into his thought process or at least providing a more specific explanation that a new editor might understand. While some editors have taken his actions to Deletion Review, few new editors are going to understand that system or even know that it exists. I don't think that particularly admin is abusing the tools, but I certainly no longer trust him/her to use the tools correctly. The bulk of this editor's actions are probably non-controversial and, on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being a rogue admin and 10 being an excellent one), he might still rate a 5. He is certainly not a 1 or 2. Is a 5 good enough? -- DS1953 ^talk 00:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a 5 isn't good enough, but in reality there's no system that can accurately judge that fine of a line without being disrupted by people with a grudge. That's why I suggest that standards for desysopping be the same as for promotion; if less a quarter of the community thinks you should be an admin, you certainly shouldn't be. Yes, there will still be some admins that shouldn't have the tools and do, but it's better than now, where an admin has to clearly be abusive to get desysopped. -Amarkov moo! 00:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, ArbCom just dealt with a case of the sort you're talking about. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. The two findings of fact included "Jeffrey O. Gustafson has failed to explain his actions as an admin" and "Jeffrey O. Gustafson has not observed Wikiquette". The ArbCom decision was that Jeffrey's adminship would be suspended for 30 days. Presumably if the problems persist after his adminship is restored, the ArbCom would consider a permanent desysopping. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not ArbCom is slow, the issue is the perception that ArbCom is not fast enough or accurate enough at desysopping, therefore people are ridiculously careful who they promote in the first place. How can that be fixed (be it perception or reality), so that more good people can be given the bit? I think the goal here is more admins, not more former admins. Vadder 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Slight extention to that....the goal isn't just more admins but more admins doing the work of admins. How many purely admin actions are issued each day/week? How many admins do not conduct an admin action per week? --Rocksanddirt 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus to de-admin somebody for being mediocre. I don't want people to be de-admined for anything short of outright abuse, or clear and continuing incompetence. If an admin is actually causing more harm than good and evidence can be provided to show that then I have no doubt that arbcom will take the needed action. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with until1=2. we need to encourage the mediocre or light use admins to maybe do a bit more, deadmin is only for abusive ones. Which is why a subcommitte of arbcomm might be a more efficient way to look at 1) if it's admin actions that are at issue, and 2) if it is a case where a full arbcom proceeding is needed.

Separate question...for those who say they are up for "re-Rfa" I suggest that the standard be different the for first time promotion. I would suggest that the standard be "consensus for a change". just a thought. --Rocksanddirt 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:luvcraft and User:53180

Did anyone besides me and J-stan notice that their RfA's were surprisingly similar (almost identical answers and very similar nominations). 53180's and luvcraft's. T Rex | talk 08:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured User:53180 did a copy/paste of luvcraft's, though I could be wrong - Alison ☺ 08:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have a vastly different contribution focus. It would be pretty unlikely that they will be socks... 53180 probably just saw luvcraft's RfA and thought to have a go, copying luvcraft's statement in the process... --DarkFalls ^talk 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is the possibility that 53180 started out as an SPA (I never know whether to use "a" or "an"), and then turned into a sockpuppet. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

53180 is flirting with an indef block; I've already had to block him for disruption when he made another RfA (four failed RfAs in one day), and he then proceeded to leave uncivil comments on a relatively unrelated editor's talk page. SPA or sock, I honestly don't care; we've got better things to do with our time than to humor bull-headed and rude editors who can't take a clue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the similarity as well, but came to a similar conclusion as Alison. EVula // talk // ☯ // 12:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I did see it as well. But as was posted above, User:53180 probably saw User:luvcraft RFA, and just decided to copy it. I don't think it has anything to do with sockpuppets. Politics rule 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive Bot

Any one here think this talk page could use an archive bot(i.e. MiszaBot?) --Chris G 09:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Discussions here vary in length and the amount of time spent on them greatly. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the time spent be, my bot archives based on the last timestamp in a thread, so moves only discussions that noone has commented in for a while. I think you can safely set the treshold to, say 14 days (no thread qualifies for that currently). Миша 13 13:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing it personally for the last few months. Sometimes the page balloons to over 200Kb in one or two days, and sometimes things should stay up for a while longer than mandated by the bot when they are significant and/or the page is shorter. Since it's not a problem for me, and hopefully my brainpower is an improvement over the bot, I have no problem with continuing to archive here manually. Dekimasu よ! 14:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We already tried an archive bot, and we decided not to have it on this page afterall. --Durin 13:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My sysop review

I'd like to invite the community to comment on my review page. This is like an editor review, only with the specific purpose of reviewing my admin actions. Please review my recent admin actions, and comment on that page on how I'm doing (don't be afraid to criticise). Both admins and non-admins are encouraged to comment. Walton^One 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

These sorts of things should have there own process - not anything formal, or compulsary, but an admin version of editor review. I like the idea, and I will comment now :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do like the idea of this as well, there shold be a way to have a voluntary process like this. Wizardman 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys do know that Editor review can also be used by admins, right? --Boricuaeddie 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that is more focused on general editing than admin duties. If a user just wants reviews of their admin stuff, or something similair, another informal optional process would be ideal. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but editor review's rarely accessed, and it's meant for editor actions, not admin actions. Just my view anyway. Wizardman 22:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody should start working on Wikipedia:Admin review :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can ask in your editor review for admin related advice only. No need for another review page. Admins are still editors. Majorly (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I really like the idea of an admin review system, but there's no point in setting up yet another system when we can just adapt an existing one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a formal system. Simply compute the average number of aggrieved messages you receive on your talk page, per week, as a result of your administrative actions. The ideal range is between 2.37 and π. If you generate fewer complaints than that, you're not active enough or you're avoiding difficult areas. If you generate more complaints, you are officially an Abusive Admin®. Every qualitative problem has a simple, appealing, and totally useless quantitative solution! MastCell ^Talk 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right so! Like, 75% support in RfAs to pass. --Durin 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Touché. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch, I have been planning on doing this too. Viridae ^Talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:32, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I've decided to do one too, and it's located at User:Maxim/Review. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:18, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Why don't you just post an Editor Review, but ask for feedback on your administrative actions as well? ER would be a bit better seen than a subpage in userspace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose instead of creating a whole new editor review subpage, why not just transclude your subpage on the main ER page? –sebi 23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pile-on applause for admin reviews. Majoreditor 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this "sysop review" the purpose of a user talk page? Sean William @ 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Mind you, I have a reasonable expectation that some people are watching my logs some of the time anyway, and don't personally see the need for a separate review process, but if Walton wishes to, good for him. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Rfa's

Is it just me, or is there a lack of Rfa's recently? I mean, usually there are between 8-12 ones running at any time. But we only have 4 right now. Not weirding out or anything, but just curious if I am the only one finding that odd. Jmlk 1 7 09:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, someone said this happens every year. There's always a decline round about this time of year, I think. --Deskana (banana) 09:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm well into my third month as an admin, so I'm a little behind ;). But thanks Deskana :) Jmlk 1 7 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I could put one of my socks up for RfA, if you'd like. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find more people to nom, I'm sorry. I'm temporarily out of candidates and Ryan's on wikibreak, so there's a nice chunk of missing rfas. Wizardman 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been always curious... how easy is it to pass RfA with a sock (when you know what you're doing). Maxim_(talk) 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the way this topic is going. --Deskana (banana) 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

...yeah, as interesting as this conversation would be, I don't think much good will come from it. Suffice it to say, my socks will remain un-RfAed (though it'd be fun to submit one on April Fool's Day...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Our 2 RfA nominating machines, Ryan and Majorly, are getting slack, that's all :) ~ Riana ⁂ 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, we're not exactly lacking for admin hopefuls. Anyone can nominate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Super Ultra Mege Bob of Waverly Drive from Mars146366 is on the way now...seriously though, we only have 3 RfAs up. Let's hope Deskana is right and it goes away. Giggy ^Talk 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On a serious note, I'm also looking through Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls for some potential admins. Giggy ^Talk 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As of "right now" there are 0 RFA's in progress [6]! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The number of RfAs has increased again, but I've not given a support to all except one of them. They're all at this time (except the one I gave my support to) of very poor quality, and two have been that bad they've been prematurely withdrawn. Dark days for RfA... Lra drama 10:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)