Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 104

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 100

←

Archive 102

→

A model of editcount inflation

I've collected more statistics from RfA (you may remember User:Rspeer/Wikipolitical Compass), which help to show how edit counts have been inflated over time. User:Rspeer/Editcount inflation shows an exponential increase in the typical edit counts of RfA candidates, particularly the ones who succeed.

The results in brief: the median successful RfA candidate's number of edits is increasing by a factor of 1.5 each year, or doubling every 20 months. This matches my personal observations: the de facto minimum editcount for RfA was a bit over 1000 when I joined Wikipedia in 2004, and it's around 4000 now.

People don't have twice as much time to spend on Wikipedia as they did 20 months ago. Due to editcount inflation, we're promoting an increasingly self-selecting crowd of admins, consisting of those who excel at repetitive tasks.

Some acute sufferers of editcountitis are currently opposing candidates for not having 6,000 or 7,000 edits (although sometimes they disguise it as "not enough edits per month", "not enough edits in namespace X", or the vague "not enough experience"). By this model, a year from now, candidates will meet opposition for not having five-digit edit counts.

Editcount inflation is starting to exemplify the "madness of crowds" in much the same way as the Dutch tulip mania. Can we start turning back the tide? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk is cheap. Action is what we need...but will it come. I agree though, once we start getting opposes for less then 10,000, commonsense should prevail, and it should start moving back. I don't think it will stop before then though. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, one action is to speak up against people who vote based on edit counts. And I don't see anything magical about 10,000 that will make common sense kick in; a year ago, I would have hoped it would happen at 5,000. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there's nothing about any number, but 10,000 is something you can base your argument again. "Dude, 10,000 is WAY to high...cut it out" etc. "6343 is too high" doesn't have the same ring to it. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You're missing how edit count inflation works. 10,000 sounds way too high to you now. It will probably even sound that way to you next year, but there will be a new crop of RfA voters who have seen a lot of five-digit edit counts throughout their time on RfA. It will seem perfectly reasonable to them that the candidates with five-digit edit counts are the "experienced" ones who have earned their adminship. And they may not say it so baldly, of course -- they'll instead ask for 2000 article-space edits, or 500 edits to "Wikipedia talk:", or a rate of 100 edits per day, or "more experience". You yourself have just opposed a 7000-edit candidate for "lack of experience", by breaking it down into namespaces.

So saying "6000 is way too high" (why would anyone use the number 6343 as a point of argument?) would have had quite a ring to it 20 months ago, but it sounds unconvincing to you now. That just shows that inflation has had its effect. The community's minimum edit count creeps up gradually, and the newer voters don't realize it hasn't always been this way, or (if you point it out) assume that Wikipedia used to somehow expect less from its admins. There was nothing wrong with the generation of admins who could be promoted with 1,000 edits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That statement by Dihydrogen Monoxide succinctly illustrates everything that is wrong with edit counting. - TwoOars (Rev) 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The moment RfA participants stopped evaluating candidates on the quality of their edits and started using inane rationale (e.g. "Nope. User doesn't need teh toolz... need more edits in wikispace") the madness kicked in. Short of throttling PERNOMmers, and requiring those who chime in provide analysis for their votes, this is only going to continue. --Fljm 12:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with rspeer's analysis. However, editcount inflation at RfA is probably (sadly) an inevitable statistical trend, as the wiki grows. This is purely anecdotal, but I seem to remember that over on Conservapedia (a much smaller wiki) someone won a prize for being a highly active editor and sysop, having made a grand total of 2,500 edits. Over here, that wouldn't even be enough to pass RfA.

What worries me is that this situation drives potential candidates to do more repetitive, mechanistic tasks in order to inflate their editcount. For instance, to be completely honest (and I'm sure I'll be criticised for admitting this) I find RC patrol deadly boring, and I haven't done any of it since I became an admin. I only bothered with it before passing RfA because I knew I needed at least 4000 edits to be a serious candidate; I knew I was ready, but I had to get my editcount up to a sufficient level. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is common behaviour among Wikipedians - lots of people actually enjoy vandal-fighting. But the fact that I had to act in such a way proabably suggests that there was something wrong with the system. Walton^One 13:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is what it is. You had to GAME the system without intending to be disruptive. --Fljm 13:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It also shows the way that the people who we'd expect to become admins are becoming admins... a little later than it wouldn't have happened a couple of years ago. To a certain extent, the issue is the time spent working on an account as an indicator of the sort of personal investment that would prevent a person from acting disruptively with an administrator account. It's a point that is most often answered with comments about desysopping, but the kind of behavior that gets the tools taken away quickly isn't what I'm referring to here. There are more subtle ways to be disruptive, and my impression (paranoid or not) is that there are a lot more people who would like to act that way than there were when the project was younger. Dekimasu よ! 14:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd. A process that rewards those who find ways to defeat process. How unfortunate. --Fljm 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So the population of Wikipedia increased by around 18x and the average experience of the admins went up 4x? That sounds about right. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As the population grows, the size of the pool of qualified admins should too. This would imply that the minimum acceptable edit count (not that there should really be such a thing) should stay about the same. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, many people are power-hungry, even some of those who are not would like to be an admin anyway for convenience (e.g. let them delete CSDs, edit that protected template, have a look at that deleted article they've been wanting to see). As the wiki grows, the number of people who fall into these categories get higher whereas at the start of the project it may have been difficult to get enough administrators (in the same way it may have been difficult to get contributors). If we were stil accepting candidates with ~2 months, 1000 edits experience regularly we would see a top-heavy project and probably a lot more admin vandals. The trend will keep the number of admins fairly stsatic (compared with total number of users) and as user numbers continue to grow rapidly, therefore I do not see an end to this trend in the near future (probably not for at least another 18 months) GDonato (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a straw man you've got there:

Nobody is proposing accepting admin candidates with two months of experience. How about candidates who have made 1000 edits in 6 months, and shown their understanding and good judgement about Wikipedia in that time?
The idea is not to accept people because they have 1000 edits, but to accept qualified candidates who happen to have 1000 edits. What sane reason is there not to?
If you think you can tell whether an admin is going to vandalize by their edit count, you are utterly wrong.
The number of admins compared to the number of articles is decreasing, and backlogs are increasing. We need a somewhat larger number of admins. Also, it's possible to still be selective about admins without discriminating by edit count; maybe we stop accepting some 10,000 edit users who haven't done anything particularly interesting and just sat around running AutoWikiBrowser.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The average experience of promoted may well have decreased, given that high edit count demands favor people who perform many repetitive, simple edits that do little to build judgment or skill. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why I've nearly given up on ever becoming an admin. I'm a "slow and steady" type editor who tends to settle around 150-250 edits per month. I've been actively editing for a year and a half, but "lack of experience" would definitely kill my RFA.--Danaman5 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is supposed to be no big deal; anyone who can be trusted not to cause serious damage with the admin tools should get them. But in reality, people do not support all admins like this; they only support admins who they can make sure will do things right. And to many people, this means high edit count. "Admin candidates have average edit count of 1000? Clearly, then, an edit count of 2000 is necessary to be really experienced." So then we get a feedback loop. People who don't have a good enough edit count don't run, driving up the average edit count, increasing the number of edits people want, which makes even more people not run... So how do we break this cycle? Unfortunately, I don't know. Most RfA voters do not want to seriously analyze a candidate; they want a simple metric by which they can decide without any analysis of the candidate. -Amarkov moo! 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just got promoted, and I only have 2000 edits, so maybe there's hope yet. -- Hex [^t/_c] 08:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another RfA reform proposal

I have an idea: let's replace If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Foo before commenting. with If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review wannabe_kate report before commenting. Because that's what a lot of people are doing anyway.

And going with what seems to be the trend at RfAs now, I request a bot maker to make a new edit counting bot that has the following extra metrics in addition to the Wannabe Kate stuff:

Make a pie chart depicting the ratio of edits in each namespace.
Calculate the following ratios
- - Article to article talk edits
  - AIV and CSD to user warnings
  - Wikipedia space to mainspace
  - Wikipedia space to wikipedia talk
  - [insert any other absurdity anyone else can manage to come up with]
Also if the bot can somehow calculate the number of barnstars that the candidate got, that would just be great.

Such a bot should make the job of the edit counters a lot easier. They don't even have to know how to use a calculator. - TwoOars (Rev) 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no, we're supposed to review the candidate by the quality of their contributions, not just by their edit count (although that can be a rough indicator of experience). Melsaran (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... WP:SARCASM does say that sarcasm is a bad idea. But I thought I made it rather obvious by linking to that page.. oh well. - TwoOars (Rev) 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is really up to the individuals how they conduct research on an applicant. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no I did not notice it was sarcasm. The sad fact is the most RfA change proposals are just a ridiculous and often sincere. hehe ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that adminship has become a reward for lots of vandal fighting, participating in Wikipedia space and mainspace editing. 86.138.5.224 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That by itself isn't a problem. It's just that "lots" should be measured partly by quality of edits which are made, not just sheer numbers. Having 10,000 edits doesn't matter if they are all bad (although having 5 incredibly good edits doesn't matter if you don't have more either). -Amarkov moo! 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

TwoOars: heh. I've actually thought of doing just that on certain RFA debates (which I won't mention to protect... whomever). Gracenotes^T § 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While I know that two oars was being sarcastic and looking at the edit count is a waste of time....the ratio of some of those various items might be of use to finding out a bit about a candidate. Like it or not, admins are the defacto parent here, and as such have the brunt of the effort of dispute resolution at all levels. If an editor shows both through the answers to questions, the content of their edits, and the ratio of talk to article that might be an indication of how they would do. I don't oppose based on that information, but I might not support, if it looks bad. --Rocksanddirt 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How does the ratio of talk to article edits tell you anything useful whatsoever? Things like vandal fighting will throw that ratio way off, but I can't even tell what it would be thrown off of. What is a "good" ratio, and why? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As a more serious proposal (except I probably do not seriously have the time to make it happen), I'd like there to be a bot that helps people review contributions as much as Wannabe Kate helps people vote by numbers. It could pick a sample of the admin's most recent 1000 edits or 3 months of editing (whichever is more), and bias the sample towards edits that seem interesting, by looking for uncommon words (not "rv", "cleanup", etc.) in edit summaries, large changes, pages where the candidate frequently edits (the one useful thing wKate tells you), and so on. Then, responsible RfA voters could pick some of those edits and review them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, something like that would be helpful. --Rocksanddirt 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that wouldn't help. Once someone makes such a bot, which gives the illusion of a more in depth analysis, more people would just analyze the bot-presented results more thoroughly rather than "pick[ing] some of those edits and review[ing] them" as rspeer suggests. More importantly, it is difficult to find emotional outbursts, mischaracterization of edits as vandalism, evidence of poor judgment etc. with such a bot-produced analysis. Besides, never trust a bot to do a human's job. - TwoOars (Rev) 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a overly good idea. The number of edits does not really matter when voting for a nominee. We need to look more at the quality than the quantity. I feel as if this change encourages users to just look at the quantity. Sorry.--SJP 05:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What does the data really say?

Rspeer, that's a neat graph and certainly food for thought but I think your interpretation of it is just bad science. The fact that the average edit count for successful RfAs is up doesn't in itself mean that editcount thresholds are increasing. That's may be part of the explanation but other factors should be considered. For one thing, many of the black dots in the graph repeat as black or red dots later in the future and that skews the graph upwards. Note also that semi-automated editing has drastically changed the rate at which some editors run up their editcount. A number of people routinely oppose editors with tons of vandalproof edits and nothing else to show for it. This also accounts for a number of black dots with high edit counts. Your interpretation, ironically enough, relies on the assumption that RfAs pass or fail on the sole basis of editcount. This is clearly not true, although I do agree that editcount often plays a bigger role than it should. Sure, there is a good correlation between editcount and likelihood to pass RfA but inferring causality is a stretch. Moreover, you conclude that "the de-facto minimum is 4000 edits" which is way beyond what your data suggests. The best-fit line does not indicate the de-facto minimum, it indicates the best predictor. The de-facto minimum seems to be around 2500 (which of course is still probably too high). Pascal.Tesson 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my thoughts on the matter: what I think would be very interesting but of course very time consuming is to try and redraw the graph by discarding all failed RfAs which clearly did not fail on the grounds of editcount. There are a huge number of these, mostly from users with fairly high edit counts. I suppose it'd be a bit rude to name names but we all know the RfAs I'm talking about: those where the bulk of the opposition centered on civility issues, on political issues or on lack of mainspace edits. With these out of the way, we'd get much more meaningful data than we have currently. Pascal.Tesson 20:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The current median, indicated by the best-fit line, is around 8000 or 9000, not 4000. If you read the subpage, I consider the "de-facto minimum" to fall at about half of the best-fit median, but this is of course a subjective assessment. It's a gradient, not a sharp line.

I'm also not saying that edit count is the only factor, but it clearly has an effect. There used to be many admins promoted with 1500 edits. Now there are none. Yes, VandalProof exists now, but most editors do not use it. The admins who make 1500 good edits shouldn't be required to use VandalProof before they are considered.

I don't think it would be possible to sort out whether old RfAs failed "due to editcount" or not, but it's not necessary. That would skew the data by selecting points according to the very criterion it is intended to measure.

The graph doesn't have to have a sharp line between black and red to be meaningful, and it shouldn't be expected to. There will of course be candidacies that fail in all parts of the graph. It looks to me like above a certain edit count -- which I'm calling the "de-facto minimum" -- you have about a 40% chance of succeeding, while the chances drop off quickly below it. You can observe a stronger minimum, for example, at perhaps a quarter of the current best-fit median; only a handful of admins have ever been promoted at that level.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it skews the data. It filters irrelevant data. We know that there is a threshold below which editcount will come sharply into play on RfAs but I don't think your graph says much about that because it includes an overwhelming number of RfAs where editcount was never an issue. And the fact that the average editcount of candidate admins increases is not surprising in itself. Many successful RfAs are from editors who would have passed easily had they chosen to do so earlier and since Wikipedia is still relatively young, one has to assume that this is an important factor. (I guess I'll make longer comments on the talk page of your analysis) Pascal.Tesson 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As a general guide, I don't like to filter data, but explaining how one makes data choices is very important (especially in a complicated evaluation like this). --Rocksanddirt 23:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm taking Statistics this year... another interesting trend to note is that there have been tons more unsucessful RfAs with the same feature - selfnom, less than 200 or even 100 edits. Also, why is the scale non-uniform? David Fuchs^(talk) 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The scale is a logarithmic scale because edit counts are distributed exponentially. This means they're only in a normal distribution if you look at them on a log scale. (One way to verify this: The median number of edits is far below the mean, but the median log number of edits is close to the mean log number of edits.)

Also, on a linear scale, you can't see what's going on. Current admin candidates have edit counts of 20,000 and beyond, but if the scale actually goes up to 20,000, you can't see what's going on from 1,000 to 2,000. The linear version at right will show you what I mean. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd speculate, that the path a lot of new users take goes; Create article on themselves/their band ---> Article goes to AfD ---> AfD gets closed by admin ---> New editor goes to admin's talk page to complain ---> Sees the "I am an admin" userbox ---> Thinks "I wanna do that" and nominates themselves in good faith without realising the requirements. Do we have more obviously unsuitable self-noms as a proportion of new editors than we used to? (Incidentally, I'm a non-admin with a 10k+ edit count who's never used VandalProof in their life — we do exist!) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Who in my opinion should be a admin. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell it to this guy... — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the emphasis is focused sufficiently on the huge number of edit counts generated by use of various automatic tools: Twinkle & Vandalproof in particular. I admit that I have Vandalproof but never seemed to get it to work so don't use it (I'm a humanities person not a computer engineer sort). I remember that there was an RFA a while back for someone who was racking up 1000 edits a day with Twinkle. So while I don't think we should have a threshhold per se, I also think that if you can get 2500 edits in 3 days you're still not ready to be an admin. We do need more admins, but I would not want to mistakenly promote someone we'll end up having to have ArbCom de-admin. Right now there are sufficient edit warriors who could pass whatever threshhold we might set and would no doubt like to have the protect, delete, and block buttons added to their arsenal. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone did explain to me once that there was a Technical Reason why it couldn't be done, but I would love to see a way to make Kate's Tool disregard minor edits - a single AWB recategorisation run can send your edit count sky-high. BrownHairedGirl's (necessary) splitting of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament into subcategories took her in a couple of months from around 10k edits to the 13th highest edit count on Wikipedia — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good thing to try, but (a) do all these tools mark all their edits minor? and (b) there are numerous ways to rack up huge numbers with the tools that require thought (as BHG's re-cat must have) and those that don't (doing a search on a common misspelling and correcting each instance of it, or adding {{stub}} to all uncategorized articles of a small size) - so quality is hard to distill from quantity. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A contributing factor to the demise of my own RfA was low edit count (at the time, around 1800). This was ludicrous, as those were 1800 thoughtful, manual edits made over the course of a 2+ year period. The fact that we can even say that someone who has established themself in a community and done something more than one thousand times is not experienced enough is not a well reasoned position. That said, I have personally made oppose comments which included an editcount component, but they were always based entirely on the time period over which the edits were made: Thousands of edits made over the course of a couple of months. Since trust is a factor, and since we are fairly anonymous here, patterns of behavior established over time are really one of the only indicators we can have of candidates. A massive edit count from a relative newbie editor tells me that the editor in question is skilled, knows how to use some sophisticated tools, and will probably make a strong admin down the road. However, a period of time (roughly a year for me, which I base on giving people the chance to see an editor behave through various real world situations -albeit blind to us- such as vacations, intensely busy periods, lax periods, deaths in the family, etc). If an editor made 700 edits in a year, and they were all sound, and showed a keen understanding of the project, I would be willing to support. Hiberniantears 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New admin school

I (along with a few others) have created the new admin school so new admins to practice using their tools in an environment that will do little damage to the project. It may give them more confidence when using the buttons for the first time. Everyone is more than happy to add to the page, or improve it as required. Might be nice to let new admins know about it as they get promoted. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I ran through it a couple days ago to get the hang of blocking procedures and found it extremely helpful. -Chunky Rice 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's good, perhaps link to it from WP:AHTG and Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators. GDonato (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I've linked it in. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff! I suggest adding practice with only undeleting selected revisions, and practice with merging page histories (the undoing what was done part might be very hard to implement though), if possible. Or maybe that's too esoteric? ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good idea, I just wanted to get the basics sorted out first. Until (1==1) suggested that we cover range blocks and removing autoblocks as well - looks like I've got my work cut out! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with range blocks. They are being used far too often, there is some serious collateral damage going on. It is very important to realize that you are blocking many thousands of IPs. Prodego ^talk 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Second that, "new admins" rarely should be applying range blocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like having a WP:SANDBOX/ADMIN. Good thinking, there really needs to be a place where these kind of tools can be tested safely and easily.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooooooooh, me likey. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be renamed into something like "admin tutorial." bibliomaniac 15 Two years of trouble and general madness 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Sebi _[talk] 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ye, I love the concept. Bit of a play park before getting out doing real stuff, an obstacle course, a tutorial - very good. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Although to make it more realistic, after every 3 or 4 admin actions a bot should leave an angry, aggrieved, uncivil note on the practicing admin's talk page. You know, to better simulate field conditions and be sure they'll stay calm in response. MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonder if they'd approve of it though. Maybe we can have some approved socks. bibliomaniac 15 Two years of trouble and general madness 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking it a tad far. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The Random Editor...creating a bot to simulate field conditions would be a bit creepy and there would be no way the bot could really match field conditions (people are entirely unpredictable!) Maybe there could be an assessment page created where the new admins could request to have a hypothetical situation thrown at them. An admin can think up a hypothetical situation and write it down on their request assessment and the new admin could type up their response to the situation. The admin can come back and assess how the new admin did in the scenario...does that still sound like too much :P?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Persian Poet Gal, that answer violates WP:CHEESE, I demand you resign adminship now. -- AngryBot. improving Wikipedia through anger since 2007!

I can't believe there actually is a WP:CHEESE... Prodego ^talk 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

People might view that more as a joke than testing field simulations :P...plus it might be considered a harassment bot and not get approved from BAG...even when the harassment is fake and the receiver is well aware. An assessment page or scenario tester pushes that borderline less. But at the same time we might all be making this admin school more complex than it needs to be!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work Ryan. And great idea MastCell! Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read a lot of it (not an admin), and I feel that this would be completely helpful for all new admins, or even ones who have been admins for a while, w/ more and less experience in certain areas. Great job, Ryan! I'm surprised that no one has thought of something similar any sooner. hmwith talk 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone hardblocks the username block dummy, they're dead (in other words, they'd block my home IP, not my school one). I forgot the pass to it though XD. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem there, I replaced it with one of my unused socks. Since I am a sysop my account cannot be effected by a hardblock. Keegan^talk 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the parts where it referred to the old User:Ladnav321 dummy.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to share praise - I think it is a very good idea! It really highlights what an excellent community this is :-) Lra drama 08:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Great idea Ryan!--SJP 05:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing on RfX's and similar pages

In light of events on some recent RFA's, see WP:VPP#Canvassing on RfX's and similar pages.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No. No. NO! You want to block users for canvassing! Isn't failing the RfA enough? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FT2 is not talking so much about the RfA candidates themselves canvassing, but others canvassing for or against him (or just canvassing, period). See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Number 57 where this is alleged to be an issue. (The same thing happened during my second RfA to undesirable effects.) Canvassing seems to always hurt the candidate no matter how it is done, but it seems rather unfair for him or her to suffer because of someone else's actions. -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll lighten that to just the one "no." Threatening a block for an action that doesn't damage the project (well, not the same way as consistent vandalism) just isn't on. Surely there could be some other solution. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we seriously need to have a rule for everything? Something happened twice in two months, that's... really not that spectacular. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We should not block for canvassing, it's just a silly guideline that is abused all too often. Majorly (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree here, with Majorly. A block for canvassing is really quite ridiculous as far as I am concerned. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Blocks are to prevent harm to Wikipedia, not to be punative to editors. The rights and wrongs of canvassing are subject to debate (and have been) but a block is not the way to proceede at all. Pedro | Chat 08:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

While a block would obviously be seen as punitive, the type of canvassing seen on User:Number 57's RfA is quite blatantly disruptive and I would say it is capable of causing harm, such as if that canvassing should result in a good candidate's RfA failing merely because of Oppose !votes from people who perceive the candidate as having an opposite POV to themselves. In this case, at least one of the oppose !votes cites a mass category move as being POV when to me, an uninvolved editor, it looks to be exactly the opposite. So if we don't block for disruptive behaviour, I am slightly at a loss as to how we discourage it. ELIMINATORJR 10:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I still think a block is unwarranted in this situation. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was just fishing for any alternatives that people may be able to provide. ELIMINATORJR 10:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are any alternatives, I would be very glad to hear them. They might prove to be a good answer. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to make a rule about these things. This was undoubtedly bad form but let's get real: we're talking about two messages left on talk pages, not mass canvassing. This is a routine occurrence on IRC and likely happens through email anyways. Sure, we all wish people would avoid campaigning for/against candidates but unless this is done on a large scale we shouldn't waste time policing the whole thing. Pascal.Tesson 11:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. It is likely unstoppable; off-wiki influences have effects, and this wasn't a major issue. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this proposal is the most insane I have ever seen. Blocking users canvassing for a first offence, when they may not be familiar with RfX or understand the rules? Personally, I have long maintained that the existing guidelines on canvassing are too strict; the people best qualified to judge a candidate are those who've worked with the candidate in the past, and users shouldn't be prohibited from notifying others about an upcoming or current RfA. However, even if we keep the current guidelines, blocking for a first offence is completely and utterly ridiculous - do we really want to drive away even more contributors through over-application of petty rules? Walton^One 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a rather long wiki break. Has the policy on canvassing changed in the last several months? I thought it was an absolute not to do thing. The policy merely warns that it can lead to disruption. I've over 12,000 edits. No one ever said my edits looked like WP:POINT before Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Number 57. Be that as it may, I don't think we need more rules and I don't think it shoild be a blockable action. The 'crats know how to weight a !vote that follows canvassing/informing/whatever. I think it's probably safe to leave it to them. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly it's rather rich of User:DLand to say that contanting other editors who have a certain point of view is WP:POINT when that's exactly what he's already done. ELIMINATORJR 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not go there. I agree with Walton, also, about the strictness of the rules. The biggest issue, though, is not pile on opposition because someone else canvassed. It's that the candidate will get EVEN MORE pile-ons if they try to run again (soon), in a non-canvassing RfA. All the "oppose, you ran 1 month ago, issues not addressed" crap has to stop when an RfA failed for something like this. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is not a big deal, it is common, and it is silly to block someone for canvassing.--SJP 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is okay to break though:)--SJP 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fail Encourage

At the moment, there are basically two possible outcomes from an RfA: promotion, or fail (as a "consensus not reached" defaults to failure). I propose that we need a third outcome: Fail Encourage. Basically, it would work like this:

Pass - You have been promoted to adminship.

Fail Encourage - You have not been promoted, as the community has determined that you are not yet ready for adminship. However, you are encouraged to apply again in the future.

Fail - You are unsuited to be an administrator and are not encouraged to apply again.

This would involve quite a significant change to the existing system. The bureaucrats would probably have to look at the discussion and interpret whether the community consensus was that the candidate was not quite ready for adminship, or whether the consensus was that the candidate should never be an administrator. As such, this should keep the "discussion not vote" people happy, as it would involve the bureaucrats interpreting consensus rather than counting votes. At the same time, it would have the benefit of not hurting or offending good editors who are not quite experienced enough to become admins; their nominations could be closed as Fail Encourage, with a recommendation to apply again in a few months. In contrast, those who are opposed because of gross incivility, or because they can't be trusted with the tools, would receive a straightforward Fail. Walton^One 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It sound like the option that's being added is "Fail". Right now, there's no outcome where a candidate is explicitly told they shouldn't apply again. Perhaps some candidate may feel they're being discouraged from applying again, but I don't think it would be a great idea to actually make an "official" judgement. Chaz ^Beckett 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, if you don't pass RfA you you don't pass. It's way too bureaucratic to start putting people that don't pass in different sections, and quite frankly, we don't need it. I see no good point to doing this, the only thing it will achieve is making the snowballed candidates feeling even worse. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, if a candidate is serious and dedicated enough, they should know whether they're close or not. The Rambling Man 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidates regularly come back to get adminship after a bad early RFA. There are legions of examples listed at WP:RFAF, of which this is a good one.--Chaser - T 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is also improper to suggest that a User will never be able to become an admin. After enough time almost any transgression can be forgiven. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK forget it then. I could defend my suggestion, but there's no point, since it's clearly not going to gain this mystical, vague quality known around here as "consensus". All comments struck accordingly. Walton^One 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, not sure but don't let this particular version of 'consensus' get you down. I personally believe that potential admins probably ought to understand what's expected and your proposed three-tier pass/fail won't help. Most, if not all, RFA's should be conducted with constructive criticism so the marginal result should be unnecessary. The Rambling Man 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I archive this thread? It's probably pointless. Walton^One 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Walton, this thread has been up for only 3 hours. You may get some different feedback. I suppose it's up to you.-- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy: I've responding to your first comment above. If, in theory, Willy on Wheels' ban was lifted (I'm just using a rather infamous user purely as example, and because he apparently wished to comeback, said so an AN/I post), and you knew he was contributing constructively for 10 months to the project, and he went up for adminship, would you support him? I'd still have doubts. Maxim_(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that your suggested change is needed. You either fail or pass.--SJP 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the pendulum swung too far?

It's good that we now have a healthy distaste of overstringent requirements for RfA's (image uploads, remember?), but I fear that recent RfA discussions have swung way too far to the other side. Candidates with serious question marks hanging over them, who would not have had a chance just months ago, are now routinely passed. I just hope that they prove the doubters wrong, because I'd hate to be a newbie on the other end of some of the behaviors that've been shown. Xiner (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely, different people have differing perspectives regarding the pendulum, but one thing that still seems to be lacking is a comprehensive and reliable way to ensure a particular candidate's contribution history has been thoroughly scoured for potential "obvious red flags".

It seems like the general momentum behind this issue rather fizzled out. dr.ef.tymac 20:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. Adminship is still a huge bureaucratic process, with a template, standard questions, a nomination procedure, tallies/sections, and whatnot. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal, and we should hand it out to any reasonably experienced editor who won't abuse the tools. We should abandon the "mystery" surrounding it. Could you point me to any specific RFA that passed too easily in your eyes? Melsaran (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

While I too think that candidates with serious issues are occasionally passing RfAs, and quite easily at that, I doubt that it is due to a relaxation of RfA requirements. (If anything, the requirements appear to be becoming more and more stringent, with people coming up with novel and innovative reasons to oppose every 1 or 2 weeks.) It could just be a symptom of how candidates are only being superficially assessed, with people not even bothering enough to go through the candidates' talk pages or even the RfA page itself and the evidence presented there. - TwoOars (Rev) 14:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have only recently started to comment on Rfa's again but I have never noticed that people with serious issues are becoming admins. I think the fact that people are opposing candidates based on very minor things, like not adding content to many articles, is a more common problem than people who have some major issues becoming admins.--SJP 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a number of people with serious issues becoming admins (e.g. a number of users who are clueless or have temper problems, and even one or two that are downright malicious), but not infrequently such issues only manifest after the users are mopified. This is likely not something that can be fixed in RFA. I'm not even convinced it's such a pressing problem. >Radiant< 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another essay from me

Yes, I'm aware that someone will soon tell me I write too many essays, and waste too much time and space advertising them on talk pages. (Honestly, I do write articles too - check my contribs.) But I've written another essay in my userspace, User:Walton One/Constitution of Wikipedia. It's not intended to change anything, I'd just be interested to get people's feedback (on the talk page of the essay). Walton^One 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realise this is remarkably similar to Juche? Workers, all glory to the Dear Leader Comrade Jimbo! — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that - I think it's really more similar to a constitutional monarchy, as I said in the essay. The only obvious similarity with the DPRK is that Jimbo is recognised as Wikipedia's "leader" despite not holding any de jure official position. But I wouldn't compare Jimbo to Kim Jong-Il; for a start, Jimbo hasn't yet commissioned any large statues of himself (AFAIK). :-) Walton^One 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The bit about Jimbo not exercising his power to ban recently isn't quite right... he banned Fourdee [1] just a couple of weeks ago. Pinball22 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And quite right he was too. ELIMINATORJR 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the essay to reflect this. It's interesting to me that the section about Jimbo's political role, which I put in as an afterthought, is the section that's attracted the most attention. Walton^One 08:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it just happens to have made people think about Jimbo's unusual monarchical role. :) And Eliminator, I agree, just wanted Walton to change that, if it wasn't clear. :) Pinball22 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think General Secretary of the Wikipedia Party sums up Jimbo's role better, though - the difference between "Ignore All Rules" and "Permanent Revolution" is just a matter of phrasing. (We even have our own Leon Trotsky in the form of Larry Sanger.) That comparison between the theory (as opposed to the practice) of Juche & Wikimedia is serious, btw - substitute "WikiProjects" for "delegates selected from each public organisation" and you've pretty much described the Congress of Soviets — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly true. That would also fit with Wikipedia's widespread cultural resistance to the ideas of voting and democracy. Communist dictatorships generally claim to exercise power on behalf of their citizens (as with democratic centralism); likewise, "consensus" around here too often tends to mean what the people in power want it to mean. Walton^One 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to reform RfA

The attempt by a group of editors from WP:Israel to torpedo Number 57's RfA shows a large weakness in the current RfA process. The weakness is that a clique of users can sink an RfA for POV or other reasons too easily. This has occurred in several other RfAs, including the infamous GraceNotes RfA which was even mentioned in passing in the NY Times article about him.

I don't know if it has been proposed already, but even if it has, I'd like to propose reforming the RfA process in that a bot or other program will randomly select a group of 20-30 editors and notify them to vote in an opened RfA. Anyone can comment on the RfA, but only those randomly selected editors can actually vote. If any of the selected editors don't vote within a certain time period, the bot can just replace them with other randomly selected editors until enough have voted to show consensus. This should help eliminate the current weakness in the process that allows a small group of biased editors to sabotage an RfA so easily. Cla68 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how that would work - most editors have no interest at all in who the admins are and probably have no idea of most policies so can't judge how they're being applied. Any attempt to select editors eligible to vote would involve setting exactly the same arbitrary criteria you're trying to avoid - iridescent (talk to me!) 15:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. If an editor doesn't feel qualified to vote that editor just won't vote and the bot will automatically select someone else. If they do vote I feel we can trust them to know what they're doing. For my part, I trust most of my fellow Wikipedians to know what they're doing and that most act in good faith. To label most Wikipedians as ignorant of the policies and rules seems a little too arch to me, as well as incorrect. Cla68 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote. It is a positive thing that editors who have experience with the nom participate in the discussion. If a nom happens to have pissed off a large number of people, that's not problem of RfA; it's a problem of the editor/nom. Lara Love 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a vote, and the way it's currently structured gives too much power to small cliques of editors should they choose to participate as a group. If editors have to worry about whether or not they might piss off a clique of editors who will then gang up to sink their RfAs, then our editors won't be bold when necessary. This has already been a topic of discussion that the current process causes too many editors to avoid controversy until after their RfA. I don't think that's the kind of atmosphere we want to have in the project. Randomly selected voters would elminate this. Cla68 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "Ignorant" has negative connotations to "doesn't know". WikiPolitics is a specialist area like any other; If I were randomly selected to comment on the validity of an article by WikiProject Canadian Roads or WikiProject Ecuador I'd be totally unable to judge validity, but (because I'd feel that as I'd been selected I ought to do something to help) could easily see myself making an inappropriate judgement on something I'm not able to make an informed judgement on. Anyone who is interested in RFA can already come here and participate. - iridescent (talk to me!) 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lara... even in instances of canvassing, the editors who jump in may, or may not be raising reasonable concerns. In such a case, I do think it becomes important that the rest of us determine if the editors making comments actually had any meaningful interactions with the nominee. Further, there is an obvious need to determine if such piling on represents a simple personality conflict with a clique of likeminded editors, or if we are looking at actions which would truly negate a larger sense of trust from the community. Beyond that, its also up to the closing 'crat to review each RfA for just such a thing. Hiberniantears 15:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's technically not a vote. The 'crat weighs everything when making his/her determination. So if the clique was unjustly skewing the discussion, I'm sure the 'crat would note that. Lara Love 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much this would change. Effectively what's being proposed is that we select a "jury" of editors to determine RfA results - randomly appointed for each RfA. Other editors could comment as now but crats would assess what the consensus of the jury was, not that of all contributors to the discussion. In practice though I wonder if the jury will not largely be guided by the majority view of the rest of the community that have expressed opinions. Also as ever with jury selection, there will be selection issues such as whether members could be objected to - for example if they do happen to have prior involvement with the candidate. Canvassing definitely can be a problem in the present model and we probably do need to think of new ways to tackle it, but I'm not entirely persuaded by the "jury" idea. WjBscribe 15:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a bad idea. Everyone should be allowed to take part in RfAs, not just a selection randomly done by a bot. Situations like Number 57 are unfortunate, but rare enough to not need to do this. Majorly (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My only concern here is that editors/jurors will treat this as a mindless vote and will avoid reviewing the nominee's logs. Unless it can be shown that they will be required to thoroughly vet the nominee, this will be an exercise in futility. --Aarktica 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought. How about, instead of selecting these editors beforehand, people contribute as they already do, but at closing, the bot randomly selects which "votes" will actually be "counted". Sort of like with a firing squad, where someone has a blank loaded, but nobody knows who that is. I'm not saying I like this idea as a reform, just thinking about another way it could be done. - Crockspot 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Won't work, RFA isn't a vote. Majorly (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like "randomising" RFA; I failed my RFA because I got unlucky and the bot picked the oppose votes instead of the support votes! That process would work totally contrary to consensus. Melsaran (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- So in a case where a large number of editors had expressed strong and well-founded opposition, the Bot might randomly pick only those who offered comments in support of the nominee? WjBscribe 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Fortunately, it's typically pretty obvious when a particular clique of users has been canvassed to torpedo or bolster an RfA, as is the case with User:Number 57's. In the end, we just note the fact that canvassing has occurred, and then it's up to bureaucrats to decide how to handle it. I would assume that's why we're so picky about selecting crats - because they have to decide how to resolve sticky situations like this one. I don't know that any of these proposals are an improvement over the current approach of trusting the crat's judgement. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't bore you with probability theory but selecting a posteriori will have absolutely no effect. In all likelihood, the percentage of supporters won't change significantly if you consider a random subset of the participants. As for selecting the participants randomly, and with all due respect, it's a silly idea. For one thing it will lead to frustrations ("I think this editor would make a great (or crappy) admin and I can't voice my opinion"). It probably destroys the little bit of transparency left in the process, it's impractical, if only because a whopping majority of editors don't even want to get involved and it puts the decision in the hands of participants who aren't familiar with the editor's work. Sure, some RfAs fail for stupid reasons, including canvassing, grudges, editcount, "no need for tools" and so on. The solution is not to overhaul RfA. What we need to do is to stop accepting "everybody can choose to oppose an RfA for whatever silly reason they wish" as a sacred principle. Foolishness is particularly contagious on RfA and opposes that are based on grounds widely rejected by the community should be pointed out systematically. The usual counter-arguments to that are "one man's silly reason is an other man's critical reason" and "people will just hide their true reasons for opposing". If people want to oppose an RfA so badly that they are prepared to lie about their motivations, there isn't much we can do about it but at least newcomers won't get the impression that "this editor has less than 500 edits to the image space" is an acceptable thing to say. There are many many arguments seen routinely on RfA that an overwhelming majority of editors consider utterly absurd. Pascal.Tesson 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How will this be enforced? Has there ever been a case where a nominee was promoted when the opposition was considered absurd? For example, has there ever been an instance where the closer acknowledged and disregarded the "no need for tools" opposition? --Aarktica 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. Actually, one memorable case where the "no need for tools" almost derailed an RfA is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan. Had a few of us not made the effort of systematically refuting the whole argument, this was heading for a snowball fail. But here's what often happens in practice: the RfA starts with a couple of supports, one "no need for tools", one "no experience with images" and then you start seeing "oppose: too many issues with this candidate". These things can be avoided if the regular participants of RfA take the time to explain, to newcomers and to experienced editors, why these arguments are universally accepted as silly. Many people bitch about how brutal RfA can be, yet it's often considered bad form to let opposers know when they ask for a shrubbery or make RfA a personal affair. Pascal.Tesson 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pascal.Tesson. No matter what system we use for RfA, there are likely to be problems; the solution is not changing the system but to try to convince and make people understand what is reasonable and what is not. "Activism", as I termed it in one of these RfA discussions, by sensible RfA regulars. Of course, there will certainly be people who are unable or unwilling to understand simple logic, but we are going here on the assumption that the majority of the population are reasonable, that they would change their opinions when presented with a logical refutation of their oppose rationale. Which does not happen all the time, as this particular instance apparently shows. Every once in a while, a sort of crisis arises, much like in the the Foundation stories of Asimov, and I am sure discussion and some good reasoning will get us through. - TwoOars (Rev) 17:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the response is different. An intervention was conducted to prevent the derailment of a qualified nominee's request. My concern with the approach has to do with repeatability; I mean, can it be implemented for the request which prompted this proposal? Additionally, how is this different from Wikilawyering? --Aarktica 17:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if such a thing ever happens to me, I am always prepared to go to Plan B, and just have Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart say on their shows "change Wikipedia to say "Hiberniantears is an outstanding, trustworthy, and deserving individual who should be an admin, although he does not know if Jeff Garlin's comic stylings have actually trippled the elephant population". I believe this does not even require me to be famous first... those guys are always looking for a reason to toy with us. Hiberniantears 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see this proposal actually accomplishing anything. --Deskana (talky) 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My proposal allows anyone to comment on the RfA, but only the randomly selected editors to vote. Therefore, everyone with a stake in the RfA gets to comment, but only the chosen editors get to vote. The selected editors can view everyone's comments to help them decide which way to vote. Yes, it's a jury-style system that takes the responsibility for the decision out of the bureaucrat's hands. It gets more community involvement in the RfA process and, like a jury system, seeks to remove bias from the ultimate decision because the randomly selected jurors would hopefully have a greater chance of being objective. Cla68 18:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the proposal will create a Bureaucrat-bot? Good luck! --Aarktica 19:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh... no offence, but this is really a dreadful idea. We want to move away from voting, and everyone's opinion will be looked at by the bureaucrat, who will use their discretion and good judgement to come to a decision. Random selection is just not the wiki way. Majorly (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken, I respect everyone's opinion, and I know my idea may seem radical to some. We'll see what happens with Number 57's RfA and future ones in which the same type of situation occurs, such as what happened in GraceNotes RfA and others. Cla68 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that your proposed change in the system is not very "wiki-like". Also, the problem is more about the nominee that it is the system.--SJP 04:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of this proposal (which I think is an OK idea), I don't agree that "we want to move away from voting", and I don't think there's any consensus to move away from voting. I strongly disagree with the statement above that "...everyone's opinion will be looked at by the bureaucrat, who will use their discretion and good judgement to come to a decision". There is no need for this. Each individual voter should use their discretion and good judgement to come to a decision on whether to support or oppose the candidate. Different users have different views about what makes a good admin; where there is good-faith disagreement, the majority should rule. I don't see why some people have this urge to give more power to the bureaucrats. Personally I trust the community as a whole, not a group of 15 elite users. Walton^One 10:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you walton. I trust that the community will pick, for the most part, good people to become admins. I do not think that the idea of Rfa being voting is bad. It seems to me that there is a taboo about calling it voting, even though that is what it is. It is also giving your oppinion though.

Also, if the community picks a bad person to become an admin, then it is not the end of the world. We can always take away the tools from him.--SJP 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why being an admin is supposed to be "no big deal." Not all in the community seem to agree with this though. In the past and such as with Number 57's RfA right now, cliques of editors have attempted, often successfully, to shoot down an editor's RfA because they apperently felt that the editor represented a threat to their pushing their particular POV or to their power in the project. Using randomly selected voters would help eliminate that. Cla68 07:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New Admin Buddy

Hey the folks. I'm a new admin, and was wondering if there is some sort of Admin Buddy system? --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 00:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I will be your buddy! Can I act like the Skipper and you be Gilligan? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You just have to watch other admins and then slowly dip your toes in on things. If you make a mistake, somebody will smack you on the back of your head fairly quickly. =) If you have questions, you can ask on WP:AN or WP:ANI. -- Gogo Dodo 00:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a place to test out the delete ability, swing by Main Page. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a wonderful way to end up like User:Wonderfool and his admin sock User:Robdurbar. bibliomaniac 15 15 years of trouble and general madness 02:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, Bibliomaniac15. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for the answers, people. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New admin school. Oh, and what EVula said (Test the block button on this guy ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but soon after you start blocking people you'll have shouting buddies... >Radiant< 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. And/or after speedily deleting stuff, particularly as A7 or G11. — TKD::Talk 09:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, not speedily deleting stuff - that gets you same new "friends" very effectively, too. Admins are so lucky - so many people wanting to talk to them, whatever they do. :) --Tango 12:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Not a vote"

Okay, this is one of the more minor issues about RfA, but the "RfA is not a vote" mantra is really grating on me. When you give your opinion on a candidate in the hope of making their success more or less likely, you're voting. Yes, you're also discussing at the same time, but the voting is quite key to the way RfA was set up. Remember the experimental RfA formats that were all discussion and no voting? People hated those.

I believe what people mean when they say "RfA is not a vote" is that "RfA is not decided by a numerical majority or supermajority". That is, of course, not a necessary feature of voting. Look at U.S. presidential elections: those, too, are not decided by pure numbers, but by electors who fulfill a role similar to our bureaucrats (though electors' decisions may be bound by state laws or party loyalty). If you want to be really precise about it, in the U.S. presidential election you vote for which electors get to do the electing, and on RfA you vote for which set of reasonable outcomes the bureaucrat should choose from.

Treating "vote" like a bad word means we lose a very useful word to describe what we're doing. And then, to fill that void, from the land of Newspeak comes the term "!vote". (I pronounce it "unvote".) What does "!vote" mean? It means "something that for all purposes is a vote, but I can't call it that, so hey look it has an exclamation point before it and that makes it totally different".

The other thing "RfA is not a vote" could mean is "RfA ought not to be a vote", but few people actually want a situation that is entirely based on bureaucrat discretion and not voting.

Sorry for the snarkiness, and again, this is a pretty minor issue that probably isn't having any practical effect on RfA right now. But I see discussions sometimes getting bogged down in avoiding the taboo word "vote". It's a useful description of a mechanism involved in RfA. There's no need for the taboo. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the !vote point. !vote looks so stupid. Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ive given this great thought as well. Of course I also think about beer, Sunny Lane and soap. However, I'm comfortable when I use 'vote.' It is, in fact, a vote. Just because the vote is backed by sentiment, doesn't alleviate it from being a vote. Consensus, is determined by a series of votes, and '!' is simply using semantics. I'd rather, as with AfD, users adhere to the premise that some votes are stronger than others based on merits of the vote. '!vote' is simply tapdancing. Dood, when I participate in RfA, or AfD, I give my vote, and I am very comfortable doing so. '*uck' is still 'fuck' no matter how it's hidden. the_undertow ^talk 09:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

!vote (ugh) is one of my pet peeves here. Majorly (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly semantics... I think some people have the idea that if no one is allowed to call RFA a vote, then whatever they think is so bad about RFA being a vote won't be a problem anymore. But that's silly, a rose by any other name... you know? Just banning politically incorrect language doesn't really solve anything. A vote doesn't have to be a strict yae/nae affair, in fact, it usually isn't in situations where discussion is allowed. If you have a vote at a meeting in your office, 11 out of 12 people might vote yes to something, but if the 12th guy says "Oh, we don't actually have any funds for that..." then he probably gets his way, even if his side didn't win the "vote". Back to RFA, this thread seems to indicate the craze for purging the word "vote" from RFA might actually be dying down... that's a good thing, it just led to a lot of confusion and elitism, if you ask me. --W.marsh 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always viewed voting as simply numbers, no weight. For example, say I had an RfA. It could go a couple of different ways. Not likely, but for the purpose of this discussion, I'll use this example: I run, no one cares that I have limited XfD, and I get support from both the regular RfA participants as well as GA project participants and such. Then, the Math project gets wind of it and oppose en mass simply because they dislike the GA project (and we'll say that one guy opposes because I was nominated which is prima face or whatever of whatever). Would the 'crats let it go, or would they weigh the discussions? Would troll votes be counted regardless of the relevance? If so, then it's a vote, in my opinion. If not, the word doesn't seem to fit really. However, for lack of a better term, it does work. Lara Love 13:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To reply to LaraLove, real blatant troll votes should be struck by community consensus (as happened with User:Neil Larson). However, everyone else's vote should be treated equally. If members of the Math project feel that members of the GA project are unsuitable to be admins, they're entitled to make that judgment, provided they do so in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. The 'crats should not "weigh up the arguments"; each individual voter should weigh up the arguments and come to their own conclusion on whether to Support or Oppose. Walton^One 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If all votes (with the exception of "real blatant troll"s) are counted equally, then it is a vote. And wrong, in my opinion. The validity of an oppose should be considered. If one group rallied to oppose a candidate solely based on their distaste for the project in which the candidate contributed, that's messed up. Lara Love 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with rspeer; I too despise the "not a vote" dogma. Voting is not an inherently bad concept. Yes, we should discuss the merits of RfA candidates, and we should challenge each other's opinions. However, when it comes down to it, it is the community that should make a decision, not the bureaucrats. Each individual voter should weigh up the arguments and decide whether to Support or Oppose. Different users have different views about what makes a good admin, and, provided they're acting in good faith, they should be able to cast a vote and to have it count. Yes, bureaucrats are trusted members of the community, but they shouldn't be invested with supreme wiki-political power; it should be the community as a whole, not the bureaucrats, that makes decisions. (On the rare occasions when someone votes in bad faith in order to disrupt the process (as with User:Neil Larson) there is sometimes a valid case for their votes to be struck, but this should be done by community consensus.) Walton^One 13:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter how you spin it, its a vote. The only difference is that the voting process takes place at the same time as the debate process, and voters can change their mind based on the evolution of the debate... and in many cases actually cast stronger or weaker votes. Likewise, as Lara pointed out, 'crats can also take into consideration the legitimacy of certain votes based on a variety of factors. Hiberniantears 13:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So, we've just created an entire thread to abolish the use of the word "!vote"?

--Ag ü eybaná 13:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. I've participated in this thread to voice my frustration at many Wikipedians' intransigent resistance to the idea of voting, as per my comments above. The term "!vote" is useful for XfDs, because those aren't votes and shouldn't be treated as such. But RfA is a vote, and should continue to be a vote, as per my comments above. Walton^One 14:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agüeybaná, I wish someone would get that word banned, it's hideous and wrong. Write vote or comment, !vote is just ridiculous. Majorly (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. What are we going to, ban every user that uses the word? --Ag ü eybaná 14:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not just about the word "!vote". I use the word myself in relation to XfDs; in an XfD, people make a formal recommendation that is analogous to a vote, but is not treated as such. However, RfA is a vote; yes, it's also a discussion, but the final decision on an RfA is (and should be) made by numerical voting, as I've outlined more fully above. Walton^One 14:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Er no, just discourage the use of the word :) Majorly (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. --Ag ü eybaná 14:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, it is a vote but many don't want to call it a vote. Shades of doublethink, and a rose isn't a rose....Rlevse 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

!rose --Deskana (talky) 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What RFA, etc really is is a place where users pretend they're voting but the closer, bcat's in the case of RFA, get to do whatever they want.Sumoeagle179 15:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's really not what happens here. --Deskana (talky) 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) While it's not such an issue on RFAs as there are generally a lot more people ~~!voting~~ participating (is that better?), there are certainly plenty of XfDs closed against the majority because a number of keep/delete notvotes are disregarded by whoever closes it (most often when someone makes a particularly good keep argument against a slew of "delete doesn't seem important"s). Since RFA/RFB are (theoretically) the same process, I think the same "not a vote" language needs to stay. Incidentally, why are we focusing on "!vote" as an ugly wikineologism while ignoring the far more irritating "xe"? — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA is fundamentally different from XfD. In an XfD, although the general outcome should be the majority opinion, there are times when a compromise (e.g. a merge and redirect) is a better option. Also, XfD comments need to be backed up with coherent arguments, and the outcome needs to be in line with policy; this is because there are a lot of policies and guidelines about deletions. As such, the closing admin has to weigh up the arguments and balance them against policy. In contrast, there is no policy or guideline about "what makes a good admin", and there never will be. In an RfA, each voter has their own criteria for assessing a candidate; each voter should weigh up the arguments and decide for themselves whether to Support or Oppose. Bureaucrat discretion should therefore not be needed on the vast majority of RfAs; it should be the community's decision. In contrast, all XfD outcomes have to be consistent with deletion policies, regardless of numbers. Walton^One 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm not actually arguing against bureaucrat discretion here, which it sounds like people (particularly WaltonOne) are saying. Bureaucrats do have the discretion to disregard votes for various reasons, and using the word "vote" doesn't mean I'm advocating changing that to raw percentages. All I'm advocating is calling a spade a spade. Something doesn't have to be decided by numerical majorities to be a vote.

Incidentally, what you do on XfD is voting, too. Just like on RfA, you're voting to influence the decision of the closer. XfD just puts more in the hands of the closing admin, and also has a general ban on votes without discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

!I !think !that !someone !should !close !this !discussion. !--!After !Midnight ^!0001 !18:38, !16 !September !2007 !(UTC)
- The use of the word !vote is of no concern to me. If that is what you are going to call it, then fine call it that. If you don't like it don't use it. Many users use vote because they have seen it used oftenly enough. This whole discussion on whether a vote is a vote is ridiculous. Creepy i would say. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  - To go further at WP:XFD, there are numerous potential outcomes, "delete," "keep," "merge," "redirect," transwiki." At RFA you have two Pass or Fail. RFA is a dicussion like vote. XFD is vote like discussion. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with online voting is that it can be gamed. If RFA is a straight numerical vote, then this allows POV groups to insert their own agents into wikipedia. This is obviously not an acceptable outcome.

But even if that wasn't the case, Wikipedia works by Consensus. Why should we change the rules for just one page?

The reason lots of people think that RFA *is* a vote, is because it has a structure that somehow encourages sheep-like behavior. Officially however, there are very few constrains on what you may actually post on an RFA.

You are permitted to challenge or remark on any statement on RFA, and people actually do need to answer for themselves. (watch out, your challenge or remark can be challenged or remarked upon too, you might even get a discussion! )

You can use this freedom to challenge people with bad views, convince people to take other views, or agree on compromises, just like anywhere else on wikipedia. You can totally change the outcome of an RFA this way. And I wish people would do it more often too. It's amazing how people allow themselves to be disenfranchised so easily :-/

At any rate, go out there and discuss! :-) --Kim Bruning 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything comes of this, I would hope that less editors will bite users about their terminology. During RfA's I have seen people use 'vote' as part of their responses, and then oppose '!votes' get piled on because 'candidate feels XfD is a vote.' All too often I see editors, who omit the omnipotent '!' get immediately shot down, regardless of the arena, with a holier than thou 'X is not a vote.' It's ridiculous. Thanks for your time and your continued support in the future. I'm going to the article page to emote an assertion about prospective candidates in a particular chronological order with no apparent numerical value. the_undertow ^talk 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, have you considered maybe working forming a consensus instead? Just an idea. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 03:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Using consensus works well when few people collaborate on something with many possible outcomes. For example, we use consensus to write articles. When many people make a decision with just two options, consensus is very difficult to achieve and measure (except in cases where strong majorities exist). As we need a system with a higher admin output, we need a system that is simple to use. Voting is easy no matter how many people participate. Consensus is easy if the discussion is held among a cabal of electors. Both methods have strong opposition. The current system where people campaign ("comment") and vote ("!vote") at the same time and votes are public does somewhat encourage sheep behaviour more than pure voting. If we make RfA more like a vote, perhaps we can eliminate some of the sheep behaviour (true votes in the real world are often secret and do not allow you to see how the current standings are). Voting is not evil, it is a tool, just like consensus is not a magic answer, but a tool that we use to collaboratively edit articles and write guidelines. If voting is the best tool for adminship that we have, we should use it. Kusma (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, I'll be honest here, !vote is just simply a form of political correctness. The roots and the debate of it goes back to the turbulent eras. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it still okay to oppose?

Seriously, I'm chilling with a beer and looking at this type of thing and wondering if it is really still okay for a user to oppose. WP:OWN should apply to candidates as well. Meaning, just because it's 'yer boy' up for admin, it's not necessary to start severing heads of the opposers. A candidate will succeed based on merit, not on attacks of dissenters. We have to give people room to breathe, and I have this sinking feeling that being the first oppose on an otherwise 'heading for success' RfA has got to be a great source of anxiety for the editor. It's really intimidating and even if the oppose votes are arbitrary, let them be heard and get over it. My little diatribe is not directed at any one editor in particular, but is really based on a pattern that I find alarming. Carry on. the_undertow ^talk 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfBs have failed for this, so apparently we recognise the problem. In any case, I'd like to thing that legitimate (more then that one) opposition wouldn't be treated like that. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing... H₂O 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DM, I have a problem with the 'legitimate' part. The opposers obviously feel their opinion is legit, so why shouldn't we? Honestly, if I oppose a candidate because I don't agree with their ideologies, isn't that legitimate? It's not XfD, where we are using very specific criteria. Users may be 'discouraged' from using 'edit count' as an oppose, but they in no way should be prevented, nor badgered for using it. Hell, oppose on the grounds that you don't like my tattoos. I won't have a problem with that, and it's a valid concern. We can't start telling people that their concerns are not legit. It's like saying 'You don't have a right to be angry.' Everyone has a right to feel whatever they want, and if you have a concern, whatever it is, I would consider it legitimate because who am I to tell you that your concerns are not valid? the_undertow ^talk 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether a concern is valid is one thing, but there's then the question of whether a concern is relevant; then there's also a matter of whether the concern is clear; also, there's the matter of whether the concern is factually correct. It is one thing to ask a user to expand on his opposition (which may cause other users to oppose), or to clarify a point, and it is a different thing to tell a user that his concern is invalid. You are free to tell a user that his concern is wrong, if you can back it up with evidence, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The real question is, is it still okay to ask questions? I find the responses to the opposes perfectly reasonable, and the response to an opposer in one of the examples given is "Let me begin by saying that I respect your decision." If we're squelching discussion so much that that's considered unacceptable, that would be the real problem. Plus, I think opposition needs to get more scrutiny anyway, since it counts for more. Grand master ka 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If we actually want candidates to succeed or fail on merit, then I think we have to be vigilant about preventing "concerns" that are arbitrary or insignificant from derailing candidacies. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have enough faith to believe that editors can recognize insignificance without 'vigilance.' the_undertow ^talk 00:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But surely we can't, since "the opposers obviously feel their opinion is legit, so why shouldn't we?" Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) We are talking about two different things. I feel a user's oppose is legit, by virtue of the fact that the opposer is, in fact, concerned. But above, I said 'significant,' which I take to be different. If you don't like my tattoos, for example, that is a legitimate concern, but not a significant one. Perhaps we should be vigilant about user's supports. After all, I simply stamp my name without a supporting statement. Isn't blind faith more dangerous than an insignificant oppose? the_undertow ^talk 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Undertow, I know you specifically said you're not targeting a particular editor but since I seem to be the example you use, let me still explain why I commented on that oppose. Iridescent is not "my boy" and Titoxf put it fairly well: it's about keeping RfA on topic. From time to time someone makes the point that admin candidates should be able to put up with all the crap they get on RfA because that's what they'll get as admins, as if routine incivility on RfA was a good thing for training purposes. Well, sorry but I don't buy that. Yes RfA has a tradition of being petty and merciless but that's not how we want it to be and it certainly was never intended to be like that. That opposition I lashed out against was "user advocates newspeak" and was the result of an innocuous comment Iridescent had made about !votes and votes. This is completely counter-productive: it's unfair, it has barely any relevance to RfA, it blows one quote out of proportion, it's bordering on incivility and it's precisely the kind of nonsense that poisons the RfA atmosphere. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I chose this point in time to bring up my concerns, and I didn't intend to address you personally, but the subject as a whole. Specific to this RfA, all I see is an opposer who is opposing on the grounds that he does not agree with the candidates wiki-views. I don't see anything wrong with that - at least he/she is being honest. You referred to the opposer as bullying and I certainly think that is being hyper-sensitive. If anyone was bullied, I feel it was the oppose vote. I agree that Iridescent's comment was certainly innocuous and not a reason that I would oppose, but that's me. I just don't see how an oppose vote is ever 'off-topic.' I mean, let's be honest, the topic is whether or not to hand out the tools. One user felt that they should not be handed out. Trying to explain to opposers that they need to stick to certain 'relevant' criteria defeats the idea of an open forum. Anyway, if my using this isolated incident offended you, you have my apologies. I did not intend to single you out and the 'my boy' was a rider on my diatribe that was not related to this RfA whatsoever. It was simply something I had witnessed several times, and I failed to provide an instance, and this was not one. the_undertow ^talk 04:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is striking their vote. This is an open forum. And that means that people can oppose or support for various reasons and others are able to comment on them.-Chunky Rice 04:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my use of "bullying" here might be a bit hard to justify. What I was trying to point out that the editor had the choice of participating in the discussion he cited, engaging Iridescent to discuss his concerns or perhaps make his point by opposing the RfA and make sure to oppose anynobody that doesn't agree with all his views. He chose the latter and I do think he deserves a good ol' trout for that one. Pascal.Tesson 04:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm certainly not Pascal.Tesson's boy — while he might be challenging one of the opposes to me, he's not actually supporting me. (Looking at the current open RFAs, it looks like of the 16 currently active, 6 or 7 are headed for a fail as things stand - including some very well-respected editors - so people evidently are still willing to oppose.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Undertow, I think the reason people don't feel the need to explain supports as much is because if you're supporting, it's pretty obvious why: you haven't found any problems with the candidate, they meet all your standards. I guess it could be blind faith, but it's not necessarily. Whereas if you're opposing, there's a bunch of different reasons why you could be, so you do need to explain. delldot talk 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To be rather blunt: people have just as much right to give bullshit reasons to oppose an RfA as people do to react to bullshit reasons. I have faith in the community's ability to discern what is and isn't valid in a non-creepy way (no set definition, just calling it out when it is seen and letting it stand when it's actually valid). Of course, it also depends on the phrasing of the opposing party; if someone said "This person harasses people" with no diffs to back it up, it's treated much less seriously as someone that says the same thing and provides a dozen diffs of the candidate biting people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the need to combat opposes on such lopsided RFAs is one I don't understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAnonymous_Dissident_2&diff=154809393&oldid=154808724 is transparently a joke oppose on a completely one-sided RFA - why is that necessary? (and within five minutes!). On a closer RFA, discussing the reasons for opposes is sensible (I was ~88%, and people responded to the silly opposes on my behalf, and I responded to the oppose that accused me of doing things I didn't do - fine, that was close enough that the issues really needed to be discussed. I guess people just see it as a stain that they only succeeded 100/1/1 or something. Wily D 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into it. Many people just prefer to challenge what they consider bad reasoning. I don't see anything wrong with it, provided it doesn't become disruptive or uncivil. I think anyone putting forth an opinion should be prepared to defend/explain it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

EVula put it well. If you have the right to call into question a support, the same right should be given to call into question a pointless oppose. If you feel strongly the way you do, stand up for your opinion. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many WP:SNOW requests

Seems there have been too many requests that end in WP:SNOW. At one point there was a suggested minimum number of edits on the top of the page. Now there is now. Perhaps the Nominations section should be changed (copied from the top paragraph) to the following:

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions.

Although there in now set mimimums for nominations, users and their nominators should be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

--Statsone 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may be a good idea to have a (very low) minimum edit requirement, to discourage newbies from applying and having their nominations snowballed. Not to promote editcountitis or anything, but a nominee with less than 500 edits will undoubtedly fail, so it's best to save ourselves the trouble. Genuine new users are often excited at the idea of adminship, they make a few edits, apply, get some pile-on opposes and a speedy close, and are then really disappointed. Melsaran (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with a minimum of 500-800 edits. PS, can anyone remove one per SNOW or must it be a Bcat?Rlevse 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone can close an RFA by an extremely new user (no edits to project space outside their own RFA) even if you're not a bureaucrat, because this happens quite often and (as Newyorkbrad explains) we can close those requests to spare the candidate from the negative impact of further pile-on opposes, and to spare the community from having to invest time investigating the qualifications of a candidate who has no chance of succeeding at present. I'm not so sure about RFAs that have run their seven days without a consensus to promote, though; there was a discussion about this not so long ago at WP:BN#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Betacommand 2 and some bureaucrats said that it is better to wait for a bureaucrat to come by and close the nomination properly. Melsaran (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)How about having a general basic, minimum criteria for adminship as a guideline for requesting adminship. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than having a hard (albiet low) edit count requirement, another option might to add a disclaimer that says something like: "Please Note: While there is not a required minimum number of edits for adminship, it is extremely unlikely that editors with less than XXX edits will be promoted. Please consider this before submitting nominations." Or something like that. Maybe the disclaimer could also have a link to a page or graph with stats on number of edit count for failed and successful RfAs. Yilloslime 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That was kind of what I was suggesting but with other factors such as project namespace count too by looking at past unsuccessful admin candidates. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We have WP:GRFA for that. We shouldn't have too many arbitrary editcount/time limits, but it may be helpful to have a basic editcount requirement (something like 500 edits) because anything under that would fail for sure, and many newcomers do not realise this. Melsaran (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue with any such requirement is one of quality. Can it be argued that a thousand reverts is equivalent to a thousand comprehensive edits to articles? --Aarktica 16:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the reasons we've avoided a fixed edit count is because, ideally, edit counts don't matter. Someone with a thousand userpage edits meets the requirements, but someone with 900 mainspace/AfD/AIV edits would be a better candidate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Every once and a while, we get some snow flurries. Nothing to really get worked up over... Let's be perfectly honest here: if someone with 80 edits thinks they've got a chance in hell of becoming an admin, they probably haven't read anything about being an admin. Do we really think that they'll read the requirement and pay attention to it? All we'd be doing is closing no-chance RfAs under once acronym instead of another... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we could be frank and say "less than 500 edits, nomination closed, try again another time". Currently, it starts with some quick opposes and then a few "moral supports", we have to explain to them why they are not ready yet, offer suggestions, make sure they do not feel disappointed/discouraged, and then when the RFA is "snowballing" (10 opposes or so), we close it. That takes a lot of time and effort, and I could give you numerous examples. It would be a better idea to have a very low edit count limitation for applying for adminship, to spare ourselves the time. Melsaran (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've snowballed RfAs after only three or four comments have been left (and closing them doesn't take that much time; I can fully close, notify, and archive an RfA in about four minutes if I'm taking my time). Leaving it open isn't that big of a problem, especially since gaining consensus on a minimum is something that has been attempted numerous times before (for example: someone with 530 edits might be above the minimum requirement, but the likelihood of them passing is almost non-existent, and that's not even considering what namespace those edits are in... someone with 530 edits in the user namespace would get shot down damn fast, despite validly meeting the "requirements"). Plus, what about time? 500 edits in one month speaks more highly of an editor's dedication than 500 edits across the past year. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you snowball close an RFA with no comments/votes because "the candidate would have no chance of succeeding", then that would be a bit of a slap in the face of the candidate, because he didn't get any actual feedback. That's why we usually leave them open for a while, until they see it is snowballing and close them by themselves/have them closed by others. It would be better to have a low edit count requirement so that we can say: "you may not run for adminship because you do not meet the requirements". And it's true that time is also a factor, but I think that any editor with 500 edits would fail; it's just so that we have a means of excluding extremely new editors that would have no chance of succeeding and are an unnecessary waste of time (to put it bluntly). Melsaran (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many people aren't going to be bothered to read WP:GRFA, but I do think that a concise disclaimer box in prominent area of the nominating page might actually be read and might actually have some effect. Something to the effect of: "FYI: If you've got less than XXX edits in so-and-such-space, or have been editing for less than YYY months, then you don't have a snow's ball chance in Hell of making it." Yilloslime 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have something like WP:OUTCOMES, but for RfAs. This will discourage sensible users from snow-storming us. If not, maybe we should make coaching a requirement for someone who has less than a certain number of edits, with a nomination from their coach. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

With a profound sense of irony there's one now. Let's be clear here. Whilst in all probability RfA's with less than 1k edits are doomed it doesn't mean we need to loose an editor in the process. I know that discussion has been done before, but clearly we need to be gentle - per WP:BITE. I agree that putting a number up in the top will probably be ignored by newbies anyway. Let's treat clear cut SNOW's as the gesture they (often) are - a genuine attempt and belief to help this work. The easiest way to do that is let them run for a while and then get them closed by someone (anyone with experience basically) who will explain very very nicely why the request was removed. No harm done, and we hopefully keep people whose hearts are in the right place. Pedro | Chat 20:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Was this nice enough? --Ag ü eybaná 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if you remembered to track the candidate down on the net, and send them some fine wines and cheese as a gesture of good will. Ha! Seriously, that's exactly what I mean - that is the kind of gesture that will retain a clearly commited yet inexperienced editor. Thanks Agüeybaná. Pedro | Chat 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, I always leave User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA on the talk page of a snowballed RfA candidate. I think it does a fine job of taking the bite out of the process. Is that about what you were thinking? (minus the wine and cheese, which I'm keeping for myself, dammit!) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Mine is better :-) --Ag ü eybaná 21:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

~~That~~ They would be the thing(s) (ec'd). I've seen others who close RFA's use similar templates of their own design. Now let's not go down the line of a "standard" template though. The personal touch is what it's all about if we are to retain potentialy great editors and future admins. Your hogging of the booze and dairy products is just rude - bring on the olives too. Pedro | Chat 21:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a "standard" template would be fine, as long as it doesn't read like boilerplate. I've tried to keep mine nice and friendly, without the straightforward coldness of, say, {{uw-block1}} and the like. I might nab a couple of links from what Agüeybaná said, though. (and I'm perfectly fine sharing the wine; I don't drink, but I do loves me some cheese...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

EVula's template is good...I might make my own one of these days. Although I prefer to just write up the message as I go. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I used to do, but I figured that to take the bite out of the whole thing, it'd be helpful to have several handy links. I think I did it two or three times before I got tired of pulling together all the links every time and just put them in a template instead. :) Laziness, the mother of invention... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice template EVula. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(<--)[2] - I'm such a hypocrite :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope that was genuine. There is something to be said for one who can concede errors. --Aarktica 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the cure is worse than the problem. We've had a lot of issues with people blandly basing their support (or oppose) on the number of edits an account had. >Radiant< 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is true, but a minimal editcount requirement stated at the top of the page (say, 1,000 edits) would do a lot of good. I myself was foolish enough to submit a very premature RfA when I was a new user (it can be seen here), since I didn't understand how things worked and there was no guidance. When it failed, I almost left Wikipedia. I also don't really think that a low minimum requirement (1,000 edits, or 500 if you prefer) would contribute to editcount inflation; it's already very rare for people to be promoted with less than that. So I endorse Statsone's proposed wording (indeed, I've suggested it myself in the past). Walton^One 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I would still rather focus on the quality of the edits, as opposed to staring at numbers. If an editor ~~edits~~ overhauls three articles (to possible FA status) a week on average for six months, that style of editing will fail the proposed threshold. Having someone who — by a single click of the "Save page" button — elevates stubs to article status (by deliberate research to properly source articles, engaging in copious amounts of copy-editing, etc.) ought to be considered qualified. Such an editor is likely to be more capable of explaining their actions if given the tools. --Aarktica 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of this RfA. There is much disagreement between those who support this user's experience, and those who believe he is too inexperienced. The user's lower edit count ~~seems to be the cause~~ could play a part. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you reached that conclusion? I specifically, in a long paragraph, explained that I did not oppose because of edit count. In fact, I haven't even looked at his edit stats. --Ag ü eybaná 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I should have worded that better. My point was that he has been around since March '05, but some are saying he lacks in "overall experience". I think edit count could play a role. All opinions aside, I thought it would be interesting to see what the part of the community participating here thought of a candidate with a below-average count. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

His edit count is playing the role it is only because it shows that he isn't particularly active. Last month he had about 80 edits total; when I took a month-long break due to <reasons unimportant>, I still managed to garner 170+ edits. He makes, on average, 62 edits a month, and when it comes to admin candidates, I (and apparently some others) would like to see a bit more activity (to prove I'm not a hypocrite: I currently average 1,147 edits a month). Edit count alone is not the factor in that particular RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. It's more about activity. Even if he made extraordinary edits, it still isn't enough. Either way, I still stand by my support. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Eddie, what did you mean by "...your edits are appreciated. They're just not enough to convince me..." (emphasis mine). * Ail lema 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean the quantity of edits the user had. I meant to say that the individual quality of each of his edits (or at least his recent ones) is truly not enough to convince me that he will be a competent admin. --Ag ü eybaná 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to insist on there being a range of edits ( which is going higher and higher) but there does need to be a warning of some kind to make it clear new editors do need some experience before appying and being discouraged.

With the comments made above, perhaps another suggestion. The Nomination section would be the same. However a new section could be added:

==Guidelines before appying==

Although there in no set minimums for nominations, users and their nominators should realize the number of edits, the length and frequency of edits, and the type of edits made by the user are considered in their request. Among the type of edits and participation considered are the ones in WP:CSD, WP:XFD, WP:AFD, and WP:AIV. Being an Administrator is also to be considered No big deal

Please familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines and participate in WP:UAA, and the mainspace (articles),

You may want to consider submitting yourself to Wikipedia:Editor review for feedback on where to get some good experience. Users and their nominators should be familiar with the great Admin coaching. Before submitting your request, please be familiar with administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship..''

A starting point --Statsone 04:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I personally quite like that suggestion I think that, in line with the point of this thread, it probably won't do much. I guess it's the same principle as slapping "SMOKING KILLS" on cigarettes. It really won't make any difference to people who are determined to have a ~~fag~~ smoke whatever the outside of the packet says. Even putting a warning of "LESS THAN 1K EDITS? DON'T BOTHER" in 46px across the top of the page would still not resolve issues of editors standing "too early" in the communities eyes. And in 99% of cases it must be remembered that these are honest requests from new(ish) editors who want to help out, and should be given the respect they deserve accordingly. Pedro | Chat 07:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)