Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 137

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 130 ← Archive 135 Archive 136 Archive 137 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140

Question about Questions

I've followed RFA since about last summer, and it looks like the amount of questions asked at each RFA continues to rise. Any thoughts? 5:15 00:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it has. Useight (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Your observation is keen. As Useight so succinctly put it. Indeed. There's not much we can do about it (if view it as a negative occurrence that is). The only thing I can say to future candidates is this: Answer the questions, and answer them straightforward without circumlocution. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There have been some that have reached up to over 20 questions. But I don't think there is a certain number of questions that could be asked in an RfA. The number of questions vary depending on the candidate and the question givers. If someone has to give a question so they can decide to support, oppose, or even neutral, then they can no matter how many questions are present already. Yes, it could be worrying for others, and tiring for the candidate, but it happens. -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to remember that questions remain optional. Andre (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rehashing an argument we've been over a number of times. Of course they are optional, and of course there will be opposes for not answering optional questions. It's a conundrum. Enigma message 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If the questions are reasonable, they shouldn't be a big deal to answer. If the questions are unreasonable for some reason, a simple explanation of why instead of a proper answer would suffice. If the answerer has a limited amount of time to edit Wikipedia and insufficient time to answer all the questions at once, this too can be clarified and explained. If the user ignores the questions, obviously that may provoke an oppose. Andre (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems simple to me. Instead of using the word optional, we should just use the word "recommended." Solves everything. Beam 05:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This solves absolutely nothing. It encourages opposition based on not answering optional questions, and doesn't do anything to actually reduce the number of questions (particularly stupid ones). --Rory096 03:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions

Lets explore something different. Would anyone consider creating an essay on non-preferred questions? Also possibly adding a detailed explanation, along with specific examples? Lets face it. I've seen crappy questions removed at will from RfA's in the past. This could possibly solve the thousand optional question problem whilst retaining original questions provided they be fruitful, in good faith and make those candidates think. (Wikipedia:Optional questions anyone? Unless someone has a better idea. I'm sure we can think of something.) — MaggotSyn 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential RFA change

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

Okay, okay, here it goes. Yes, I'm aware that various editors bring up potential changes to the RFA method here all the time. And they are all shot down, often with a link to WP:PEREN, so I'm pretty sure that consensus will be impossible to find here again, but I don't believe this idea has been brought up before, and now nobody can say that Useight didn't try to help improve the RFA system that many say needs to be improved. Anyway, I have spelled out my idea at User:Useight/RFA Fix, so any feedback would be great. Here, it'll just be sufficient to say it involves Skype. Useight (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds awesome. That'd probably be the coolest solution yet. Hell, if this gets OK'd, I'm gonna run for RfA just for the fun of it! <---- Which is where one problem may come from. Those SNOW close RfA's would be a gigantic pain in the ass with the Skype interview, and the ammount of SNOWy RfA's is likley to increase.--Koji†Dude (C) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I will start off by saying that I think this is a nice, (and funny) well-meaning idea. With that said, I don't know if it would be worth it in the long run. True, the Ryan issue would potentially be resolved (I can't think of many cases of people speaking to a children in person and thinking they were adults), but some really don't like this kind of thing. Who will co-ordinate the whole project? Will we need to disclose out personal information and identification, such as First/Last/Middle name, address, credit card number? Social security number? Will the WMF need to contact the candidate and actually speak to them? How much time will this typically consume per month? --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea but what about people who don't have a mike or their bandwidth is so low that it can't take real time audio transfer. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What the essay states is, "if you don't have one, get one". So I suppose if I want to be an administrator, I'll just have to get a brand new computer, a microphone, webcam, et. al. :-| --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for it, but realistically, it will never happen. Enigma message 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2)Thinking it over more, I think it could happen as a very optional kind of thing. Most won't be willing to participate in it, so it couldn't be implemented on a broad scale. Enigma message 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It could be just optional. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Just as well, because the idea is frankly ridiculous. How on earth can anyone be certain who they're talking to at the end of a phone? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Do you mean that people could hire more experienced Wikipedians to do the interview or whatever for them? -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for second guessing someone else's reason, but I think he means, how could we verify it is the same user? Rudget (logs) 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats what I said more or less. I don't think that is a problem really, in theory you could do that now (have someone else come up with the answers for you then post them yourself). -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I will peform anyones RFA interview for them for a nominal (fucking huge) fee. Beam 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
... and in practice that's what already happens, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I am much more charming and handsome than my edits would have you believe. I also have a sexy voice. This is awesome for me, sign me up. Beam 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and maybe my seductive voice can defer your attention from the words coming out of my mouth rather than if I'm making sense or not. Maybe requests should be changed into a beauty contest instead and only allow the hottest of the hottest editors request adminship. Would anyone agree? --Eric (mailbox) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That would be good: in the event someone ever blocked my account inappropriately, at least I'd know that the blocker would be good-looking. :D Acalamari 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. That is just plain ridiculous. That is just complicating the process even more and yeah, not everyone has a microphone nor should they be bothered to download other programs and applications. I already feel the critera for adminship is already through the roof and this will make it even more complicated. So no for me, but that's just me. --Eric (mailbox) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Useight, this is an awful idea from a purely technical point of view. Skype might be fine in places with broadband connections as standard and a generally rich population; in the rest of the world, you're excluding a majority of users, who don't have fast connections and/or aren't willing to purchase hardware they're only going to use for just this one occasion. Even relatively advanced economies like the US and UK, broadband penetration is only about 50% – and I'd love to hear what a VOIP conversation over dialup would come out sounding like. I'd also venture to guess that Skype usage is well below 1% of the population; I certainly wouldn't even know how to begin should I want to install it. – iridescent 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm coming around to this idea, because in real life I'm pretty cute myself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It could be done over a text based messaging program, it would not have to be audio. That would eliminate the bandwidth problem. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Absolutely not. This idea is only slightly more realistic than asking people to get themselves down to the WMF offices for an in person interview. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I support the fact that you have to be over 18 to RfA. Would listening to a voice from a 13 year old make sense? --Eric (mailbox) 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
While I generally agree with that, Useight's "Skypedia" method is not the way to go, IMHO. The cons outweigh the pros immensely, and many admin hopefuls will not be able to run, for various reasons; mine being purely technological. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Aw shucks. I was hoping that my cute English accent might swing it for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I support Eric's beauty contest idea. I suggest we limit adminship to attractive women with large breasts and insist that every candidate post a photo at RFA. Even if they ended up posting someone else's photo, at the very least we'd wind up with an encyclopedia of attractive women with large breasts. Oh, wait a minute... – iridescent 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful! I just say I look like this, and I remain an admin in a landslide. :) Acalamari 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A nice idea, but in principle, it's got some serious problems. Firstly, some people don't use skype - my ISP won't even let me use voice over IP which is needed for it so I'd be out of the equation completely. If people can use skype, but don't have the equipment, why should we expect them to buy it, just to run through RfA? Secondally, there's a privacy issue - some users don't like admitting whether they're male or female, young or old or where they geographically locate to - having there accent broadcast across the web wouldn't be something they desire. Definitely an interesting proposal, but there's just too many problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is on Skype, where would I put my opinion - "Oppose - editor's internet connection is too slow.". Seriously, I cannot support an off-wiki solution to an on-wiki problem. Kevin (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Is it just me or do the majority of people here seem wicked insecure with their personal image? I mean, why else would someone object to an OPTIONAL interview done in this manner? Beam 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds cool. As so many people above have pointed out, it's not practical at all, but it'd be interesting to have as an option. Coordinating it for candidates who want to would be a pain, and so would just about everything else involved, so I'd think anyone who wants to do it would have to start planning it before transclusion. That said, if it does become an option, I'd be happy to serve as a recorder or moderator. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Flaws

Okay, if I got everything from above, here are the flaws with the idea:

  1. Snow RFAs would increase
  2. Who will coordinate?
  3. Will we have to disclose personal information?
  4. Will the WMF have to contact and speak with the candidate?
  5. This could consume too much time.
  6. Some people don't have a mike or enough bandwith
  7. I'll have to buy a new computer, microphone, and webcam
  8. How can we be certain we're talking with the actual candidate?
  9. People with nice voices are more likely to be promoted
  10. Process is too complicated
  11. Less than 1% of population use Skype
  12. Foreign countries don't have enough bandwith
  13. Some ISP's block VOIP
  14. People don't want to reveal their accent
  15. Some people use public computers and can't download the software
  16. Some people don't want to download the software and/or can't figure it out

I believe I got them all, if I missed any please add them to the list. I will address each of these concerns the best I can this evening. Useight (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just you I think. Insecurity with personal image has nothing to do with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I'd quite welcome the idea, but others may not have the same seductive and mellifluous telephone voice that I do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm biased in thinking up the idea as I, too, have a nice radio voice. Useight (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If Privatemusings ever decides to run for RFA, by all means, Skype would be fun! For the rest of us mortals, who don't have the darn software or hardware, the on-wiki system will have to suffice. :) Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the few times that I disagree completely Useight. It's a clever idea, but I think way too complicated to streamline. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As an option? You can't see this being an option? I would love to actually answer the questions with my own voice. That way the community could look me in the eye and actually understand exactly who I am and what I'm going to do. At least much more so than text responses. I hate to be so simple but I think some people are just insecure. Beam 00:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really felt the need, you could always upload a sound file to Commons of yourself answering the questions... Seriously, a policy that's effectively asking people to pay to run for RFA isn't going to happen - I suggest we archive this. – iridescent 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, Skype and Audacity are both free and if a candidate doesn't have the hardware or bandwith, this Skype method would just be optional and they wouldn't have to use it. Useight (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
People could look you in the eye by hearing your voice? That's way too weird for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it sounds nice, but it's not practical at all. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the above flaws at User:Useight/RFA_Fix#Flaws, perhaps they will help calm the concerns above. Or perhaps they'll just bring up more issues. Again, let me emphasize that this method must be optional, for the many reasons listed above. Perhaps a test case could be run without an actual RFA on the line. Useight (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a good idea at all. We currently have candidates opposed for not answering optional questions, some of which have nothing to do with being a trustworthy admin. I can see candidates being opposed with "Will not skype". What I can't see anywhere in the above debate is
  • Which candidates whose RfA's have failed should have passed and how will this fix it
  • Likewise for candidates whose RfA passed, but later turned out to be a poor choice.
This seems to be just another layer of complexity with much downside and no real upside. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The RFAs that failed but should have passed? Well, if the RFA failed then there wasn't community consensus and it shouldn't have passed. If the reason consensus wasn't reached was because of some strange trifling matter, then no, this change would not address that. I don't know if any change to RFA could fix that; it'd have to be a change within the people, not a change with the system. As for candidates who passed but turned out to be a poor choice, this method would somewhat ensure they they are at least not just copying answers from other RFAs and we could better discern what they do and do not know about policies. Useight (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to try to improve the Rfa system, but I strongly oppose this idea. First of all, the Rfa process should be done 100% on the website. The second reason I oppose this is because its unneeded. We should make the processes here as simple as we can, and not more complex. Finally, I don't think anybody should be forced to download something to take part in a process here, and some don't have the technical ability to.--SJP (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Useight, I think you're pushing yourself too much here. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, and I think that a user having to install a whole bunch of new stuff that they might not be able to violates that mission, prevents the encyclopedia from being benefited with a potential admin, violates personal privacy, and promotes a potential "Skype" cabal. Perhaps some of these are on the extreme, but I strongly, strongly oppose such a measure. bibliomaniac15 05:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I see the community is kind of bipolar on this particular optional method, some think it'd be good, some think it'd be terrible. I'm going to archive this discussion and go back to the drawingboard. I'm such a technophile that I guess I got overeager about this idea. But I got a lot of feedback on the idea, thanks everyone. I'm going to take that feedback and mull it over, along with whatever I can glean from Wikipedia:RfA Review, and work on formulating new improvements to the RFA system with an emphasis on simplicity. Hopefully I'll be back someday with a new idea, one not so radical, yet somehow improves the system arguably deemed to be the most "broken" on Wikipedia. Until then, I need some time to think, so I guess I'll spend more time in the shower, the place where all ideas come. Useight (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thought

Over the last few weeks I have started to notice that its hard to get Admin help in the early hours. Be it page protection, reporting vandalism, AN or ANI admins are harder to come by in the early hours. The other week page protection requests went unanswered for 4+ hours, there are many other examples I can go into. My question being, would it be acceptable to support a nomination at RfA based somewhat on the editing hours of the person. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Define "early hours" if you'd be so kind - early hours for me is not certainly the same as for you. M♠ssing Ace 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
We have editors that live oin all parts of the world on the English Wikipedia. Someone will cover it at all times. America69 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
America is correct. However, I do wonder about the statistics regarding the country of residence of the active administrators. Perhaps there's a disproportion towards North America. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean early hours in wikiland. Its not specific science but Im talking 04:00 - 10:00 UTC ish. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
We cetainly have very few in the Asia, Africa and South America sections of the highly active user lists. The latter two have two each to be precise. --Cameron* 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It certainly would be nice to see some stats, this isn't about countries, its just about the hours that admins edit. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(multiple ec) Indeed - I've found 06:00-10:00 WP time to suffer an admin paucity. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that this means we should give lenience at RFA simply because an editor is active at times when others are not. This would seem akin to allowing the apprentice to fix the brakes on your car because the trained mechanic is not around. M♠ssing Ace 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
But certainly its an issue, if it means that we need more admins in that editing period I would be inclined to say "so be it". — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. If we need more admins at certain times of the day then this is an issue. But to rectify it by granting +sysop due to a bias because people edit at those times seems folly. It just then leaves yet more work in undoing poor administrative actions later on. We "promote" (bad word) based on competence, not on the time that someone contributes. M♠ssing Ace 20:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I typed "somewhat" in both italics and bold. Indicating that it would only be a minor issue in deciding. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware of WP:HAU? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't, firstly it says "users", is it admins only? Secondly this isn't about what continent someone comes from, its just a matter of who edits between 04:00 - 10:00 UTC. Maybe we should have a list of admins who edit in this period for editors to get hold of them? — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 21:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Highly active users suffers from the same problem and it is often slower to go through each user on the page seeing if you can get there help than to go to AN even at the slowest of times. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 21:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
HAU does detail most active editing times, as well as geographic location - and geographic location will tell you nothing about when someone edits. The list also contains both non admins and admins. However the question raised in this thread still appears, to me, simple; Should we alow the time period someone edits from influence our decision to support an RFA? Answer - no, not in my book. M♠ssing Ace 21:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that list is of much help, but it might be wise to get a central point to contact admins who edit in this period. Well at the very least its raised some interesting questions. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If you've got something that needs admin attention more urgently than the boards will provide, simply look at Special:Log/delete and click the most recent username there. That way you know you're going to get an admin who is around and can help you out. It's probably the most active special page to use and I'd bet you'd struggle to find a period of >15 minutes of inactivity on it. M♠ssing Ace 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As the go-to guy at HAU, we used to have a status bot that kept track of who was online and who wasn't, so you could easily find someone (if there was someone) who was editing at that time. However, the status bot got blocked, so I'm still working on the best workaround. The tables there used to list each editor's blocks of time in which they would most likely be editing, so perhaps we'll have to bring that back. As for finding someone around between 04:00 and 10:00 UTC, I'm often around up until 05:30 or so, so perhaps I could be of some service during that time. Useight (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that Special:Log/delete is a really good idea. That should be added to HAU. Useight (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless, of course, one wants to find an arch-inclusionist admin it's a good idea :) M♠ssing Ace 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(out) Lol, its a nice link, I'll keep hold of it. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It used to be better, before the status bot got blocked for editing too much. Useight (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wait, you meant the deletion log, not WP:HAU. Man, I'm too hungry to edit coherently. I'm going to get some food and then come back. Useight (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry the delete log. Sorry for wasting your precious admin time folks. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
In my 1 year and 7 months here I've edited at all hours of the day, and I've observed at some times admins aren't active, and requests take a while to get fulfilled. In some cases this can cause some damage. However, you shouldn't take into account when an editor is active when deciding whether or not to support someone.
I personally look to see how often they would use the tools, if they would misuse the tools, and if there personality makes them fit for an admin. If a person passes all these things, I'll support them, unless there's a huge problem with the user. If they don't pass these three things, I may support them, or I may not. The times they're active doesn't influence my decision at all. However, it would be great if we could get more admins who are active at times when not many admins are active;-)--SJP (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions before an RFA opens

I don't know if this is allowed, but I see no reason why it should be prohibited: I've prepared Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel and will be ready to open it early next week. (For the next 48 hours I expect to be logged out and unable to answer questions.) If users who frequent RFAs would be kind enough to post questions so that I can answer them when I return, instead of waiting for the RFA to open, that will make it easier for me to reply without worrying about edit conflicts and other pressures. I will of course be answering questions throughout the RFA if people continue to ask, but it would make my life easier if the RFA is open to questions before voting opens. Thank you. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to instruct people that there should be no !votes before transclusion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. STRONG OPPOSE - for not following protocol. Beam 20:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    can you elaborate on your oppose? Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    STOP BADGERING ME!!!! Beam 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you can look through recent RfAs to get an idea of what questions you're likely to be asked. They typically don't vary too much.  Frank  |  talk  20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Spend this time honing the perfect response to "When should cool-down blocks be used?" It will be a productive use of your time, I'm sure. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"Cooldown blocks should never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever be used but I love you Kurt"? ~ mazca t | c 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are there so few RfAs?

With the backlogs we see at various locations, shouldn't there be more good editors applying for administrator tools? Four seems like a low number to me. Is there any concerted effort to recruit good editors for adminship? S. Dean Jameson 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There were about 10 going a week ago. It comes and goes in cycles I guess. –xenocidic (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
XC is right, but there has been a decline in the overall amount of users who have gone for more than a day without getting snowed or notnow-ed. C'est la vie, methinks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahem some people are also scared to run again... Gary King (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Or are staunchly opposed to it. Regardless of the reason, there have been several users/admins actively seeking out administrator hopefuls and nominating them. However, it comes (as pointed out above) in cycles: droves and pittance. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response. I'd been lurking at RfA for a bit, before deciding to jump into the fray, so I know that it's cyclical, but it just seems that we aren't seeing that many of our qualified editors trying for adminship. Some of the "combat mentality" undertaken during the disucssions might have something to do with it, but whatever it is, we definitely need more good admin candidates than we currently have. S. Dean Jameson 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)One too less for the former, one too many for the latter... Malleus... :D --Jza84 |  Talk  21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm firmly entrenched in Wisdom89's "staunchly opposed" camp. Never again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well first you have to know that good editors that can resolve longstanding problems of 2+ years in their first months on Wikipedia are rare and should be valued aren't experienced enough because they spent more time editing obscure and low traffic articles, as well as policy pages than hanging out around RfA and other "admin"-like places on Wikipedia. Since they are unknown by the RfA folks, it is obvious that they need to nominate themselves to get exposure are self-aggrandizing power freaks, as chances are that RfA folks don't edit their specialist area and didn't notice them as modest and humble users will wait to be noticed by the RfA people.

They are the kind of people who let the users most affected by their possibly eventual adminship know what's going on canvass, are uncivil because they rebuke their insulter in a curt manner after the first 10 times they've asked said insulter to stop insulting them and to get back to constructive editing. They also question their opposition when their arguments are poor badger their opposition, because Wikipedia is not a democracy and should be based on the quality of arguments because consensus is based on votes. You know that they have integrity because they give references for every claim they make and insist their opposition does so too an attitude problem because they have an "I'm right, you're wrong attitude". Since they are concerned with the overall quality and structure of Wikipedia articles, they need don't need the tools.

The final reason why you should pick good editors nail in the coffin is that good editors are also the meat bane of Wikipedia and it would be wise disastrous to entrust the admin tools to them. Especially when they've been known to quickly correct their mistakes make mistakes, and that their making of a mistake is infinitely pale in comparison with the fact more important than the fact that they immediately correct themselves when someone points out to them that they've been doing something in a less-than optimal way.

There's also the fact that those who fail their RfA will look forward to apply next time as the criticism they received was constructive and sane will often leave with a bitter taste in their mouth as the whole process encourages Ilikeit and Idontlikeits, and that whatever criticism they have about the RfA process will be considered and taken into account to improve the RfA process will most likely be held against them and probably brought up in their next RfA request as a negative. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That seemed to come from the heart Headbomb. I know it's easy to get upset over a failed RfA, but really, who cares. I've failed two, but I simply view it as a failure of the system, not as a reflection on me. ;-) In general terms though, I do think that at least some editors are put off the apparent brutality of the RfA process. That's something that does need to be addressed, and is perhaps behind the low number of candidates that started this topic off. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It did. I don't mind failing stuff for the right reasons, but I do mind failing it for the wrong reasons. Especially since it hampers my ability to lead WP:Phys. To be fair, not all opposition was insane, and most of them made their comments out of good faith. A lot of my frustration comes from the fact that I expected things to go like an FLC/FAC review. You present your case, people point that the stuff you have to fix, you fix it, then they update their vote accordingly. If people oppose something, you explain why you did things in a certain way, and then they will go like "Hmm... alright that makes sense" or "Hmmm, while I see what you tried to do, however things shouldn't be done that way for X, Y and Z reason".
However it was made clear that asking questions and replying to your opposition was seen in a bad light. Hell it's even frowned upon to ask questions to candidate! You can't debate (and I don't mean bicker), you can't argue (and I don't mean harass), you can't talk, you can't try to see why someone votes a particular way, nor explain why opposer #32 got things wrong or clarify the context of your actions. You can't do anything other than say "Yes Mr Oppose vote, please continue to take the stuff I write out of context :)" and "Yes Mr. Opposer, please make more baseless and unsupported accusations :)" And if you dare speak up against' such practice, you're labeled as being a "badgerer", or as being uncivil. This sort of atmosphere is completely asphyxiating and is the sign of a great cancer, and it is directly related to the problem of expert retention. And thus you end up with "manufactured" admins, as someone else put it, that would rather apply the letter of policy than their spirit, who are afraid to not follow rules when rules are in the way of improving a situation. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a philosophical discussion is in order. When an active, conscientious editor like Headbomb has such a difficult experience with RfA, perhaps a rethink of the process whereby we nominate administrators is in order. Is it truly not considered acceptable for a candidate to respond to each oppose vote? This strikes me as odd, especially if the oppose is seen as specious or misguided in some way. S. Dean Jameson 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


I still think this image says it all. Garion96 (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Most candidates that have successful RfAs have the qualities that the ad shows. And it's really up to themselves weather they want to try an RfA or not. -- RyRy (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Hilarious image (but true). Is that in the ad-rotation? –xenocidic (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That ad is awesome. Enigma message 22:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming it's okay for me to put that on my userpage?--Koji†Dude (C) 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not. It's already on my userpage for over a year. And yes, I think it is in the ad-rotation. Garion96 (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I don't think anyone will be really offended by it if you did. I'd like to know who created that one. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As the title implies, User:Qxz. Enigma message 23:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, there's something wrong with my browser today that's not letting me view it properly. I think I'll restart my machine. Poor admins... --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
hehe. Enigma message 23:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Who knows (but them, naturally) what they have to endure daily: Just looks at PPG's user page. It's been vandalised a googolplex of instances ad infinitum. Tut, I greatly sympathise. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I certainly didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. Mine was more of a logistical, "how can we get more good editors to stand for adminship" than a philosophical "why don't more people stand for adminship" question. Is there some coordinated effort we could start to recruit more good editors for adminship? The ratio of admins to editors is way too high, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The best solution I can fathom is to simply go to admin-friendly places (NPP, AFD, DRV, et. al.) and find editors that are active there. If they meet the general standards, nominate them. Nota bene, if it makes you feel any better about this, I'm planning on accepting a nomination next week. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    And per my rationale at the four I've commented on this week, I'll most likely be supporting you! :) Seriously, I like the idea about the NPP, AfD, and DRV thing. The only problem is, it would be nice to get some "writing admins" as well that, while they may not be active in the traditional areas, could represent the regular editors in the admin ranks. I'm thinking particularly of the discussion that's gone on at Carcharoth's page. S. Dean Jameson 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    Much appreciated, S. Dean. :-)
    Very good point; I almost forgot about that last one. WP:FAC would also be a great place to find admin hopefuls. So long as they know how to clean up spills as well as writing and have plenty of clue, they'll make good admins. This isn't to say that you have to have a FA to apply (otherwise, I wouldn't be running), but it definitely is a plus. Generally, just any WikiDragon will be desirable, as long as they're good with adminny-tasks. ---Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    One suggestion, perhaps mentioned above, is Editor Review. Not only could a reviewer find good candidates there, they could help quash the backlog there. Useight (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    Also, (forgot to mention this yesterday) if a bot such as this is approved and run, it will also help in increasing the RfA candidate count, so there's another solution. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    And did I say that there's a really bad backlog over at Editor Review on feedback for the admin-hopefuls? - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'd help out, but I'm hardly qualified to review other editors, as inexperienced as I still remain. I do think looking at ER for potential candidates is a good idea, though. S. Dean Jameson 05:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    That, and there's also WP:ADCO. Some (fair to say "many") oppose it, but I believe it's a good method of gaining more experience. I also found reading RfA reviews a good sign of the clue level needed for an admin. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 06:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Putting a different spin on things; I don't think we need more admins. Discuss. —Giggy 06:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I just can't envision a negative impact on the project from having an abundance of administrators. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't believe we'll experience a problem caused by having too many admins. Unless we lower the bar significantly and have hundreds of thousands of admins, then Wheel Warring could potentially become a rampant problem. But I don't foresee that happening. Useight (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
True. We are unlikely to promote that many admins in the near future, anyway. I do see Mailer's point, though—we just need to choose candidates who are right for the job. I don't think we should necessarily raise our standards, however; they're rather high as it is in my opinion, what with recent incidents such as the Ryan RfA, Kurt's self-nom opposing, etc. We merely need to be more careful in whom we appoint. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 08:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a more radical change?

I think it might be hard to push through on Wikipedia (a lot of people really seem to like !voting, which might actually be the problem), but has the "mentorship" approach ever been considered? Wikiversity has a very strong ratio of "Custodians" (=admins) to active users, and while not all the custodians are super-active, there's always someone around when work needs to be done. Assuming you're not familiar with it, the mentorship system works by simply having an experienced sysop mentor a new sysop as a "probationary custodian" for a month, and after the month is up it goes to an open RFA-style vote (more sensible since the new admin by then has some admin-tool logs to be looked over). I realize that might sound a bit cabalish, but the current system is arguably even more cabalish... it's often the same small group of folks !voting on these things. Just food for thought :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that - that suggestion, to me, seems to increase the barrier to entry even further. You still have an RfA torture-festival to go through, but with an added lengthy piece of testing that would probably be reasonably time-intensive both for the candidate and the mentor. ~ mazca t | c 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to decrease the barriers to good editors, not increase them. As Mazca said, this seems to do the latter. S. Dean Jameson 14:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh, that's surprising to me that you'd see it that way. We've been doing it for 2 years now on WV, and the general consensus among new sysops is that it's a lot nicer to avoid the process *before* getting to learn the tools than after. The whole point of the mentorship system was to avoid the sorts of things that happen on Wikipedian RFAs, and we've been pretty happy with the results. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

BAG membership nomination

Per the bot policy, I am making this post to inform the community of my request for BAG membership. Please feel free to ask any questions/comment there. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Banning trick questions from the RFA process

This should be a no-brainer. I'm pretty sure quite a few people are pissed off at trick questions such as the infamous cool-down-block question, which automatically fails your RFA if you don't answer "never", and I don't think they add to the process at all - as I said on TDH's RFA, we should encourage candidates to think. Reeling off answers from a cheatsheet doesn't say anything about your potential skill as an admin. I'm sure this has been brought up many times as well. Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a trick question? Cool down blocks happen all the time. The trick is, never say thats what the block is. — MaggotSyn 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a trick question because of how its loaded - answer anything other than "never", you fail your RFA. Even if you write a five-hundred-word essay. Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats a load of bull. Did you ever consider that neutrality would prevail over the word never? Simply acknowledging the fact that its current practice, yet inciting its misuse and consequences would easily justify an adequate knowledge of the blocking policy. Far better than No way. I'd never make a cool down block. — MaggotSyn 14:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet on another note, a discussion was started here about cool down blocks being removed from the policy altogether. — MaggotSyn
We could just ban all questions. Or cut it back down to one question, "Why do you want to be an administrator?" The candidate could then write a couple of paragraphs about why being granted adminship would be a benefit for the encyclopedia. If people can't be bothered to go through an editor's contributions (and therefore find the candidate's style/opinions and understanding of policy/thoughts on meta issues), they shouldn't be voting anyway. :-) We don't need dozens of questions to determine the answers that could be found by actually evaluating a candidate thoroughly. But maybe that's just my opinion. ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sort of like the old days... Although I'm inclined to agree, the first three should still remain. I don't mind restricting some questions just not the first one proposed. — MaggotSyn 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The first three questions are fine. Optional questions can sometimes be unfair if they are, as stated, trick questions, and all too often, there ends up being far too many of them. Either restrict it to just the three, or, if there are some optional questions that get asked all the time, have a set of about 4 or 5 questions that get asked all the time, instead of optional ones. We have had a fair few discussions circling around this topic, but nothing ever seems to be done about it. :( Lradrama 14:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult, online, to judge people's clue level. A personal interview could probably easily tell us in only 10 minutes who is a suitable candidate, but we don't have that luxury here. Whatever questions people come up with are probably OK, unless they're completely unreasonable. Even the unreasonable ones are perhaps useful, as they call give us a clue how the candidate responds to unreasonableness. Friday (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a trick question, as long as it is not malicious or misleading(ie "Do you still smoke crack?"). 1 != 2 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps no trick questions for RfA Irregulars? Qualified editors who just don't know the RfA process, and have no history of taking a political position on one editing policy or another should be spared the indignity of getting slapped around by one faction or another for answering a question in good faith. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, how many people running for admin are regulars? Most people are running for their first or second time. If the question is truly unfair then the community can decide that, if the answer shows a lack of understanding of an area then the community can take that into account too. 1 != 2 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, admin-running regulars. Perhaps TenPoundHammer? Note: That is not an underhanded jab at TPH, if he ran again, I'd support in a heartbeat. Useight (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter how many people are running who are regulars? The point is that those are the only people who could adequately/diplomatically answer a trick question. You have 13 people who are regulars here decide using markup in signatures is so distracting that it should be banned. These 13 people could devise a question which states "What is your position on markup in signatures?". Anyone who then says they support it, or have no problem with it, could quickly find they have earned 13 opposing votes for it, even though signature markup has nothing to do with being a competent administrator. Since an experienced editor who is inexperienced at RfA would never see that coming, it would be unfair to ask such a question. As an RfA noob, I would certainly assume that any questions allowed by the community to remain in my RfA would be admin related. Allowing trick questions, or questions which simply have no bearing on actual admin related duties is misleading to candidates who have come here innocently expecting to be judged on their contribution history. It can lead them to believe that they do not actually understand what the mop is for, when in fact they are essentially just being pushed around by the cool kids in the cafeteria. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is the questions that are asked, so much as how the contributors respond to the answers. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as we base our criteria on trust, then everyone is going to have their own way of determining trust. I do agree that contributors occasionally forget about trust and it turns into prom night sometimes though. 1 != 2 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to extend the number of standard questions. It's too easy to go look at successful RFAs for the best answers. Any optional questions should be specific to the candidate. Editors who go down the list of candidates and drop the same questions on them, it's pointless. Look through their contribs and their talk page, and if you have a question for them, ask it. Otherwise, cast your vote and go on with yourself. There's no point in asking some standard question outside of, perhaps, the recall question. Not that it even matters so much, because you can easily fail to add yourself or do so with impossible criteria. LaraLove|Talk 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, many of the "optional" questions are intended as trick questions and some even use them as "If you disagree with my opinion on the subject, I'll oppose." Terrific. Enigma message 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And I agree with Lara, of course. Additional questions should only be used to clarify a point about that particular candidate. People going around asking the same questions at every RfA is problematic. Enigma message 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the initial stance of banning trick questions (they're more trouble than they're worth) but how do we go about enforcing that? Who gets to decide whether a question qualifies as a trick question or a genuine interest in the candidate's knowledge of policy? Some of them, such as the CDB question, are no-brainers but others may not be. And, if we do agree to ban those questions and allow admins to remove them from debate, what happens with potential as per trick question 5 !votes that were cast between the question being asked initially and the time when it's removed. I guess my point is that the reason why this issue has been brought up before and no consensus was ever reached is because of the high level of interpretation of what constitutes a trick question as well as the difficulty of subsequent enforcement. Maybe I'm terribly nearsigthed for saying this but the only option I see is a strictly pre-determined set of questions without any variation whatosever which would have the drawback of the community not being able to ask a candidate any questions that might alleviate concerns specific only to that candidate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit subjective. Can somebody offer examples of inappropriate "trick questions" other than the bloody "cool-down block" meme? — CharlotteWebb 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You haven't seen Wikipedia:RfA cheatsheet? There's plenty! —Giggy 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, for a start, we can ban the CDB question from being asked. It's bloody annoying. Sceptre (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
People should be allowed to ask any question they would like as long as its not malicious. We really shouldn't tell people what they can say, and what they can't say unless, of course, it goes against wikipedias code of conduct. As for questions on cool-down blocks, they're legit. The most important criteria for adminship, in my opinion, is that the user won't misuse the tools. One way to misuse the tools is to do something that goes against policy. The blocking policy currently doesn't allow cool-down blocks, and if someone gives someone a cool-down block, they are misusing the tools. Thus its currently a legit question to ask to determine if someone will misuse the tools.--SJP (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't legit. The question is informally fallacious because, while it asks for a question, there is really only one correct answer. Sceptre (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the conventional wisdom on that point, and I can't support someone who endorses it, or who doesn't endorse it but is more interested in following some so-called "rules" than with using his or her own best judgment. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
To clarify a bit, here are the possible scenarios that can arise from this situation:
  • Says "no cool-down blocks" because he or she agrees with CW, in which case I can't support because the person is wrong
  • Says "no cool-down blocks" because, even though he or she disagrees with CW, still will follow the so-called "rules". In this case, I can't support because the person is more interested in following a bunch of so-called "rules" rather than using his or her own best judgment—not a desirable trait on a project that's supposed to be the antithesis of "rule-boundedness"
  • Is in fact favor of cool-down blocks and would in fact go ahead and make them, but goes ahead and answers "no" to pass the RFA. In this case, the person is dishonest, and so I can't support.
  • Says "Yes, cool-down blocks are fine" and really means it—I can support
  • Says "Yes, cool-down blocks are fine" but is just lying to get my support—likelihood is slim to none, given that everyone else would oppose. Certainly unlikely enough that I can, for all practical purposes, afford to ignore it.
I fail to see what's wrong with forcing people to get off the fence and take a position. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Having only one correct answer does not, by itself, make a question "tricky" or otherwise inappropriate. The problem here is the use of a non-obvious term and the lack of context (specifically the failure to answer the question "cool down from what?" before it is asked, see previous discussion, lest I continue to repeat myself). — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Feel free to argue semantics all you want but those are some pretty strict rules you follow on why you can't support someone who follows rules. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Internal rules (i.e. principles, morals, etc.) are quite different from external, arbitrary rules. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing in his list of internal rules that's not arbitrarily imposed. No difference. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just because you might not understand something, doesn't make it incorrect. Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand his rules, thank you very much. You missed my point in a very spectacular way. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, the question relates to policy. The blocking policy currently states that cool down blocks should never be given. I don't think we should ban people from asking questions that help them get a better idea of the nominees grasp of policy. You're free to have your own opinions. By the way, I appreciate you bringing up a concern you have here, even though I disagree with you:-)Cheers!--SJP (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. The blocking policy, like most other policies, has an inherent exception for when common sense needs to prevail. Sceptre (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has observed and learned at RFA for a while now - although I haven't so far felt I have sufficient knowledge or experience to vote - I'd say the only useful conclusion you can draw from a "yes" is that you're probably dealing with a candidate who is answering in good faith. (Or someone who values a yes from Kurt more than a mop and bucket. Or someone who doesn't mind snow.) Any newbie who visits RFA more than twice will know that "no, never" is required to dodge that particular booby-trap. So someone who answers yes is probably going off personal observation, and knows that short blocks have the practical effect of "time out to cool off", even if their stated aim is to protect or to prevent disruption. I happen to support the cool-down blocks policy clause, because treating fellow adults like two-year-olds having a tantrum is rarely a good way to engage their goodwill for later. It would be unhelpful if admins could issue blocks with the stated aim of cooling a user down. But I think it's a shame that a kneejerk wrong yes-or-no answer about a nuance of policy should signal game over for that RFA. Couldn't the standard question be rephrased so any thoughtful candidate would feel the need to check their understanding of the policy before they answered (thus learning the rule if they were in any way unsure)? What if you asked "Wikipedia has a policy on cool-down blocks. Please explain it in your own words, and say under what circumstances, if any, you would be prepared to issue one." It's still a trick question then, but for all the right reasons, because if they haven't the sense to go and make sure they know what the policy says, they probably shouldn't succeed in an RFA at that point. --Karenjc 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there part of Kurt's response that was specific to cool-down blocks, or would the same logic apply to all questions of the form "do you understand and follow Wikipedia policy?" I ask because there seems to be a logical flaw in Kurt's position regarding admin candidates. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There could be a flaw in your understanding of Kurt. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I will happily accept I may be wrong here and apologies if I am getting too far off topic, I think SheffieldSteel has pinpointed Kurt exactly there. As I said I may be wrong, and anyone may feel free to correct me, but any reasons that Kurt will ever give are full of logical flaws. The CDB question is a logical flaw in that there is no 'correct answer'. If you put the 'wrong' answer to the question you will lose his !vote, even if you sincerely believe that to be true. As he is stated you are 'wrong' (by which he measn that he disagrees with the policy but does not ever try and change it other than complaining that the policy is 'wrong' here). The logical flaw being that no one's opinion can be 'wrong', it may be unpopular or without merit or basis but it is not wrong. As mentioned there is no factually correct answer as the question is asked about an opinion which inherently cannot be answered wrongly. Kurt is not the only person that does this either, there are lots of 'trick' questions in which the answer is either I understand the policy and yes I'll apply it, or no I don't understand the policy but my answer if 'wrong' will lose me either one of all my support !votes

There are also examples that either certain people's reasoning is logically flawed, or his understanding of Latin is. It has been writting in the past that self noms are primae facie evidence of power hunger. Now either this user does understand that primae facie means 'on the face of it' and as such inherently implies a lack of any evidence gathering and therefore fails to comply with the instructions at the top of each RfA, or this user is intentionally refusing to check the merit of any RfA and also fails to comply with the instruction. Not everyone has wikifriends who will be willing to support them but still deserve to be admins.

Now I may be wrong but the purpose of an RfA is that we are looking to find good users who should be sysopped. We are not looking to give people an instant fail question; be that instant fail of the RfA or a question to instantly give someone a reason not to vote for the user. The instant fail is counter productive, if someone says they'd consider a CDB they're not going to pass even though they probably never would. NO one is expected to be the perfect admin before they come in to an RfA. How would they manage it? BigHairRef | Talk 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong, and no amount of appeals to faulty logic can change that. For instance, you say that the purpose of RfA is to find good users. In what way does it do that? Adopting the philosophical position that self-nomination is a prima facie reason to oppose a candidate, as Kurt does, is perfectly reasonable, and a position that has been adopted by other cultures in the past. You may not agree with that position, but that does not make it illogical. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The so-called cooldown block thing confused me; it is a trick question to me, and not all candidates know that... Blake Gripling (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you just change what BigHairRef posted above?[1] Do you really think that's a good idea? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with correcting other people's typos? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that really a serious question? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a big supporter of fixing typos in the mainspace, but it's best to leave others' comments as-is. Useight (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I say fix'em all you want, if the other person has a problem with his/her typo being fixed, then he/she'll revert. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If you ever alter anything that I've typed on a talk page, then God help you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
AGF Mal. Fixing typos is not altering comments unless you seriously cannot spell. You could in fact clarify the reasons why some editors don't like correction, instead of making borderline threats. It was a typo, not a complete rewrite of the comments. — MaggotSyn 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again. Idiotic words from idiots. It ought to be quite plain to anyone that altering another's words is completely unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So now I'm an idiot? I checked the diff and changing hte to the is absolutely nothing to overreact to. Its especially nothing to call another editor an idiot for. — MaggotSyn 03:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Headbomb, please see the last entry at Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind. -- Avi (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And leaving other people's comments alone is easier. I drop a note on their talk page if I feel something is truly egregious. Darkspots (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind

Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary.

No meaning is altered by changing "eth RfA" to "the RfA". In fact it only help the message to be more representative to what the author meant. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Before we go any firther I'd like to make it clear I dont mind my edits being sorted if it's just typos. If BG want's to spend his/her time doing it then they're welcome to do so, lord knows I generally type twice the speed I think. And additionally there was no need to call anyone idiots. Unless you sort yourselves down it's time for a cool down block ;-).

Secondly we're now completely missing the point. I'd say that opposing on those grounds alone is a logical fallacy. Linking with the finding point, if RfA's not for finding good admins what's it for? I've said in the past and I mention it again Kurt's Choice of phrase regarding prime facie is wrong (not that I mentioned Kurt in relation to that point) as he defeats the point of RfA by it. As before feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but depending on your point of view RfA is either to find good admin candidates, or to weed out bad ones correct? If it's the former its a logical fallacy to exclude someone on the face of their editing summary. If it's to weed out the bad ones it's a logical fallacy not to investigate the users contribs before making a decision. Either way the user is condemned against the logic of the test which by participating in Kurt accepts. If he dosen't then surely he realises he's wasting his time? That's then not a logical fallacy but pure stupidity, please note my emphasis of the word if.

I assume as you didn't address my first paragraph you agree with it substantially FM?

There is an implied impossibility to pass Kurt's test and therein lies the LF. If you self nom you're screwed, if you go through admin coaching you're screwed, if you don't support CDB you're screwed, if you don't support the colts you're screwed, if you think for yourself but in doing so disagree with Kurt you're screwed, if you give the answer he wants to hear he thinks your buttering him up and you're screwed, if you don't have any wikifriends to nominate you then you're screwed before you start because you don't get nominiated repeat ad infinitum.

Now assume Kurt's is the correct way to go about things, all users apply these tests, the number of admins is now 0 on wikipedia as due to varying opinions no one will ever match every single criteria of each user. How many support !votes have we seen from him? Kurt never ever contributes to discussion, in the same way that anyone who ever writes per X does exactly the same unless is is an undisputable piece of genius writing. Kurt and per Xs contribute nothing to a discussion because they add nothing other than a !vote.

I have yet to see any evidence or even anyone express an opinion that as the best example the CDB question is anything other than a trick to embarras people and slip them up. It may have started as a legitimate question in the past but it has now become a snide way in which to trip less experienced users up (and I mean experience in terms of RfA not WP generally). Iff you look at the page on Loaded question which is what this is, there is no correct answer, such a question serves no perpose other than to get a sensasionalist answer or to give you an excuse not to vote for someone if they haven't self nommed or failed any of the other tests. Such a contribution to RfA helps no one other than anyone who trolls out the question to catch unsuspecting people who have taken time out of their real lives to try and make a difference to a community project, and unfortunately, as in real life, some members of hte community would rather see others fail than do well. BigHairRef | Talk 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit of a latecomer to this discussion but I figure I will add my two cents. First of all, I do fundamentally agree with the intent behind the desire to "ban trick questions". I think that BigHairRef is correct to characterize these as "loaded questions" rather than "trick questions", because they aren't real tricky - you just have to know the rules in order to spit out the right answer. As usual I am willing to assume good faith on the part of those posing these so-called trick questions - far be it from me to assume that their intentions are to trip up an unsuspecting admin candidate and force them into a no-win situation - so much as a less than thorough attempt to assess their understanding of policies and procedures. Regardless of the intention of these questions, they do, often as not, turn in to dealbreakers for a candidate. This isn't so much a reflection of the gravity of the question itself so much as a reflection on what I view as one inherent problem with the way RfA's are conducted and reviewed. A question can only become a magic bullet if we allow it to do so, and I wonder why we (speaking collectively) have allowed one single questions, such as the CDB question, to carry so much weight? Are we equally demanding of the candidates that every single question must be answered to 100% satisfaction in order to support a candidate? A wrong answer given to the CDB question demonstrates a lack of understanding in one small facet of the blocking policy; it does not preclude a general understanding of the block policy, and says nothing to a candidate's grasp of other important policies, such as BLP or deletion policies or the like. Again, I wonder, is the problem the question, or is it the weight we give the question? If we are to set the bar so high as to disqualify potential candidates for missing one question, then why not simply reduce the RfA process to a rigorous quiz on Wikipedia policies and automatically disqualify candidates who fail to pass with 100% prior to discussion? In all serious, not even professional-level accreditation examinations have a strict requirement to answer all questions correctly and allow for some level of incorrect answers, because it is presumed that the candidate will learn to master those deficiencies while practicing their profession. Why shouldn't it be the same with admin candidates? Is the CDB issue so incredibly paramount that getting tripped up on this one question should overshadow a candidate's credentials overall? Are there other, singular facets of policy that are so overwhelmingly important that we cannot promote a candidate who has not mastered understanding of said policy? If so, perhaps these "trick questions" are valuable and should remain. If not, perhaps we need to reevaluate just how much stock we, as the reviewers and evaluators of these candidacies, are placing in said questions rather than debating whether or not we ought to ban them outright. Shereth 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a Friendly Reminder

This section's name is "Banning Trick Questions from the RfA process", not "OMFG YOU CHANGED hte TO the!!!!!!!!!111!!!111111!!!!1!1!!"--Koji†Dude (C) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not going to be as boisterous and in your face Koji, he has a point. While it's generally "frowned" upon to modify text from another user, it's not the end of the world in this instance, and it's certainly not enough to detour an entire thread. Knock it off. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you two just mind your own business? I've said what I wanted to say, I don't agree with you or your attitude to what happened, and that's the end of the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've Got a Proposal for ya

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

Can we leave RfA the way it is?--Koji†Dude (C) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering it's virtually impossible to implement changes, I don't have any compunction with leaving it the way it is. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. If we did, then we won't have anything to occupy our time. I mean, write articles? What are you, nuts? —Kurykh 23:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's always copy-editting. --Koji†Dude (C) 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No, we came here to sling mud at each other, you should know that. :) In all seriousness though, I believe that while there might be improvements that can be made, there is really nothing wrong with the current system. —Kurykh 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait until RREV is over. I doubt anything serious will happen after it's finished; we can't seem to reach a consensus at all. The sad fact is, Iridescent is right—WP:DEAL is no longer true, and RfA is almost entirely a vote, not a discussion. Hopefully feedback at RREV can help improve our current situation. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I support no change for the sake of no change! — BQZip01 — talk 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

strongest support ever Naerii 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. Support per Kurkyh and WP:NOTAVOTE. —Giggy 11:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. We should not fear change. There are too many concerns to let all of them fly out of the window for no reason. — MaggotSyn 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Redirect ...what? Do you know how rarely I get to !vote Redirect? Cut me some slack.--Koji†Dude (C) 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Speedy keep per nom. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Two and a half Needs more experience with AfD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support per my discussion on IRC, and so do all my sockpuppets. – ırıdescent 15:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support I view RFA Change proposals as Lis alibi pendens evidence of things better discussed elsewhere. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - Per Nom. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Mizu onna sango15's brilliantly eminent argument. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Comment The blinking support is the worst. Make it stop, make it stop! Gary King (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Absolutely The most stupendously brilliant proposal ever on wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Strong support. Wizardman 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    Comment We won't be able to make Rfa better by changing the actual system. What needs to change is the Rfa regulars. Its not really helpful to just say "Support he'll make a fine admin" or "Oppose Per comments made above." People need to take the time to actually explain why they think the person won't make a good admin, or will make a good admin.--SJP Chat 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Redundant Support intentionally out of place and after discussion closed IAW WP:IAR!!! — BQZip01 — talk 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose Anything can change if it is supported and I (as does everyone) reserve the right to bring proposals to the community's attention, try taking that way from me :P   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the reason why I do not like going on the RFA talk anymore. bibliomaniac15 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see humor as a good thing every now and then. If you don't like it, just close the discussion. It didn't get too out of hand. — MaggotSyn 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I like humor just as much as you and the guy next door, and I have no intention of closing the discussion. I was merely voicing a opinion. bibliomaniac15 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I just found your opinion contrary to your rationale for not posting here. I myself rarely post here, but this is only because of the edit conflicts. — MaggotSyn 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Signatures

What do you think of making it mandatory for comments in the question and answer section to be signed (and timestamped)? This is the only area on Wikipedia in the project and talk namespaces that I have come across where "please sign your posts" does not apply. No negative effects come to mind. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See above section. In all seriousness though, I don't have a problem with this, but it may make the area a tad messier. Useight (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC on adminbots

A RFC on adminbots has been opened, here. --ChetblongTalk/ARK 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have contributed to an FA before you can possibly become admin? Simply south (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: it isn't. Long answer: many RFA !voters like to see that a candidate has contributed to the mainspace and creating (or significantly working on) an FA is a good way to show that the candidate creates content. Useight (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Has the trend gone so far as to convince users that you must have an FA to become an admin? God forbid! bibliomaniac15 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I sure hope not. I've seen the RFA criteria pages of many users and I don't recall many, if any at all, that listed an FA as a requirement. Useight (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the title and the question was the ad.


Simply south (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If that ever becomes a requirement, I won't be an admin for years. :-) Simply south, most RFA "voters" are simply looking for dedication, (here long term), WP:CLUE, and a reasonably active and clean history. Others have more specific requirements and the "length of service" varies, and the community will never ever never ever agree on standardized criteria, including FA/GA, so don't worry 'bout it. If you are passionate about the FA process, go for it! If not, your dispassion will be perceived and it will hurt you more than it helps. Do what you like to do here! Whatever it is, your contributions (unless they're vandalism :0)! are appreciated. Keep up the good work! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"Won't be an admin for years?" Um, Keeper, don't look now, but you're already an admin. :P Useight (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
...hence the smiley face. (I thought my sarcasm was thick enough...:-) I fooled everyone months ago. I still have 0 FAs, 0 GAs, 0 DYKs, 0 reports to AIV, and 0 of a whole lotta other things I'm sure that others are currently opposed for. It simply proves to me that RFA is broken, and we (collectively) are being way way too hard on each other. Adminship is about trust and dedication to Wikipedia. Some of the best candidates have mountains of FAs, and years of dedicated article building contributions. Some other candidates that I've supported have mountains of article protection, or mountains of article maintenance. Currently, I firmly believe we need more article author/admins. I've been nominating along those lines. The pendulum may swing again, where we need more vandy-fighting admins, I can move with that. Either way, I'm very glad, as much as I detest RFA in its vulgarity and brutality, that it does not have any strict "must have....x" requirements in order to pass. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying I worked on those FAs for nothing? :p Gary King (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying you should work on FAs because you want to work on FAs. If you don't, it will be apparent that you are merely trying to win at the RFA game. (I'm not saying that's true about you Gary, I've never looked at your contribs - simply that it is definitely a trend lately to jump through fiery hoops in order to gain the "rfa trophy" in general). Don't be that guy. Do what you like here on-wiki. If you start doing things you don't like, in order to get a coupla extra measly buttons, what the hell makes you (again, not you Gary, you in general) think that you'll enjoy adminning those same areas that you begrudgingly editted to get adminship? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I WikiGnome because that's what I like to do, if you like making FAs, do that. Find whatever you enjoy and keep doing that. If you don't do what you like, you're likely to burn out. Useight (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

←The ad is somewhat tongue in cheek, but if you meet a good deal of those criteria, you will likely do well at RFA> –xenocidic (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We're all volunteers and you should do what you want to do, something that I try to emphasize in my admin coaching. Trying to force people into doing stuff that they're bad at in order to get the tools doesn't work, and I think is one of the things we have to address with the process. Oh, and Gary, you should be working on those FAs and FLs to blow apart the standings at WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN, not necessarily for the +sysop bit if you want something tangible to shoot for :p. Rule of thumb though is that good article contributions always help. I think I snuck through because of that =) Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Haha, if you take a look at the articles I work on, they range from a wide variety of topics, so no, I'm not purposely shooting for high rankings ;) That would be a nice side-effect though :p Gary King (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I never really stopped to read the RFA ad, but from what I see, it's uncannily true. bibliomaniac15 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_137"