Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 141

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 135

←

Archive 139

→

When in doubt...

Okay, we've all seen some of the prima facie opposes of Mr. Kurt Weber here. Some of us have made a parody of his opposes (myself included); some have gotten angry at Kurt; some believe his reasoning is beyond belief; well, fellow Wikipedians, don't get worked up because of one user's opinion (which he is entitled to)! I sure hope I don't get a spanking because of this, but here is my multi-purpose "I'm-so-angry-because-something-or-someone-on-Wikipedia-is-so-unfair" remedy that you can use for pretty much anything, not just RfAs:

Close the window that is making you angry, immediately
Open a new window
Go to Conservapedia and read five articles and their respective talk pages

This, for some reason, cools me down. I seem to just forget about my problems, and when I remember, I say, "Who cares?" I hope this helps in whatever haphazard situation you may come across. Also, no disrespect towards Kmweber here; it's just some people get worked up over his reasoning so to me it was something people could relate to. Cheers - C L — 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As said, Kurt is entitled to his own opinion. Supporting just to counter the oppose really hurts the process (although all the Admin-Hopefuls seem to be good. Kurt supports or opposes based on what he feels helps the project, in his own belief. Everyone has their own opinions.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. If I ever felt the need to support to counter an oppose, I could see where that just doesn't work. But this doesn't just apply to Kurt, I guess it's just whenever you need to take a deep breath, right? C L — 07:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I actually have to hand it to you; that really works. I have to say, one look at "Homosexuality" is good for an lol or two. I wonder if this works for off-wiki problems, too? Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC).

Why does this subject need to be belabored time and time again - no offense to the creator of this thread, especially if they are unaware as to how many times this has been discussed, but Kurt's oppose rationales are divisive and create dissent, nothing's going to change that. However, if somebody needs to make themselves counter-angry by reading something as contentious as Conservapedia, then maybe they should think twice about participating in RfA at that moment. You shouldn't be angry while doing so. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom's got a good point. If you're in such a pissed off mood that Kurt pushes your buttons to this extent, participating in RfA at all isn't a good idea.--Koji Dude ^(C) 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt's opposes do no harm, and quite possibly help more than they hinder. Candidates should thank him for opposing with such ridiculous reasons - they cause sympathy supports. Plus the fact that he doesn't dig up any "real dirt" on the candidate rarely causes anyone to oppose if they weren't going to already. Alright, enough beans for today. –xeno (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about Kurt, everyone. The point I'm trying to get home is if you ever get worked up about something on an RfA, don't immediately follow your instinct and pounce like a tiger on that user, just take some time to calm down. I sure know when I could have done that. Again, Kurt Weber isn't really the focus of my comment up above. I didn't mean the discussion to come to this - C L — 23:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Should I nominate myself?

I am thinking about nominating myself, but I would be happy to get a few comments from RfA regulars first so I don't waste everybodys time. I have been editing for years with no problems, and I think I know Wikipedia quite well now. I don't think many would recognize my name though, as I haven't socialized much and I never edited very intensively, just a few hundred edits per month at most (1835 total, 962 in mainspace [1]). It seems Wikipedia needs more admins and I think I could help. Especially with images (IfDs, images with various deletion tags, etc.) as I have worked quite a lot with correcting wrong copyright tags, non-free use rationales, moving to Commons and such. I'm not much of a vandal hunter, but I think I am quite good at keeping my head cool and could help in disputes. I don't make enemies often. On the minus side, I haven't written large parts of many articles. I mostly make smaller changes. Could Wikipedia use and admin like me, even if I don't edit every day? Thank you for any comments. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best place to ask for something like this... but I will tell you that only 1800+ edits is definitely not enough edits. I would suggest 4000+ edits with a good amount of quality edits in them. A few WP:DYKs/WP:GAs/WP:FAs would be nice also, along with some participation in adminly areas (WP:XFD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, ect). I would most likely oppose if you were to have an RfA now... but I don't think this is the right place to ask questions like that. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the need to make threads like this, then no, you shouldn't nominate yourself. naerii 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hold on just one second Naerii - why does this show he shouldn't nominate himself? This seems like a perfectly legitimate request for a pre-RfA screening, especially when he's got a relatively low edit count compared to most successful candidates. I'm not sure why you're attempting to hold this against him. Apoc2400 - See Friday below for some good thoughts about running. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a large amount of edits by some standards, but your editing history goes back a few years, so this is a plus. I think most reasonable editors don't put too much stock in edit counts anyway, as long as there's enough for people to judge your contributions. The only real way to answer your question would be to go ahead and nominate yourself (or have someone do it.) In my view, anyone who's been around and reasonably active for a few years without causing trouble is probably a good candidate. Generally, if someone is a kook or troublemaker, it becomes apparent before years have gone by. Post-edit conflict response: I don't see anything wrong with asking this question. And, if you're going to ask this question, I can't think of a better place for it than right here. So, I don't agree with the above objections. Friday (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't see a lot of "using TW" in your edit summaries, so go ahead and multiply that number by 10 if anyone asks about edit count. This will put you on approximately even ground with the button mash kiddies. Friday (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Indeed it would be a plus, and Apoc being here for a long amount of time with no trouble or harm with fine edits would help him... and I may have a change of heart and support. Regarding nominating yourself (or someone nominating you), it's solely up to you, but I say go for it if you think your ready. Your the best person to judge weather your ready for adminship or not. -- RyRy (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that making blanket statements against Twinkle users (Twinkle, n. a tool that makes common Wikipedia edits more efficient) is just about as insightful as using edit counts as a basis to support/oppose. Tan ǀ 39 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

TW can hurt when you have too much and nothing else, it doesn't increase a low count.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that is exactly the mentality that needs to go. You've seen it; a user has 4000 non-Twinkle mainspace edits and passes, while a user who has 5000 non-twinkle mainspace edits and 10,000 additional Twinkle edits will fail as a "robot". The edits should be judged on their own merit and not on the tool used to perform them. Being "anti-Twinkle" is just another way of spreading editcountitis. Tan ǀ 39 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notice the key word, can not will. Using twinkle CAN hurt, if you over rely upon it and don't use your own discretion and edit on your own. Using it doesn't mean that it will hurt---I praised your use of it during your RfA/coaching. I have zero problem saying that using TWINKLE can hurt, because it can.... just as over using/participating in many areas.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In all honestly, I don't think you would have much of a chance of passing. While you have been making edits for a long time, there are only a handful of months where you've made more than 100 edits... and if you look at the past 7 months (excluding July) you have made a total of 150 edits. This is not nearly enough to demonstrate a firm understanding of policies or to give us a sense of who/what you are.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You would be an ever greater asset to Wikipedia with admin tools. You will not pass RFA at this time. The irony hangs heavy. Pedro : Chat 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Apoc would be a good administrator, indeed. S/he wouldn't pass if s/he were to add an RfA now... but I would support when this user has more experience with general editing with more activity. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr, so RyRy, basically you belive this editor would be fine with the tools, but you won't support at the moment, but may in the future with more activity? Pedro : Chat 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I should have said "Apoc would be a good administrator in the future probably". I would probably support in the future, but not now... -- RyRy (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you caught the irony :) Sorry to be poking at your expense, and it's not directed at you RyRy at all - I respect you sound opinion here - but the general "I'll vote for you in three months" concept seems a little odd to me. If they can do the job now get them in and edit count / tenure be damned. If you think they can't then oppose or neutral; But never go down the line of "yeah, you'll be fine, but I need another x'000 edits to back me up". It doesn't help Wikipedia. Pedro : Chat 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

well the problem then isn't the sentament, but rather the wording of the comment. I won't tell somebody that I will vote for them in 3 months... because if I don't have enough data today to make an educated decision, then I don't have enough data today to commit to something 3 months down the road. People who say, "come back in 3 months and I'll support" should really be saying, "come back in 3 months and I will review you then." Apoc may be a great admin, he just doesn't meet the expectations of the community to get the tools. If he wants them, then he needs to be more active and come back in 4 or 5 months.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Point, Pedro, of course, no one should base their vote solely on edit count. But most times the vote is to be interpreted as "I need to see more of you to know if my impression is correct" and that's fine I think. If you think we need more admins, Pedro, you should go and nominate a few dozen people. There are 1159 people currently willing to be nominated ;-) So Why ^{review me!} 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, one does ones best. And Balloonman, I agree - I'm playing devil's advocate in a sense. Apoc is clearly on the right road, but equally an RFA would fail under the current criteria the community has come to expect. Yet we delude ourselves by opposing changes to the RFA header to discourage editors with < 2k/3k edits or 3month/4month tenure (whatever). Simple facts are that we shoot ourselves in the foot often at RFA and in the porcess make silly statements implying future support. I'm not saying the "standards" of the community are wrong. I'm saying the way we communicte them are. As an example the whole reason WP:NOTNOW exists is from a prior debate to try not to discourage potential admins by throwing WP:SNOW at them. Pedro : Chat 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy, there are now 44 fewer admin hopefuls... why? Because I looked at about 55 of them last night. The 44 where I took off the category box had not been active in a minimum of 4 months---but most hadn't made an edit this year! There was also one who hadn't made any edits in 2008, until yesterday when he made about 20 edits! Of the remaining 10 or so... around 3 had fewer than 1000 edits, about 3 had been inactive for extended periods but had enough edits that I didn't feel comfortable labeling them inactive. Around 4 were actively editing with a decent number of edits. I didn't dig into their histories to see if they would make decent candidates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point of course. Most people in that category most likely consider adminship a trophy but will never meet the criteria anyone would expect from them. I just wanted to point out that there are many who want to help and those only have to be nominated if decent. Of course it might only be 2% of them in this category but that would still be 20 possible new admins. Someone would just need the patience to dig through all those 1100+ users and find those 20 and that surely is a tedious task I don't really expect someone to do... So Why ^{review me!} 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it now, I think a bot could be used to clear that category, checking all users and removing the template on those user pages who have not edited in 2008. But I guess that needs some kind of consensus to delete stuff from other people's user pages? So Why ^{review me!} 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the category with a note to the talk page explaining why I did it with the rationale that people use the category to find potential candidates. As it stands now, the category is worthless because of the inactive editors. It takes too long to find active editors.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I thought a bot could do the work. I have posted it to the Village Pump to see if I could get some input on the idea... Regards So Why 08:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I will consider it again when I have more time to dedicate to Wikipedia. It's not like there is any lack of things to do without admin tools anyway. Cheers! --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

While I can't say much that has already been said above, a great place to get feedback from your Wikipedian peers is editor review - while not specifically designed to gauge/assess abilities for admin hopefuls, it usually can be a small part of the review. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You should also check out admin coaching. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 06:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reason I personally did not suggest that was because I know quite a few editors who view admin coaching as a formalized program for manufacturing "good" RfA candidates, not potentially helpful administrators. I don't feel that way, but others do, so I made a promise not to recommend it to others as it may turn out to be a form of accidental self-sabotage. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Pedro entirely, for the record. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also encourage you to look at possibly an editor review, as these can be great for finding new areas or opporunities to get involved in. Even if you don't think that admin coaching is for you, mentoring from an experienced admin or editor may be of benefit. Gazi moff 10:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread illustrates the problem with RFA: it's the voters. It is a vote, and completely nonsensical votes appear to carry the same weight as reasonable ones. It's supposed to be about gauging the clue level of the candidate, and instead it's about "make sure this number is larger than x". Friday (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Enigma ^message 15:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Apoc2400. The RFA standards keep changing and by today's standards, your edit count would be on the lower side. As bureaucrats, we don't look for a fixed value, no matter what people scores come up with. Its not the count that matters, but the quality of edits. In the old days (3-4 years ago), an edit count of 1000 in the mainspace would be perfect. I don't see why you should not run. now, having a low edit count does not invalidate your aptitude. While putting up your RFA, you need place a strong justification for the need to use them, explain why your edit count is low, demonstrate experience in understanding and enforcing wikipedia policies (deletion criteria, copyrights and so on), and also pitch forward on how you have made a positive contribution to wikipedia. Since you mention that you usually don't spend time 'socializing' that could create a bit of a bother. Also keep in mind that most reviewers look for discussions on talk pages to gauge the psychological profile of the candidate. If you have a low trail, its difficult to predict how you may handle a real pressure-cooker like situation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nichalp and offer this...even if an RFA is unsuccessful, do not consider it a "failure" as an unsuccessful RFA provides valid input as to what areas the community feels you need to work on for your next, hopefully successful, RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Apoc2400, I'd support you. Let me know if you nominate yourself. —Giggy 03:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought?

I haven't posted here in a while, but what do people think of Wikiversity's adminship procedure? Could his be an answer for en.wp, perhaps with some tweaking and adjustment? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading that right, they sysop you automatically on request, then have an RFA vote after a month on whether to take it away from you again. If that is the case, on a project this size it's practically an open invitation to every vandal to create multiple accounts who'll get a four-week-vandalism-spree each – don't see how it could really work. – iride scent 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If I read that right, it still needs to be done by a bureaucrat and you need an admin as mentor, who by that logic then is responsible for the actions of this user. So there is a oversight as well. I think the idea is not bad, it allows people to judge the candidates based on their performance and there is some oversight still because of the mentorship. Of course with this project there need to be other criteria, like multiple mentors to avoid favors for users who know each other in real life. So Why ^{review me!} 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously defective admin accounts are already quickly dealt with here, so I don't agree with Iridescent's objection. But, I could see it becoming true that such an easy-come easy-go approach would increase the number of emergencies that need dealt with. I don't remember if the software issue is fixed yet where blocked admins can unblock themselves and otherwise use admin tools. If it's not, it would probably need to be, before implementing such a suggestion. Then, bad admin accounts would be quickly dealt with and, presumably, reviewed later by the crats to be sure the account was rightly blocked. Granting adminship liberally to those who seek it is really no more preposterous than "anyone can edit", yet it's extremely hard to get the community to see this. Friday (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposal. As Friday says, there's nothing wrong with giving out bits on request. However, we should make it so we can weed out vandals: on the request end, a required tenure (3 months/2000 edits?) and no major incidents (blocks or notable disruption in the four weeks), and a good enough reason (like we do for rollback now); and on the abuse end, allowing crats to desysop (but only in the manner stewards are empowered to do so). We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from this. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't rouge or vandal admins. It's admins that operate at the edge of policy. Having a automatic RFA at the end of a trial period is a good thing but the problem will be that (for example) an new admin is a little over enthusiastic about speedy deletions. At the RFA, the issue won't be the editor but deletion policy. One side will say that the deletions were good and another will say they were out of process. It won't focus on the editor. Another problem I see is that in many cases the editor won't have been very active with the tools and will leave the RFA with little to go on. You may say that that's the way it is now, and that'd be right but I think we need a fairly compelling reason to make a substantial change to the RFA process.

Just as a side note, whenever RFA suggestions come up I see people focusing on the possibility of rouge admins. I don't think that's the biggest concern. Admins that create controversy by repeatedly using the tools out on the edge of policy are way more of a problem. It's common place for AN/I to have a long thread trying to thrash out a solution for a admin using the tools in a controversial manner. We can all think of admins that appear there regularly. They are the time sink and are the ones that do real damage. RxS (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a fairly compelling reason to make a substantial change to the RFA process --- how about the RfA process is broken and 90% of the people know it? The problem is, that I don't see any proposal that can fix the problems without creating new ones. I personally favor granting the tools out piecemeal... but that's just me.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't just you. Breaking up the toolkit seems to me to be the only sane approach to the insanity that RfA has become. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say compelling reason I mean a particular process change that clearly answers a widely recognized existing problem without unintended, unwanted side effects. Not just saying RFA is broken. How is it broken, exactly (that isn't fundamental to how decisions are made all across Wikipedia)? I'm curious where you get the 90% figure. I agree though that (as in this example) there hasn't been alternative proposed that is clearly better than the current process. RxS (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposals for change should come to a halt while Gazimoff and others complete the RFA Review. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think so? I doubt it, some people will always think a process is flawed and propose changes to it... So Why ^{review me!} 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason that many people complain that RfA is broken is because it is. I don't care what WP:PEREN or any other ridiculous page says - most people who believe RfA is broken believe that it's broken in that it causes too much idiocy (or, "drama", if you like) over something simple. Both breaking up the tools or doing it Wikiversity style are brilliant ideas compared to the current system. I'm not too concerned about what Iridescent brought up; does he really have that little faith in the bureaucrats? I suppose RfB would have to stay, though; that's a necessary (but, thankfully, rare) evil. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, darn. I was hoping for your support when I asked for that particular bit :) Pedro : Chat 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you be sure that the idiocy is of the process, not the voters? A process by itself is incapable of creating drama, only the actual people can create drama. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A process could be said to produce drama if the average person was incapable in participating in it without doing so. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Would the average person be editing Wikipedia? :) In all seriousness, the majority I have seen pass by quietly. It is only when we have a very well-known user like Giggy that we have an explosion. It is the constant bickering and questioning that I find unacceptable, rather than any screwed process. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree; it's just that when it's so big (as Giggy's was) or for a very controversial or well known editor (Giggy was well know, though I don't know about controversial), it's far more noticeable, but there's silliness of that type in a fair portion of RfAs, I suspect, even some extremely innocuous-seeming ones. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea but I'd suggest a little tweaking. Perhaps nomination by a current administrator and then immediate promotion, followed by an RfA-style vote/discussion/whatever your stance is on what this is, to decide how well the candidate is doing and whether they should keep the tools. The downside is that this is another workload for administrators in having to find good candidates to keep up with the demand for administrators currently. The upside is, by my opinion only, a better-run administrative system with much less potential for abuse. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 12:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re SoWhy: I didn't mean it how I think you may have taken it. Gazimoff initiated an in depth review of the process, which I've linked above. I think those inclined to make proposals here, while that review is in progress, should instead participate in the review. A great deal of information has been gathered and is being processed now. So it seems more productive there, considering the focused energy, and also because this page is historically a black hole for proposals for change. :D Sorry for the confusion. I was not clear in my wording. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up

I'm currently requesting approval for an admin bot. --Chris 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be very helpful. if we could get wider input on this request, even if it is of the 'I don't mind'/'Nowai!' sort, please. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Support, but a beansy thought that someone will need to watch for; presumably if it's run every 10 minutes, a vandal can vandalize a template, add it to the article after vandalizing, and the bot would then lock the template into the vandalized state. Not a major problem but it will happen. Also, will it unprotect all the templates once the article's delisted, or only those that were unprotected to start with? – iride scent 16:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up the adminship tools

Hi guys. Seems this page is still alive and kicking despite my absence from it. :-) Anyways, something that has been bugging me occassionally has been getting an error when attempting to move a page over a redirect with more than one edit, and being stopped because I'm not an admin.

Would there be any objections to proposing (rollback style) the splitting up of that user right (I have no idea what it's called, surely someone (probably MBisanz!) will though) for people like me? I ask here first since, well, it's a pretty active place. :-) Cheers. —Giggy 03:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I think this would require significant changes to the software, and I can't see it as a priority for developer time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Giggy, as far as I can tell, that is not a separate userright that could be split out. It's just linking the Deletion right to the Pagemove right, so the only way it could be granted would be to grant Deletion and Move rights, which would mean any page could be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Bummer. Thanks anyway. —Giggy 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there goes the "desire for the tools" gripe. Not that I believed in that bullshit anyway. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin

I'm awesome. Think I can win if I self nominate? --Endless Dan 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd tentatively suggest not. Your block log will probably cause you problems. Hope this helps, Gazi moff 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gazimoff about the likelyhood of success, but if it'll be anything like your ArbCom run I think you oughta' do it anyway. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I'm glad I've got your support. I'm kick-ass, so maybe I can garner a few votes with that. I know Friday has got my back. --Endless Dan 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Plz do. naerii 15:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think lifebaka has a point, but I doubt it will be helpful if you refer to yourself as awesome and kick-ass all the time, people might think you are really narcissistic and not be able to be neutral in disputes. So Why ^{review me!} 15:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding, baby. I kick face on the regular. I can't help it. You ask 'why?', I say 'why not?'. --Endless Dan 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll pass. I'd recommend WP:ER and WP:ADCO before you stand (and you'll never get the mop if you carry on all this 'awsome' and 'kick-ass' nonsense...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense? Maybe to you. But this is a way of being, broseph. That other junk you mentioned seems like too much work. I think I'm advanced enough to be the best admin, like, ever. Despite what you say, ya Negative Nancy. --Endless Dan 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatchoo drinkin Jersey? It's too early in the A-M for this bud. If you run for admin, I'll support. Then, later, I'll oppose to nullify your support of yourself. Then, when you switch to Oppose like you did at Arb-Nomm, I'll switch to support again. Keeper ǀ 76 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper! Just testing the waters for a potential ~~dictatorship~~ adminship.--Endless Dan 15:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who don't know/remember, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Endlessdan/Questions for the candidate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Dendodge and SoWhy: You do realize he's joking, right? Enigma ^message 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I considered that but my point is that even if he is, most people will not see that and thus will surely base their votes on that. The internet is a very bad medium to be joking or sarcastic when not using smileys to indicate it :-) So Why ^{review me!} 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Joking? Who's joking? My name is not Parker Brothers. I don't play games. --Endless Dan 15:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How can we trust you when you were so wrong about Eli Manning? RxS (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I love that man. And sometimes when you love someone so much, you say and do crazy things. Haven't you ever been in love? I was wrong. I said some hurtful things and I wish I could take them back. Its just that... he had broken my heart so many times before... [[I didn't think he was capable of what he went ahead and did. --Endless Dan 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Support More of a Capt Kirk guy than a Spock guy. Good man. RxS (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Remember WP:NBD - You seem to want to become an administrator just for the tools, but that's not the way to do it. I've had an editor review and I'm nearing the end of my admin coaching - it's not hard work and you learn stuff. Adminship is not a trophy, and (no offence meant) big-headed people like yourself (no matter how 'awesome' you are) are not going to gain the community's trust. Sorry...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 16:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I says I want the tools? I want the title. It seems like you're making assumptions. Remember, assume good faith. Haven't you completed WP:ER? --Endless Dan 16:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By the powers not vested in me, I hereby bestow the title of administrator for EndlassDan. EndlessDan is now an official administratorious sans toolium. Dan don't need no tools, Dan is a tool. And refreshingly so. Keeper ǀ 76 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Keeper. Your unwavering support will not be forgotten. My title and I will be going back to the hole I crawled out of. But heed this message, Keeper and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (section) talk page dwellers, my official-official run at adminship will be forthcoming... whenever I get around to it. With the weekend coming up, I can't fucks with you people during 'me' time. --Endless Dan 16:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Methinks the entertainment factor might be worth the price of admission :P Garycompugeek (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the term we're looking for here is honorary administrator? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whip up some nifty graphics and those congrats things people get, I'm buying. Honorary administrator. I like it. --Endless Dan 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that anyone even considered that Dan was serious is somewhat of a reflection on RfA. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming he's not serious is just about as dangerous as assuming he is. He is a longtime contributor, with hundreds of positive contribs, a horrible blocklog, a "tell it like I see it" attitude usually the cause of the block. I would support his RFA, if only to shake up the cabalism and groupthink that currently exists. Keeper ǀ 76 21:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. An unorthodox and somewhat in-your-face attitude doesn't necessary indicate facetiousness or insincerity. If the editor is serious, and I think he/she might be, then wait a bit so that the shadow of the block-log no longer lingers/looms. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was extremely obvious after his second comment (perhaps not immediately with his first), actually, but each to their own. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh, I forgot to mention his record of "facetious" (as you put it, though I don't see how joking around with a process is off-colour) nominations of himself, which I think made it practically certain. It may be dangerous to assume otherwise, but really, one can't assume anything slightly risky with that attitude, even if it was practically certain. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He has lost too much HP by now for an epic win. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but his DPS is off the chart. Gazi moff 10:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New administrator mentorship

I've created Wikipedia:New administrator mentorship. I hope that new adminsitrators can be hooked up with more experienced sysops and learn to use the tools on the job so to speak. They'd need to pass an RfA, but this would be a good way for newer admins to get all the help they require without making mistakes. In the long run, I sort of hope this might lead to lower RfA standards for people that don't have a lot of admin experience prior to running for an RfA). I'd appreciate all the help I can get setting this up, and from experienced administrators who wish to offer mentorship. I really hope we can turn this into a successful project. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, and I'd be happy to help, but I'd like to get a fair bit more experience under my belt first. Best of luck though! Gazi moff 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea! The amount of RfAs which fail based upon one or two flaws in the candidates structure. This would allow several users to pass through the system and be mentored on the things they are weakest on. Fantastic :) —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 20:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Great idea but shouldn't that be part of WP:NAS? I think it should have such an option for new admins that passed RfA, something like WP:ADOPT for admins... So great idea but you should think about integrating it into the new admin school imho. So Why 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The idea is smart and useful, but it seems to overlap with NAS. They should probably be merged in some form. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll sign up to be a student if I ever pass an RfA...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 20:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I would really rather not have to take the time and do something like admin coaching. After all, we have had 1500 admins who have done a good job figuring it out by themselves. I'm willing to answer questions, but I would really rather not do sysop babysitting. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be something like WP:ADOPT for sysops (maybe WP:ADOPTAA (adopt an admin^^)?) and I think that is what Ryan Postlethwaite intended it to be: To have an experienced admin to turn to with questions you cannot figure out yourself. So Why 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, SoWhy hit the nail on the head - it's just about creating a partnership between a new and old admin. It would work similar to WP:ADOPT, or however the partnership want to do things. Different mentors will have different tactics. Different mentee's will want different things - there's no right or wrong thing to do. With regards to NAS, I think they're different things completely, and should be kept seperate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

*hides the hammer* Me? Hitting nails? Never!!! You can't prove anything!!! :-D

Seriously, good to know I grasped the idea. It's a great one and if I ever become an admin, I will enroll in that program (if it still exists by then^^). As for integrating in NAS, you should at least consider having a section there to explain the idea and to point new admins to the mentorship page (and you need a nifty shortcut, but which one? WP:NAM is already taken...WP:ADMENT maybe? :D). So Why 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created the shortcut WP:NADM for New ADministrator Mentorship. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAS is more like a training and reference manual for the basics. It doesn't help with those tricky situations that you might be placed into where a 2nd opinion would be very useful before you take action, rather than a post to WP:AN describing what you've done and seeing if people agree with you. Hope that makes sense. Gazi moff 10:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

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

RfA blanked by author and courtesy deleted. Nothing here to see, move along. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

dear adminstors i made a new seshon but the same detals you will understand what i did —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew 8965 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(Seems to refer to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matthew 8965). — Athaenara ✉ 06:03, 17 August 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.

hi

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

Probably sockpuppet of Matthew 8965. Nothing more to discuss. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

with a new page am i allowed to put in my game clan?? EDIT i have seen other pplz make websites about themselfs why cant i???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixcluster (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, this is the wrong page for it. Second, unless it is a very big game clan with reports in newspapers and such, I'd say no. See WP:N for further information. So Why 10:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try posting your question at the help desk, or preferably, the new user's help desk. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:56, 17 August 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.

heads up

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_admin_recall_process_is_dead Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Might as well also mention the new CFD on AOR which was started in response to the AN thread. Dragons flight (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My own thought is that the CfD is premature (although it took a long time to say it), and that we should wait until consensus is reached on keeping AOR or not before staring to delete stuff left right and centre. I don't think that this can be solved within the 5 day timeframe of a CfD/MfD, and needs to be thrashed out thouroughly beforehand.Gazi moff 09:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree...I feel like the CfD was a posturing move, that was ill timed and last I checked doomed to fail.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions

Is there a guideline regarding the use of optional questions? If not, I would be happy to write one (subject to the usual review and editing from other editors of course). Axl (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a load of information at WP:RREV/R based on the 200+ responses to the initial survey. You might want to join in there once the analysis is complete. Hope this helps, Gazi moff 12:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm disappointed that I missed out on the chance to contribute. In any case, I look forward to reading the recommendations. Axl (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Something I've been thinking of is limiting optional questions to "specific questions". That is questions like "can you explain why you used rollback here?" or "why did you bite this newbie?". General questions, questions that could be asked of any candidate, such as "Do you intend to edit Wikipedia while skydiving?" or "can you compose a haiku?" would have to be discussed here first and if there is a consensus to do so, they would be added to the default questions that all candidates are asked to answer. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose that. One nice thing about asking hypotheticals is that it brings it lack of policy understanding issues on things like blocks v. bans or when to apply page protection that would otherwise not be caught, because the candidates don't have any experience with that. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like that would be too restrictive. However, I do think it might be good to promote a general understanding that cut and pasting generic questions is frowned upon. Of course, it doesn't seem like most folks are actually against that afaict. Maybe an essay along the lines of WP:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions would be a good idea, to set out some common practices and things to avoid for questions. delldot talk 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Desire or use for the tools

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Choess

I am currently being accosted for opposing due to the candidate's seeming lack of interest in the tools, and for their not explaining what they intend to use them for. (Saying that they will get around to it eventually, suggests to me that there is no current "need".)

Anyway, I've laid out my reasoning there. After reading it, I'd appreciate your (plural) thoughts on this. After all, perhaps consensus has changed in regards to this. - jc37 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it here to avoid clogging the RFA – I think "doesn't need the tools" (as opposed to "doesn't understand the tools") is a very weak argument. I was a "classic" doesn't need the tools candidate, but even though I've never focussed on adminny things since then, along the way I've performed 300+ blocks and 1900+ deletes, none of which have seriously been argued against (aside from one controversial block, on which the jury's still out). As long as the candidate can be trusted not to misuse the tools, I don't see why any user shouldn't be given them. – iride scent 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you rather clearly indicated what you would (and wouldn't) use the tools for. - jc37 22:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this rationale has gone the way of the dodo... the questions that are currently envouge are 1) Do we trust the user? 2) Does the user know policy? 3) Does the user build consensus? The basic idea being, if you give the tools to a trustworthy candidate, who understands policy, and won't abuse the tools, then it doesn't really matter if they need the tools or not. If the user makes 1 protection or blocks one vandal, then their having the tools is a net benefit to the project.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. (agree with balloonman). It isn't about need. It's about desire. I don't want new admins that are solely looking to block new users, or solely looking to delete new pages. I'm looking for Wikipedians. Those that are here for the betterment of Wikipedia. If they use the tools once per year, to move a page over a redirect, then there is no harm done in allowing them access to the tools that allow them to move a page over a redirect. It really is that simple. If you think otherwise, you are dilluting yourself. Keeper ǀ 76 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Baloonman's 3 points of criteria. However, I think that that's putting the cart before the horse. And further, what you both seem to be suggesting is that previous experience is unnecessary. And would be surprised if that actually has consensus. Part of trusting a user with the tools is looking at past experience (contributions), and further, learning the user's "intent".

And I don't consider "desire" to be met by merely accepting a nom. - jc37 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Desire"? Surely you mean "power hunger". — CharlotteWebb 22:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While that was a cute response, it has nothing to do with this discussion. The "power hunger" opposes of a certain editor have to do with self-noms, which I don't believe has even been brought up. (That is, until now...) - jc37 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

jc, from what I can see, neither of them were suggesting that past experience is not a factor, or rather unimportant. They're saying that if the tools are janitorial in nature, and a candidate gets granted the bit and they do something, anything that helps the project, then they are beneficial. The old net positive phrase. You can't possibly have too many administrators. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A quite good one is Moni's current RFA. It's clear that she has little experience in admin areas – however, from her past performance I trust her to learn how to use anything properly should she ever need to use it. – iride scent 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between past experience in general, and past experience in things which admins tend to do/deal with.

And while it's perfectly fine for someone to "vote" to support (due to trust), even though someone doesn't have such experience, that doesn't mean that it's wrong to oppose for the same reason. "Trust" is a personal thing, and we (at least currently) intentionally do not have "minimum criteria" for "trust" here.

If it helps, I think Baloonman and Keeper most understood my request at the top (or at least their comments indicate such), regardless of whether we agree : ) - jc37 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jc37, I think that Choess' answer to Q1 was extremely honest, showed some sensible reticence, but, erm, does express a need for the tools. It's just a more limited need than most candidates express, but it's a need nonetheless. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question above, but it's a fair opinion. (My perspective was/is that intentions for "someday" means that the nom could/should be postponed for "someday" as well...)

Anyway, atm, I'm waiting to see if the candidate will actually finish answering the questions, or just wait out what will likely be a successful nom.

In any case, does anyone have further thoughts about my initial question above? (Even if it turns out to be: "you're all wet" : ) - jc37 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always considered "not enough need for the tools" to be a very poor reason to oppose. When we test people for a driver's license, we don't make them promise to drive a certain number of miles per year. We test whether they're competent to operate the vehicle. If an editor wants to occasionally delete or protect a page, that's just fine, as long as they're competent. We're volunteers. Demanding some more-than-this-much level of participation is not reasonable. Friday (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine, but this has nothing to do with whether a candidate is intending "occasional" usage. It has to do with the question of whether they intend to use the tools at all in the near future. And where their current "expertise" may lie. Else why have a nom at this specific moment? What is the current "need"? - jc37 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a volunteer project, some editors have more time to invest than others. Even if they are only able to use the tools occasionally, if they're using them correctly, it's still a net positive. Useight (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that yes, the mood has changed. I used to see that argument used a lot. This, to my mind, is A Good Thing. There's a greater focus on trustworthiness now. Interestingly, the adminiship is No Big Deal argument seems to have declined in popularity too. --Dweller (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's see if we can sort this out. Hypothetical scenario (ie not Choess): candidate comes to RfA and says they have no need for the tools and can't see that they'll need them in the short term, but they'd be nice to have at some point, in case of need. (NB I'm pretty sure I remember this actually happening, but let's stick to hypothetical) Jc37, presumably you'd oppose. Am I right in thinking that you're asking whether others would support and if so, how could they? --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was asking what others thought the current consensus was, but at this point, I'd be happy with personal opinions, so yes, I'll ask that.

As for me, I'd probably look "deeper", but yes, if based only on that, I'd probably oppose. - jc37 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that in times gone by, you wouldn't have been alone, but speaking personally, if I felt the candidate was trustworthy, I would have no good reason to oppose. So long as they weren't narky in the way they said they have no need for the tools, but want them anway, nerrr. Then again, if they were the kind of person to do that, there'd be other problems in their contrib history too. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right Dweller. The "no big deal"-argument is not used much anymore but it should be. If we honestly believe adminship to be no big deal, then you cannot oppose because they might not use the tools much. It's like proposing a "Request for page move rights"-procedural, because most editors will not use the "move"-button often and thus don't need it anyway. So Why 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's something to consider. Look at the log of my actions: [2]. Do I need the tools? Do I use them much? Say I was to run for adminship for the first time now, would you oppose me on that basis? --Deskana (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In looking over your RfA, you seem to have answered question #1 rather directly, and even noted what things you were active in at the time. You indicated a "want", and implied a "need". And these could be checked out by looking through your contributions of the time.

So to respond, this isn't about how actively you would use the tools. It isn't about how active or inactive a Wikipedian you are.

It's about showing a "need" (a reason to request) at the time of request.

And it takes more than just listing shortcuts to processes. Listing processes that the candidate has no previous experience in would be interesting, and nice to see that they have a future interest, but (in terms of this question at least) what I'm interested in is their current contributions at the time of request.

Does this better clarify? - jc37 15:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove questions regarding Recall

To start, some reading:

Essentially, this question can be used to push a voluntary process that is neither an accepted policy nor guideline. I am therefore opposed to it's submission as a question at RfA as it can make it a requirement for a candidate to join the process. Further to this, I submit that any further questions regarding the recall process should be struck from RfAs. The reasons for this opposition are as follows:

There is no assurance that the candidate will submit to a recall process should they be recalled
The candidate should not be elected on the strength of a recall promise alone. If a candidate would only be suitable if they became open to recall, please see the point above
There should be a feeling that this is an optional and voluntary process, and the candidate should not feel pressured or coerced into joining AoR as part of their RfA. If you feel that recall should not be optional, please see my first point.
The question of recall does not assist in assessing a candidate's suitability to become an administrator. If you feel that this question can assist you in assessing a candidate, please seem the points above.

Obviously I'd be keen to get some thoughts and input on this, but I do find it a touch unreasonable that this question keeps on cropping up at RfA. Although there are more general thoughts around RfA questioning that we're working on as part of the RfA Review, I feel this one needs to be nipped in the bud. As always, your thoughts are much appreciated. Many thanks, Gazi moff 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's silly for recall to be a make-or-break issue at RfA, especially in light of how casually it can be disregarded when push comes to shove. But prohibiting mention of it is way too prescriptive and reactive. I'd actually like to see how candidates handle this question - are they so eager to please that they'll reluctantly agree? Do they have the fortitude to say, "No, I won't be open to recall, and here's why"? Do they think recall is an extra layer of accountability that they'd like to voluntarily add? I mean, if these folks are ready to be admins, we don't need to protect them from this particular question. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid point, and normally I'd agree with you completely on it. But from reading the two topics I've linked to, including Lar (who created AoR) stating that it shouldn't be used as a question at RfA does make me increasingly concerned. Not because of the legitimacy or otherwise of the concept, but because of it being treated as a make or break issue at RfA. I don't think that any recent candidate has stated that they would refuse being open to recall, but I am concerned that they do so either because it is perceived as a make or break question, or because they feel obliged to participate in a voluntary process in much the same way as they feel obliged to answer optional questions. That coupled with the srongly divided opinions in the tweo threads I've linked to and the numerous responses to RfA review make me feel that it's a topic that we just shouldn't be pushing. Despite my own opinions though, there is also sound logic as to why we shouldn't be using it as the basis for a question, and it's this that I've tried to base my argument on. Hope this helps, Gazi moff 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that I've already argued for the AOR category to be deleted, it should be no surprise that I support this proposal. As far as I can tell, the recall question (like the infamous 'cool-down blocks' one) is only ever asked to trip up potential administrators; as far as I can tell, it has never been a useful guide to whether or not someone will make a good admin. While I hate the idea of stopping a certain question from being asked altogether, in this case I feel it is sadly appropriate, as there have been cases of RFAs failing purely because the candidate refused to add themselves to this category (and RFAs which only passed because they did add themselves, which is almost as bad). For all the reasons given by Gazimoff above, this should never be a reason to support or oppose a candidate, at least as long as the recall 'process' remains in its current state; as such, I feel this question is one that simply should not be asked of potential administrators. Terraxos (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We're missing the point. Asking if an editor would hand back their admin bit sans-drama is not the same as asking them to be in a particular category that's currently disputed. To ask someone under what circumstances they'd give up +sysop is perfectly legitimate and should be actively encouraged. The words of these questions may be wrong but the thrust of the enquiry is not. Pedro : Chat 23:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of this proposal, I think that it would be more appropriate to implement this by suggesting that questions concerning eliciting participation in any optional process, be removed. - jc37 00:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate the question... I think it is a poison pill. If you don't answer in the affirmative, you garner an oppose and harsh criticism... even though the concept is flawed and should be voluntary. I do, however, like Pedro's alternative. Especially if it is asked in the generic, "Under what circumstances should an admin voluntarily give up the bit?"---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC) OOPS, forgot to include, but I wouldn't forbid the question, just encourage others not to ask it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the questions regarding Recall, but rather over our community′s attitudes towards the system. We should be working on adjusting how our contributors view the category (read: it′s not something over which making drama would be helpful), rather than eliminating the category, and all the benefits it has, because of the particulars of how it introduces itself into an RfA. Anthøny 01:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Benefits it has??? I'm sorry, I see it as a toothless tiger. Until and unless it has some sort of enforceability, it is a joke.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  - It's just not the "particulars of how it introduces itself into an RfA," it's also how and in what form it realistically turns out to be (a pathetic mess). Recall sounds nice, but I have yet to see a single recall process that was not accompanied by unnecessary drama. Telling people to change their views does not address the issue; changing what causes people to have a dim view of the current recall process does. —kur ykh 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    - I have to agree here in thinking that the Pedro Compromise is a great alternative, as it allows the candidate to be flexible in how they answer and doesn't promote the use of any particular method. Gazi moff 06:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think removing, or forbidding, any question asked by someone else is wrong, this one included. We're saying they're mature and intelligent enough to be an admin, but they aren't mature and intelligent enough to handle a tricky (or even trick) question themselves? The questioner obviously thinks it's a fair question. If the candidate thinks it's a fair question, we shouldn't intervene. If the candidate doesn't think it's a fair question, they should have the guts to say so, or at least leave it blank. How a candidate handles such questions is useful information; if a candidate is scared to answer a question because they'll garner oppose votes either way, then I wouldn't want them to be an admin. We don't need admins who know how to answer a question the "right" way, we need admins who are grown up enough to tell the truth, and demonstrate intelligence and backbone. For example, anyone scared to answer Kurt's question, because they'll get an oppose from Kurt if they answer one way, or 100 opposes if they answer another way, either has too little backbone to be an admin, or is really bad at math. Now, if you really mean "we as a community shouldn't judge a candidate by whether they will add themselves to CAT:AOR or not, but by the intelligence and judgement demonstrated by their explanation of their position on the subject", then I agree. And nothing is stopping anyone from saying "I recommend the candidate not answer this question", or a candidate saying "I think this question is unfair, or meaningless, or nobody's business". If you're scared of one or two opposes for not answering a question you think is silly, don't be an admin. Fear of acting the way you would normally act, or saying what you would normally say, because you think it will cause too many oppose votes is an indication you shouldn't be an admin. --barneca (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to be dense, but why is there this obsession with Kurt? I don't recall him holding sway over great numbers of RfA participants. If his answers are wonky, so...that's him. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me, right? I'm not obsessed with Kurt. I'm using his CDB question as another example of a question some people have said they want to remove based on its "unfairness", and that I'm not in favor of removing it. Obsession? --barneca (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Barneca; I wasn't talking about you. It was a general observation. I've just seen a surplus of Kurt-related talk and I have to wonder...why? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also pretty normal to be fairly anxious at RfA, so I can understand. I guess it boils down to honesty being the best policy in answering questions really (WRT AOR etc.), and that if a candidate states they will not place themselves in the category, they should be able to expalin what they would do instead (eg that AN/I or RfC may be sufficient or whatever).

PS: As far as drama re Kurt - no different really to drama surrounding other people who take certain views in the face of consensus..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much the Kurt Oppose that concerns me, as it is just a single individual. What does concern me is otherwise suitable candidates being unsuccessful at RfA purely because they do not wish themselves to be open to recall, which is by definition optional and voluntary. If you would support or oppose a candidate purely based on the pledge to join a particular process, then there is a problem. Gazi moff 06:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But the point is that everyone is free to have their own reasons for supporting or opposing. If people oppose solely based on that, it's not a problem of the recall process but of those users. No changes in the process will fix that nor will removing such questions. They will just find another reason to oppose if they really want to. I think the questions should be allowed, no doubt about it. But the closing 'crat just has to take into consideration, when consensus is not clear, that opposes like "Oppose. User does not want to take part in WP:AOR" have to be judged accordingly (taking into account that noone can be forced to participate in WP:AOR). So Why 08:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramblings on Kurt.
I ignore most optional questions, anyway, unless they are clearly original (which is pretty much never; they're almost always copypastah by people trying to level up). So I really don't care either way. If people are opposing for a reason that others deem silly, we can only hope the 'crats follow this discussion. —Giggy 10:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AMEN!!! I hate option questions that are cookie cutter. If you are going to ask a question, make it candidate specific based upon his/her experiences and your specific concerns about said candidate. Not some hunting/fishing trip that says nothing. Optional questions, when asked that way, are for the lazy. People who don't spend enough time to research the question themselves in the candidates history.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Without reading any other comment under this header (since the header says it all), I'll offer my opinion. We should still be able to ask a candidate if they would be willing to go through at least some form of community recall; whether a community designed criteria based platform, or the candidates personal or preferred recall method. I think its a fairly reasonable question to ask, given that we cannot know how the candidate will use these tools 3,4,5 or 6 months down the road. Synergy 10:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might seem so, but as long as we do not establish a binding policy on it, everyone has the right to decide if they want to take that "risk". It's harsh to ask it and then oppose if the candidate declines it. But of course it's allowed to ask it, because every candidate has the right to refuse answers on those optional questions anyway. So Why 10:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There will never be be a policy on optional questions, nor will there be a guideline in the near future. The community have yet to band together on this and I've been told that many times over two years. They have the right to refuse it sure. But they will be opposed if they do not answer them, its guaranteed. Synergy 11:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant a policy on recall, i.e. something all admins have to follow. As long as it's optional to be open for recall, refusal to do so, should not lead to opposes and if it does, those opposes have to be judged accordingly by the closing 'crat. You can ask candidates all you want to know about them (within reason) but if you oppose them because they are making a choice they are entitled to then that's not a good reason to oppose them. So, I think you are right, those questions have to be allowed to be asked. But so has the closing crat have the right to disregard opposes solely based on someone's unwillingness to submit to WP:AOR. So Why 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'm not so sure a policy is needed for recall. I'd have to see the pros and cons to properly assess its need first. Most editors do not agree with it, so the idea would almost instantly be opposed once it hits the centralized discussion template. Synergy 11:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think any policy on removing serious questions in an RfA is wrongheaded and doomed to fail. The ridiculous OT questions can be removed, generally at the final discretion of a 'crat, and umpteen questions from a single person have sometimes been pared down. But actually adopting a proposal for a policy change that would prohibit a specific question? Sorry, I don't see it. Its one question in an RfA that the candidate is free to answer any way they want or not at all, and voters are free to consider that answer in any way they want or not at all. I don't see the major problem, although I personally won't be asking that question anymore (I have, a number of times, in the past). I'll still ask about CAT:BOR, though. Avruch^T 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avruch. I don't think we need to eliminate any serious questions from the pool of questions that an editor can possibly ask. True, candidate-specific questions are often better tools to use to gauge the candidate, but I don't think that's cause to eliminate some of the cookie-cutter ones. Useight (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's far too much emphasis on the questions in general. Endorsements should be made on the basis of the nominee's history as a Wikipedian, not on the basis of formulaic answers and questions, and certainly not on the basis of "campaign promises." Exploding Boy (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Highly regarded article editors who wrote significantly less after becoming admins?

I have seen this issue crop up at times in RfA and RfB - can anyone actually think of any highly regarded article editors who wrote significantly less after becoming admins? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly common. I was more of an article writer before becoming an admin. But I think there is a cause and effect difference. When I was writing articles more, I was writing articles on issues that were of concern to me and that I was interested in. When I ran out of the articles that I wanted to write on, that is when I ran for adminship. Thus, it wasn't a matter of "Balloonman was an article writer, became an admin, and stopped writing articles" but rather, "Balloonman was an article writer, ran out of articles he wanted to write, and in an effort to continue to be of benefit to the project became an admin." I suspect others make the move for the same reason or for the secondary reason that I made the move. I'm simply not a good enough writer to get articles to FA/GA and enjoy the trip. (I've done it, but it wasn't enjoyable.) Others, however, don't realize that these are why a lot of article writers move into adminship.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to admit that I certainly wrote more articles before adminship. While I nowadays like to keep at least one article circulating at T:TDYK at any one time, it seems that ever since my promotion in Sept. 2007, things have expanded a lot more for me, I've been active in more areas, and article writing hasn't happened as much for me. This is something I'd probably like to rectify. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that means I'm anomaly, then? I've been writing more FAs, although I admit my use of admin tools in pretty much blocking vandals and instituting page protections on my watchlisted pages... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. I've seen some good admins continue, or begin working more on articles after becoming an admin. I also think that there are probably plenty of admins who stopped writing articles for various reasons, some good, some bad. I've also heard that burnout is more likely, and is possibly a cause of this. But who knows, I expect its different for each admin, and each situation. Synergy 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said Synergy. Lots of good article writers are good admins, but you never can find them, because they go right back to editing good articles. They didn't want the admin trophy, they merely wanted to move a page over a redirect instead of having to ask some admin to do it for them. If anything, I can name several writer/admins that are even more productive because they don't have to wait for one of use policy-wonks to reply to them or use RM or EPP requests. Now, the bigger concern, is what do we do with all these silly admins that never wrote articles in the first place? (looks all shifty-eyed, quickly leaves room... Keeper ǀ 76 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Shackle them to the helpdesk? :) Gazi moff 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask them to join a project or create one I suppose. I've found a collaborative effort rather enjoyable and an easy way to ask questions and learn. Synergy 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I plead guilty to writing a lot less after adminship. One reason I forced myself to "retire" is to make myself go back to writing somewhat. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask which you enjoy more? Not a trap question, just a curious one. Keeper ǀ 76 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither, because the fun comes out of collaboration which matters more to me. It is just as good working with others on the common goal to destroy backlogs as it is to get something up to FA. Something I do seem to find it harder to achieve these days. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfect answer, and the one I suspected anyway. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) (aah, much better after early morning coffee) - collaboration is definitely fun and very interesting to watch and/or participate in..GA and FA are also good for this in the main.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that after I became an admin, my article work significantly decreased. I think this is because as a non admin, there weren't as to do that I liked to do as there are as an admin. There were plenty of things I could do, but I just don't like article writing. Now that I'm an admin, there's plenty to do that I enjoy. FYI, I like to do things that are... "concrete" thoughts, like WP:OP, instead of abstract thoughts that article writing entails. Soxπed93^(blag) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Interesting... I'm probably an exception as well, I've actually written more articles as an admin (anyways more quality articles). Maxim (☎) 03:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Many cases of this. We all have only so much time to devote to wiki, we just shift where on wiki we spend it when we take new tasks. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've written more quality articles than before I was an admin, like Maxim. I think that there is a kind of mentality that, "oh my god, I'm an admin, I have to save the Wiki" where in fact there are plenty of other admins willing to add to their ever growing log count. Only you yourself can dictate where you spend time on Wikipedia. As for me, I do whatever I feel like. If I feel like expanding an article, I will do so. If I feel like watching AIV or clearing a CSD backlog, I'll do it. Perhaps it's least efficient, but I find it more relaxing. After all, if I'm spending my time volunteering at Wikipedia, I might as well enjoy it. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm an advocate of being a nomadic contributor. I suspect I would have burned out or just lost interest long ago if I didn't keep shifting what I do here. Finding new areas to help out and explore is what keeps me engaged. The only down side is that you inevitably stumble across Wikipedia's warts.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've written more articles as an admin than a non-admin. Before adminship, I was more of a vandal fighter (I passed in the days when that was a good thing). Majorly ^talk 14:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the good old days, when legendary vandal-fighters still roamed the Wiki. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out m:Namespace shift for an essay about this very issue (though in a much broader sense). I, for one, know that my editing habits shifted a bit after my RfA, and again after my RfB. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment outside of narcissism and egoism about my being highly regarded, but I did find that for a while I did significantly less article work and more janitorial work after becoming an admin. More recently I have tried to take a couple of articles under my wing to make sure that I try and continue to add good content to the encyclopedia. -- Avi (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I find that some of the best article writers also happen to be article editors, from my experience at WP:FAC and WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that my amount of article writing dropped significantly after I began an admin. Conversely, when I started writing again, my amount of admin work took a big drop as well. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see a lot of admins seem to approach admin duties as a chore; the way I see it, content editors who successfully become admins should continue doing their typical content editing routines and perform admin duties when they need it; for instance, I only edit articles I like to read or learn more about and a lot of them are coincidentally controversial articles, so I often have to submit reports to WP:RPP, etc. which is where admin tools would come in handy. My content editing wouldn't take a huge hit from that kind of stuff. Gary King (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am one such candidate. After gaining adminship, my FA count jumped but after RFB, it crashed. Of course off wiki life is also to blame. I love article editing over everything else, and I try to make sure that my FA and collaboration drives supersede everything else. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall I don't think it's really a big issue. I stopped doing CSD work after gaining adminship, ironically, but I think the main reason I did all the anti-vandal and new page patrol back then was because I was a relative newbie editor who didn't have serious article writing chops. Sometimes I get burned out and work on WP:space stuff instead. All depends. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)