Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 153

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 150 Archive 151 Archive 152 Archive 153 Archive 154 Archive 155 → Archive 160

Oh Noes!

RfA is empty again! - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is minded to attribute this to the holiday season, at this time on the 30th Dec 2007 there were 6 RFAs open, five of which succeeded. ϢereSpielChequers 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, we could start nominating people on this list, or maybe we should start small and work our way up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I could run again, just because it's a grand event. Tan | 39 19:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. Strong Oppose. I'm sure I can make up a reason. – iridescent 19:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support I thought he is one already. — Aitias // discussion 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong coffee - double-double, thanks. // roux   19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    — Aitias // discussion 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    Ta. // roux   20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose self nom---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. More coffee The junior admin brings the coffee, that's Graham right now. Snap to it. I had to do it for more than a week. Do you know what coffee for 1,600 COSTS every day?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support and oppose. Because there's no such thing as a neutral feeling. DiverseMentality 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. In the mean time, we flood MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion/Main Page, Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion/User:Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and throw in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Sarah Palin for the hell of it. ayematthew @ 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    You're thinking too small: Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion/Wikipedia--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    No, that's still too small: Special:WhatLinksHere/Internet.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    You have chosen to delete the Universe. Are you sure? Yes No --Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    The non-admins among you (and those who ignore the obscurer buttons) may not be aware of the mighty d-batch. Crank up Special:AllPages and Bob's your uncle. – iridescent 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    Oh gawd, the cat's out of the bag. Now the coders are going to have to add code to limit admins to 5 deletes per minute, unless they also possess the to-be-created batchdelete user permission bit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Wrong TLA, you want WP:EFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong weirdness Something is wrong here... Where is the bugzilla to report broken users? Come on people, something is wrong here, it's worse than that empty CAT:CSD I saw two days ago! SoWhy 22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're really missing out on our daily fix of drama, I could go rouge, get myself desysopped, and apply for adminship. All in the name of the community, I suppose. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Garden. 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Last edit for me before my two-week break to read up on Wiki policy; anyone up for nominating Davidwr? Or perhaps this guy?--Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
REAL last edit before break; any votes on making Durova an administrator? --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure she would decline. Garden. 23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose DurovaCharge! 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we assume from your indentation, Durova, that you're opposing Garden's statement and therefore would accept a nomination? :) — Aitias // discussion 03:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've kinda decided to wait until I earn at least 200 featured credits. Push it and maybe I'll wait until 2001... DurovaCharge! 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That gave me a smile Nish...haha Lazulilasher (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, Dylan, have you even seen Neutralhomer's block log? Majorly talk 23:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Davidwr might be an idea though...to consider next year maybe ;-) SoWhy 23:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to nominate a tireless contributor whose bit is long overdue. MascotGuy has been editing actively since 2004..." -- Vary Talk 02:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

In all seriousness though, this isn't brilliant is it? We've had a record-number 12 admins resigning so far this month (plus a bot), compared to just one or two in the months before. Why the sudden surge of resignations, and lack of RFAs? Majorly talk 23:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a list of admin resignations? Tan | 39 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:FORMER. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Tanthalas: [1] — Aitias // discussion 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec, re to Majorly) Serious answer: because RFA/DHMO and the whole Kurt saga are now receding into the past, and there's a whole new generation coming through who never learnt the "this has gone too far" lesson. Look at any recent RFA (successful or not) and all the problems of last year (the ridiculous number of questions, the inane comments in support, the permanent arguing with every oppose) are all back with us. Who wants to submit themselves to that? – iridescent 23:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Too many questions? Ha!. (In all seriousness, RfA swings back and forth between sanity and batshit crazy. One needs to choose one's time wisely). — Coren (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Right, it's cyclical. I went through RfA in September (or Oct, I don't remember); and I got asked one question. My RfA passed among a cadre of 5-6 others that went through; many close to unanimously. I'm not sure what happened in the in-between months. I wasn't around much in Novemeber, as I was busy IRL. I came back and the atmosphere appears to have changed, somehow. Is there a reason, or is the cycle just part of WP's nature? Lazulilasher (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
See my answer to Majorly above. You went through in the wake of two or three of the most spectacularly foul-tempered RFAs we ever had, plus a user whose sole purpose on Wikipedia towards the end seemed to be being annoying at RFA, and a very bad-tempered RFC related to RFA, and most of the "regulars" (regular nominators, regular voters, regular question-askers, regular pointless-comment-makers, regular nitpicking-opposers, regular "you're an ____ist" allegers) were staying away from RFA. This is still the case – people like me and Majorly who used to be regular faces at RFA now only surface when an RFA is very close or when we've strong feelings about a candidate – but there's now a new group coming through who joined WP in mid-2008 and weren't there to learn the lessons of all the lame drama. At some point an RFA will flare up again and the whole cycle will start again. – iridescent 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Right, I remember that. Up to the point that someone offered to nom me, I'd honestly thought that RfA would be an unnecesarry ordeal to submit myself to. I did it, passed, and honestly can say that adminship itself isn't really a big deal. I guess the difficulty is that the buttons give the ability to do large scale damage (like that d-batch thing you were talking about above; that button scares the heck outta me). Perhaps we're nearing a "reboot" to the calmer RfAs? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to sell my account on eBay. Tan | 39 23:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, that answer was obvious enough. I do wonder why all the resignations though. 12 instead of one or two is excessive. Majorly talk 23:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Majorly: Regarding the surge of resignations: Bluntly, I think a serious problem is the tone used by some editors and even administrators. I for one was really shocked by the tone I found to be used in interactions with the one or other fellow lately. Working in such a work climate is not very enjoyable. Having that said I can honestly understand every resigning admin. Despite my kidding above, this is though meant completely serious. — Aitias // discussion 23:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean. Majorly talk 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I wasn't talking about one particular happening... — Aitias // discussion 23:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(Srsly) Majorly has a point here, turnover is at all-time high. We lost two admins and one crat this week, all high-profile editors and not due to drama. We have also those who choose to fade into the silence, and I hardly see any editors of my "generation" around these days... - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You're still here though MD, so I'm still happy :-) Majorly talk 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the perfect time to come up with a RfA system that works, and doesn't turn editors away. IMHO, there is a much better system out there, but someone just needs to type it out. ayematthew @ 00:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always liked the idea of having a pre-RfA "survey" instead of the questions for the candidate, while any additional questions can be asked on the talk page, but that's just me. The biggest benefit from answering questions before the RfA is that it takes some of the pressure off of answering questions on the spot. I've also always liked the idea of giving candidates different situations instead of general questions, like xeno's normal question. </rant> :-P ayematthew @ 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, the worst part about these dry spells is that then I don't have any bureaucrating to do. Quick, someone put up a reconfirmation RfA! That'll be good for some lulz. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we take about three or four editors whose RfA's would REALLY set the cats among the pigeons, nominate them, forge their acceptances, block them so they can't complain and sit back and watch the drama escalate. Should keep from being bored for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Having been here virtually forever, I've got the feeling that if I ran for reconfirmation it would be horrible. Just sayin'. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the last RfA pass of June 2007. What I've noticed is that roughly one out of two of the admins that passed around the same time as I did (not that difficult to find; there were 35 promotion sin June and 31 in July) are no longer active. On another note, there were 54 promotions in May 2007, but only 18 in August. On my side, I've been really burnt out of adminning lately myself, and right now I'm using my non-admin sock to edit for a while, too. butterfly (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is weird: there were 408 promotions last year, and 353 the year before. This year had just 196. Is that good, or is it bad? Do we need more and more admins, or are the backlogs low enough? Majorly talk 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I did some research. Checked the contribs of the RFAs for two weeks either side of my own, a total of 33. Just 12 are still active on a regular basis (and two of them, Betacommand and Durova are not admins either). Most are semi-active, with barely a few edits a month, and some haven't edited since the summer. One hasn't edited since January. Majorly talk 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Majorly, how do those stats correlate to the general growth/decline of the Wikipedia community? I wonder if you're hinting at something deeper. Are their similar declines elsewhere? Are less editors nominated for adminship? Do you think this trend is indicative of anything? If so, what? Lazulilasher (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea sadly. People obviously change their hobbies over time, get bored etc. Some like myself are pretty much addicted (I've only ever taken 3 real wikibreaks, in July 2006, April and June 2007, two weeks, one week and two weeks, all unavoidable). I have no idea of similar declines, or how many people are in fact nominated. I tend to think of myself as a positive person, so I only look at the successful ones :-) I'm just throwing this into the ring. Majorly talk 03:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
What's weird is that out of the 18 sucessful RfAs that were 2 weeks around me, 18 are still active. 'Course, I became an admin in June 08, so that's a little recent. Xclamation point 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it odd that the editor transcluded next to me on the RfA page while I ran has now retired (Ameliorate!); and that was just 3 months ago! I felt an affinity with him/her because we were on the hot seat at the same time... :( Lazulilasher (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Of the nine admins promoted in the same month as me, only one has actually left – although another two are only semi-active. Not too bad after three years, although I very much doubt that I would pass if I were to reapply. As for the recent surge, maybe it is nothing more than people making a clean break going into a new year – 12 does seem rather excessive though. Rje (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Man, whatever happened to "just work hard, show that we can trust you, and you should pass RFA with no problem." RFA just seemed to change so quickly into an affair only for the Übermensch. bibliomaniac15 04:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm legitimately afraid to nominate anybody for adminship anymore with how it's (d)evolved the past 6 months or so. Is it that there are few good candidates? I doubt it, I think it's because most good editors decline now. And maybe that's not the worst idea.. I mean, if I ran now I would tank, because i have too many edits to browse through, there's bound to be one in there that they can find something in :P Wizardman 04:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's already documented why people avoid RfA - just take a look at WP:RREV/R for some background reading. Unfortunately the process seems to have stalled somewhat, but I'll have a look and see if it can be restarted and some conclusions presented. There seems to be a developing issue though, with one group of editors taking issue with the current RfA process while another group feel that it is fit for purpose. Either way, potential candidates seem to be voting with their feet by not submitting RfAs. The key question in my mind is working out where the problem lies - is it in candidates not wanting to submit to RfA, or in them finding the role of an administrator unappealing?
I also think that an exit questionnaire may be helpful for admins that do hand in the bit - if we had some data on the reasons why they retire, we could set about fixing the issues they describe. Gazimoff 07:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no more administrators

This page is now closed. You may all go home. -- Gurch (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll have more soon. I keep my eye on a couple of people (not for noms, immediately, my word is worth less than pig shit) as potential admins; there are quite a few nobody has bothered to nom. Ironholds (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afaid not, this is the end. Go read a book, I've heard Encarta is okay :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick, balloonman, pull out some candidates from that big RfA sorting hat of yours, we need to save the wiki! :P Ironholds (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking to two right now ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Good man :). I believe I have an inkling of who one is, but I'll leave it until the RfAs go up.Ironholds (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As do I! ;-) ayematthew @ 15:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Me too! Except I have no idea, I just want to feel included... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The one I think you are thinking of is not one of the two that I am currently thinking of... I'm thinking of two that I might nom before the end of the year... the one I think you are thinking of is a few weeks off. But that is just what I think.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I thought he was one already, he acts like he is, and if he isn't, he's going to stay that way! Whoever he is.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Balloonman, you're going to nom 2 users in 8 hours? Xclamation point 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, by the end of the year local time... ;-) But that depends on what they say... probably won't happen... but there are two that I would be willing to nom if they are interested.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, if nothing is happening here, you guys ought to go over to eBay -- I am selling some lawn furniture and Conway Twitty CDs -- 5% discount for Wiki people (offer ends at midnight). :) Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've got four people I'm watching for adminship, all great, even-keeled, knowledgeable users who make great admins, all of whom would fail RFA miserably right now.
Candidate 1: Low edit count
Candidate 2: Too recent to prior RFA
Candidate 3: Not enough mainspace edits
Candidate 4: Too frequent breaks for school
Yes, I know, the response will be "If they are so ready for adminship, the voters will see that and support"; but I can't in good faith nom someone for RFA when I know what the RFA experience is like. Meh. MBisanz talk 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been a full week without a nomination added. There aren't slim pickings out there. Let's not let the ball drop. Kingturtle (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And I was so looking forward to nominating myself, too! :P Gary King (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of possible candidates

I'm not sure if they're interested, but if they are, then these two editors seem like good candidates:

I've let them know that I mentioned their names here. RMHED (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think they're good candidates, why not nominate them? --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 04:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Second Dylan...just ask them! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Either Moreschi or I will be nominating a candidate probably next week. dougweller (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Seconding Dylan, you should've asked before putting there names up here. They may have good reason for saying "no" or "not this month." On the other hand, they might appreciate some "pre-RFA feedback." Please ask them if they want such feedback, if they do, I'll be happy to give them a "quickie review." If they are serious about running in the next week, I'll give them a more thorough review. But if they don't want feedback, then I'll spend my time elsewhere. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 09:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
User:RMHED did ask if we were interested, admittedly at the same time as adding the comment here. I don't see any harm has been done, although I will respectfully decline. Rossrs (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I trust we are all at least aware of the existence of Category:Wikipedia_administrator_hopefuls ... yes? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wanting adminship is often a negative sign in an RFA, bizarrely enough. Majorly talk 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose Kurt Weber did leave his mark in our RFA subconscious. bibliomaniac15 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
True. Well, there is probably a significant difference between a new-ish editor who becomes highly irritated because another editor dared to revert or delete his excellent essay on the glorious ongoing season of his junior high basketball team (and the hottness of certain members of the cheerleading squad), within the private school article he himself created (which was subsequently sent to AfD for non-notablity and deleted, along with his elaborate personal gallery of uploaded Harry Potter #6 film studio publicity shots, which really pushed him over the edge...) and thus wants to gain the "power" to defeat such atrocities by his enemies (as if Wiki works like World of Warcraft or something); versus experienced editors who really have been around for months and months or years, with a virtually spotless record, but really don't care for the ongoing aggravation of RfA politickery. In any case, there is a large pool of candidates who might consider taking on the additional janitorial duties, if asked nicely and nominated (perhaps preferably after pre-screening by those who are often inclined to oppose such nominations for various reasons), rather than the usual catch, beat about the face and neck, skin, gut, fillet, tenderize, marinade, roast, deep fry, tar-and-feather, and finally release back to the pond approach that frankly (still) tends to go on around here. In any case it should not be difficult to screen and filter the list for some decent potentials. Interesting how "supply and demand" works though (or doesn't) for admin candidates. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The challenge is that even those of us who have a reputation for vetting candidates and a solid track record at nominations don't always get it right. I've had candidates fail. Pedro has had candidates fail. Bibliomaniac has had candidates fail. Dweller has had candidates fail. etc. And despite a thorough review, it is impossible to tell what mines exist out there.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I promise you, from firsthand experience, WP doesn't work like World of Warcraft. Some of the monsters in that game take the coordinated attacks of 25 seasoned editors players, and only one or maybe two of them get anything useful out of it :) Gazimoff 09:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely the top section of WP:HOPEFUL (derived from category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls) must have dozens of suitable candidates. This list is sortable by date of first edit, specifically to help identify folks who have been here for years who have expressed an interest. The second section (not too active at this point) may contain some folks whose interest has waned but who might find being an admin would revive their interest. I specifically did not include an edit count in these lists (editcountitis is evil), although if including one would encourage more noms I'd consider it. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I could also post the intersection of the hopefuls category with WP:WBFAN (or WP:WBFLN or WP:WBFTN or WP:WBFPC or even WP:DYKLIST) if anyone thinks any of those might be useful. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I see WP:HOPEFUL as a negative at RFA unless the candidate is clear as to exactly why it would be useful to them rather than just wanting to "level up". Kurt wasn't actually always wrong, he just had an impressively annoying way of putting things. We need admins who need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the job, but once they're in it do the best job they can in the hope that they'll get time off for good behaviour. Unfortunately the current system works the opposite way. (See my point #2 here for more thoughts on this one). – iridescent 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Um... if people don't want to do it then they won't, whether they're promoted or not. Which is why we have hundreds of admins that don't -- Gurch (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Right. I think there's a huge difference between someone who's been here a month or two saying "gimme the mop, gimme the mop" and someone who's been an editor for several years saying "admin, hmmm, maybe I could help out a bit more if I were an admin". I suspect most of the folks in the top section of WP:HOPEFUL are more like the latter than the former (WP:AGF and all), but the only way to tell would be to ask them (and trust their answer) or spend a lot of time examining their contribution histories. Several years ago, I put together a list of high edit count users (User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins), filtered out the current and former admins, and asked each remaining one if they had any interest to change the list to indicate this. I didn't keep stats but I'm pretty sure several dozen successful noms came out of this. The point is expressing interest is not the same as expressing undue interest and thinking that it only means the latter seems pretty cynical. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots where art thou?

We currently have three RFAs in play all with redlinked RFA talk pages. Is the process that runs the count and builds the candidacies talk page malfunctioning? Also I like many of us have {{tl:User:SQL/RfX Report}} on my user page to keep tabs on RFA, this doesn't yet recognise any of the three, is that also offline or are the two related? ϢereSpielChequers 13:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The toolserver was down yesterday or so and the MySQL DB seems to be down still, meaning certain tools like X!'s counter are not working. Maybe it affects certain bots as well, SQLBot (talk · contribs) for example runs certain tasks from the toolserver, so does Tangobot (talk · contribs). Tangobot's report seems to work though, so I will replace SQLBot's at the top of the page for now. Regards SoWhy 14:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I just added edit stats for all three RfAs. There was a time before bots and Twinkle and all that when we did stuff by hand. Strange, I know, but not at all difficult. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean we didn't always have Twinkle and Huggle and bots? :P Tell us more of this strange and ancient time... GlassCobra 17:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean the age when dinosaurs and other monsters roamed the land? bibliomaniac15 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, those were the days..... :o) - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
To be practical, in the era when Wikipedia was output on punchcards only Bishzilla would have been able to carry a copy of the Pedia, as for when things were all done on clay tablets I dread to think how people coped. ϢereSpielChequers 19:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn, I was hoping people had come to their senses and realised that dumping a pile of edit count statistics on the talk page is completely meaningless. Evidently not. -- Gurch (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you all like red

Because it seems like we're in for a lot of it, looking at the bot report at the top of the page. Turns out that rushing to find nominations doesn't work too well. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. No big deal. ayematthew @ 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
To be fair it wasn't rushing to find nominations; they were all self-noms. What it shows is simply that rushing into RfAs with no preparation, no nominator to review your edits beforehand and with a statement based entirely around "why the hell not" is a bad idea, something we knew already. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the rush? We have 364 days left in 2009! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Three strikes and RfA is out?---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the opposes in Roux's case feel that it says something terrible about him that he's run a lot, including "just 8 months ago", and want him to wait another year. Can we at least remove this one barrier to running, the idea that up to a year might be added to your pennance, just because you had the gall to run? I'm not suggesting an official rule, just that we try to get some rough consensus among frequent voters on the minimum desirable time between RFAs, so that potential candidates will be able to make reasonable plans on how they allocate their time, and not be fearful that they're shooting themselves in the foot just by running. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I, er, what? I've never RFA before.. // roux   03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Back when I ran in the ancient days of Feb 2007, three months was considered adequate time between RFAs. Where this "8 months is not enough" or "at least a year" stuff is coming from, I cannot fathom. MBisanz talk 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
As with all other criteria, this one depends a lot on the individual candidate. If lack of experience was your reason for opposing last time, then three months distance might just be enough to fill in the gaps. If you opposed because of behavioral problems, then you might not expect people to change within three, six, or even twelve months. I looked at the RFA Dank55 is talking about, and most opposes seem to be based on the candidate's behavior, not his lack of experience. I don't think we can get rough consensus on any minimum distance between RFA's. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Six months seems to be the standard cutoff for behavioral/civility issues, but it varies between user and between case. If, for example, Sceptre behaved like an angel for six months and went for another RfA I doubt it would be enough to counter the desysoping/civility problems/indef block/second block after being released from the indef/ more civility problems/ third block. Someone who failed for, say, calling someone a twat in an AfD might have a different result. Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Six months to a year. If a block is involved, it had better be a year.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
3 months time is generally enough time between RfA's, but when a person is seen as a chronic applier, the criteria increases... When I was coaching DMHO, my advice to him was to wait a full year... TenPoundHammer is another person I suggested should wait a full year. If you've had 3 failed RfA's within six months, you should wait AT LEAST 6 months before your fourth RFA... this isn't so much what I believe, but rather what I've observed from RfA trends.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

←I think we may all be in agreement that asking for more than 6 months is a special case; let's refactor. The goal is to get people not to be scared off by unpredictable, arbitrarily long "penalties" for running; even criminals are entitled to at least know what maximum sentence they're up against! When someone says "wait a year", are we agreed that they're usually thinking something along the lines of one of these things? (Add more bullets if you like):

  • "I see issues here; I'd have to see a real change in your performance to support" or "You need a year's worth of positives to outweigh the negatives". (But is it really true that an opposer can accurately see 12 months into the future and correctly predict a change in their vote?)
  • "I can't support until 1 year after a block". (That's fine; that's not an unknown obstacle, the candidate knew they had a recent block and they know how a lot of people feel about that.)
  • "You run too often; I think you're trying to cheat the system in some way, and my suspicions won't die down unless you wait 12 months before running again." (If someone suspects that a candidate is "power-hungry": you can't prosecute for thought crimes, and if someone does suspect you have some vague character flaw that they can't define in terms of performance, then there's no point in putting off running to try to get their vote.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "I'm trying to sweeten the pill. Don't ever bother with RfA again; you'll never get through." --Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Not in my Wiki-lifetime" (I would not tell people to "wait a year", though!) - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This is what *I* think when I say "wait a year," I doubt it's what the community thinks when it collectively says "wait a year." A period's worth of positives to outweigh the negatives is a good starting point, with various minimums and a good does of play-it-by-ear. A week of revert wars that almost get you blocked by an editor with a long and otherwise-solid edit history doesn't mean you have to wait a week before running for RFA, it means 2-3 months unless there were extenuating circumstances. But 10 months of general uncivil behavior means 10+ months of exemplary civil behavior. With blocks, I'm willing to look at the circumstances, with Roux's, the usual "wait a year" doesn't apply but less than 3 months is way too short. On the other hand, I'd very rarely require more than a year of excellent behavior no matter what got you blocked and how long you engaged in that behavior, unless I thought it was likely to recur or you didn't edit enough in the last year to show you really changed your ways. As far as repeated RFAs are concerned, this is itself a behavior and I'd like to understand the motivation: Is it a power trip or are you genuinely looking to expand the ways you can help? Your normal editing and especially discussions will show this: If your discussions seem to be "I want it my way" or are very WP:BITEy that's not a good sign, if on the other hand you look to build consensus and frequently yield to it rather than being pushy or WP:POINTy, that's a much better sign. If you've run for RFA before, I'm going to be especially looking at your contributions in admin-areas. A first-time candidate, particularly a non-self-nom, can be excused for not doing adminish stuff like xFDs, etc., but someone who has run once should know that's what admins do and if he's not doing it already, it makes me wonder why he's bothering to run a 2nd time. If it's because he's too busy writing articles, okay, but if it's anything else, I'll be looking for that empty space on his trophy shelf. If it's less than the time recommended in the previous RFA, I'm going to want to know what's the rush. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This is what *I* think when I say "wait a year," I doubt it's what the community thinks when it collectively says "wait a year." "Your behavior is so bad I'll only consider you under 'fresh start' rules. I generally like new editors to have 6-12 months of solid editing with several thousand edits, a history of being civil, and if they are aware of RFA before being nominated they should have several weeks, preferably months, participating in admin-related areas. New editors with a bit over 12 months will generally have mistakes over 1 year overlooked and all new editors will generally have short-duration non-block mistakes overlooked if they are more than a few months old. But you are not a new editor, or at least you won't be in a year. In addition to the above, I like more experienced candidates and for that matter all editors to show leadership by doing at least one of the following: generating content, discussing policy, project participation, participating in admin and other maintenance areas, helping less experienced users, or other ways not mentioned. Experienced candidates should also be aware of most of the parts of Wikipedia and be aware of the commons and of sister projects, even if they do not participate in those areas and projects. When you get to the point that I can look at your previous 12 months and see those things, you will have my support. Until then, no."
  • Comment I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on the candidate and his editing behavior before and after the unsuccessful RFA, who the RFA participants are at the time he's turned down, who the RFA participants are at the time he runs again, the wording of the nominations both times, as well as factors that shouldn't matter but do, including who the nominators are, the success, failure, and drama of recent nominations the 2nd time, the size of admin backlogs at the time fo the 2nd run, and a host of other factors. The a candidate running failing now a year from now may face a far different outcome than the same candidate who runs first in Feb. 2009 and a 2nd time in Feb. 2010. It's not fair but it's the way it is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue here (it is my assumption that this is primarily about Red Thunder) is the lack of improvement between each RfA submitted. It speaks volumes of a candidate when he reads the supports, neutrals and opposes and yet does so little to prepare for next time. I think the boundaries are really just to stop the same pattern continuing - I mean, my particular restriction was simply because I felt I needed to have some evidence that he wasn't so power hungry (not saying he is at all, but it is a possibility) that he simply couldn't keep himself from coming back to RfA all of the time. It was also to allow time for improvement, as if a candidate goes through RfA regularly there is often not a large enough time for the community to ascertain what exactly has changed about the candidate - what makes the candidate more suitable than the last time that they ran through the process. The candidate's frequent applications have me worried, and it would appear I am not the only one.
As for the comment that the RfA report is all red, I must say, I am particularly impressed with the community when I look at the supports, opposes and neutrals on Roux's RfA. It makes me happy that we have both a system that is so incredibly in-depth that problems are highly likely to appear if they exist at all, but we also have a system where !voters don't feel uncomfortable speaking their mind. I find it not only to be a good trait a good trait in a candidate, but I find it to be quite a strength in our community. — neuro(talk) 08:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Here here! (Bangs fork on table). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, according to the history at Wikipedia:List of administrators we left 2008 with roughly 50 fewer active admins than we entered it with. Gazimoff 09:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Per my !vote here. After seeing the fact that this user is on his 5th active RfA, and also seeing that he clearly needs more experience. I don't think its that unreasonable to request that he wait another year before trying again. Also, I didnt say I will support his next RfA, I said I would consider supporting his next RfA. John Sloan (view / chat) 14:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look like we have consensus on the problem or on which direction we want to push. Another time, maybe. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD Results

Well, I've posted the results for the CSD survey---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

100% support for current RFA candidates

  • Red Thunder 13 13 3 50% 8 January 2009 13:11 None Details
  • Roux 33 33 7 50% 8 January 2009 11:02 None Details

Too bad it's split among two candidates. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So we pass one and fail the other?---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No, we rotate days between them. One will get Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the other will get Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. The seventh day is for rest, clearly. either way (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this thread rather surprising, and rather disrepectful of candidates who presumably entered the ring in good faith. They may have been foolish, but this disrespect is to nobody's credit. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, Malleus... I jumped into the lion's den threw my hat in the ring in good faith. I didn't have that much hope of success, but it's been interesting, especially with the almost exact 50/50 split. I think the comments above are very funny; I don't think any disrespect was intended, nor is any taken, at least not from my end. Red Thunder may disagree. // roux   06:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, if you and Red Thunder are cool with this nonsense then I guess there's no problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with it... when you smear yourself with honey and stake yourself to an anthill go for RFA, you have to expect a certain amount of unnecessary poking with extremely pointy sticks investigation. Good-natured fun alleviates some of the more negative aspects, I think. // roux   06:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly how I've intended it- a bit of silliness not intended to be disrespectful. Truth is, I'd never put my hand up at RfA myself; I know that if I did I'd get notnowed so quickly the resulting temporal paradox would cause the entire encyclopedia to implode. Reyk YO! 07:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have disrupted Red Thunder's RfA by adding another support. Does anyone want me to remove it? ;-) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I intended this in the spirit of humor, I have no ill will at all to the candidates. In fact, at least one of them has a reputation for badgering flying toasters. Humor is essential in an admin, it keeps you sane from going totally batty your first day, or so I hear. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 08:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, Roux is already batty. — neuro(talk) 08:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Preemptive SNOW

Could someone suggest a nice way of handling Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shahadat Hossain and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spotty11222 1. If they transcludes, it will almost certainly be a SNOW-fail, but they hasn't transcluded yet. Usually if a person is inactive I just delete it, but he is active. Any suggestions? MBisanz talk 09:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Speak to them and inform them they are (incredibly) unlikely to pass would be my suggestion. Suggest they withdraw, gain more experience and seek coaching. Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Ironholds - as long as they are not live, you have all the time in the world to advise them not to transclude them. We can SNOW if and when there is reason to SNOW. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated research

With the New Year I have updated my research on new users registering with Wikipedia, see below, continuing the trend previously noted, fewer people are registering accounts with Wikipedia each month than have registered historically. Over time this means that fewer registered users will become active and there will be fewer highly experienced users to run for RFA (all things being equal, it is unlikely that past ratios of registrations to user to admins vary over time). So the current situation of few if any RFAs is likely to continue unless this downward trend is reversed. MBisanz talk 10:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Bar graph
    Bar graph
  • Line graph
    Line graph

This message and the resulting discussion on the admins channel (ooh scary!) has incited me to create Wikipedia:If you could re-write the rules. —harej // be happy 11:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In June '08 (a month in the last down-period of Wikipedia) there were 18 successful nominations, whereas in October '08 there were 9 successful nominations despite it being a more active period for newly registered users. I don't think there's actually much of a proven correlation here, it's just luck on which users decide they want adminship or not. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
New users aren't going to go for adminship immediately. They certainly won't pass for at least a few months. What you'll see is that if registrations are slowing down now, after a maturation period, successful RfAs will likely slow as well. New registrations affect the supply of potential future administrators. There are many real life parallels to this. Think of children being born now and affecting things in the future. Medicare in the US, etc. Enigma msg 18:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
They aren't slowing down now, they peaked nearly two years ago and have been slowing ever since. We are already seeing the effect of this on other areas of the project and have been for some time. Personally, though, I feel the continued nonsensical increase in criteria for new administrators is more responsible in this case. If anyone feels like increasing the number of new users, how about easing up on the account-creation-disabled rangeblocks a little -- Gurch (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
We live in times where people attempt to apply statistics to a wide variety of things. Sometimes this results in discovering a problem in time to fix it, other times it results in undue panic. I really don't know where this observation lies in that spectrum. To simply observe two measureable parameters over time and make a generalized formula that works for the current data sets, does not necessarily mean that the formula, or its logical dependancies, are actually applicable. Is there a true direct correlation between registration of new users and sucessful adminships? I am not so sure. Is there a true direct correlation between the creation of new administrators and the sustainability of wikipedia? That's even harder to answer, I think. As an engineer, when looking at limited datasets and evalating speculations about what if one data set continues on its current trend, I like to imagine that trend all the way to infinity or at least toward absurdity, and then ask the same question. What if every single person in the world was already registered, and then we had to wait for the people being born today to be old enough to type in order to see any new registrations.... would this result in a sudden drop in sucessful adminships? What if we suddenly lost all of the inactive admins, and the admin count went to like 300 overnight... would wikipedia begin to feel the strain and feel like it was going to collapse? Both questions can fairly be answered as "no", I suspect, with no argument. So the new question is: where does the linearity of the supposed relationship between these things diverge? Is it only as we approach these extreme cases, or is it right from the start? I don't think we have any way of knowing. It is like global warming.... it might be a valid concern, or it might be a random intersection of unrelated data. Hard to say which, from where I sit. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

More strange IP edits

Check out this IP editor. Strange way to begin editing Wikipedia! John Sloan (view / chat) 23:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummmmm, Santa's little helper?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh. For some reason, reminds me of that version of Jingle Bells that's sung by a pack of dogs. WOOF WOOF WOOF. WOOF WOOF WOOF. WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF. :P --Dylan620 (Contribs · Sign!) 15:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This IP user appears to be the same person as Special:Contributions/209.6.21.168. Probably worth keeping an eye on both of them. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of failed RfAs?!

Since when do we replace all content with the template {{Courtesy blanked}} on failed RfAs, such as Mister Alcohol did on his here. I appreciate that failing an RfA could be embarrassing for a candidate but I have two points to make:

  1. Replacing all content with this template will not stop up checking the history of the RfA should the user apply again for the mop.
  2. It just makes things more awkward for us all next time round, because we have to go to the history and check the last good diff.

Should we still allow courtesy blanking? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I've read the arguments back and forth on this but I don't think we should, offhand. Obviously, first place I'm going to look with an RfA candidate who has applied before is the past one, see what the issue was and see if it's been addressed. It ought to be easy, not hard to do so.--Wehwalt (talk)
That's my opinion too. I forgot to state this but I think I implied it fairly well in my above post. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, let's leave him alone. I don't see the harm; if it makes him feel better, let him blank it. If/when he makes another RFA, the first one can be reverted to the unblanked version easily enough at that time. --barneca (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should allow it for SNOW/NOTNOW closures, except in extraordinary circumastances. Note that I say allow, not encourage. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say allow it for anyone that wants it, extraordinary circumstances or not. It's all still there, so why not just be nice? Especially if individual RFA's aren't NOINDEXed automatically (don't know if they are or not). --barneca (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not courteous to make pages harder to read. Friday (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It's best if we don't courtesy blank RfAs. The RfA process should be as transparent as possible. Majoreditor (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, a sysop should unblank the page. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Done PXK T /C 18:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should allow it if the candidate wants it, but it should look more like this since-reverted edit, which is my custom closed-RFA version of {{courtesy blanked}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this method. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a perfectly reasonable solution to me. --barneca (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but I wouldn't mind seeing a link on the page to the failed RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind courtesy blanking of failed RfA's, but I do object to trying to erase the existence of one like this.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's failed a couple of RfAs, I really don't see the point in this courtesy blanking. It's hardly an embarrassment to have failed at RfA, but if it makes a candidate feel better then there's no real harm done. It's quite a different matter though to attempt to rewrite history, as in your diff Balloonman, which is completely unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree with Malleus here. I've failed several but I'm not ashamed of it, I've become better off from it. If someone wishes to blank their RfA, it needs to be done in the way stated above where a link to the last good version of the RfA is provided for future reference. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone like to own up to owning this IP address? John Sloan (view / chat) 20:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm Santa Claus! -- 92.18.192.165 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That's an odd set of edits you have there Mr. Santa. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that too! I wonder if Santa's getting into the holiday spirit. Hm, spirit, spirit—alcohol! I get it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No thanks. I eat mince pies, and I don't drink. Goodbye. -- 92.18.192.165 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is that courtesy blanking of RfAs should be fairly rare (as noted above, it is actually fairly pointless since it is easy enough to look up the pre-blanked version in the history log; and previous RfAs are relevant when subsequent ones are submitted). However, as a procedural matter, I think that when blanking is done, it should be done by a crat rather than the candidate. If a crat blanks the RfA (presumably after a request by the candidate), with an appropriate crat note, this would most likely stabilize the page and prevent back and forth reverts and re-reverts, such as those that occurred with the Mister Alcohol RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll go for that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I dislike this idea (asking a 'crat), as it appears to be mission creep. Davidwr's template (with the tweak of adding a link to the unblanked RFA) (a) is simple, (b) makes it easy to get to the unblanked RFA, (c) is roughly in line with blanking an AFD; and (d) will make the candidate happy. The back and forth reverts were done by (1) an editor who really should have waited until consensus emerged here, (2) an apparent sock of a troublemaker of some kind, and (3) someone reverting the troublemaker; let's not create "policy" based on preventing goofiness; goofiness is not going to be prevented by making more rules. Let's not create one more "policy" where we ask 'crats to do something we can do ourselves if we just act like adults. Can anyone supply a good reason why davidwr's template solution shouldn't be implemented? --barneca (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have particularly strong feelings about this one way or another and I do think that davidwr's template is actually quite good. The question is who should actually do the blanking. My feeling is that, as the recent experience shows, if an RfA page is blanked by the candidate, it is more likely to be reverted and to lead to a possible series of reverts and re-reverts. If the page is blanked by a bureaucrat, it is unlikely that the blanking would be reverted, especially if a crat leaves a note asking not to undo the blanking without discussing the matter with the crat in question (or something of the sort). As a practical matter, I am pretty sure that (almost) all requests for blanking of RfA pages will in fact be honored by the crats, but the result will probably be more stable. I don't believe, however, that any formal policy regarding this is in fact needed now, but was rather thinking of some sort of an informal recommendation to RfA candidates who wish their RfA pages blanked. I think a formal policy of some sort would only become necessary if RfA blanking becomes quite frequent. Nsk92 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would be the mature solution! If the RfA talkpage was seen to be acting mature people might assume we actually do something productive here. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I really like Nsk's idea! I'd support that! John Sloan (view / chat) 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Like so? --barneca (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Certainly no good reason from me. If it makes a candidate feel better about his/her "failure" at RfA then where's the harm? Well, maybe there is a little bit of potential harm; a new rash of questions at a subsequent RfA asking "Why did you blank your last RfA?", and opposes coming in because the candidate appears to be too immature to accept "reasonable" criticism. But so long as the template comes with the link you describe, and a health warning, it's for each candidate to decide for him or herself whether to deploy it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Perfect —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A problem with blanking---some of the tools that are used to analyze RfA's do so based upon the last version of the RfA. Thus, if we start blanking failed RfA's as a matter of practice, we are limiting the effectiveness of these research tools.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree though that the feelings of the candidate ought to take priority over the shortcomings of a piece of software? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Any particular answer you're looking for, Malleus?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't see this becoming a common practice anyway, most people don't care if they fail and they often leave thank you's at the top. Blanking should only occur when requested and this is the first case I've even heard about, thus my confusion at the top of this thread. I doubt it'll affect stats that badly. If it does, is there no way a bot can check the last good diff or something? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I know of at least three RFAs that were blanked by the candidate, I'm sure there are some others though. MBisanz talk 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about Wehwalt. Do you? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I know of one or two other cases, which is why I know that the tools don't capture it... but I agree, it isn't that big of a deal, just something to be aware of. Again, I don't have a problem with blanking the RfA, but I would oppose deleting the RFA or not cataloguing them. (This is for established users---I personally think NOTNOW rfa's of newbies should be deleted.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That is generally what I have been doing with RFAs by inactive users that were never transcluded. MBisanz talk 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when are we so concerned about people's feelings? So they failed. Big whoop. You're supposed to learn from your mistakes, not sweep them under the carpet and innocently whistle away.--Koji† 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I just don't see the point. And to answer the point below, no, it is not a precedent for Mister Alcohol, because few people knew of it and it wasn't discussed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not let editors blank their RfAs if it gives them some comfort? Failing an RfA is hardly a "mistake" in any event. The more common mistake is to submit to RfA in the first place. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of courtesy blanked RFAs

I compiled this list by checking this page and doing Ctrl-F for "adminship."

The first five were blanked by WilyD; the next four by Bibliomaniac15; and the last two by Sephiroth BCR. None of these users blanked the RFA themselves. It is possible that other RFAs might have been courtesy blanked but use a different template or no template. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head comment edited by me there have been at least two more; both blanked by the candidate, reverted by people for... no good reason, really, and re-blanked by someone else. Since {{courtesy blanking}} specifically suggests substing it, and since there are evidently several possible templates (and, if davidwr's is used, we'll add one), I don't think using WhatLinksHere is going to get them all.
In any case, IMHO, this is enough precedent that I think we should courtesy blank Mister Alcohol's RFA using davidwr's template and end this. --barneca (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with this. If we do this, someone create the template and link to to one of the admin pages so we can find it again when we need it ... hopefully not before 2010. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. The RfA is under a pseudonym. Why would it be courtesy blanked? If we blank this one, why not courtesy-blank all the unsuccessfuls? Why keep a list of unsuccessfuls? There needs to be some measure of consistency so expectations can be fairly spelled out in advance. This is a process for a reason. Am I overlooking something that was already spelled out above? Townlake (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
One way to check: If there is a way to view RFAs that are shorter than a brand-new RFA, that's a clue it's been blanked. I don't know how to check for short RFAs though. Maybe when toolserver gets back up someone can write a tool. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably missing something here, but I still don't see the point. A blanked RfA is only two clicks away from anyone who wants to read it, and would have to be disclosed at a subsequent RfA in any event. Are people perhaps blanking in an attempt to prevent search engines like Google indexing their failed RfAs? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I personally don't like the listing of the blanked pages here. Presumably since they were courtesy blanked, there was a reason for it. Ala privacy or some other issue. If an odd person wants to blank their page, WTHN? If the page has been blanked, I think it is inappropriate to be listed here. I think the names above should be deleted.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, these aren't "their" pages, and by accepting a nomination for a very public masochistic ritual the candidates take a measure of responsibility for the public aspect of the negative consequences that may follow. It's not at all a foregone conclusion that these ought naturally be courtesy blanked on request. Skomorokh 05:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
They're not "your" pages either, so where's the harm? Completely agree with Balloonman. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I never made such a claim, unlike Balloonman. The potential harm in a "courtesy blank as default" convention is that issues that rightly put candidates in a bad light will be hidden away at their request. Skomorokh 05:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The page is only blanked, not deleted. How is that hidden? From whom is it hidden? I fail to see the point of blanking, but I also fail to see the harm in it. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. There is no real benefit from it except in the eyes of the participant... and yes, as a general rule it does look negative on them. that being said, advertising them here, does nothing. For whatever reason, they made a request to hide their RfA. Such a request implies a desire for anonimity. Yet here we are parading their RfA's about. This is, IMHO, disrespectful. Yes, RfA's are public, and should they choose to run again, their past RfA will be public... but in the meantime, I don't know just seems immature.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with "immature", more like "uncourteous and rude". Either way, I agree that parading these RfAs around is not good. Xclamation point 06:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's hidden in the sense that none of the content is "live"; hidden from search engines and Special:WhatLinksHere, as far as I am aware. Imagine you're trying to find a particularly cogent comment you remember, looking to figure out who a new RfA candidate might be a sock of, or trying to gather evidence for dispute resolution that requires research across several degrees of separation. RfAs tend to unearth a lot of unbecoming behaviour that otherwise passes unseen; it would not do to have it swept back under the carpet. I don't object to some courtesy blanking, but the "hey, why not/what's the worst that could happen" attitude strikes me as shortsighted. Hope this clarifies, Skomorokh 06:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have "courtesy blanked" the list per Balloonman's request. Crystal whacker (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to do this, there needs to be a centrally maintained list of courtesy blanked RFA's. I'd like to see, as well, a talk page for that, where the requests for courtesy blanking can be made. This should be out in the open.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
PATHETIC MAINTENANCE NOTE If anyone is going to courtesy blank an RFA, please remember to add the appropriate category to the newly blanked page (successful/unsuccessful) as it will screw up the tracking categories and my monthly clean up run otherwise. Thanks. MBisanz talk 13:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point... I have no problem with blanking RfA on occassion, but there does need to be some guidance on the minimum amount of info included on the blanked page.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thank you, CW.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Does the blanking not prevent archiving? I had to go back in the history to find out what happened to a recent one, as it did not appear in the archives. Turns out it had been withdrawn by the candidate. We still need to be able to refer to those RfA's. (talk→  BMW  ←track) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No, they should be archived, the problem with the archives is that it is a manual process. Which means that not all of them make it to the archives. Often, especially with people who haven't closed RFA's in the past, they don't get archived.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Checking my own IP edit history to avoid unnecessary drama

I'm considering throwing my hat in the ring ring of fire. However, given the drama of today where someone edited while logged off, I'm reluctant to do so unless a checkuser can show me all my previous IPs and the days that I used them so that I can at least show the edits made by them to all 'crats, all nominators, and any RFA participant who asks in private. I need to make one thing clear: I will not run if it means exposing my IP address or addresses. I know I've made at least a few IP-edits in the last year, none of them actually consequential but of course people will assume they are.

  • What's the best way to go about this?
  • Should I just not bother unless it comes up in the course of some other checkuser? That's not out of the question, as at least one address I've used is shared.
  • What's the best way going forward so future admin candidates aren't blindsided by events like today's drama?

A side note: I would only be asking about edits since my July 2007 unblock. My edit history before then involves multiple accounts and is not pretty, but for privacy reasons much of it will have to remain hidden. That will cost me some support and I accept that.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you think you've done something wrong as an IP, I can't see any reason. I operate 3 accounts, plus the occasional IP edit; however, I'm confident that I've not done anything wrong with any of them – or used them to votestack, avoid scrutiny etc – so don't see an issue. Also, be aware that with dynamic IPs, it's entirely possible that "your" IP has been used by someone else, especially over the sort of timescale you're talking about. – iridescent 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Incidently, unless someone brings up something I've overlooked, I expect to give my strong support to David if he runs.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think everyone makes an IP edit here and there. What happened to Enigmaman is not normal. I have been following RFA for quite some time, and I have never seen IP edits mentioned before now. J.delanoygabsadds 01:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with everybody above. If your IP edits are above board, then you don't have anything to worry about. EVERYBODY makes edits as an IP. The thing that makes this special is that Enigma apparently realized he was not logged in and pretended to be a dumb newbie, got involved in a (very minor) edit war, and made some disruptive edits. That being said, have you ever (as an IP) made what you knew to be disruptive edits? Gotten into an edit war? Pretended to know nothing about WP and asked an admin for help? Been uncivil?---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, don't worry. I am amazed what can happen here while I was not checking RFA for a day, but that is no reason to go all crazy. Have you edited as an IP to WP:SOCK? No? Then don't worry about those edits. SoWhy 07:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I disclosed my IP address on my last RFA and will probably do so if I run again, unless anyone tell me why an IP address might be worth keeping confidential? I guess mine would disclose who my ISP is and therefore which country I'm in, are there other implications? ϢereSpielChequers 10:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well some IP's are registered by users so if known, it can be tracked back to their place of residence, but its mainly due to the fact that people fear that someone might trace their IP back to a certain location and/or may stalk them. I have actually used over 300 ips since joining wikipedia, that's mainly due to me being on dial-up so I have nothing to fear but users with static ips have more to lose if a private info like that gets out..--Cometstyles 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if someone looked at my ISP-issued IP, they'd be able to deduce that I'm one of several million possible people — but some editors also make edits from their workplace or school. Depending on how many people share a corporate or school/university gateway, an IP address might be shared by a relatively small pool of individuals.
Consider a hypothetical user, User:Bill. Even if that's his real first name, I'd say that his anonymity is pretty well protected from the average creepy stalker. Now consider User:Bill, whose IP address – 123.123.123.256 – is registered to FooCorp, in Springfield, USA. Given that information, Creepy Stalker Dude (CSD) calls up FooCorp, and asks the receptionist for "Bill's" email address or phone extension. Or CSD Googles FooCorp, and finds a corporate directory, or a list of staff contacts, or the names of FooCorp employees who accepted an award from the local Chamber of Commerce. Aha! The only "Bill" is William Exampleguy. He works on the Widget project, under Bob "Big" Bossman.
Now, the next time CSD is in a content dispute with Bill, he casually lets drop some of his knowledge — Well, Bill, that may be how they do it at FooCorp, but that's not how I think it should be done here. Or how about Nobody needs to listen to Exampleguy on this one. Or even Bill, I don't think that Mr. Bossman would be happy about your edits to this article. See the problem? Even though we would immediately block any editor who used such tactics, the genie would be out of the bottle; Bill's privacy would be toast. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That being said, have you ever (as an IP) made what you knew to be disruptive edits? Gotten into an edit war? Pretended to know nothing about WP and asked an admin for help? Been uncivil? - percentage-wise, no more than when I'm logged in. That is, probably not at all but I can't be certain. In the last 18 months while logged in I've been in a very few very minor edit wars, and I might have downplayed my wiki-knowledge a time or two. I know I've made a few edits that came across as uncivil and even occasionally edited while angry, but that's rare. I wouldn't be surprised if I did at least one of these things at least while not logged in, but odds are the number is zero. Basically, my I-forgot-to-log-in editing pretty much mirrors my logged-in editing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Then don't worry about it... EVERYBODY makes edits not realizing that they were logged out. If you are the same logged out as logged in, NBD.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I would say to avoid entirely making edits while not logged in if you plan to run for RfA. Keep all your edits confined to your user account. Based on your history, I don't think you have anything to worry about, though. My case appears to be out of the ordinary, because of my behavior and because of the reason for the checkuser being run. I still don't know why the checkuser was run, but I doubt it's something that would apply to you. Enigmamsg 05:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more than possible, on a technical level, to edit as an IP and not have it picked up by a standard checkuser investigation, or even a more detailed checkuser investigation. I can assure everyone that routine checks are not carried out by checkusers on RFA candidates. I don't think we need to worry about a situation like this occuring again. --Deskana (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_153"