Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 205

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 200

←

Archive 203

→

Useless Questions in RfA

I'd like to transpose a little gem from the current RfA for VernoWhitney:

Additional question from Keepscases

9. What is your favorite element on the periodic table? Why?

While I can understand that this is all in good fun, it's also completely useless and ultimately counterproductive. Do we tolerate this at RfA, and if so why? Sven Manguard _Talk 23:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, and if the candidate does then they can always ignore it. RfA is hostile enough without going out of our way to stamp out all lightheartedness. More problematic, I think, are certain questions from editors who have already made up their minds to oppose. These questions are frequently unfair, in that they're designed to trip up the candidate and rarely have any acceptable answer. Reyk _YO! 23:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I feel left out. I didn't get a "keepcases question" during my RFA :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  - Okay. For the record, I agree with both of your points Reyk. Humor is good, and we shouldn't axe it, but putting it in the questions section, which tends to get crowded as it is, might not be the best location. I admit I can't think of any other location, so perhaps it would be something that gets moved to the talk page once there are a dozen additional questions. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    - For what it's worth, I was thrilled to have one fun question to ask yesterday amidst the serious ones. That's not to say that I'd like to be overwhelmed by them, but that one I liked. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      - I've never had a problem with Keepscases' questions - sometimes they're just fun, sometimes they actually pull something interesting out of the candidate. my RfA was filled with tough questions but the Keepscases one ("What is the most impressive magic trick you could perform right now, without any research or practice?") was a nice lighter moment. ~ mazca ^talk 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        As per Sven.--Kudpung (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        Admins can get asked some quite surreal questions once they have the mop, so I think that the occasional surreal question is a mildly useful part of RFA. There are loads of things I think are wrong about RFA, this is not one of them. NB For the record, Ununoctium. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        Not just questions either. I'm still scratching my head over this post to my talk page as I never edit weapon or firearms related articles. Just how or where did I gore this editor's ox? Handling posts where it's clear what someone's beef is is easy. Handling out in left field WTFs is hard. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's surreal. I thought maybe you had added a closed AfD tag, or NPP'd it or something, but no, you've never been near the article. Picking the wrong editor is easy (I did it yesterday to Orangemike), but picking an editor out of the ether is just crackers. Obviously in n-space, you are the head of the N-Wikipedia Firearms Project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

- - - - Ununoctium, really? If I had known that back then, I would never have supported you! :P So Why 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        Please see WP:Ununoctium for a new desysop procedure. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody in a 'troubleshooter' role frequently has to deal with the bizarre. You can tell a lot about the person by the way they approach a question that's out of the ordinary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, might even be called "thinking on your feet" in the real world. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

These supposedly daft questions can be deeper than they appear and, even if not, RfA is in dire need of a little comic relief. Oh, and for the record, Argon. Now, we seem to be wasting even more time and space than these questions with this thread. How about we all move on and find something useful to do? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea-- let's all go plagiarize! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea-- let's all go plagiarize! ^;-) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

..On all the TFAs scheduled for later this month! Access Denied – talk to me 13:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to admit, Elen's answer to the Keepscases question on her EfA makes these silly questions worthwhile... Access Denied – talk to me 13:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I blush in your general direction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I missed the opportunity to oppose over your outrageously incompetent response. Phoning an internet provider to get broadband before they learned English? Admins must get all the little details right, you know. What's wrong with RfA that such people can pass by such a comfortable margin? (Congratulations, by the way.) Hans Adler 15:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no sources to suggest that the Malmooth conglomeration existed until 100 trillion years in the future, so how could the alien of today cite their scholars as sources? Attention to detail please... (That should have been question 6A now I think about it.) Alzarian16 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is based on the assumption that said aliens are not able to time travel. Who knows, maybe they came back from the year 100 trillion to edit Wikipedia? And Hans, I would challenge your assumption that ISP hotlines are operated by people speaking English ;-) Regards So Why 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but then the sources don't exist yet, so it's OR after all! Anyway, aside from the now-dead Time Lords and a few batches of Daleks, the only others with time travel technology (if I remember rightly) are the Eternals, who have no interest in Ephemeral affairs such as encyclopedias, and the three races from Delta and the Bannermen, whose appearance would contradict the specification that the aliens editors are intelligent. Or did Dastari get his way after all? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So your proposition is that no-one, who has contributed to wikipedia, is a Dalek? Curious. - Pointillist (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that there are still 6.7 billion people on Earth as opposed to 0.0 billion, I say that it is a fair position to take. NW (Talk) 02:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on that. After all, there are examples of Daleks that were able to show empathy, so they could edit Wikipedia. ;-) Regards So Why 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility is that AFD allows Daleks to dissipate their destructive energies without actually killing anyone (well, not much). Wikipedia, saviour of the human race? Cue music: "Jimbo! AH-arr! He'll save evrywunnovus!". Not sure which editor to cast as Princess Aura tho'. - Pointillist (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)^{Is it time for my meds, nurse?}

Please note

Please note that there is a very related discussion going on at Jimbo Wales' talkpage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Linked page above. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Linked section above. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A random placemarker to increase edit count, and doesn't attempt to stay relevant. —Dark 06:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tryptofish and welcome to Wikipedia! We hope that you'll enjoy your editing experience and decide to stay. You may wish to note that we have this thing called internal links... Thanks for the fixes, folks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of questions 1 and 2

Please see here. AD 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another oppose rationale to discount?

Over on ANI, prominent editors previously opposed to content lite admins seem to have reversed their position, with SlimVirgin saying she will no longer insist that new admins be content contributors. So hopefully the existing trend for the best Crats to discount opposes based on lack of content contributions will continue. To maintain a balanced mix of content / process based admins, maybe it would be helpful if crats also start discounting opposes that cite lack of experience in admin areas or lack of familiarity with non core policies? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

SV may vote any way she pleases of course, but she is the only one I've seen there who says that she's reversed her position on voting at RfA. I'm interested though about this trend you say that you've noticed for bureaucrats to ignore opposes based on lack of content creation. While I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were true I'm wondering if there's any evidence for it? Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

^What Malleus said. I've never heard a marshmallow peep from a 'crat that those types of opposes were discounted. Nor do I believe they should be, obviously. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Slim is entitled to her opinions, but her opinions are rarely those of most others. – iridescent 20:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WJB Scribe. X! also, citing WJB Scribe's rationale here... alas I don't have time to dig up that link at the moment. Townlake (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare. That said, none of the crats ignore any vote at all. Rather, we weight them differently, which is distinct from ignoring. (X! · talk) · @898 · 20:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally disagreed with that (WJB's) close, though it's undeniable that Bsadowski1 has been a net positive. However, I have a question to those who frequently oppose based on lack of content grounds: I have an FA, several GAs and dozens of ITNs and DYKs to my name. Does that somehow make me a better administrator than somebody like Bsadowski who, at the time of passing RfA, didn't have any of those IIRC. Or does it make him an inferior or administrator? I don't believe it does, but I'd be intrigued to hear opposing rationales. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It just means you've engaged the purpose of the Project enough for us to be better able to evaluate what kind of admin you'd make, and to evidence that you know policy. You can get a DYK up without knowing anything, a GA also depending on the reviewer, but you can't (usually, ahem ... ) get an FA without understanding how Wiki works and demonstrating how you deal with conflict. Huggling and vandal whacking don't evidence knowledge of all of the policies admins are called upon to enforce. That is not to say that non-content contributors don't sometimes have enough work to evidence knowledge, maturity, trustworthiness; I've supported plenty of non-content contributors. Anyhoo, glad to know 'crats are doing this, so we can tighten our opposes on ill-prepared candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Sandy puts it very well; I agree with her entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec, re HJM) Per my boilerplate comment on many RFAs, "I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do". In my experience, the admins who have some kind of experience of what it's like to work hard on something, only to have it tagged for deletion/someone demand it include their pet theory/someone post reams of incoherent ranting on the talkpage and demand it be answered immediately (delete as appropriate), are the admins who understand why people sometimes get frustrated and snap at each other, and also understand that generally, the snappiness fades the next day of its own accord and any intervention just makes things worse. The non-content vandal-fighters generally (and yes, there are honorable exceptions) become civility-police types, who will block someone for saying "fuck off" to the IP who has inserted a piece of gibberish on an article they're working on, or block the writer for edit-warring when said IP inserts said gibberish three times and gets reverted each time. – iridescent 20:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, if I saw an admin block a content creator the way you described in their last example, I would want their head on a platter for blocking someone who defends the encyclopedia from IP's that save such edits. The Thing ^T/_C 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you'd be going against the Way Things Are Done Round Here. This is neither a new problem nor a hypothetical— here's a choice quote from five years ago on why tag-teaming is good and it's verboten to revert even an obvious error more than three times (Even the insertion of material which violates NPOV policy is not reason enough to violate 3RR! This is why 3RR specifically excepts groups: if you are truly in the right, others will agree with you and also revert. Whether you are in the right or not, it provides an electric fence to stop you from going over the edge and enforces a cooling off period.) – iridescent 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that quotation quite shocking and revealing. Basically there's a hierarchy of policies here, with NPOV at the bottom, civility at the top, and common sense nowhere to be seen. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would probably try putting WP:CIV on MFD except I'd probably end up with a vey long block. Access Denied – talk to me 02:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And yes, there is no way I'd block a good faith editor for saying Fuck Off to a wikistalker, annoying My-Spacer, Pov pusher, etc. If an established editor was going to random user talk pages and saying Fuck off just for laughs, yes I'd give them a long block for disruption and trolling but that's a whole different matter of course. Access Denied – talk to me 02:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt you'd get blocked, but the MfD would be a speedy keep because you can't get rid of a policy by deleting the page it's written on. WP:SK#4. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and my point is, if you remember turbo traverse when malleus said "fuck off troll" to an established editor. Should

Malleus have said that, no. Is it block worthy, absolutely not. Access Denied – talk to me 02:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it difficult to deal with such situations, so an admin definitely should not. I've simply found an admin (in this case, it would be an admin finding another admin or another editor) to assist (and it's pretty easy to find an admin who's online - AIV is almost always a good place to look if one doesnt know other methods), and admins have other options available to them such as page protection (done by them or another admin) and so on. And really... is NPOV content that sits for a few minutes to a few hours really that much ~~better~~ worse than an edit war, especially one that an admin is engaged in, and even more especially when that admin has many other options open to them (none of which include edit warring or 3RR)? We aren't talking BLP or copyvio violations, nor are we talking about a permanent NPOV violation. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. There are exemptions to the 3RR, but they are limited and there are good reasons for that. The exceptions cover the kind of shit that needs to go immediately (vandalism, BLP violations, copyvios, illegal shit), but even in those cases, it encourages editors to seek assistance rather thank keep reverting. All too often people disingenuously revert under the guises of BLP or vandalism, which makes life that bit harder for those reverting legitimately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable: I suggest leaving the crats to themselves, they can do without excessive regulation. RFA cases are mostly either all-black or all-white; rare cases that require bureaucrat decision (rather than rubber-stamping) are better left to individual judgement. At any rate, I see no point in suppressing oppose votes without a fair examination and, when appropriate, suppression of unmotivated or poorly motivated support votes. East of Borschov 03:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes its good when crats take bold decisions individually as then we have a much better chance of a people friendly outcome rather than the safe status quote result that inevitably follows a crat chat. :-) Discounting isnt the same as suppressing or ignoring. We should continue our tradition of subjecting oppose rationales to greater scrutiny than supports as support ought to be the default position and unless discounted a single oppose balances 3x support votes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally, wherearetheeditcountitis or whataretheeditscountitis is as bad as any other version. This latest craze for "FA! FA!" is as ludicrous as it ever was (and yes, I remember it the last time around). FAs wouldn't be worth much of anything long without vandal fighters, nor would vandal fighters be worth a thing if there weren't good content to defend in the first place. The contributions of everyone are valuable. To pooh-pooh the contributions of someone who keeps articles from turning to garbage or those who make something worth protecting in the first place is rather silly. Look at the individual. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no craze of opposes for not having written a featured article, and I cannot remember this being the case for quite a while (User:Mailer diablo/1FA having been deleted by request in May 2007). I would be grateful if you could either substantiate your claim or retract it, because it is looking very much like a strawman argument to excuse a lack of any significant content contributions. Skomorokh 11:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Look up "audited content" in any number of RfAs, if you'd like to see that issue specifically, under a new name. The Thing That Should Not Be springs to mind as a recent example of whataretheeditscountitis/wherearetheeditscountitis, and those were significant enough for it not to pass. I've seen plenty more like it. "Lack of significant content contributions" is basically a synonym for "FA! FA!". What's "significant"? Writing FAs? Correcting a bunch of typos? Copyediting? Watching out for NPOV issues? Keeping people from inserting random profanity? Working on documentation of best practices of those doing the writing? All of those are valid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the desire of many RFA !voters to see significant content contributions is not as simple as a requirement for FAs. We have had a number of successful RFAs this year where the candidates content contributions consisted of a GA or in referencing many unreferenced BLPs. We haven't had an unopposed RFA since August, but one of those has as far as I can see no FAs. Personally I think that adding material to the pedia with an inline cite to a reliable source is a pretty basic skill for a wikipedian and I would be unlikely to support an RFA for a candidate who hadn't done this, but that is a long way from requiring an FA. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Here's a question for anyone active in RfA. Would you trust a user enough to grant them administrative tools if they have dozens of GAs, FAs, and FLs under their belt, as well as a history in tedious-yet-necessary tasks like WikiProject upkeep, category sorting, etc? Such a user might not have a lot of experience voting in AfDs or warning vandals, but through several years of experience they have certainly developed an understanding of what should be included and what should not be. They have seen their share of vandalism, though they might not have much experience fighting it. However, their clear adherence to content policy shows an ability to follow guidelines and processes, and their time spent in FAC, GAC, and similar venues shows exposure to consensus building and and good judgment. Oh yeah, these types of users would also have clear block logs and very civil reputations, as well as active e-mails, clean userpages, maturity, and work-focused talkpages.

I'm thinking about nominating a few users along these lines, but I want to see if I should encourage them to demonstrate their deep knowledge of Wikipedia through ramped-up participation in AfDs and similar avenues beforehand. They don't demonstrate an urgent need for the tools, but neither did I when I was nominated. When I'm active, I still like to occasionally indulge in clearing admin-related backlogs, dealing with vandalism, and closing AfDs. Is there anything wrong with that? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My general thinking these days is that if you are good enough to get (an) article(s) up to FA and haven't really been involved in many dramas, then you are probably sane enough to be an administrator. Alternatively, you are sane enough to stay away from the requests for adminship process. YMMV.

But just off the top of my head, GrahamColm and TimVickers are two excellent editors who do not that much admin-ing but passed their RFAs with flying colors. The encyclopedia would be worse off if it didn't have them as administrators. NW (Talk) 06:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is kind of my conflict in philosophy as far as who should be admins are concerned. While it is preferable to have admins who have fairly established track records as far as content contribution is concerned, on the other hand, do they have enough of a need of the admin tools to use them? Certainly, such admin candidates are ideal as far as perceived experience in mainspace and dispute resolution issues are concerned, but if such candidates are going to rarely, if ever, use the admin tools, then are we not indirectly promoting adminship as some "status symbol", or else, feeling comfortable that "the power" is only in the hands of people who knowingly will not use it? –MuZemike 08:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a fine balance there. We want admins who use the tools often enough to use them effectively and correctly... but I, for one, do not want admins who ONLY do adminning to the exclusion of content work. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the fallacy in that argument is the emphasis on "need". If those candidates have a track record of good editing and if they only use those tools once in a positive way, then their promotion to adminship is a net positive for the project. In an ideal world, every experienced editor would be an admin because even rarely using the tools in a positive manner is preferable to not using them. I'd argue even that giving such editors the tools is making adminship less of a "status symbol" because it shows that anyone can get it, even if their editing does not center around administrative tasks. The more people can achieve the "rank", the less of a status symbol it is. Regards So Why 08:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The way to prevent adminship from being a status symbol is to ignore issues such as how often someone might use the tools, and concentrate on whether they are suitable and ready and the more admins we have the less status anyone can claim is involved. An FA or GA writer can safely be assumed to be here to write an encyclopaedia, and to understand sourcing and writing issues. But not all good writers display the tact, diplomacy and general communication skills that I think an admin should have. I used to review articles at FAC and it would have been completely irrelevant to consider the nominators blocklog when reviewing an article, but that blocklog would be very relevant at RFA. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

SoWhy makes excellent points. More content focussed admins might not help much with mopping work, but when drama involving prolific but volatile content creators comes up on the admin boards it should be more likely for them to receive a sympathetic and patient hearing. If more content contributors start passing maybe folk will relax about letting Vandal fighters and gnomes have better tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, SoWhy. I've opposed a bunch of people on a bunch of grounds, but I don't ever recall a "doesn't need the tools" oppose--at least not for someone who is a dedicated en.wiki contributor. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can think of editors with many FAs who wouldn't make good admins, and by no means do I endorse all top content contributors as admins, but the deal is, by virtue of seeing them often at FAC-- seeing how they deal with vandals, conflict, policy-- more of the community does know their character and knowledge of policy and tools, hence can make a good call as to their trustworthiness, and knowledge of how to apply the tools. Being an FA writer just means we know them well enough to make that call-- it is not the FAs per se that qualify them. The FA community knows the FA writers, and knows when they wouldn't make good admins; writing top content is not all that matters, but it's very often, but not always, a good indication. It's hard to get through FAC if you don't know policy and can't deal well with conflict. I've seen references to RFA as "hell week", but your work at FAC is often ripped apart far more than candidates at RFA, and for much longer than a week, so we see how nominators hold up and respond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Though when reviewing FACs, FA reviewers don't go back through contribution history looking for signs of conflict (resolution or involvement), nor undertake the character assassination that can sometimes happen at RfA. Ged UK 13:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Allowing for the (notable) exceptions, that is not always true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the difference between RfA and FAC is, that FAC's criticisms are not personal, but rather with the article, that at FAC, the criicism is much slower paced, and an RfA criticism is more likely to be unfair.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's about right. There's quite a difference between being told that your work is worthless shit and that you're a worthless shit. Plus, at its best FAC can be collaborative, with others helping to resolve problems, whereas at RfA you're pretty much hung out to dry if you even suggest that an opposer has got the wrong end of the stick. I've long since forgiven him, but Pedro was instrumental in helping to sink my first RfA by accusing me of rolling back an article to my preferred version, without citations, which was blatantly untrue. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but being accused of wp:owning an article is quite tame compared to what regularly goes on at RfA nowdays. Since I've watched RfA, I've seen unproven or poorly proven accusations of plagiarism and on one occasion, even pedophilia.Dave (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You probably had to be there, and I don't blame you for not checking, but the accusation wasn't of ownership. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Displaying maturity and clue is usually all that's required to trust a user with admin tools IMO. -- œ ^™ 13:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly that alone isn't enough for RFA today. If it were there are lots of potential candidates out there. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is. They're just not easy to find. -- œ ^™ 15:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I am going to be nominating a few content-focused editors over the course of the following months. They probably won't use the tools a lot, but I think it will send a signal that posessing the tools is not a status symbol nor a required full-time commitment. Ideally, all our experienced and level-headed users would have the tools, for the sole purpose that they aren't mandatory or attached to sime kind of quota. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to avoid the insistence that RfA candidates should have produced produced X number of FA, GA, and DYK. What is however required is sufficient, solid content building that goes far beyond editcountitis accumulated on tens of thousands of mass edits made with AWB and Hotcat, and hundreds of one-line actor, soccer player and settlement stubs. We also need to ensure that their contribs respect all the fundamental guidelines of MOS, and are free of policy errors and tags. 'Not needing the tools' is an overly used argument for opposing mature, all-round, clueful candidates. If they spend just an hour a day on the Wikipedia, they will come across enough cases where they can use the tools without needing to go off on witch hunts for vandals, sockpuppets, and corporate spammers. On another far more important note, there are plenty of people out there who fit the bill, but as long as the RfA process continues to treat its candidates like criminals in a court of justice, and while the voters themselves break every rule in the book on civility, and are incapable of demonstrating their own maturity, very few editors are going to come forward and venture into the snake pit.--Kudpung (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think content building is a requirement that is the mirror of "no need" and thus equally unsound as an argument. As I noted in my essay WP:NEIAA, content building is not something that comes easily to everyone. People who are non-native speakers (like myself) or those who lack the writing-related creativity required for writing articles simply are unable to fulfill any such requirements and thus would fail RFA even if they are capable in those areas they want to work in. Instead, we should focus on whether a candidate can handle content "correctly" (so to speak): They need to demonstrate that even if they themselves are unable to create quality content, they are nevertheless able to edit such content in a responsible way, e.g. no overzealous (speedy-)deletion requests, not biting new good faith contributors, not showing signs that they would discriminate against non-vandal-fighting-but-content-creating-editors etc. Regards So Why 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

RfA is like getting U.S. Senate approval of a judge

I dumped Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick into a word document and parsed out everything but Sphilbrick's answers to questions. Thus far, in his answers he has typed over 30,000 characters amounting to over 5,000 words. It amounts to over eight pages of single spaced text, 12 pt font, Times New Roman. And this is in a relatively non-controversial RfA. At what point does thoroughness become excessive? Kingturtle = (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, some of the questions being asked are pretty specific and detailed. I agree with your topic header. I can understand the rationale, but it kind of goes against my philosophy on adminship. Edit: I do feel that User:Fastily is trying to make admins and admin candidates better, though. My only problem is that many of our administrators learn on the job; I know I certainly did. But we can still become a net positive to the project, thanks to (hopefully) having a civil temperament and sound judgment to a) minimize mistakes, b) identify when we are wrong/fix the mistake, and c) learn from our mistakes. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well the tone of recent RfAs lends additional credence to the analogy. The whole "I'm going to vote against you because you disagree with me" thing is bollocks. The criteria should be "will this person make a good admin." It isn't though. I agree that Fastily's questions are going in the right direction, forcing people to work with content rather than opinion, but the system is a mess more because the participants are causing problems, and less because of the process itself. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My only problem is that the judgment of answers can still be a gray area—that is, how do we judge a slightly erroneous answer from a blatantly bad one. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not bollocks, it's a symptom. Admins have been getting too much power recently. It has always been the case that every single admin had a veto right against not blocking a user. Two years ago Arbcom introduced a specific situation (AE blocks) in which admins were no longer allowed to unblock without following a very specific process. Since then it has become more and more standard that an admin may not unblock without consulting the blocking admin. Another interesting point is that now on WP:AE there are sections in which only admins may comment. There have been cases of admins with a strong POV doing "uninvolved" admin actions in a contentious area instead of editing and discussing there. The simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that they felt working there as admins would be more effective in terms of furthering their POV than working there as editors. Hans Adler 22:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just speaking for myself, I don't think asking questions of an RfA candidate is a bad thing. (And to me, counting bytes for answers seems a bit arbitrary.) On any other page we promote the idea that discussion is important. Well, atm, it seems to me that the main way that positive discussion of any kind happens during an RfA is through the questions. Otherwise, most "discussion" is just merely in response to someone's "vote", and typically not by the nominee (in fact, most nominees are advised to not comment on "votes" as that can be considered a decent way to sink your candidacy.)

So I would contest the idea that the "voting process" should sit in some sort of stasis area, with no discussion/no Q and A allowed.

(We can point to the talk pages of RfAs, but that's usually a holding pen for things considered "contentious", and I highly doubt most "voters" bother to check there for info. I think it'd be interesting if there was a way to actually assess how many "voters" in a particular RfA actually checked the candidate's contribution history. "I like/trust/support the guy, because I don't see any issues" is probably the most common "vote".)

Though of course, YMMV, I suppose. - jc37 22:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind commenting on some opposes/neutrals/supports, mainly because I see it as still a discussion forum. Of course, there is a very fine line between badgering and responding. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the title of this section: I remember thinking, when Sonia Sotomayor was undergoing the Congressional approval process to sit on the US Supreme Court, "It could be worse. At least she's not going through WP:RFA." :) Robofish (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, reading that was definitely a laugh out loud moment, thanks : ) - jc37 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose we're going to bork you Dave (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (p.s. Robert Bork#Bork as verb for those who don't get the reference)

I oppose your oppose in an angry but ambiguous manner. I have no real reason for my opposition, but will never admit that. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It might well be a laugh to some, but ironically, some of the contributors to this very talk page are the among the people who make RfA an unpleasant experience for even the most mild mannered of Wikignomes. I fail to see how they derive pleasure from it. It's what's holding people from running for office. There are commentators who suggest it's the fear of a limited tenure being introduced, but that's just a red herring. RfA is the one most single uncivil place on Wikipedia. --Kudpung (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, the aforementioned candidate seems particularly verbose, though I do concur with the sentiments expressed by the OP. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Did a 'crat really type these words?

And this is in a relatively non-controversial RfA.

This is an RFA of a candidate who engaged Climate Change-- controversial by definition. Judging all of RFA by this one case is off. RFA should be tough-- that this candidate will pass anyway shows it's working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Should RfA be deleted?

In the spirit of the thread below, should RfA be deleted?

Support --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to move this to MfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed the memo that today is November Fools' Day. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got the joke!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Should future RfA's be deleted?

Subthread of [1]; moved from WP:AN –xeno^talk 14:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good place to start a formal consensus for whether RfA's like this can be deleted. This is not a one-time situation, it happens nearly every week. There is no harm in keeping such RfA's, except that the tally count might reach a maximum at some point and no longer be able to function for the live RfA's. Currently various administrators have been cleaning it out every now and then, usually with either a G2 ("Test page") summary or a G6 ("Housekeeping"). I assumed that everything was okay with these deletions until I found out about the MFD in which it seems that Wikipedians in general are in favor of keeping the RfA's. Does this mean we should no longer delete unused RfA's? Should I bring this to the Village Pump or an RfC to get a wider assortment of views? —Soap— 12:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This refers specifically and strictly to RfA's that have been created and left untranscluded for a long time. —Soap— 13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The only time an RFA should be deleted would be if someone had created it on behalf of someone, and they decline the nomination. Otherwise, past RFA's are useful documents: I can look at what suggestions were made, and then see if they actually followed those suggestions. Even if the editor claims to never want to run again, that does not mean that they will not run again. Courtesy blanking may be appropriate in some cases, but never deletion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- But if the RFA was never transcluded, there wouldn't be any commentary on there worth seeing... Courcelles 12:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If there was even a single comment (support, oppose, neutral) then it becomes a live RFA for all intents and purposes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in that case it should be logged as a failed attempt. However, this is useless for those purposes, and shouldn't prejudice a candidate's first real RFA as being #2. Because, whether we like it or not, we all know RFA's have a greater chance of failure the higher the number at the end of them. Courcelles 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur fully regarding this specific RFA. But the question relates to RFA's in general. I have never questionned this specific one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time, nor the last, that this specific instance has/will occur. I have deleted several RfAs of new users recently (none that went to MfD and closed as keep, however) after seven days had passed since I notified them of their untranscluded RfAs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose There's no compelling reason to delete - leaving the pages in tact does no harm. Moreover, if user A nominates user B but user B doesn't want to run, leaving the page visible will stop users C, D and E from also nominating user B for adminship in the near future - so the page would still serve a useful purpose, even if it's never trancluded. waggers (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Userfy. There are several sets of circumstances at play here. The key point is that an RFA is not an RFA unless the candidate transcludes it to WP:RFA. Until then, it is a draft - and, my preference, it should be prepared in the userspace. Move it over when you're ready, transclude it, and brace yourself. Unless the RFA is going to be transcluded shortly (say within a day or two), then it should not be in the WP space. Even better, we should turn the practice around for draft RFAs, especially ones where the candidate changes their mind, but might re-apply down the line. Userfy it. They can work on it at their leisure, updating their self-nom or discussing a nomination with their admin coach/mentor/etc. Seems like that would be the simplest option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy An Rfa is not an Rfa until a user transcludes it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment/Delete - This discussion is based on the process I (with the idea coming from Fastily) have been using for these. I notify the user about their untranscluded RfA (with User:Fastily/RfA Notice), and if they are a new user I warn them about their chances of succeeding, and after seven days have passed without the user replying to the message, I delete the RfA. In the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kobnach, is there really any point in keeping a declined RfA nomination? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Userfy - might come in handy someday. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete/Userfy if nominee refused, Keep if nominee still considering. -- Avi (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
No. absolutely not. No compelling reason to delete. RfAs can and should be blanked liberally (but never automatically) and only very rarely deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely some misunderstanding in this thread. The purpose of this discussion is to weigh in on whether untranscluded RfAs of new users should be deleted after seven days have passed since notifying them of their RfAs and their chances at succeeding. This does not include transcluded RfAs that did not succeed, as these should be unequivocally kept. In cases of users declining nominations, is there really any purpose of keeping these RfAs if only to show a higher number of past RfAs for a user when they officially decide to run? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete [2] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete, in those cases where the RfA is as content-empty as in StartrekismylifeJadzia's case. (Wow. This person may never make another edit, yet has managed to carve out at least a footnote-level notability in Wikipedia's history thru this one event.) However, if it can be shown that deleting these unfinished RfAs -- & that is what they are, unfinished & undiscussed -- either has no effect on the server load, or perhaps even increases it, I'm willing to not bother tidying up by deleting them. "Tidying up" describes exactly what is being proposed here, the equivalent of straightening the desks or emptying waste paper baskets; since Wikipedia is Not Paper, we don't need to concern ourselves with treating stuff like this like waste paper, spoiled drafts, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment – Full disclosure: I have not looked at the RFA one bit. If it looks like it's going to be a "noose dangling over one's head", then delete. Historically, we have done this in the spirit of WP:BITE; I don't see a reason to deviate from this when this user may end up being a productive sysop. –MuZemike 08:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Artificial break to show where the thread was moved from AN to here.

Delete unless a candidate accepts and the RFA is transcluded then I see nothing to lose and something to be gained in getting rid of these. If a candidate has run then there is an argument that we should keep all such RFAs, though I like the idea of courtesy blanking on request. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete/userfy Seems pretty clear. If it's blank or declined, but userfy if the person filled in answers to the questions and then left it sitting. They might want to be saving some eloquent prose. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete/userfy after, say, one month without being touched, or without the user in question editing, or if the user in question agrees to it being deleted/userfied at any time. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete if empty, Userfy if filled in/questions answered etc. -- œ ^™ 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete/userfy, per œ. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Userfy in a perfect world. In practice, doubt I'd bother someone who might be a serious candidate, especially if edits now and then show that he or his backers might be thinking about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete/userfy – Userfy by user request, delete otherwise. —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections: call for review and discussion

Greetings, adminwatchers. You may or may not be aware that this year's ArbCom elections are underway at the moment, with five candidates having stepped forward at the time of writing. Although the balloting itself will be in secret, public comment and debate on the candidates is more than welcome on-wiki. Alas, it has not been very forthcoming.

Can any of you imagine a request for re-adminship of any of the current ArbCom candidates attracting this little discussion?

At a high attention RfA, one could usually expect a half a dozen editors to investigate different aspects of the candidate's history and give an assessment. Why do we care so little about potential arbitrators, when the stakes are a lot higher?

!voters, it's time to become voters...

2010 Arbitration Committee Elections: Voter log; Contact the coordinators; Discuss the elections; Results

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides

These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion.

For the election coordinators, Skomorokh 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in one word: retaliation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Caveat: looking for a grilling of candidates, not a spit-roasting. Importing the denizens of Hell Week to run Hell Month is not the plea here... Skomorokh 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw Malleus around here somwhere, he's usually causing friction and heat here ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad SandyGeorgia, bad. No BEANS! And besides, the coordinators are watching... and some of them actually have banhammers... Sven Manguard _Talk 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Those banhammers look to be MIA on that comment from Wehwalt above! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment played up the cooking analogy to bring a little humor to the situation. Yours, on the other hand, implies improper motives to people who are entitled to the assumption of good faith. You may be conversant with that policy, perhaps, Sandy?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How convenient that humor is for you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

~~You know, public debate might be a little hard to do when so many useful questions have been forbidden.~~ NW (Talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of this statement has been disputed. Some guidelines for managing the candidate's question pages were introduced at the behest of exasperated voters, editors are free to ask whatever they like everywhere else; the inconvenience to a handful of self-important blowhards is a small price. Skomorokh 20:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I disagree with your reasoning, but my comment wasn't necessary. NW (Talk) 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you've posted a notice and a link, fine. This page is for discussing RFA, not ArbCom, have your fight over there please, enough off-topic squabbling gets posted here already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

2 New standard questions: Civility blocks and previous accounts

Here I go:

4: What is your interpretation of the civility policy? When, if ever, would you make civility blocks?
5: Before creating this account, did you ever edit under any other accounts or IP addresses?

4 would be useful in ironing out trigger-happy children and overenthusiastic "civility" police. 5 would be useful in evaluating a user's previous experience (if they have any). Any thoughts? Access Denied – talk to me 05:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your second question has been proposed as standard before; I strongly support it as it tends to put well-meaning but deceptive editors on the spot, and is relevant to all candidates. Your other proposed question is a good illustration of why standard questions generally ought to be restricted; it's motivated by a fashionable concern of the time, and not relevant to all candidates (imagine a candidate seeking adminship purely so they could work in deletion, for instance). Best, Skomorokh 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Your intentions are good, but three standard questions is plenty. The last thing RFA needs is more busywork for candidates before the voting even starts. Townlake (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Townlake. Reyk _YO! 06:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, nope, but that was certainly in good faith. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No to proposed Q4. Yes to proposed Q5 for the reasons outlined by Skomorokh. MtD (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to make #5 standard. Sure is asked enough times. -- œ ^™ 07:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I do think that we should add a standard question relating to account security, in light of compromised sysop accounts in the past. --Rs chen 7754 08:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Firmly support a question along the lines of 5, and I think it should go further, along the lines of "when did you last edit using another account or while not logged in"? - Pointillist (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
q5 Some people's IP addresses identify the company they work at, mine would tell you that I'm a customer of one of the UK's largest IPs and have a mobile broadband account from one of the UK's major mobile companies. I linked a couple of IP addresses I'd edited from in my RFA, but if I was to edit from work and accidentally edited logged out I might want that oversighted. I think we need to respect the need of some of our editors for privacy, and also remember Wikipedia:Clean start. If we want to revise our policy on Cleanstart we should discuss that there, not contradict it here.

As for Q4, if you see something in the candidate's edits that suggests they might be trigger happy or overenthusiastic about civility then by all means ask a diff supported question. Making it a standard question would just exacerbate the tendency to turn this into an openbook exam and further distract attention from the candidate's contributions. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Q5. If the editor has ever edited logged out or using an IP, there should be no expectation that he reveals said IP in public, just that he says so. If there is an issue, then a more private conversation can take place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I opposed this last time it came up and shall do so again. Candidates can, and will, lie about their past if necessary to get them to where they want to be. We have no way of checking their answers are true. Similarly I never thought much of Q1's current wording. I think it ought to be about what experience the candidate has in admin areas, rather than where they intend to work. This way the answer can easily be verified and at the same time give a good indication of what they probably will do as an admin. As for civility blocks, I'm not a fan of them, but there are far more important issues admins have to deal with than that, and as such should not be a standard question. AD 13:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think these are questions that might be asked of some candidates, but I feel we do not need more standard questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Q5 seems a little intrusive. If they edited as an IP before registering, what relevance does that have to their ability as an admin? Q4 is just unnecessary. RfA does a good enough job of weeding out "trigger-happy children" as it is and this isn't the place for a crusade against WP:CIV. Start an RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Good questions. Still, none required as mandatory. Ask them whenever you're around... Just for suggestion sake, if you're up to it, you could recommend that a checkuser sweep be made mandatory on all RfA applicants, to empt and prevent damage to the project. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The CUs would almost certainly never agree to that and those who did have something to hide would probably find ways to conceal it from CU if that were mandatory. If any passing CU were curious, they're quite welcome to check me. It wouldn't turn up anything interesting. It's nearly impossible for a sockpuppet to go undetected for the length of time and attract he kind of positive attention required to have any chance at RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Q4 is unnecessary, as problems like that should be obvious. I oppose Q5 for the same reason as last time an additional question was opposed: "The three standard questions are there because they are simple, general, and leave the court open for people to make judgements. They sum up everything that most people know to make a decision." And, of course, for this reason. (X! · talk) · @031 · 23:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Are we ready to file this at WP:PEREN yet? Anyway, the sock question is so obviously useless that it boggles my mind that it keeps getting suggested. Why would a liar, who may have created the account specifically to see if their sock could eventually pass RFA, suddenly admit to it just because they were asked? The idea that simply asking would deter such a person is laughable. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Need for alternate accounts question is already proven

After all the ArbCom kerfuffle a year ago at Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA, the associated motions here and the discussion at User:SirFozzie/Alternate, isn't it already proven that RFA candidates should make some sort of declaration about past, current and future use of alternate accounts? The advantage of asking that question during RFA is that, where deception is discovered in future, it can be treated as a clear breach of trust—without the need for long discussion before desysopping. Editors wouldn't need to debate the rights and wrongs (e.g. on one hand: "The only important thing is whether Wikipedia was made better with Law as an admin/editor. Undoubtedly, it was, until the witchhunters found out who he really was." and on the other "when the fuck did it become ok to sock around a block/ban? I'm appalled at the number of editors who are grousing about blocking an editor who socked around a ban under the assumption that they were good people on the 'new' account."). Having an appropriate Q5 as standard – with a statute of limitations and maybe some way to exclude good faith clean starts – could eliminate all that drama. Why not? - Pointillist (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall seeing somewhere a proposal to do a mandatory checkuser on RfA candidates. I think that is a bit OTT but a declaration, as long as it was treated sensibly, seems ok.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say there is a proven need for the community to vigilantly watch for the return of various former editors in new guises. But is such a question a useful way to do this, or does it just give us the false confidence of feeling that we've done something however ineffective? My preference is that we beef up our the software available to our CUs and allow them to screen all RFA candidates. This would require things such as a change in policy and systems to allow longterm retention of IP info for the edits of banned users. But I would hope that it would deter some and screen out other such unwanted returnees. If someone has suspicions that a candidate might be a particular banned editor then by all means pop in a question, but please word it in such a way as not to flush out clean starts. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What if somebody edits from an IP assigned to an Internet provider, such as Qwest? Wouldn't that produce false positives? The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 00:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Screening RFA candidates via checkuser is another approach, but raises legitimate concerns about accuracy and privacy. By contrast, the candidate's RFA declaration wouldn't be specifically checked (i.e. we still AGF) but of course anyone who knew it to be false couldn't honestly nominate or support the candidate during RFA as happened in the case I cited. We can agree a maximum period to look backward (perhaps 24 months?) and if a candidate has a problem with the historical part of the declaration, perhaps a small quorum of Arbitrators could privately exempt the candidate (e.g. if a previous account wasn't abusive but must remain secret for other reasons) before the candidate accepts the RFA nomination. The candidate's declaration about current and future use of alternate accounts should be explicit, including a commitment never to attack other editors while "accidentally" logged out. After RFA the declaration serves as a bright line that if breached results in an undramatic desysopping. - Pointillist (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

CU isn't magic pixie dust and I'm not expecting that it would always catch such returnees, as for false positives, I'm not a CU, but I'm pretty sure they are aware that IPs can be reassigned. I'm not strongly opposed to a standard question, provided we can word it to comply with other policies. "Do you understand and comply with the policies on alternate accounts?" Would in my view be better than the proposal above. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Asking candidates to declare support for something that's already been discussed and documented is, I agree, much better than trying to draft the new question ab initio. However, if you're referring to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry it would need to be beefed up to cover a couple of scenarios more explicitly: (i) historical use of other account(s) that have been controversial (e.g. in Law's successful RFA the candidate had already been desysopped and long-term-blocked using another account), and (ii) a promise that while an admin the candidate will not use an undeclared alternate account and will not edit as an IP for any purpose (if they make a mistake their only options are to sign their IP edits or go back in as an IP and revert what they did). Would you be OK with that approach? - Pointillist (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As an alternative to modifying Wikipedia:Sock puppetry directly, it might be possible to agree a "wrapper" declaration that says the candidate has not historically, is not currently and will not breach the sock principles. It could be called the "single account pledge" or, with something about not misrepresenting your real-life credentials, the "identity pledge". It all boils down to a simple set of ideas: "I declare that what I say about myself is true, I haven't secretly contributed or been sanctioned as someone else in the past two years, and I won't pretend to be someone else during my term as admin." - Pointillist (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So, what are we really expecting a bad-faith sockpuppeteer to say? "Yes, I fully agree with all the principles on sockpuppetry. All of my sock accounts agree with them too." Do we really think this question would've prevented a Law, or a Runcorn? (I'm not saying I know what would, but this isn't it). Sockpuppeteers are already deliberately deceiving the community, why are we thinking they'd suddenly tell the truth upon being asked that question? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If I make a mistake while at home and save an edit as an IP then I don't care and may even link that IP account to my main account. Others might need to have their IP revdeleted or oversighted. If the IP edit is noncontentious why get het up about it? I do lots of categorisation, typo fixing and project tagging, if a few of those edits wind up as IP edits does it really matter? That isn't to say I'm against some sort of admin pledge, but I'd prefer that we focus on things that matter and that a candidate may genuinely not have thought of, like having a strong password, or Yes/No "I am either legally an adult where I live, or my parents/guardians are aware of this and trust me to have an account with access to material that I may not show them". But I don't think that the pledge should contradict current policy, or ask the sort of "US immigration questions" that we Brits find so funny. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right – my 01:34, 10 November 2010 was too severe. Of course it shouldn't matter if a registered contributor does non-contentious edits while logged out. The "pledge" would need to find some common-sense way of distinguishing routine edits made while logged out from controversial ones. Any ideas? - Pointillist (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If we do something along these lines I would prefer that we change "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:"' to "Candidate, if you agree to the wp:admin pledge and accept the nomination, please sign here:" and to avoid policies drifting apart I would like the pledge to link to various policies rather than extract bits of some of them. With things like alt accounts we have very complex policies and its better to link to the policy than precis it - my big worry about the admin pledge idea is that we could wind up with a pledge that doesn't quite follow policy. I'm much more relaxed if wp:admin pledge had something along the lines of "I've read and agree with WP:SOCK, WP:Civil and WP:WHEEL" would that make sense to you? Ϣere SpielChequers 12:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree 100% about not doing a précis. At the moment WP:SOCK is written in terms of current/future behavior, so there would need to be something added to look back in time. It might be a simple as adding "for the past two years" (or whatever), though of course that wouldn't apply to the WP:WHEEL policy. What does everyone else think? - Pointillist (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Please don't add more tedious questions for the RfA candidates. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes us think that bad guys will tell the truth? Per Seraphimblade, this is well-intentioned but I can't see it doing any good. Reminds me of:

Do any of the following apply to you? (Answer Yes or No)

A) Do you have a communicable disease; physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict?

B) Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?

C) Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

D) Are you seeking to work in the U.S.; or have you ever been excluded and deported; or been previously removed from the United States or procured or attempted to procure a visa or entry into the U.S. by fraud or misrepresentation?

E) Have you ever detained, retained or withheld custody of a child from a U.S. citizen granted custody of the child?

F) Have you ever been denied a U.S. visa or entry into the U.S. or had a U.S. visa canceled?

--John (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Making it an explicit bright line has three advantages: it tells candidates what they need to declare (that's where the statute of limitations is helpful), it makes any future desysopping much more straightforward and it acts as a powerful disincentive for other editors to support the RFA if they are aware of the deception. I imagine the visa waiver questions John lists have a similar purpose. Our proposed bright line would take up far less space. "Q5. Do you make the RFA identity promise? A. Yes." Done. What's the problem with that? - Pointillist (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is it is a symptom of "something must be done" without any real evidence that it will benefit anyone. Like the airline security questions: "Did you pack your luggage yourself? Is it all your own luggage? Could anyone have interfered with it?", which sound good (perhaps) and may reassure the stupid, but for which there is zero evidence they have deterred or prevented a single act of terrorism, because bad guys plan around them and have been known to lie when asked probing questions. --John (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I let my cousin Osama pack my bags, he said something about not needing a round trip ticket and laughed all the way to the airport, why do you ask? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have quite truthfully answered yes to that third one, as my bag was sitting packed and out of my sight for an hour or more in an open plan office with other people around. They were a bit surprised and took it and me off to one side for a bit of a search, something tells me that lots of people don't answer that question literally. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that on that question, with all due respect for security, discretion is the better part of valor.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is already policy under "Deceptively seeking positions of community trust," so there is no good reason not to make it a standard question. In fact, making it a standard question would avoid the possibility of a candidate who is concealing a prior account in order to avoid scrutiny later claiming they did not disclose because nobody asked. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arguably that part of the policy contradicts the clean start bit, but it also allows for the possibility of an editor having an arbcom declared alt account that is not disclosed or even mentioned in their RFA. Earlier this year we had a candidate simply declare that they had an arbcom declared alt account in their real name, and I don't remember that being an issue. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that if it were a standard question, declaring that an alternate has been revealed to ArbCom for privacy reasons(which is the only exception in the policy), and the usual follow-up by an Arb who has reviewed the prior account, would be a sufficient answer for most people. As for clean start, I think the same ArbCom disclosure should still be made, and an Arb can confirm that the behavioral changes required by the policy have actually been met. If the person has changed, then the Arb statement should be enough. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

CleanStart is not supposed to be a way round bans, yes some people use it to discard a rocky start of expired blocks, but others use it to hide from stalkers and so forth. If we change the policy on clean start to say that you have to disclose it in an RFA then we should remember that sometimes the Arb will want to say "this was an editor in goodstanding who left due to harassment and real life attacks" but would that sort of change to our cleanstart policy lose us some good candidates? I'd prefer to keep Cleanstart as cleanstart, at least as far as accounts such as real name ones that were retired for privacy reasons. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just interject my 2 cents without actually reading most of the discussion, I absolutely support mandatory and automatic checkuser on RfA. I think it might actually help more RfA's succeed since people who took legitimate wikibreaks won't be as automatically suspect. Gigs (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is CU meaningful as a check of a single account? What would the checkuser compare the RfA-candidate to? It may be impractical for the checkuser to examine the IP range used by the RfA candidate and then see if any other wikipedia accounts (many thousands, and much potential for false-positives) are also using the same range... or would you also have a "mandatory and automatic" pre-CU stage where other editors are invited to look for (and name) suspected alternate accounts?bobrayner (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can produce meaningful results by getting IPs, and then checking those IPs for other accounts. As is often pointed out, it's not magic. It could easily identify certain obvious abusive patterns though. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if a user CUs to an IP of a formerly blocked sysop that makes the same kind of edits in the same topic areas, that something is going on. Gigs (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to make the following change in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hi. I wish to change the sentence "In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as yep, no way and as per." to "In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as yep and no way." Request feedback on the proposed change. Regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the reason behind the change? Currently, I oppose the change on the grounds that making a simple as per comment, while still perfectly valid, should carry less weight than a 'detailed explanation behind your position'. In my view, five detailed votes ought to carry more weight than one detailed vote and four 'as per'.--Korruski^Talk 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Weight" gets thrown around so often that its meaning gets lost. There are two types: Numerical weight and argument validity. "As per" !votes fall within the former. I'm sure all of us can agree that numerical majority is a part of consensus. Sometimes, someone gives an explanation that is clear and rational (in other words, it has a valid argument), and so "as per" !votes really mean a concurrence or an emphasis that this point is important in the eyes of the community. The most important point to finding consensus is finding areas of commonality in rational lines of reasoning. If five people supply detailed !votes that mean essentially the same thing, it's really no different than 1 detailed argument and 4 "as per" !votes. In both cases, all of them follow the same strand of evidence/argument, and all of them carry the same numerical weight. Now granted, most of the time when 5 detailed rationales that follow the same argument appear, they point at different facets and aspects of the evidence, which is why we may perceive a "weight" differential. bibliomaniac 1 5 09:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wifione and Biblio, if I understand right. I've never gotten the sense that votes "per" someone else's well-written statement have counted less from reading crats' closing statements; if anything, a position that seems to get solid support counts more. And succinctness is much appreciated at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with biblio as well. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Change made. And an additional line added per Bibliomaniac: "An as per... comment will carry a weight equivalent to the referred to argument." Thanks and regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, and sentences like that start to make it look like bureaucrats have some kind of universal chart with which to determine consensus on RFAs. –xeno^talk 16:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the hasty way this change has been implemented. There should have been wider discussion over a longer period before making the change. - Pointillist (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Pointillist. Weight that however you like. An admin should know better than to act so hastily in making a change to such an important page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't approve of any change to be added to the statement. Nothing needs to be added. I was simply demonstrating the view I take when I close an RFA. My colleagues may differ in their interpretation. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What does as per really mean?

I think I see where you're coming from but how do you handle the scenario where X's !vote contains a chain of thinking rather than a simple "p∧¬q⇒r"-style argument:

User:X says "I've spent an hour doing <some research> about the candidate's activity and I see <some patterns of behavior>, which I believe means <some conclusion>, therefore my !vote is <what_x_voted>".
Afterwards user:Y places the !vote "<what_x_voted> - as per user:X".

What does Y's !vote mean in terms of X's chain of thinking?

"I myself spent an hour doing the same research, saw the same patterns, agree the conclusion and I !vote the same way as X."
"I haven't done any research, but I trust X's statement about seeing <patterns>, agree the argument that the conclusion follows from those patterns and I !vote the same way as X."
"I haven't done any research, and I'm not claiming to have done any logical reasoning, but I know I see things in this area the same way as X does, so whatever conclusion X reached is alright with me. I !vote the same way as X."

Any of those might be a reasonable position for user Y to take, but how does the closing bureaucrat know which one was intended? Number 1 is a big claim, a full !vote by any measure. To me, number 3 seems less persuasive and more ambiguous (e.g. what should be inferred about user Y's !vote if user X subsequently changes xis opinion?). I agree with Korruski: five detailed votes ought to carry more weight than one detailed vote and four 'as per'. - Pointillist (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's where it gets a bit hazy, isn't it? Personally I use it to mean that I reviewed the other user's research and came to the same conclusion, but laziness in researching before participating is an epidemic at RFA and has been for a long time. In a case where user X supplies specific diffs demonstrating the pattern it would be one thing, but in the absence of said diffs we don't even know if they are really basing their comments on the same evidence or not. I would argue that admins and other very experienced users should be held to a higher standard because they are often the ones who start off an avalanche of "per" votes, whereas a newer user will not so easily find a willing following and may be ignored or discounted somewhat if they present the exact same evidence. On the other hand, that kind of highly nuanced evaluation of RFA comments is only needed in a very small number of cases. Most of the time it's pretty clear after a week whether they have made the cut or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see where the question is coming from, but if I had to guess at the intentions of every !voter in an RFA, I think I would kill myself from overwork. Just imagine trying to close this "as-per" filled RFA! I don't assume anything about how a user may or may not have arrived at a certain conclusion and the means by which they decided to attach themselves with the user. That isn't objective knowledge; it would be my own subjective knowledge, and that is dangerous to me closing an RFA in a way that would accurately reflect the consensus. All I am interested in is the strength of argument and the numerical weight behind it. Now granted, it would be great if everyone followed #1, and it's not bad for people to follow #2. I hope people don't blindly follow other people, but I'm not fool enough to think that it doesn't happen.

The thing, Beeblebrox, that I think is dangerous about your assertion is that it creates an Animal Farm scenario where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. On my part, I don't care who makes the argument, I care about what the argument is, and how logically sound and valid it is. If an IP made a !vote (which wouldn't count in the first place) with a rationale that was logically sound, and other users cited it, it would carry a lot of weight, numerically and logically. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see and agree with your point about Animal Farm, but the unfortunate thing is that this already is the way things work, at RFA and elsewhere. Some users have their very own followers who will come to their defense or aid in any situation, no matter what. Persons in such a position should be very careful what they say, but in many cases they behave in the exact opposite manner because their egos are boosted by the knowledge that no matter how uninformed, irresponsible and illogical their position is they will still enjoy a certain level of built-in support from their mob. What to do about that? I don't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno: I agree with you. No issues with your change. Best.
@Bibliomaniac: Interestingly, I agree with you completely. Your views mirror my own to a large extent, leave small differences. Regards.
@Beeblebrox, Pointillist, Korruski: I'm perfectly in consonance with whatever be the consensus on this issue. It's appreciated by me that at least there is discussion on the as per issue. Thanks and warm regards to all three of you. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per bibliomaniac.
Heh, just kidding. Seriously though, arguments matter more than arguers do, and it's not plausible for the bureaucrats (or any other group of people) to officially second-guess everyone. If one were to assume good faith, then "as per" comment should be read as "I agree with Person X's assessment of the situation", and shouldn't be weighed any differently. As a potential RfA participant, I know I'd be pretty pissed if I had to write a paragraph to express my opinion when someone else has done just as good a job (especially for an oppose; if someone's pointed out some damning evidence, I don't see why I'd have to point out again why that evidence is damning in the first place). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks second, with 37701 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is there a shortage of kilobytes? The global recession is really global! How do I donate my spare kilobytes, I've some that have hardly been used... -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Be careful, you might still need them. They are precious after all

On a side note: I'm on the list, hurray for me!!!

So Why 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the data source of the 300 pages that are on the list? Are they the 300 most-viewed pages? The 300 most watched pages? On the whole I don't think any of those pages is excessively long because just on my watchlist I can find some talk pages that are much longer, despite being archived regularly by bots. But if these pages have been set apart from the others because they're more used it is a more meaningful comparison. —Soap— 21:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That list is complete nonsense, and I don't know what it's based on. My talkpage alone—which is archived every seven days and is by no means particularly active—is more than twice the size of the supposed "longest talk page on Wikipedia". – iridescent 22:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it's buggy; see here for instance. Doesn't make any sense. Airplaneman ✈ 22:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right, I misread the list because I didn't see "kilobytes" and I assumed "bytes". —Soap— 22:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

When I donated to the foundation, I explicitly stated that I wanted my money to pay for the Tampa servers, got to support my peeps in the Sunshine State. I hope that my money goes to the poor, overworked kilobytes. By the way, the thing is clearly glitched. Where's the AN/I talk page. AN itself is 238. Wha? Sven Manguard _Talk 22:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, this list is specifically for talk pages, and wouldn't include project space pages such as WP:AN/I. The talk page of AN/I is actually not that huge. And I think the question of why Veinor's talk page is on the list can be solved by looking at Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:Veinor. He has dozens of pages of bot reports that the database report thinks are subpages of his talk page. Which, technically, they are. So I think the list is actually pretty accurate after all, though each entry on the list may need more than a quick look for us to see why it's there. —Soap— 22:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for the relevance of this conversation to RFA. Looking... looking... nope, can't find it. What I can find is that Wavelength has been spamming all over the place about this essentially useless new toy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that page I see exactly what I would expect, those areas of our community that generate the most "controversy" are also the most discussed and debated - that can only be regarded as a good thing and healthy for our project no? Ajbpearce (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ok sorry to those users who messaged me, i seem to have messed up my formatting here :P Ajbpearce (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I say! - Go easy on the indentations chaps. You're wasting kilobytes. Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that the stats include subpages. As I recall, every RFA gets a subpage of this page with the editing stats for the candidate and any resulting discussion, so there you are right there. It doesn't really mean anything. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do the numbers come from?

I have seen that during the RFA debate, some users will say that the candidate only has 10 edits at WP:AVI, or 15 edits at WP:RFC or 20 edits at WP:AFD, etc. How do people know how many edits someone has in a certain area of the project? They can't sit there and count them by hand, surely? I can't see anything at X!'s Edit Counter. This has me puzzled. Can anyone help? — Fly by Night (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See http://toolserver.org/~thebainer/contribs-by-article/ -- œ ^™ 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If they've opted into X!'s Edit Counter, then you can see their most edited articles in any namespace. This, combined with OlEnglish's link, is how users determine numbers on RfAs. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Most edited" does not necessarily mean much to the editor, - say, if the edits were small fixes or undoing vandalism. East of Borschov 11:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I second that in the article space: small fixes go bang-bang-bang but many editors work offline when they're serious about an article, particularly with referencing where the mediawiki UI can get in the way. I might spend an hour or two on what turns out to be s single article edit—though I'll probably burn through half a dozen edits in the next ten minutes fixing my punctuation and citation parameters. As for "20 edits at WP:AFD", I don't think the statistics distinguish between one interaction at twenty AFDs and twenty interactions at a single one. - Pointillist (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So it's not as easy as I first though. Even with these tools, there's still quite a bit of detective work to be done. Thanks for the replies. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just click on "my contributions" and then choose your "namespace topic". thanks. --Monterey Bay (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion before voting

I seem to recall this being discussed before, but I can't recall why it wasn't done. What if we extended RFA to 10 days, but for first 3 days, permit no voting, only discussion (in an additional Discussion section aimed at introducing evidence relating to the candidate's suitability)? Wouldn't that make for more productive and thorough review, more emphasis on discussion and evidence, and less pile-on voting? By default at present much discussion takes place in the Oppose and Neutral sections, which isn't ideal. Rd232 ^talk 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm right there with ya. Good luck on it going through this time : ) - jc37 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful idea. The "flaw" is that it robs the !electorate of the instant gratification of laying judgement, which they will make up for by adding ludicrous amounts of pointless questions. I still support the proposal; you can't cure stupid. Skomorokh 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I also think this is a good idea, at least in principle. A while ago I made my own pledge to avoid early !voting except when I really knew the candidate well - too many times I realised my !vote had been premature. We continue to see precipitous RfA !voting. But like Skomorokh says, I worry the consequence will be a barrage of questions over the first few days. Another niggling issue would be the obvious NOTNOW cases, but perhaps established editors can retain discretion to end those during the pre-!voting period.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the NOTNOW and other let's say "long shot" cases would be one of the beneficiaries of a discussion period. I imagine (though I have never been in such a position) that telling someone they are not ready is less of a slap in the face when not prepended by a boldface Strong Oppose, and a discussion period would also allow the candidate to withdraw without the stigma of a final scorecard stacked with opposes. Skomorokh 00:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. And as you suggest it's not just the NOTNOW cases, but "long shots": the moderately experienced editors whose RfAs are clearly going to fail. RfA can be very harsh on them. I feel for the editors who rack up say 3,000 or so decent edits, thinking they're ready when they really aren't, and then copping a run of opposes. This process might help in those cases too.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there will be initial hiccups, with the Ironholds' example being a really unfortunate example of what could happen. Perhaps over time, it might settle in better. A simplified process similar to the arbcom election process could be one that could be explored to be replicated on RfAs, albeit for a shorter time. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Whilst there was some drama at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2 about Ironholds' decision to use a novel format, it's not obvious looking at it now that the format itself was at fault for anything. It could be somewhat better structured (a little more RFCU like), or perhaps the pre-voting discussion would be better kept on the talk page, but I don't see some fundamental flaw in the basic idea emerging from that. Rd232 ^talk 11:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this process would significantly different. Would it really feel so different to see "This person is not qualified to be an admin and there is no way they should pass" and "Oppose: This person is not qualified to be an admin and there is no way they should pass"? What I mean is, would we really expect so many comments that don't clearly indicate how the commenter is intending to vote? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything which stops people putting their "vote" in bold would be great ;) Hopefully a discussion section would encourage people to be more constructive in their criticism. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The aim is not to turn the discussion into some kind of game of "guess the voting intention". It's primarily to focus on providing evidence for views of the candidate, and secondarily to encourage people not to harden such views into definite voting intentions prematurely. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The ridiculous number of questions at RfAs is a serious issue; it bogs the page down, and really puts the candidate in an awkward position at times. The process is already a ridiculous trial by fire as is. I'd say we should leave it to the user talkpage; supporters/opposers can link to the answers via hyperlink in their !votes. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 12:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who went through the process recently, I didn't find the number of questions onerous. I won't pretend it wasn't challenging, but I thought, for the most part, the questions were well-done. (Unfortunately for me, a little too well-done, as I missed a few, but none were "tricks", I got some wrong because I missed something important. For anyone that asked one I missed, I followed up with Summary of my reactions to RfA, where I itemize lessons learned). On the other hand, the thought of extending the process to ten days really turns me off. I'm ambivalent about whether there should be three days with no responses, but if it is tried, it should be the first three of seven, not the first three of ten.--SPhilbrick T 15:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, because of the Weekend Editors issue, you really need 7 days of voting. Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely—a few questions are fine, but I think 20 or 30 is absolutely out of hand. After a certain amount, questions should really be directed to the user talk pages—such a practice would create a more fluid dialogue between the candidate and the user asking the question. Several editors used that technique on my own RfA, and I felt really comfortable with that. Of course, I think we should leave the three default questions, which cover most of the bases that I think should be covered. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you set limits on questions? You can't set a total limit (everyone rushes), or questions per user (distorting questions, and leading to subquestions etc). Moving it to the talk page may help make it more flexible and seem less onerous <_big boomy voice>List Of Questions Thou Shalt Answer</_big boomy voice> sort of thing. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are parallel discussions over at the ArbCom elections talkpage about how to handle floods of questions; new restrictions are in place there this year but it's not clear what the best solutions are. Skomorokh 16:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The last thing we need at RfA is even more questions. Oppose any proposal that creates that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The proposal doesn't intend to create that, it intends to create a discussion of the type we're more used to (like we're doing now, and like happens in the Oppose and Neutral sections a bit), than the formalistic Question and Answer format. If the discussion is effective, there's probably less motivation to ask lots of questions. But I would say (nodding at the Ironholds 2 experience) that a change like this can't be tested on 1 case. It should just be agreed that it's probably better, and done - with the possibility always open of it turning out after a few cases to need amendment or even abandonment. Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have stats to hand on what stage of RfAs withdrawals happen most? If they taper off after a day or two, that could be a good marker for the length of a pre-discussion. Skomorokh 15:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh asks a good question above, and I'd be curious about the numbers — it's certainly my recollection that most of the withdrawals happen during the first couple of days, but it's been a while since I've been anything like an RfA regular.

In the past, I've suggested that there should be an opportunity for discussion about and with the candidate prior to voting, so that no one is left trying to discuss complex, nuanced, ambiguous, or groping-around-the-edges-of-confidential matters with a ticking clock in the background. We would all prefer, I think, to have voters in possession of ask much relevant information as possible before they cast their ballots — while it is technically possible to change one's vote, many people won't watchlist every single RfA, and aren't following the course of discussions over the entire time they're open.

In the spirit of encourage constructive, rational discussion between candidate and community, I suggest the following. Prior to the start of voting, allow questions and discussion in whatever format the voters and candidate find most productive. (In practice, this will likely be a concatenation of the existing Q&A format for the 'compulsory-in-everything-but-name' questions and the more free-form threaded 'Comments' section.) Subheadings will be permitted within reason, to encourage maximum untangling of non-overlapping threats.

The discussion period will last a minimum of three days. After three days have elapsed, the candidate is free to begin the active voting phase at the time of his choosing. Ideally, any major concerns from the community will have been brought forward and addressed by the candidate during this period.

If the candidate chooses not to proceed to voting after seven days, the RfA may be closed by a 'crat. An early close may be requested by the candidate at any time; a candidate my request an extension to the discussion period at the discretion of the 'crats. The candidate can back out at any time, however 'crats are empowered to extend discussion if there are nagging issues that need to be resolved. (Suppose, for instance, that there are concerns about sockpuppetry — a 'crat might choose to extend the discussion window by a day or two to allow the Checkusers to consult and report before voting begins.) The flexible length of the discussion window means that the candidate isn't under quite the same ticking-clock votes-are-accumulating deadline to respond to questions (or accusations, groundless or otherwise). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What you have suggested seems like an excellent way of implementing this; something needs to be done about the whole ticking-clock thing, and your idea seems particularly well thought-out. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like that. Rd232 ^talk 19:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems a particularly sensible suggestion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from experience (indeed, the only person here doing so); RfA is a stressful process. An incredibly stressful process. And by far the most stressful of RfAs was this one. A constant, relentless, barrage of questions in a period of suspense even longer than usual? People are dissuaded from RfA by the fact that it's roughly equivalent to jumping feet-first into a woodchipper. I can't see the format doing anything but increasing this problem. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think plenty of people have experience with RFA being stressful! Sorry, but you are the sole of sample for doing things differently, and I don't see any evidence that the proposal will increase the average stress levels for candidates; I would have thought if it makes any difference, it would do the opposite. At any rate, it will make the process better by making it less about superficial familiarity-based voting. Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  - Not only am I the only person to experience this process, by extension and by other records, I'm the only person who has experienced both this and non-experimental RfAs. This is far more stressful - candidates, woodchipper. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    - I understand that, and I appreciate your input. But a sample of one from over two years ago should not be taken as definitive. There is a lot of random variation in how stressful RFAs are, and looking at your RFA 2, it seems quite a bit of it came not from the format itself, but from people objecting to a change in format. Rd232 ^talk 00:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Statistics on number of days RFAs since June were open prior to close, as requested by Skomorokh and TenOfAllTrades above:

Result	Count	Average
Withdrawn	30	0.7
WP:NOTNOW	23	0.6
WP:SNOW	6	0.7

The above are based on 1) nominations with the above results since June 2010, and 2) the number of days open calculated using (date of close - date of nominee's acceptance), which means RFAs that were accepted and closed on the same date have 0 days. In short, the typical withdrawal or early close occurs within a day of the nominee's acceptance. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the stats! bobrayner (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a well-intentioned but misguided suggestion that has already failed spectacularly once and would surely fail again at every turn because it doesn't work. Three days of allowing candidates to spin their histories would just be a nuisance delay for anyone with legitimate opposition. This would be the definition of process for the sake of process (unless we're trying to turn RFA into Editor Review), and completely disregards the reality that a candidate's record has to stand on its own merits when an RFA begins. Townlake (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"a candidate's record has to stand on its own merits when an RFA begins" - and how exactly is the candidate's record supposed to be established except through discussion? You seem to be assuming that RFA is and should be an evidence-free popularity contest, and anything that gets in way of that is just nuisance! Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Or that, funny thought, the normal RfA process brings up evidence on its own (which, last time I checked, it did). Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- You kind folks might have missed the last four words of my post. Your "evidence-free" argument is a straw man. Townlake (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  - Townlake, I was agreeing with you; countering "You seem to be assuming that RFA is and should be an evidence-free popularity contest" with "Or that, funny thought, RfA brings up evidence on its own (which, last time I checked, it did)". Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  - Well if I missed the significance of your last four words, you seem to have missed the significance of my first sentence. Rd232 ^talk 01:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    - No, your first sentence was simply based on the false premise that current RfAs do not allow for discussion. Quite obviously, they do. The only thing the alternative process does is takes that discussion process to ludicrous lengths. Ironholds (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      - False premise? Go back to the post that started this thread. Rd232 ^talk 08:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
        I've read it. RfA is like political selection, in that there is no perfect system. I cannot see the benefits of endless questioning and additional stress outweighing the downside of endless questioning and additional stress, and the intensely paper-pushing nature of the experimental process is the reason why it wasn't put in initially. Before you come back with "the current system is flawed, the new one is far better, I think there isn't much more stress" and so on (again), bear in mind that, as you say, I'm the only person who has experienced the experimental process. Not only that, but I have also gone through the normal process. I would like to think that when I describe the experimental process as roughly equivalent to jumping into a woodchipper from a candidate's point of view, that opinion would carry more weight than your evidence and experience-free statement that the experimental process is superior. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"endless questioning"? The suggestion is to add 3 days discussion, and to try to format this discussion in a manner in particular that improves discussion between participants, and generally allows more informal and more flexible discussion, and therefore reduce the current reliance on a formalistic Question and Answer approach. Your experience remains a sample of one, and to be honest given that your experience was stressful and negative, I'm not sure you're best placed to objectively evaluate the relevance of that singular example to the feasibility of ever improving the process in any manner which shares any vague similarity with that historical experiment. In any case, sometimes even small changes can make big differences, and I think in toto the differences between what has been suggested and that old case are actually quite substantial.

At any rate if you want your experience be a valuable contribution to this debate, you need to analyse it in rather more detail. For example, what exactly about the process was stressful? Lots of RFAs are stressful; the only obvious difference looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2 is a shedload of questions (48). A lot of the source of the stress there seems to have come from it being your decision to proceed with an experimental RFA, which is a simple enough lesson to learn: make sure it's not the candidate's choice. I look again at that RFA and I see the talk page not greatly used, and I can't see why a discussion process on the talk page would result in that sort of volume of questions being normal. Besides which, I don't see the quantity of questions itself as being the primary source of stress; it may be a pain in the neck and quite a bit of work, but IMO what's stressful mostly is what people say, not what they ask. At any rate, I'm feeling at the moment that any editor who gets overwhelmed by an occasional bombardment of questions about their actions and understanding of policy is perhaps not best suited to adminship, so if the questions are a source of stress, maybe that's a good thing. Rd232 ^talk 12:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that three days of endless questions can be considered "an occasional bombardment of questions", nor an objective or appropriate way to analyse a candidate (do you think, then, that candidates fitness to hold adminship rests on their ability to answer 48 questions? Is this an experience many administrators have to go through as a result of their decisions?). I think if you are going to try and push this through, choice has to be a part of it - are you suggesting we give users a Hobson's Choice of this way or the highway? Will that do anything but decrease the number of potential candidates?

In regards to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2, I see three questions referencing the format, and four opposes referencing it. That's hardly indicative of the stress coming from the experimental nature rather than the format. I appreciate I may be a tiny sample, but I'm also the only voice of experience actually available. If you are going to try and push this, I suggest you find more sacrificial lambs to push under the bus - preferably ones whose testimony you will accept. If you know any users silly enough to run past the "Abandon hope all ye who enter here" sign, get them to run and we'll see what happens. But don't simply try and push it through on the grounds that "It's stress free, and the sample of stressed-out people is too small to be useful". Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

By an "an occasional bombardment of questions" I meant that as an active admin you run the risk of occasionally having your actions questioned in a way that involves a "bombardment of questions". For the rest, you've not really answered my question (what exactly was it about your RFA2 which was worse) or taken on board the points I've made. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see you having asked that at any point (but I may just have missed it). The questions, and the waiting. Those were the stress-inducing parts. Since they comprise the entire reforms of your proposal, you can perhaps see why I'm not the most supportive person. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"what exactly about the process was stressful?" (12.22) And it's somewhat aggravating that I keep saying I want to have more and better discussion, which might involve fewer questions but should hardly involve much more, and you draw a 1:1 parallel with a single case that had a large number of questions. In addition, Ten of All Trades proposal makes sense and puts some control over the process in the hands of the candidate. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand something, sorry if that's the case, but I thought that discussion about this started from concerns that there are too many questions at RfA. Wouldn't this proposal actually add to the number of questions?

And would an alternative be simply to have a way for editors contemplating an RfA in the near future to be able to post a notice here (or somewhere associated with RfA??) for editors to look at and comment on their Editor Review, before actually starting an RfA? (Editor Review tends not to get enough eyes to accurately anticipate RfA opposes, the way we do it now.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that would get enough additional input unless it was formally part of the RFA process. For instance, as Part 1 of RFA you have the RFA page created but linking to the Editor Review, with no voting. Only when the candidate is satisfied that they're ready to open voting (minimum of 3 days Review) does it continue then as normal, with the Review staying open until the candidate is ready to close it (which would normally not be til after the RFA closes, maybe +3 days). Maybe this would accomplish the sort of objectives we're talking about in a slightly lower-stress way, and in particular give a chance for more useful feedback for WP:NOTNOW-type early closes. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

How else does one start a discussion with a candidate?

I have what may be a foolish question, but how would one have a discussion with a candidate without beginning by asking the candidate a question?

I think the issue that is being ignored here is that the community is many, and the candidate is one. So when each member of the community comes to the page in good faith and would like to discuss somethings with the candidate, there is the potential to have many discussions. and so therefore, there can potentially be many questions.

In my opinion, what might help would be if the "general questions" covered a bit more of the commonly asked questions. (It's part of the solution that was attempted at the arbcom elections this year - though, as an aside, I personally dislike that it was accompanied by a restriction on all other questions.) - jc37 16:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the problems of the current format, which is pretty well a conversation with the candidate. It should be easier to have more freeform discussion about the candidate, with input from them as appropriate, but not everything filtered through an awkward Q&A format or jammed into Oppose and Neutral voting sections. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the 'General comments' section of the current nomination template serves as the current 'discussion about the candidate' area, though that section tends to include both discussion and non-discussion elements — and discussions often end up taking place as part of the voting (usually underneath particular 'oppose' votes) or occasionally in the Q&A, as well. For reasons of human nature, a 'discussion starter' phrased as a vote probably is more effective at prompting a response than something filed up in the general comments section. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of any example of "general comments" that wouldn't be either: "I trust/don't trust the person or something about the person", or "here's something they did (for good or ill)".

Declaratives may be evidence, but they do not engage the candidate (except perhaps through accusation - which we should try to avoid, I would think). It doesn't elicit the how or why of an action or choice. And it doesn't provide the candidate's point of view, but merely the presumption of the declarer. To do that, to actually try to find out the motivations (a key aspect of future trust) would seem to require an interrogative - a question. - jc37 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The current "discussion" section of RfA is underused and usually only used by trolls/users who have no real intentions of discussion. I have a feeling that other similar forms of discussion would turn out the same way. Mr R00t ^Talk ^'tribs 02:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know if that's true, but that perspective suggests the Editor Review approach mentioned above should be of greater interest. Rd232 ^talk 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding participation at RFA

Why do we have the same people vote over and over again. Is there a possibility of anonymous editors voting instead of say "HJ Mitchell. It's time for a change, nothing personal but I'm tired of these guys running the show. What do you think? Monterey Bay (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting anonymous voting (ie. if you voted, nobody would know that the vote was yours), or voting by anonymous users (IE. IP addresses)? The two are subtly different.

The former would not be straightforward technically, and it would undermine the (much loved) idea that this is a place were people discuss and reach consensus instead of merely voting (in fact, voting is a dirty word around here). The latter opens the door to vote-stacking, and more partisan supports/opposes for inappropriate reasons by people who have previously encountered the candidate on some other article.

The same damn people comment over and over again because they're the ones interested in RfA. If other wikipedians develop an interest in RfA, they're welcome to drop in and contribute, I'm sure. bobrayner (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a very restricted electorate, I agree. Probably unhealthily restricted, but if very few care about RfA then what can you do? The canvassing rules make it almost inevitable that RfAs are conducted in secret. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean Malleus. Could you elaborate on how you believe CANVASS prohibits neutral notification? As far as the pool of voters being small, I believe the majority who opine regularly are self-selected; the fact that others have not likewise self-selected to opine is not the fault of those who do. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there have been situations in which although CANVASS doesn't really apply, it's brought into the situation by the opposition, and really hurts the candidate, or the opposition to the candidate. Hence neither party is willing to neutrally publicize it, lest it be seen as "canvassing" NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 08:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

RFAs aren't exactly "secret", but clearly there are ways they could be publicized more, which in theory should widen participation. If every RFA was publicized using standardized methods (for example, if something like the RFX report that appears at the top of this page were placed in prominent locations like the Village Pump and ANI), then I can't see that running afoul of WP:CANVASS. --RL0919 (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Jclemens) This is the kind of thing I mean. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone runs the show. I've been haunting RfA for over four years, only participating when I see fit either in !voting or the talk page. I've still read almost every RfA since I first supported. I think that bureaucrats recognize voting habits and patterns. Said bureaucrats also don't run RfA. You haunt where you haunt on Wikipedia, and if you're a ghost no one notices. Keegan (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to run the show. There are some people who take an active interest in the RfA process, and that includes experienced editors who are not admins, admins, 'crats, and some very young, new editors who think it's cool to mess around in things they don't yet fully understand (but generally they go away after a while). The very fact that so many strange names crop up as 'once only' !voters may or may not be indicative of off-Wiki canvassing. It's a good thing there is a core of participants, even if they can't stand the sight of each other ;) They are the ones at least who will make carefully researched comments. However, there is indeed a small number who consistently !vote 'oppose' and others who consistently !vote 'support'. They obviously have some other kind of agenda.Kudpung (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I like RL0919's suggestion of sticking the RfA toolbox in more prominent locations, actually; could widen participation (which is quite needed, in that any process appointing people with authority to say, block people, should have the participation of as many community members as possible). Any other comments or opinions in support/oppose of this idea? Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Support. It's a very good idea, I agree. And I can't think of any downside to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in principle, I find the suggestion of greater publicity for the progress box to be a good idea. There are nevertheless still the the fundamental flaws in the turnout, and it might not improve the actual quality of the voting, or make the process more appealming to potential cadidates:

Many candidates who run have rarely even followed previous RfA processes or voted on many of them.
There are not enough participants of the right calibre - the people who get the bit generally can't be bothered to come back and support the process that got them there.
Like in any democracy, 99% of the electorate haven't got the foggiest clue about politics or what an MP's or Congressman's job involves.Kudpung (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The percentages here are actually considerably worse :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I think you'll find that admin participation at RfA is far higher than the percentage of users who are admins would statistically suggest. I daresay that is even true if you compare to the top 4000 contributors. I haven't done the math, but given how small the admin pool is, it seems very high participation here at RfA. Frank | talk 13:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone here at RfA of being in a clique, but I'd just like to say that perceived "clique"ish behavior just comes with the territory of a site with a structure like Wikipedia's. I'm not sure if anything is going to change that, and I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad thing, either. One two three... 10:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kudpong also, per point 2, what exactly is the right calibre of participant for RfA? are you suggesting that those that have been successful at RfA are more qualified to say who is trustworthy?--ClubOranje^T 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The 'math' is not difficult. I suggested that a majority of those who are elected to high orders do not appear to come back very often and support the system that got them there. I will add two new comments however:

Some that do come back did not have to suffer the iniquities of the process the RfA system has become.
Jeremy's RfA that has now failed is yet another classic example of the imbalance of !voting, due partly to the traditional stampede of opposes based on one single thing (that even admins get wrong), and secondly for simply not being known enough to attract sufficient response to his RfA - and that's what Monterey Bay this thread with.Kudpung (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way that a standard, generic RfA invitation could be displayed as a banner on the "edit" screen whenever an established user (i.e., someone eligible to !vote) is editing an article? Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be overdoing it. RfA is from time to time, genuinely disrupted - albeit I suppose in GF - from participants who don't have the foggiest idea of what it's all about. All autoconfirmed accounts are allowed to vote except those who are blocked. However, putting it on the top of the watchlist page along with other such imortant notices might certainly be worth considering. In which case, such fiascos as Jermey's RfA that failed this morning on a technicality due partly IMHO to an illegal vote, could be avoided by having a reasonable turnout to the polls. However, let's not forget that all these suggestions have already been made and nothing done. It's a perennial discussion on wishful thinking. As is the (much loved) idea that this is a place were people discuss and reach consensus instead of merely voting, as this morning's close clearly demonstrated. Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RFA is one of the few places where voting is accepted. And Jeremy's didn't fail on a "technicality" (assuming you mean Q6), though the significance of failing that point was obviously a matter of opinion. Courcelles' oppose sums up that issue best. Rd232 ^talk 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the technicality Kudpung is referring to is the fact that one opponent of Jeremy's RfA is now blocked (for reasons apparently known only to ArbCom). While an invalid !vote could, in theory, affect subsequent events to the point that the entire process becomes corrupted, I honestly don't believe such a thing occurred this time. Whatever I may think in general about the underdog, I have to concede here that the objections to Jeremy's answer to the BLP-vs.-EW question were widely (and independently) held and were not significantly affected by the one improper !vote. If (on the other hand) Q6 had been asked by Peter Karlsen (talk · contribs) — or if there had been a subsequent flood of "Oppose per Peter" !votes — then I would readily agree that the process was flawed in this case. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be ok...?

...to add {{User:X!/RfX Report}} to the main RfA page of any candidate whose RfA is in progress? It'll allow editors to view the current percentage of the ivotes garnered and might provide them additional information for their ivote. Views please... Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd disagree with this - when I'm adding my !vote, I'm not looking at the number of current supports, opposes or neutrals. I'm going to look at the candidates history, and what other people have commented, but I'm not going to look at the current percentages -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 18:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, it'd just encourage a pile on. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur, this suggestion just leads to opens the door to more "follow the herd" mentality. Who cares about the current percentage? Sure things fail and RFA's that were dead in the water sometimes pass. Courcelles 18:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I'm in favour of this proposal (I'm not), but I'm wondering why you Fly by Night think that it might encourage a "pile on"? Do you not believe that voters think for themselves? Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not that. It's not as black-and-white as that; there is a grey area. That's why I said encourage and not cause. There would be a certain level of peer group pressure that could change how people !vote. Some people might not feel comfortable !voting one way, when 85% of other people have !voted another. Although that might not alter most people's votes, it would alter the swing !voter's vote. On top of that, sadly, I think there is a small minority of users that don't check the candidate's history like they should do. They make a cursory assessment, and then use current !voting patterns to come to a conclusion. If it weren't so, then the idea of a pile on wouldn't be as well known as it is. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is black and white. In the current RfA I was the first oppose in the face of 12 supports, a third of them from administrators, and I wouldn't have cared less if there had been a hundred supports, all from administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. You asked me if I thought that eidtors don't think for themselves. I said that it's not black-and-white. All editors behave and think differently, to varying degrees. It's not a case of (a) they don't think for themselves, or (b) they all think for themselves. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support this addition. This would be a simple way to shortcut having to scan an entire RFA (or go to some other page) to see the current status of the RFA. I disagree with the suggestion that putting this on the RFA would suddenly encourage "follow the herd" votes, when there are so many other pages that already feature the count and percentage - if that has any negative effect, the negative effect is already out there. Townlake (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, there is already a counter at RFA. "Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (50/29/6); Scheduled to end 04:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)" is right at the top of the current RFA. Sure, it doesn't provide a percentage, but it gives the raw numbers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite; but in the spirit of the comments above I think we'd be better off without any additional temptation for !voters to be distracted by the number of other people who have previously supported or opposed. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with that. I'd even be sympathetic to a proposal to remove that count at the top of each RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would even favor taking it a step further and removing the count all together. Its a !vote rather than a vote and how many election are held were the percentages are being read live while voting is still taking place. It is really only useful for Bureaucrats. I feel they are smart enough to figure out the totals and post the percentages at the closing. Leave the RFA box, with who is running and time remaining. I don't think it was ever intended to help with deciding ones !vote (not that I believe all editor use it in such a fashion). That is what one's careful evaluation of the candidate should be doing along with leaving their rational. Calmer Waters 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really make too much sense, as it's childishly simple to work out a percentage when shown the raw data. Your assumption that bureaucrats are smart, or in some way smarter than the average bear, doesn't really stand up to much investigation either. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not meant that way. Yes, anyone can do the raw data including the closing bureaucrat themselves (just mean't added them in at the end with the closing rather than while running). Most anyone can do enough with the raw data for edit count without x! tool (articles edited, main space edits, etc) to evaluate a candidate they are are unfamiliar with, but how many complained that it interfered with their ability to !vote when he took it down for little over a week, even after he stated it was never intended to be used as sole or main quantifier for admin-ship and to encourage reviewing the candidates contributions. Just wonder if this tool has also garnered an unexpected and unfortunate side effect. Just that if this is truly about editors opinions, trust, and thier rationals, then rid the numbers. Just my 2 cents on the discussion is all. Calmer Waters 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA has not been about trust and rationales for some time now, else the "why not?" and "I see no issues" votes would be discounted, which they obviously aren't. RfA is about back-scratching; those who want to be admins support those others who want to be admins, on the basis that if I support you then you'll support me. But of course that's just my 2 cents. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be worth a whole lot more than 2 cents if you could back it up with real examples. Frank | talk 02:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile doing that if it would make any difference. It would be a lot of effort for nothing though unfortunately. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So, the emperor has no clothes, but you're the only one who can see that? Your considerable editing skills - well nigh legendary around here - should lend themselves to easily supporting such a statement with references. "A lot of effort"? I think not. I think the reality is that you've made an assertion based far more on feeling than actual observation. You may dislike the admin corps in general, and/or specific admins or the way the whole hierarchy operates, or any number of other things. But your assertion that it's a "back-scratching" club doesn't seem to hold any water. Yes, there are people who know each other personally around here. Yes, there are admins who tend to think alike, and as such haunt the same corners and tend to agree with each other. But these are natural social phenomena which have little to do with pre-meditated "support me and I'll support you" group-think. "Why not?" and "I see no issues" may not be to your taste, but they are just as valid in support of candidates as your own frequent opposes are. Frank | talk 02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of the counter,I don't see any pressing need to do anything about it either way. Adding a percentage ticker is of little value, and removing the current counter would not change the fact that the comments are numbered and anyone can see what they are at any given moment by simply scrolling to the bottom of each section and seeing what the last number is. Unless we are going to stop numbering supports and opposes altogether it doesn't really make a damn bit of difference either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You may choose to believe whatever you like Frank, without any evidence, as may I. One day I fully intend to analyse the voting patterns at RfA to prove my hypothesis, but not today. You may of course equally choose to support your own argument with some evidence in the meantime. Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My "argument" is that yours is unsupported...unless and until you choose to support it.

In the interest of being even-handed, not something that administrators are generally accustomed to admittedly, it may be instructive for you to consider why a "Why not?" support is considered perfectly acceptable whereas a "Why? oppose is not. Don't break sweat though, I'm sure you've got editors to block, the important stuff around here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are making an assertion without supporting it. I've been observing and participating in RfA long enough to see that there are far more cases of discussion in the oppose section than in the support section. That does not mean, however, that a "why not?" support is "perfectly acceptable" and a "Why?" oppose is not, as you assert. You, too, have been observing and participating in RfA long enough to know that it is a discussion, in an attempt to form a consensus about a candidate. This discussion is not new to you.

On the matter of "editors to block, the important stuff around here", perhaps you'd care to look at what I'm actually doing around here, instead of sneeringly painting me with the "admins-are-evil" brush: My last 20 blocks go back to early August 2010, while my last 20 article edits go back less than two days. Let's not try to pretend that blocks aren't necessary around here, even though not every block is well-executed. If you find any of my blocks to be anything less than useful and necessary, please feel free to let me know. Likewise, if you find my article edits to be substandard, feel free to let me know about them. (I'd rather discuss the latter, honestly; it's the more significant of the two.) In the meantime...how about assuming just a little good faith? Why, just hours ago I even corrected a glaring grammar mistake that showed up on the main page under DYK...a weak spot around here I've seen you criticize; did you catch my fix? Frank | talk 06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and others. What if we look at the contrariwise perspective? What would be your view if one were to suggest that we take out all the summation numbers - even including the serial numbers of votes, which you rightly pointed out - from RfAs of candidates? Would the community prefer that? Again, views would be more than welcome. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 10:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There's something else that I thought should be mentioned. At the moment the !voting figures are on the general RfA talk page WT:RfA, and they're on each individual's RfA's talk page. The only place they're not is on the individual's RfA itself. I find that ironic given that we're not (supposed to be) voting per se; but (supposed to be) having a discussion. Why should the way people have not voted (a.k.a. !voted) be plastered on every possible surface? To avoid this we should either stop putting the !vote figures on the pages, or we should admit that RfA is, in all but name, a vote!
Personally I think that the !vote counters should be removed from general availability. It should still be there for the candidate and closing bureaucrat. Any WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW will be clear without a count. I'm not sure how it'd work; maybe all the !voters will just go to X!'s tool and find out the numbers anyway, I don't know. If someone can't be bothered to read through the whole RfA then they shouldn't be involved in it; they'll make summary conclusions based on partial information. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The !voting figures are not on the individual RfAs' talk pages. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though RFA is a vote (at least to some), its tallied at the end during close X support, X oppose X nuetral.... if its below 60% or above 90% its closed in such a way. And Heck (Im guilty of this though..) how many people put in their comments(edit summaries) '+1 or + seems like a indication of voting and not discussion to me? The gray area generates discussion though which is what the RFA should be and in those cases the comments seem to be more discussed. I would feel if the numerical tallies were absent there would be more engagement of discussion resulting. But with that said I think there still are some merits to the concept of having a tally. If its overwhelmingly oppose or overwhelmingly support the rfa can easily be concluded and consensus determined (snow cases...). Anyway Id love for abolishing the counters and only having discussion points, but at the very least (and I will make an effort doing this myself from now on) we need to stop using +1 ++ in our edit summaries indicating oppose and support unless we truly percieve RFA as a vote. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Small point: I don't think those edit summaries are a problem if the user writes a substantive comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I do agree to an extent, but if they(we) do write a substantive comment shouldnt the edit summary sumamrize what the comment was and not that its a tally? More of a personal feeling i suppose ( i mean the dit summary doesnt have a bearing on the outcome). Just something thats been on my mind reccently. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion/exclusion of numerical summaries from candidates' RfAs

Archived; RfC on numerical summaries in RfAs

Discussions are closed; kindly do not make changes to this archive

~~{{rfctag|policy}}~~ This proposal is being made after appropriate discussions on the RfA talk page with respect to whether we should include/exclude numerical summaries of !votes on the RfAs of individual candidates. The genesis of this proposal lies in the perception that providing numerical summaries influences certain !voters to !vote without considerately analyzing the RfA candidate's contributions. The scope of this proposal does not include anything beyond the RfA pages of individual candidates and the RfA talk page. If commentators in this RfC wish to include other additional areas, it is encouraged that the same be done via separate RfCs. For contextual clarity, the proposal is broken up into three separate sub-proposals. You may oppose, support, comment on each individual sub-proposal section. Regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove !voting summation at the top of individual RfAs

Remove the summation of !voting (!vote tallies that give a summary of cumulative support/oppose/neutral !votes obtained) provided at the top of individual RfAs. Let the closing bureaucrats calculate the final !vote tally on their own while closing.

Support. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I understand how participants theoretically could be influenced in this way, but in the absence of evidence to show that they are, I'm not convinced that this change is necessary. 28bytes (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

By the same token: there's no evidence that people are not influenced by it. So this has more to do with faith than it does with evidence. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Nakon 18:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - it's obviously useful and important information how many people supported and opposed a candidate, and it should be prominently displayed in their RFA. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Philosophical Support − It is supposed to be a discussion and not a vote; hence the notation !vote meaning not vote. As long as we pretend that it's a discussion we need to remove the vote counter. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to us admitting it's a vote and treating it as such. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Mild Oppose. I'm sympathetic to the intent, but I don't believe this will accomplish it. It would just make an automated calculation into a manual one for the crats, wasting a bit of their time. It would be better, more to the point, to develop a policy revision that strengthens the idea of discounting !votes that are presented without rationales. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. There are too many per Pete pile ons. That usually says to me that they've read the support and oppose and said "Yeah, that sounds like a good reason to support/oppose; I'll support/oppose too." But without actually checking out the candidate's work themselves. That's why some RfA's can sometime be sunk by one link to a bad edit summary or a bad answer to a single question. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The numbers provide a type of "at-a-glance" information. Doesn't tell you a whole lot, but it is indicative of the general direction of the RFA. Useight (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose RFA is a vote, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's silly to pretend otherwise on either count. Townlake (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Even if RfA isn't supposed to be a vote, most people treat it as one. Taking away indications of the "vote tally" would be pointless without first changing the underlying criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per above. The vote tally does serve a purpose of convenience and removing it is unlikely to result in any significant change to user behaviour, nor would it change how RfA operates. CT Cooper · talk 00:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Removing the tally would be like putting lipstick on a pig. For all intents and purposes, RFA is a vote (not saying this is a good or bad thing, just that it is) and removing the tally doesn't accomplish anything as people can make their own tally in their head. DC T•C 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Why hide the truth? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose People will waste time counting them manually anyway. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The tally for this is currently (2/11/0) in general or (1/1/10/1/0) to be more specific about votes. Time Well Wasted™ delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose People will still be able to see where the opinions of others fall. It just means being a little less lazy and scrolling through the entire page to see which section is the biggest. If you are to truly not influence anyone then something like the secret polls used for Arbitration Committee elections would be required. It is extremely unlikely anyone would take it that far considering the troubles each time they try to use it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The tally for this is currently (2/12/0) in general or (1/1/11/1/0) to be more specific about votes. Time Well Wasted™ delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for all the reasons already given. I see no valid reason for them to be removed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per the swarm of people above. I fail to see how this would be at all helpful or constructive. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove !voting serialization

Remove the serialization of support/oppose/neutral !votes within the individual RfA. In other words, remove the usage of the # symbol and replace the same with a non-counter prefix.

Support. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. If there are participants who don't exercise due care before supporting or opposing, I don't see how the replacement of numbers with bullet points would either convert them into thoughtful analysts or dissuade them from participating. 28bytes (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, I'm not convinced this is a problem. Nakon 18:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - unnecessary and unhelpful. It's good for both candidates and !voters to know the current state of an RFA. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for much the same reasons as what I said in the section above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Pretty much the same thing as I mentioned in the above section. The numbers at the top are useful and these numbers help ensure that the numbers at the top are accurate. Useight (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Per my comment above — no point in talking about abolishing the "vote tally" stuff without first addressing the question of whether RfA really should or should not be a conventional vote. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Like removing the vote tally, this would achieve little except inconveniencing users. CT Cooper · talk 00:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose it's a minor change that would have no lasting effect (see also my comments in the first subsection). DC T•C 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nay Again, if people can't have the tally at the top to read and can't count the votes then there is still the simple and obvious size of the section which would indicate somewhat accurately the status of an RfA. You would have to hide all voting and comments. Not very practical to censor all characters in a discussion. That would make it more like a straight up vote. IF that were the proposal THEN i would support THAT but not this. If you remove the sections then you have free-for-all commenting and it will be a fight of 'you close that rfa. no you, i spent 4 hours closing the last one. someone has to read through that.' And to mention the inherent concern about a person who comments 18 times in an rfa swaying the outcome because the closer missed the user name of the commenter a couple of times. This really invites more potential problems than it is proposing to solve. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, again for all the reasons already stated. This seems to be a pointless suggestion which serves no useful purpose. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per the swarm of people above. I fail to see how this would be at all helpful or constructive. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove bot-reports from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Remove from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship the numerical summary of RfAs provided using bot-reports like those generated by {{User:X!/RfX Report}}

Support. Additionally, editors who're interested in getting a bot-report can use, and have used, various available bot-reports in their own user and usertalk space. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The status quo of having the counter on the talk page but not the RfA page itself seems like a reasonable compromise to me. 28bytes (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Support Out of all proposals, I like this one i think the best. I do feel this will encourage people to equally participate more in the event that an RFA is steering one way. like wifione said interested users can still keep their reports on their user pages. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Support, The counter would still be available to those that want to use it. Nakon 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I for one like being able to see the current status of all active RFAs at a glance, and I'm not convinced there's a problem here that needs solving. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I do not think that the removal of information will solve any problem. Ruslik_Zero 20:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. A good thing about the bot report is that it helps make more users aware of what the active RfAs are. I'd like to see it posted in more places, in hopes of increasing participation. I would certainly oppose any effort to close down the report in its entiretly, for that reason. Here, I think we are just talking about whether to post it at the top of this talk page, which seems to me to be no big deal either way, absent evidence that people first come to this talk before !voting in RfAs. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The bot report should be spread more widely, not less. Also see my comments on the previous proposals above. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see any problem that needs solving here, and again, removing the report is unlikely to achieve much when it comes to how RfA operates. If I remember correctly, having the report at WT:RFA was a compromise between having it on WP:RFA and not having it on either, and a fair one at that. CT Cooper · talk 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose in line with the reasons I provided above. DC T•C 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Numbers good to have and are quite useful if you want to direct a friend to a certain vote number. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose No real benefit. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
aye for having avoided seeing the bot reports as much as i could it has reduced my time spent voting on the RfAs. I noticed a bit of a trend. Those admins and bureaucrats whose candidacies i supported have mostly either gone inactive, resigned, or had rights revoked for actions that had not been known to the people at the time of their campaigns. Those candidates i have opposed have mostly been unsuccessful. No bot reports = less awareness = less voting = less Time Well Wasted™ That being said i am here on this page today because i saw the bot report on someone's user page and was curious. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for serving no real purpose. Having the report there allows for easy access to the discussions as well as an at-a-glance summary of the current trend of the discussions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This is a terrible idea. Plenty of good, useful things come from these reports. Removing them would unequivocabally make the situation worse. Like the other two motions, I fail to see how this would be at all helpful or constructive. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Find a real problem to solve

In all the various conversations about how to fix RFA over the last several years this has never even come up before. No real, substantive problem would be solved by any of the proposals to change the counters.

Support. This is a non-issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Support and it seems this way for most people, judging by the above opposes. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 21:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Support. The first question to answer is whether RfA should be a vote at all. Then, work on the desired criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This we manage an RFC for, whilst discussion on this gets archived for inactivity?? Rd232 ^talk 00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Support I'm particularly interested in what comes from this discussion from Jimbo's talkpage. DC T•C 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose And do something productive? Gasp! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Support Although writing articles would be much more useful. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The tally for this is (5/1/0/1), more Time Well Wasted™ delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Support as long as they are Real Problems™. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Support Let's move on. There have been many substantive and reasonable proposals for reforming the process. This is not one of them. This is a collection of bad ideas that do not address the core issues that plague the process. Sorry to be so blunt, but it has to be said as such. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Support Give it up already. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 05:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor/Admin/Crat review

Every year, I open up an editor review for myself as an informal way to find out ways to improve my experience here as well as whether I still am trusted with the tools. Normally I incorporate a link into my signature to let people know, but I figure since there's been much talk here and there about adminship review, I might as well offer an example of something I've done that I've felt has helped me keep my work in review. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but... the sort of people who do that voluntarily (especially on a regular annual basis!) are the sort of people who listen to the feedback they get anyway... encouraging this as a voluntary thing is fine, but really, it needs to be done virtually automatically on an annual basis. Perhaps we could have a list of admins by RFA date, and every year on the anniversary of their RFA, if they have had any activity at all in the last year, a bot mentions their name on a specific Admin Review page (a relation of Editor Review, but focussing on admin tools), plus notifies the admin. That mention may then prompt any editor (including the admin) to actually open a Review. If no-one's interested (eg activity too low, or zero controversy), then it doesn't happen. PS For 'crats, checkusers etc review would include those functions as well, so probably no need to worry about those functions separately. Rd232 ^talk 07:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:Administrator review is more relevant as it should focus on the tools whilst Editor review would also include non admin actions. I've been at admin review for some months and should probably archive myself. As for making this some sort of compulsory process akin to term limits for admins, I don't see this as quite such a bad idea as term limits, but we might still lose some of our less active admins or simply ones who don't want the hassle. RFA is broken, our number of active admins has declined about 10% this year, and we need to concentrate on keeping the admins we have, reducing our need for admins and recruiting enough to replace those that we lose. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin reapply

Why is it that admins promoted years ago when RfA standards were lower, somehow remain an admin indefinitely until they do something to be removed? I've seen dozens of admins doing and saying things that I see people oppose for all the time. Why can't admins reapply for adminship after a set period of time. I guarantee many current ones would fail on a redo. CTJF83 chat 08:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators. Frank | talk 08:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there may also be a secondary issue, in that some people expect particularly high standards of admins now because it's a lifetime appointment. If, hypothetically, one ever managed to get consensus for some kind of reapplication mechanism (or term limit, or recall, or whatever), I think some !voters at RfA might go a little easier on current candidates. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree a lifetime appointment is pretty ridiculous. It's longer the U.S. President and much harder to remove an admin then it is an Iowa Supreme Court Judge who is removed by simple majority, to me that is ridiculous. CTJF83 chat 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory, every active Wikpedian can be an admin; it's not an elected representative position, it's an endorsement by the community that the person is trusted with the tools. If you prefer an analogy, adminship is not like being elected to a local council, it's like being licenced to carry a gun: in theory every local resident can carry one. Rd232 ^talk 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, I just don't like the ridiculously high standards now compared to years ago. But it sounds like it isn't going to change. CTJF83 chat 17:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The standards rose pretty much because people are trying to weed out anyone who might do anything bad. Although these have partly worked, you can't completely tell ones sanity from and RFA and mistakes are still bound to happen. It's kind of like gun laws in the states: Well intentioned but fundamentally flawed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is and forever will be that a good admin is in the eyes of the beholder, and our collective standards have gotten higher. I, personally, would consider 4,390 edits in almost 6 years to be enough, but you didn't. Grand master ka 04:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I misunderstood. Grand master ka 02:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No need for an ad hominem tangent, Grandmaster.--Chaser (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya, not sure what Grandmaster's comment about me personally has to do with my question...it just validates my point that admins should reapply/be more easily removed. CTJF83 chat 06:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. Responding to ad hominem with more ad hominem. This is how discussions become arguments.--Chaser (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: What I see as the real problem is that the admin numbers are currently inflated. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia; however I've already come across many admins that have either "Retired" (but are still listed as an admin, or even 'crat) or are practically inactive, having minimal involvement and only responding to talkback once a month or less. I think a bot should perioidically go though and remove privileges for any admin that has not been sufficiently active in the last 12 month period(Q. Is it possible to measure how many admin actions a user performs?). If a user who has lost admin rights, sees benefit and would like to be an admin again in the future; they should reapply.Aeonx (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a convenient example, here is Chaser's admin actions [3] (not sure how to inter-Wiki link) CTJF83 chat 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What harm is caused by the existence of people who have the mop but don't use it? There are no technical constraints on the number of mops that can be handed out. bobrayner (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere (I forget where) there are numbers which show currently active admins, as distinct from all admins, for a fairly low threshold of monthly activity. I seem to recall even that reduces the number by about half, to circa 900. However the main issue, really, is not the absolute number of admins, but whether there are enough relative to needs, which is best measured by looking at admin-specific backlogs, plus how many admins are active in specialist areas (which gives a sense of the risk of backlog explosion if someone goes inactive). Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The number of "active" admins is updated daily at WP:LA. Active means actively editing (at a very low threshold) as opposed to actively using the tools. As of Dec 20 there are 1766 admin accounts with 779 of them classified as "active". There are an additional 529 "semi-active" admins (those not meeting the "active" threshold but with more than 0 edits in the last two months) and another 454 who haven't made any edits at all in the last two months. The numbers don't quite add up (for what I think are good reasons, but which I don't remember off hand). -- Rick Block (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wouldn't you agree a lifetime appointment is pretty ridiculous?, I think a good case could be made that the longer a person is an admin, the more likely he/she is to do the right thing, adminwise. That's known as experience. Plus, if an admin is going to be a problem (that is, the RfA outcome was a mistake), that's more likely to arise sooner rather than later. [It would be an interesting exercise to generate some charts/statistics on length of time between passing an RfA and being desysopped, excluding compromised accounts.] In short, I think that admins have it tough enough as is (lots of relatively routine work, and opening oneself up to all sorts of verbal attacks, not a lot of thanks, and, of course, no pay) without adding the possible complexity of evaluating whether what they're doing is going to make reconfirmation less likely. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All that is true. I'm not sure if I ever proposed one approach I thought of: have an annual election to select 5 admins for reconfirmation RFA. That might, possibly, achieve a balance between making admins worry too much about reconfirmation, and not having to think about it at all, plus limiting the absolute numbers and hence work/drama involved. Having 5 reconfirmation RFAs going on at once would also help give some perspective on issues arising. Well, I'm not going to push the idea, but if anyone likes it, be my guest... Rd232 ^talk 21:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, maybe not reapply, but it should be much easier to remove troublesome admins than it actually is. It should just be the opposite of an RfA. Currently it is too hard to remove admins. CTJF83 chat 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below) I've been quietly following this discussion, and I agree with that last statement. But the question is how to make that work. (For the unfamiliar, see WP:CDARFC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The entire concept of a "lifetime appointment" is flawed. Admins are not senators, we do not comprise a legislature that controls policy. The community as a whole creates the policies, admins are charged with enforcing those policies. It's not an appointment, it's a job. (and an unpaid job that gets you a lot of grief if you actually do it at that) Most of the time when a person is hired to do a job they are hired essentially for life, and only let go if there is a problem with their work. I agree that there are a few admins who got in years ago who are now somewhat out of step with current practices, and as they make themselves evident by their misuse of admin tools they are being either corrected or removed, and many have voluntarily given up the tools or retired. I'm quite certain this would lead to fewer good, experienced admins out there instead of more as many of us would probably walk away if faced with having to repeatedly be dragged through RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

However, since we are tossing around all sorts of crazy proposals, here's mine: term limits, but the term is very long, say 7 years. In the majority of cases the admin will have retired and the process will be moot. If the admin is still very active they should have no problem getting through if we craft the process correctly, and the admins who are still operating based on what policy was five years ago will be weeded out. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

7 years?! That is way long in my book, Wikipedia barely got off the ground 7 years ago, I'm thinking if time limits come up it'd be 3-5, leaning towards 3...but I would assume this whole conversation is useless, and nothing seems to change on this subject. CTJF83 chat 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to see an admin removal process, so long as it places the burden of consensus on the removers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, I'm opposed to a user being mad at an admin from a week ago, and then voting to desyop just based on that. There has to be a long term history of poor admin decision to desyop. CTJF83 chat 22:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't do that much as an admin, most of my work (and there is a fair amount) for WP is in content contributions. So I've made enemies, but not that many. I think I'd pass a Re-RfA. However, I would not go through it. It was harsh enough the first time. Having "reapplication" or "reconfirmation" just isn't practical for that and other reasons. Recall, though, with a process overseen perhaps by a crat, who could make a preliminary evaluation of the claims and enforce other safeguards, I'm fine with. However, a process like community ban, which is in my opinion overused, I'd fight like hell to stop. I do not see the point in giving the pitchfork and torches brigade another weapon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then we need to have a less harsh way of going through RfA the first time, so a subsequent time isn't bad. I do also agree RfAs get overly nasty for someone who is volunteering their time to Wikipedia. CTJF83 chat 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

One eminently sensible suggestion which rapidly went nowhere was the idea of encouraging (if not requiring) candidates to do an Editor Review shortly before they expect to do an RFA (stating their intention at the review launch), and only make the decision whether to actually do it after getting input there. Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory that is a good idea, but mine, as a pre-RfA basically went no where with only basically 1 review with 1 user giving 1 comment, so ER (at least in terms of my review) is dead. CTJF83 chat 22:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it may need more input; I suspect that reviews explicitly linked to planned RFAs and promoted at RFA would get decent levels of input. Rd232 ^talk 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How do I promote it at RfA? The opening sentence said I planned an RfA. CTJF83 chat 23:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no current mechanism, but I imagine it would look a bit like the promotion of RFC/Us at eg WP:ANI - that sort of template link on the RFA page. Rd232 ^talk 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not try an experimental probationary period for new admins?

We do have a perennial question here, and I don't see any easy answer to the tussle between competing paradoxical truths:

that most admins do a fine job, and submitting 50 or 100 of them to an RFA every month is unlikely to be a productive use of the community's time;
arbcom desysops the worst admins, yet for admins who do badly but haven't gone completely rogue, we lack a workable method of saying "thanks for your efforts, but please put down the mop" for now
no method of selective recall has yet been able to achieve consensus, largely because of concerns over its abuse

However, the lack of any alternative to indefinite adminship is probably one of the factors which is currently driving standards so high that RFAs have a very low success rate. The high barriers at RFA are then one of the factors which deters editors from acceting any sort of reconfirmation process.

I am not averse to Beeblebrox's proposal of very long term limits, and another option worth exploring is to try an experiment: for a few months, make initial promotion to adminship a short-term appointment, for (say) six months. In effect, a probationary period. The experiment would answer two questions:

is the high threshold at RFA a product of the awareness that adminship is forever (except in cases of gross misconduct?
in what proportion of those promoted will the community want to change its mind after six months?

Isn't this worth a try? My hunch is that in most cases the second RFA will be a formality, but only a test will show whether that's the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an idea, but my main concern with starting this thread was old admins who were approved with much lower RfA standards, not new ones who have a lot harder time with the much higher RfA standards. CTJF83 chat 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but it's unlikely at this point that any single step would resolve all the problems that have been identified. The probationary period could be one part of a package of measures which would help us to resolve our current inability to square several circles. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the logic of that is to define in some way the "lower standards" - perhaps by year, or by total RFA participation. Make a list of admins passed by these standards, and have 1 RFA per month (or week?) to gradually work through the list (skipping any currently inactive, for further consideration if/when they become active again). I'm nto sure that's a great idea, but that's the sort of direction the logic takes you. PS for an example of how dramatically standards have changed since 2005, you could do worse than look at this RFA! (And look how that turned out... :P ) Rd232 ^talk 22:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree to that...so how do we go about discussing/actually implementing such a policy? WP:VP? here? CTJF83 chat 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of any sort of correlation between poor admins and laxer RFAs in the past? Plenty of very good admins got through very lax RFAs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Any such correlation would be hard to distinguish from statistical artefact, because so many active admins are from that "lax" period, and new admins of any era are less likely to cause major problems, due to what one might call "new admin caution". Plus new admins get cut more slack as part of a learning curve, plus evidence of serial errors of judgement etc has had less time to accumulate. So a link between standards at RFA and standards of admin conduct is not likely to be provable (to the point where if it could be proven, it would probably be worth an academic paper...). Rd232 ^talk 23:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Probationary adminship is also a perennial proposal. It's never achieved consensus to implement, and likely never will. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A probationary period doesn't really make sense per se. What might be helpful is having a mandatory Admin Review scheduled after 6 months, so that new admins know they'll be getting a shed-load of feedback on early performance. Rd232 ^talk 22:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The note on perennial proposal seems to be mostly about partial adminship (restricted powers), rather than probation (full powers, limited duration) ... and I'm not sure why you think it doesn't make sense. It's standard practice for employment in the non-virtual world, and seems to make sense there. However, if probation really has been definitively ruled out, then a mandatory Admin Review after 6 months could offer some of the same benefits, and I would definitely support it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me because major mis-steps and abuses don't come from new admins, and minor and medium ones are more easily forgiven as part of the learning curve. So any "probation" will just make new admins excessively cautious about engaging with controversial issues or topic areas, and if anything we need more admins willing to engage with controversial issues (albeit cautiously, especially at the beginning), and not drift off into hardly using the tools. Rd232 ^talk 23:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a danger here of doing nothing because any given strip won't solve everything. I think it's much better to look at whether a proposal produces some benefit, and then whether those benefits outweigh any costs. So far, I'm not seeing any sign of serious costs to probation, tho little enthusiasm for my view on its benefits.

I think that there are two sorts of "bad admin" I'd be looking to weed out. The first group are those who aren't as much up to the job as hoped: they lack clue, don't properly follow policy etc. Some of that should be evident in a probationary period, even if there is some self-restraint, and it would be great to have a mechanism to say to them "sorry, but this isn't working out". The second group are those who develop an attitude problem, which usually comes much later on, as they gain confidence. Probation probably wouldn't do much to help weed out the second group, but it would help to identify at least some of those whose grasp on policy and procedure has not developed adequately. A lot of the discussion at RFA currently focuses on grasp of policy and procedure, whereas it used to be accepted that a certain amount of that was learnt on-the-job. It seems to me that probation would allow for some restoration of the old seems-ok-and-will-learn-the-fine-details spirit ... and that would both allow through more of the applicants who are rejected as NOTNOW, and encourage more to apply without feeling that they need a PHD in policy to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, I have some sympathy for that logic - especially the need to avoid requiring people to have a phd in policy! So perhaps it's worth a try. Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe every administrator should be confirmed every year. If admin is good, he/she will have no problem to pass this confirmation process that I see as being similar to RFA process.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be in the wrong section, but anyway... that approach has been perennially rejected as too much work and too much of a deterrent to making hard decisions. Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How many admins are there? About 1,700 or 1,800? If we had to review them all each year that'd involve about five reviews every single day. That's totally unworkable. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are over 1700 admins, but only about 780 are active as editors, and an unknown number of these particularly active as admins. If perhaps half of them were willing to go through RFA again and you did it on an annual basis you would have an average of 7 at any one time. That is quite doable, though you'd need to find a way to spread them out evenly and avoid having fifty in one rush. But the bigger issue is who would pick up the slack of all the admin work done by those admins who'd decline to run again - this was one of the reasons why I see term limits proposals as flawed. With RFA so toxic this sort of proposal risks leaving us unable to effectively administer the site. I suspect it would be salutary to do a survey and find out how many active admins would run again if term limits were introduced. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Only the honest ones, obviously. Perhaps about 40% of the currently active cadre? Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)