Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:03, 22 July 2011

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 05:54:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Should he be able to do this?

Should a non-admin be able to close an RFA per WP:SNOW? Personally, I think only admins should do that unless the candidate withdraws their nomination. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Any editor in good standing may close an RfA that's clearly not going to succeed. There once was a time when, by unwritten convention, it was only usually admins who did so, but anyone can. The candidate can always revert if they so desire, but as long as the closer does it properly, and informs the candidate, it's fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that increased admin control over the mechanisms for gaining access to adminship would raise concerns about a clique. (Not necessarily well-founded concerns, but hey - perceptions matter too). If an RfA really is snowballing, then it shouldn't need an admin to make that call. bobrayner (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If an RfA is going so badly that SNOW could be legitimately invoked, it dosen't matter who closes it, it needs to get closed as fast as possible. If it dosen't, pile on opposes will just make the whole affair just feel more awful for the person running. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only echo the thoughts of the other users here. If you have a problem with the outcome, that's one thing, but saying only admins can SNOW close an RfA? Nope. Worm · (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to toss out the comment that it is possible to close an RfA too early... some that were ultimately successful started out horribly but once people thought about it a little more things turned around. Especially when the opposes are based mainly on activity levels or edit count and not examples of poor behavior or poor policy understanding by the candidate. I worry that the definition of SNOW is being stretched to mean "opposes outnumber supports", because that can change. These three requests very well might have been "snow-closed" by someone eager to do so if there had been two or three more opposes at that point. The only reasons to "hurry" a close, I think, are if voters are being cruel (in which case, a talk page request that they reconsider their comments might be better), and a truly disruptive or clueless request where even "moral" supports are in short supply. 28bytes (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly aware of that point of view. However, only one person since 2009 has been made an admin with less than 3000 edits, and in this case there were twice as many opposes as supports. The opposes has also started to become pile-on, there was little or no constructive feedback coming out. We have to remember that we are dealing with people, and that if the feedback they're getting is no longer helpful, then it's just hurtful. Worm · (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the most recent two closes; mine was more of a general concern. I think the RHM22 example shows that people are willing to accept relatively low edit counts if they think the candidate appears to know what they are doing... but it may take them a few days to accept that, and early returns may just capture the people who absolutely won't accept it, while the ones who will are still mulling it over. 28bytes (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. If someone had closed RHM22 at the point you showed, I'd have reverted it myself. Worm · (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, it's interesting that all three examples had a now-indef-blocked sock in the support column; if they'd been ferreted out earlier, the opposes would have outnumbered the supports at that point. 28bytes (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Some insight may be gained by consulting these statistics. They show what is likely to SNOW/NOTNOW, the edit counts, the length of tenure, and the voting score at closure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought: should there be formal minimum requirements for SNOW-closing an RFA (say, something like a minimum of 10 contributors, and at least a 2:1 Oppose to Support ratio)? Or would that just be process creep? I guess so, but I just wanted to support the point that it is possible to SNOW-close an RFA too early, and would-be closers shouldn't be too quick to do so. I don't agree with Sven Manguard above that SNOW RFAs 'need to get closed as fast as possible'; no RFA needs to be closed early, it's just a matter of convenience. Concerns that the candidate's feelings might be harmed by allowing their RFA to receive too many pile-on opposes seem a bit overblown. Robofish (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC):I don't know if that would be too creepy, but I do think many editors are over eager to close an RFA as SNOW. Most RFA's closed this way seem to have lower than average activity at the beginning which means that editors are thinking about it. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had 3 valid opposes at my RfA and they certainly had an effect on my feelings. And mine went overwhelmingly well. Given the number of people who have left after an RfA, I don't think it's an invalid concern. I do happen to think it's a bad idea, and should be left to judgement. Let's face it, a snow close can be overturned. Worm · (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A snow close can be overturned, but that's likely to provoke drama, and not necessarily the kind of drama that's beneficial to the candidate. Personally, I'd rather exercise a little more caution, and only snow-close when the avalanche is really quite obvious. If a candidate has 4 supports and 6 opposes, hey, it's unlikely to go well but there's a possibility that the RfA might turn around as an answer is clarified or some great work is uncovered in their history; but if a candidate has 1 supports and 9 opposes, the chances of a turnaround are minuscule - we can have a lot more confidence that a snow close is the fairest and most humane closure. If in doubt, stand back.

Formal conditions for snow-closure are just instruction creep, imho. Apart from the really really obvious ones (where rules would be redundant) there's a big grey area (where rules would be controversial, and might exclude candidates who have some modest chance of turning round their RfA). We don't need detailed rules for everything. bobrayner (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My complaint is not that it was closed by a non-admin, but rather that the RfA was transcluded and untranscluded during a single weekend, leaving those that do not normally spend their weekends online unable to participate. I think we need to recognize that those who are online every day, and those that are not online during the weekends may have different voting patterns. Dave (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't going well, and based on these facts rather than the voting pattern, it would have been most unlikely to succeed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My only problem with how this went, is that it was closed while I was asleep. I had no chance to counter some, IMO, ridiculous rationale as to why I should not be an admin. For example, someone noted that an article stub I created 6 years ago, was still not all that great. (?) Leaning on actions of mine as a novice Wikipedian is a really poor way to go about assessing a candidates potential worthiness as an administrator.

I will admit the obsessiveness over edit count bothers me, and seems like a poor criteria for considering the worthiness of an administrator, but maybe that is the only (or even, most readily accessible) information some people feel they have to go by. Cherry picking bad edits is certainly something that deserves counter-argument. Contention with edit counts for a 7 year veteran is certainly worthy of a cogent counter-argument, but I never had the chance. I was under the mistaken impression that I would have seven days to be considered. I expected much opposition. I was prepared for it. But while I was sleeping, my nomination was closed (apparently to save me from embarrassment?). I have not re-opened it, because those who weigh in seem to only spare the effort of looking at edit counts rather than the quality of edits and cooperation with other Wikipedians. (i.e. people seem obsessed with raw numbers rather than looking at the quality of the candidates interactions with Misplaced Pages (a laborsome task, no doubt)).

From this experience the RfA process looks dysfunctional to me and does not have any mechanisms for creating a diverse adminship. That is a battle I am not willing to fight right now. I still believe I could be a valuable admin, quite possibly a better than your average admin. If I really want to pursue this, I'll have to make a better case in my RfA. Looking back, my RfA was a bit lazy and weak. There are sharper, more cogent points I could have made (and those I will save for some later date if I am still interested). Overall, the process has left a bad taste in my mouth about the process itself and has decreased my desire to be an admin.
To address the headline question, I wonder if a regular editor might really have the experience to know when is the right time to close a RfA. If they do, why are they not an admin? An EASY way to resolve this, which has been already mentioned: "The candidate can always revert if they so desire, but as long as the closer does it properly, and informs the candidate, it's fine." I'm assuming that was done (haven't looked at all the activity during when the RfA was closed), so that is reassuring.

To summarize, I don't feel this was handled right, but things don't always work out as one would wish. If it means enough to me, someday I will reapply. This probably sounds arrogant, but I think the community needs me, more than I need the community. That's not something I can easily translate into an RfA. It is based on the rudeness and incivility I see among current admins. How I see some admins flout their adminship as if it were a Barnstar. Adminship requires humility, cooperation and reconciliation, IMO, not sky-high edit counts, nor expert knowledge. Having said that, I don't know that my activity would even show those traits anyhow, but that is my opinion.
Yours truly,
--Timl2k4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timl2k4 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I didn't properly sign my comment! Way in over my head! ;) --TimL (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of K.W.

Damn, you got a raw deal. Your Denial of Death article was never an essay; it was obviously meant as a summary of the work. Does Kiefer.Wolfowitz realize how condescending his question #6 was? Zagalejo^^^ 04:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that he realizes his own condescension given this comment. Also refer to this conversation in which he seems to reveal that his whole problem with the article was the author's point of view on Schizophrenia! I guess I had the feeling of a "drive-by opposition". I will not reopen the RfA, as many wise folks have suggested, I will give it some time. There is no rush on my part to become an admin, but there seemed to be a rush to close any discussion of it. ;) --TimL (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Condescension is appropriate when an inferior displays petulance. In this case, the failed-candidate for an administrator quoted a policy which he had not read, to justify his reverting me on my own talk page.

Who wants to be treated as an equal, when you have not had the manners to alert me of this discussion or to bother to read the history (of Tim's inappropriate edit and misguided quotation of policy) and correct him?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My only lasting frustration wrt to the above comment, Keifer evidently has no problem with the article but with the book I chose to summarize! Quoting him: "The article lacks references, and the book is shit and so isn't worth my time. Is that clear?". It is frustrating to have childish opposes on your RfA, which you can't respond to, and then it gets closed. --TimL (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tim, I have to approve your latest quotation (of my previous judgment), that you are out of your depth. You cannot see the problems with the "article".

This discussion has occurred without the courtesy of a notice that you all were discussing me. This is particularly obnoxious given the personal attacks and violations of WP:AGF, here, by editors supposedly familiar with WP policies.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer has never been the most collegial of opinion-aters at RFA or ANI (I've not seen his article work so won't comment on that), and in my experience he does even go out of his way to piss people off. It genuinely surprised me to learn, a while ago, that he has a clean block log. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to stop your hypocrisy and review WP policies. Without understanding WP's blocking policy, what business do you have discussing anything here?

If you remove your personal attack and violation of WP:AGF, then you may remove this.

You are welcome to review my article work. You might learn something.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If at all possible, I'd suggest letting it go. Kiefer's stopped worrying about the page, has clearly had enough and walked away. There are much more important things to worry than his opinion. Worm · (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Resumption of previous discussions

While I empathise with wanting to counter the opposes, it is not fair for a candidate stop editing with an RfA looking like this and come back to find it like this - note E2eamon hasn't edited since. Because yours was Snow closed, you arrived back to find a closed request, you could take the feedback or discuss it with the user, but pile-ons were averted. I do think it was handled correctly, but the fact that you so eloquently summarised your postions makes me feel you will make a fine administrator one day. Worm · (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sentiment! I can see the need for something like a pause button. In the example you gave, it seems like there were some (allegedly?) legitimate concerns, but the invective and pile-on made me sad. Looked like a public lynching. --TimL (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what SNOW aims to prevent: the discouragement pile-on comments can generate. Please don't be discouraged. The SNOW was done so you can walk away, keep editing, and perhaps try again some time in the future. Jonathunder (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Notes: I entirely agree with Tim that admins should not be viewing their admin access as an award. As administrator status is not a trophy, not an entitlement. So adminship requires humility, cooperation and reconciliation.
Also when an RFA gets closed correctly by any user. The RFA closure must not be reverted by any user (not even the candidate). -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by correctly - since SNOW closure is a judgement call. If you mean procedurally correct, then I disagree. As it happens, I wholly endorse your closure, but if I disagreed that that SNOW was appropriate I would have not hesitated to re-open - and I say that as an editor, not an admin. Worm · (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Any correct closure may not be reverted by anyone. That's what I meant. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

...which fails to clarify. Your closure was not incorrect, therefore at some level by implication was correct, but still could be legitimately reverted by the candidate.--ClubOranje 10:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a reference for 'must not'. All I can find is this: Any user in good standing may close nominations early if a promotion is highly unlikely and they don't see any benefit to leaving the application open.. There may not be much more movement on the page after it becomes clear that it will not succeed, but any candidate who really wants to, can insist that its stays open and runs to the bitter end. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that Misplaced Pages very rarely deals in absolutes - that's why we have WP:IAR. However, when Dusti asked for a SNOW exception, it was seen as a pointy request. Are you sure that a candidate can insist it stays open? Worm · (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Candidates have insisted RFAs remain open (or be re-opened) long past reason in the eyes of RFA regulars. I've never seen that turn out well, and IIRC, some editors have retired after the pile-ons. I know of at least one that was blocked, and I seem to recall there are more in that category. Frank  |  talk 11:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's quite rare that candidates may actually want to reopen their SNOWed RfA, and besides, we certainly don't want start a new trend - I was just curious about Porch's statement: The RFA closure must not be reverted by any user (not even the candidate), because I've never come across anything like it in policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the opposite of such a statement is true. In absence of a formal bureaucrat closure, the candidate should be able to keep their RFA open if they so wish. NW (Talk) 14:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung - I suppose it's a matter of semantics, but I'd characterize it as "occasionally" rather than "rare". We've had a number where they were SNOWed and then reopened, usually by the candidate. I've never seen one that was SNOWed and then successful, although some were successful on a later RfA. (I also know of one RfA where SNOW was discussed - right on the page with a note about how it went from 2/5 to 31/5 and was ultimately successful. The implication I took from it was that 2/5 is sometimes seen as SNOW territory. Three years on, I think that's even more true, but I don't have data to support or dispute that feeling.)  Frank  |  talk  16:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with a WP:SNOW close is that there's really no "bright line" point at which a given RfA becomes an obvious snow close; it's left to the judgment of the user considering such a closure. Here's how I'd envision the process in a perfect world...a registered user (since they're the only ones who can !vote) looks at a given RfA, sees it's going poorly for the candidate, and communicates on that candidate's talk page. Three options are offered: the user offers to close per WP:SNOW, suggests the candidate withdraw and then closes the process as "withdrawn" if the candidate agrees, or if the candidate doesn't want to withdraw leaves the RfA open. The trip-up is that anyone considering a snow close of an RfA needs to communicate with the candidate before closing the RfA. Realistically, how often does that happen? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of must not, I am also unaware of such wording anywhere in policy and would disagree with it. Most people whose RfAs are SNOW closed understand, but again - some wish it to remain open because they don't necessarily believe the opinion, and others have legitimately used it to get feedback. These latter cases are thought by most to really be editor review masquerading as an RfA, and some do start that way and then get acrimonious...but some remain open quite collegially. Of course I don't have links for any of this, but I could find them. Next week, maybe.  Frank  |  talk  16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Frank brings up an excellent example above: given an RfA with 1 support and 5 opposes, should it have been SNOW-closed at that point? Or given a little more time to see if things would turn around for the candidate? 28bytes (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the example diff, I first see several concerns regarding lack of experience. But then I look back over the total number of !votes, and I see less than ten, which IMO is too few to accurately determine a SNOW-close probability. My own (as yet unwritten) criteria put the cutoff for closure by either SNOW or WP:NOTNOW at a minimum of twenty !votes, with no more than three supporting, and at least 48 full hours open. (Those criteria are flexible and will vary based on both the commentary provided by others and my own examination of the candidate.) Fast-forward to the actual closure of the RfA in question, and I see a successful RfA, with strong supporting consensus developing just a day after the RfA opened. And I also see why 28bytes picked this particular RfA as the example, namely Keepscases' comment: "Please don't make hasty judgments when an RFA has just begun. Can you imagine if someone had invoked WP:SNOW?" So I would summarize all this by cautioning users, admin or otherwise, to not be too quick on the SNOW-close trigger. And with all that said, I'm still in favor of non-admins being able to close RfAs under SNOW, and possibly by extension, NOTNOW. But this caveat must apply: err on the side of caution. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think 28bytes picked it because I had linked it above....it's one I was fairly intimately involved with and interested in :-). You can bet those first 24 hours or so were nervous-making! Agree with your assessment, which is why I posted at all...SNOW should be carefully applied. And also agree that it isn't and shouldn't be an admin-only task.  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have closed within a couple hours, but that only applies to very new editor with <50 edits applying for adminship. Commonly, all they get is "Oppose - WP:SNOW <SIGNATURE>", and twenty of those !votes would just drive them off. It's far better to close quickly and to point them to how they can help Misplaced Pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A bureaucrat's perspective

I must say that I do not understand why this RfA was closed prematurely. When deciding whether or not to close an RfA early, I try to use the following criteria:

1. RfA has little to no support, or the opposers are far in excess of the supporters.
2. No new points are being raised in the oppose section, and most new opposers are simply citing other people's opposes rather than giving a new reason.
3. The user appears to be getting very upset/angry by the feedback that is being left and/or may be scared off from Misplaced Pages by edit.

Note that the criteria "doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing" is not explicitly included (although it is included implicitly in point 1).

I realise these are my own personal standards and not included in WP:SNOW, but I feel as if this is the essence of how SNOW should be applied to RfAs. The purpose of SNOW being applied to RfA is not "close discussions that won't pass". If it was, you could apply SNOW to an RfA that has equal numbers of supports and opposes, but I doubt anyone would say that SNOW applies to such a discussion.

None of these criteria were met by the RfA in question. Quite the opposite in fact; he had quite a bit of (moral support), the very last oppose raised a new point, and in fact Tim was not upset by the RfA but was upset by the closure itself!

It has been established by the many reconfirmation RfAs that have been submitted in the recent past, an RfA is a good place to go to get (brutally honest) feedback on your editing. It looks like Tim was getting some decent feedback when this RfA was closed, and it's a shame that it was ended so early.

I would ask that users carefully consider the criteria I've listed above when closing an RfA by SNOW. It is almost always invariably better to leave the discussion open too long than close it too early.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the perspective Deskana, I'll certainly be keeping it in mind. I do wonder, however, about feedback that is given whilst an editor is off-wiki. I gave an example of E2eamon above, where he left wiki with half a dozen opposes, and when he came back the next day (18 hours) there were 20 odd. E2eamon withdrew the nomination and retired.

I honestly think that RfA isn't a good place to get feedback - it's too brutal and unrelenting. Furthermore, the feedback is rarely constructive and if you don't have the skills to take constructive information out of negative comments (which the vast majority of people don't), it's effectively unhelpful. I'm not saying that RfA comments should be constructive, mind - they're designed to highlight concerns to the community, not to help the candidate improve (though I know many voters try to do both). Worm · (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was very careful in how I formulated that sentence. I did not express whether or not I felt RfA was useful as a feedback measure. However the reconfirmation RfAs show that people do feel it is useful for feedback though. That RfA also generates useless feedback does not disqualify it either. in my opinion; it's relatively easy to filter out all the useless feedback and only take the useful feedback out from it if that's what you want it to do.

Regarding the opposes, it is impossible to predict how people would respond to certain things. Some users may not be put off by having 100 opposes on their RfA, whereas others may be put off by only having a single one even when there are 100 supports. That we have no idea how people will respond to an RfA is also, in my view, means we have no justification in taking action closing their RfA unless it is no longer generating any useful feedback at all, which was my point in my original post. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Think the speedy close was based on too much RFA reform discussion and a group reinforced view of how awful RFA is. Sure, close the 100 edit guys or the like. But for someone like this, better to let the candidate make his own call.TCO (reviews needed) 04:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism and RfA

With yet another excellent candidate distressed into retiring after being attacked with totally unfounded accusations of plagiarism, I thought it might be useful to talk about the issues's unfortunate wiki history in relation to RfA. (unhelpful paragraph on history removed)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/E2eamon had the appalling spectacle of an excellent contributor being told by several opposers that he not only fails to make the grade as an admin candidate, but that hes not even a good editor and should be blocked for plagiarism! What makes it worse is that the plagiarism accusation wasnt merely weak, it was totally unfounded. I hope this thread doesn't upset Sandy. I participated briefly in the FA process a while back and IMO Sandy is one of our very greatest assets. She gently guides the sometimes difficult artistic personalities that hang out on the FA boards with a tact that Id say compares favourably with several senior managers earning 6 digit salaries, with the end result being our fantastic flagship content. That said, her accusation of plagiarism was worse than worthless. Its important to understand that close paraphrasing a couple of sentences is not plagiarism providing you properly cite the source. As Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism clearly states: You can avoid inadvertent plagiarism by following these three rules: ...Add in-text attribution when you copy or closely paraphrase a source's words"

In particular it can be good practice to stick fairly closely to the source when you're relaying technical information. When one looks at the actual four examples given in the accusation its even more clear that they are totally unfair to the candidate: Point 3 isnt about plagiarism, point 4 is arguably a case of close paraphrasing though IMO entirely appropriate, and anyway it wasn't introduced by the candidate but by another editor only the previous day! Point 2 is the worse of all:

• 2) DYK 1973 shooting in South Jamaica, Queens is plagiarized from here at least, - When one checks that out its evident that not only is it not an example of plagiarism, there isn't even any significant close paraphrasing!

Hmmm...wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare this revision to the source? I think the story is a little different in that case. I'm not saying that we should chase off everyone who shows the slightest lapse in judgment - really I think it should be pretty rare to chase editors away - but I also don't think it's reasonable to call Sandy's oppose "worse than worthless", at least not on the basis of this particular DYK objection called out.  Frank  |  talk  01:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Its deeply unethical for the project to distress candidates who have volunteered years of quality service into retiring for no good reason, and it squanders a very valuable resource. As a small concrete change, I propose we change Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Front matter#About RfA so it encourages folk to be sceptical of oppose comments, rather than discourage the very valuable badgering of opposers. Specifically, we could change:

Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

To

When accessing how much weight to place on 'oppose' comments, extreme scepticism can be safest even if the comment is supported with diffs and made by a highly respected member of the community. Only accept negative statements about the candidate if you have personally verified them.

This may help avoid an impressive looking oppose triggering a RfA and wiki-career ending pile on, when in reality the oppose has all the analytical rigour of a squashed grape! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, although in my opinion a simple change in policy is not enough. Plagiarism has become the modern equivalent of McCarthyism in the WP:RFA process. Nothing more, nothing less. While I agree that those actually guilty of plagiarism should have their admin bits revoked, and possibly banned. I agree that those who libelously throw around the accusation (which can be career destroying in certain fields) be similarly punished. Dave (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I guess the flip side is most of these false accusations are no doubt motivated by a heartfelt desire for high quality standards coupled with the natural tendency of folk to make mistakes when they're working too fast. So I wouldnt personally support sanctions against false accusers unless they're very obviously intending to smear an editor (perhaps except when the accusations are made against someone editing in their real name, then there's no excuse not to take extra care). FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had some close paraphrasing issues from my early days on Misplaced Pages, and thus from experience can say that it sometimes doesn't even come from negligence. I was trying to avoid violating WP:NOR, and consequently made a close paraphrase. (I've since cleaned them up, BTW.) If I hadn't realized my errors and tried an RFA in January, for example (would have been NOTNOW per time active, but ignore that for the sake of argument), it would have been very discouraging to get "Oppose, you should be indefblocked!" !votes. I wouldn't have retired, as it takes a lot in real life, let alone the internet, to get under my skin, but it still would be relatively discouraging. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I can be a catch 22. If someone is out to trash your wikipedia reputation, if you don't repeat exactly what the source says you are accused of violating WP:OR. However, if you do say the same thing as the source it's plagiarism. Yes there is a happy middle ground that most of us either learned at school or figured out over time. However, at RFA, is someone is on a rant and out for blood, they can play that game. Dave (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reaper, You make a very important point about the tension between OR and close paraphrasing/ plaigurism. If all our content guidelines are interpreted harshly, its maybe impossible not to violate one of the other. I think that was recognized by the policy writing editors which is why the plagiarism guideline mentions the problem and says close paraphrasing is allowed. Except for certain scientific and technical articles close paraphrasing should rule out FA status as we like original writing but unless its done to the extreme its not a reason to think anyone would misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Stumbling across a paragraph that sounds familiar and confronting the person on their talk page who added it is certainly noble intentions at work. However, what honor is there in scouring an RFA's candidate's contribution and voting oppose at the first (and only) instance where three consecutive words from the article appear in the attributed source. I've seen a dozen or so instances in the last few years where such a thing has happened (and yes on a single instance) where the pitchforks have come out with "confess your sins now or burn forever". I see nothing honorable about that at all; no benefit to wikipedia has come out of any of these. We've lost good editors who have done absolutely nothing wrong, or made a mistake but one that's easily correctable. It's merely someone trying to pump up their wikipedia reputation at the expense of another. I'm not denying that plagiarism is a problem in wikipedia. It very much is. However, in some circles it's become in vogue to smear candidates with questionable accusations and this also needs to stop. Dave (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Didnt realise its happened as often as that, perhaps opposers to make demonstrably false accusations more than once should be topic banned from RfA then? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As I was one of the opposers, and have done so more than once, let me share my point of view. First, I'm not an admin, have never sought adminship, and have never asked to seek adminship. I've spent a fair chunk of time in the past year scrubbing pages that were plagiarized by a single editor - I've only managed to scratch the surface of the damage that's been done. For that, I've been harassed, work I've done has been vandalized, and I've asked to have my user page deleted so most of my work can't be seen. Yes, this is an extreme case, but it also goes to show that this is a serious problem we need to confront. As for the less egregious problem of close paraphrasing, in my view, there's no place on wikipedia for close paraphrasing. For one thing, Misplaced Pages is held in low regard by academics, and when close paraphrasing exists on pages - something a professor would not tolerate from a student - then it does little for our reputation. Rewording takes a little more time, a little more effort, but is important in my view. Hypothetically, if an editor churns out a few articles to satisfy the content criteria of RfA - and let's be honest, we're building an encyclopedia here, this is a writing project - then they should take care to do it as well as possible. I understand that often editors don't know when they are close paraphrasing, but to have those who point it out called McCarthyites is not helpful, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Truthkeeper88's comments 100%. One lesser-considered problem with plagiarism and close paraphrasing is that since we license our content for others to use, we're implicitly encouraging other people to propagate the copyright violations. Even Facebook mirrors us now. We should take copyright violations seriously in an RfA candidate, since that's the one of the main things, along with BLP violations, that can get us sued. Low edit summary percentages and high automated edit counts may or may not be legitimate things to nitpick a candidate on, but if an editor is essentially stealing the work of others by reusing their copyrighted text verbatim or almost verbatim without making it clear it's a quote, and we don't bother to check to see if a candidate has done this or is currently doing it, that puts the project at a very real risk. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not trying to deny the seriousness of close paraphrasing or plagiarism, and I fully agree with Truthkeeper88 and 28bytes. I'm just saying that the comments of "indefblock" for what was probably a good-faith mistake on E2eamon's RFA were just a little over-the-top. That said, his lack of any attempt to clean up the issue is also inappropriate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, maybe you could try to get the close paraphrasing essay promoted then; it seems to take a much more negative view of close paraphrasing than the plagiarism guideline. Id hope the attempt would be firmly rejected by the community, but if not at least it would maybe cause a relaxation of our OR policy or encourage the more frequent use of quotes. Anyway the point of this thread isn’t about close paraphrasing, its on the way unfounded oppose comments can lead to a wiki career ending pile on.FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The close paraphrasing page was completely rewritten a week ago. Given the title of the thread, what is this about, just so I'm clear? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Feyd, it's entirely possible to write articles that contain neither original research nor close paraphrasing. I'm surprised you disagree. 28bytes (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Truthkeeper88, if you feel nervous about being stalked off-wiki for cleaning up another user's plagiarism, feel free to email me about it and I'll make the edits, as I don't give a hoot who tries to annoy me off-wiki. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being stalked off-wiki, I have been harrassed on-wiki, which some degree is beside the point. The amount of clean-up is staggering - I suggest editors familiarize themselves with the cases at CCI to see exactly what needs to be done. It's a much better use of time, in my view, than having this discussion, or suggesting that editors are topic banned from !voting at RfA, which does nothing but create a chilling effect. And, ReaperElement, thank you for the kind offer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban suggestion was only for those who repeatedly make extremely serious false accusations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In your view has that been done recently? Again, I've opposed based on close-paraphrasing recently, so just trying to get some clarity here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very recently in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/E2eamon and the evidence showing this is linked to and discussed in the first post of this thread. I hope it hasnt came across as if Im trying to say folk ought not to oppose for genuine cases of close-paraphrasing (much as i would personally not oppose for that reason). FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just found it, and yes, that's exactly what it comes across as. Softening would be helpful - it is a serious issue, whether or not we want to confront it. Those who do confront invariably take a hard hit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Ive softened it by taking out the historical section, which I guess may unfairly associate opposers with the dispicable historical off wiki harrassment, which isnt fair as of course many opposing on these grounds have entirely good intentions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you (Feyd) are so adamant that there was no plagiarism in the case you quote, as it seems very plain to me that there was. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(re to Truthkeepers above). I make no apologies for my words of "McCarthyism". However, I appreciate your situation too. I suspect it comes from the fact that our experience is on the opposite side of the fence. I've only been involved in cleanup of plagiarism for articles I've worked on. I suppose I'd be more passionate in your position. However, I know of two RfA's that both Feyd and I were involved with in 2009 that had superfluous plagiarism accusations. I'm not sure which of those Feyd is referring to. However, suffice it to say, in both cases it was blatant and coordinated (via Skype) McCarthyism. The full extent of which was not known at the time, but has since come out in the various ArbCom and other hearings that followed in related and tangential issues with the people involved. There's no point in going into specifics. Most of the people involved have either left or been banned from wikipedia since that time anyways. Dave (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just one more step on the road to outlawing all opposition in RfAs. So an editor retires after having been caught out plagiarising, rather than addressing and fixing the problem. So what? Good riddance. Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Malleus, I couldn't have been any clearer that the retired editor did not commit plagiarism. Please dont waste our time defending the indefensible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Malleus is right. You've presented a case from two years ago that not everyone might know about to make a claim that the wording of opposition at RfA should be changed. As such, an editor such as myself might decide to stop participating in RfA, and quite honestly, I haven't a clue what happened in 2009, but I'm not part of a cabal out to get plariarists/ or those who paraphrase closely. I am, on my own, concerned about the amount of close paraphrasing I see here, and deeply concerned that it's elephant in the room no one wants to confront. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The case from two years ago is historical background, the reason for the wording change the pile on that followed on from a clearly false accusation of plagiarism, and the many other related instances which are effectively a serous form of slander. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism, the first sentence states that "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit" - excuse me if I'm wrong, but I see citations to the articles of the candidate, and Plagiarism ≠ close paraphrasing with citations. Connormah (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm correcting you; to avoid plagiarism you have to attribute the material, as in "according to ..."; it's not enough to tag a citation on the end, which acts merely as a source for the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What Malleus said. If you add some text into an article, you are implying that you are the author of that text, unless you explicitly indicate otherwise. It's possible to plagiarize but not violate copyright (e.g. copying verbatim from a public domain document), it's possible to violate copyright but not plagiarize (e.g. adding an extremely long – but properly attributed – quote that exceeds reasonable fair use exceptions) and it's possible to both plagiarize and violate copyright (e.g. copying verbatim – or close to verbatim – from a copyrighted document without making it clear you're doing so.) 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting if you or Malleau can provide even one example where E2eamon failed to provide a warrented in line attributation (as in "according to ..." ). Even for FA class articles its common not to do so for basic facts; an inline cite is sufficient. And its not plagiarism to closely paraphrase one or two sentences of very ordinary pedestrian writing without using quotes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the work - at little later, when I'm done with what I'm currently doing. But, all FAs now have plagiarism/close paraphrasing spotchecks, as do PRs. Perhaps you were unaware of that. In fact my most recent FA was not promoted until spotchecked, so this is not entirely correct. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, I am very confused. You keep referring to false claims of close paraphrasing/plagiarism. Which one is false? You seemed to indicate that this does not contain a close paraphrase of this, but of course it does contain close paraphrases. Note specifically the first half or so of the "Shooting" section. Is that the only one that you thought was false? I can see why you missed it, it is difficult to find since the RfA note did not point out the section where the close paraphrase is. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The plagiarism accusation was false. There was a very small ammount of close paraphrasing. For the specific example in your diff I said no 'significant close paraphrasing'. Correct me if Im wrong but the only sentence from the article you could possibly mean would seem to be "There were also smaller demonstrations accusing Shea of racism outside the courthouse during the trial. {cite}" which you're seeing as a close paraphrase of "As the verdict was announced seven pickets marched outside the courthouse, accusing Shea of racism."  ? If that was plagurism then heaven help us. Im retiring myself for the weekend after this reply. Abject apologies if there's any obvious I missed and have been guilty of making false accusations of false accusations! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This from the source article: "As the boy fell, he supposedly passed the gun to his stepfather" with the exception of a single word, is worded verbatim in the article. This is a classic example of close paraphrasing. There are ways of overcoming this, as I stated earlier, but they require a bit of work and energy. I shall now go scrub the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction, that's the wording in the article, not the source. However, the larger point is that it was claimed at the RfA that this was proof of "blatant plagerism" (direct quote). Nobody here is disputing that that is close paraphrasing that I can see, but the claim that that was blatant plagiarism is false.Dave (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've corrected. When a single word is changed in a sentence, and a string of sentences are presented in the same manner, it becomes a manner of semantics, quite frankly. I've fixed the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but thats incorrect - eight words are different not just one! The article says "As the boy fell, he supposedly passed the gun to his stepfather,{cite} but it was never found. {cite}" The source says: "As the boy fell he appeared to pass the gun to his stepfather ...... A police search of the scene turned up no weapon. " Granted there was verbatem reproduction of two four word clauses, but otherwise the sentence was well paraphrased. Granted that single very ordinary sentence could have been better paraphrased but surely that doesnt count as border line plaigurism let alone a blatant case? FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it not "blatant"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FH, that quote is not even from the section that I tried to direct your attention to; no, it is not what I meant. In addition to the line Truthkeeper88 mentioned, we have "Shea fired three times at the pair when the boy appeared to draw a gun"(WP) vs. "Shea said he fired three times at the running pair when Glover appeared to draw a gun."(The Day - Jun 13, 1974) and "they matched the description of a pair of men wanted for a taxi robbery"(WP) vs. "they resembled descriptions of two men sought in a taxi robbery."(The Day). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The recent RfA ended before I had time to review in detail whether what occurred was what I would regard as plagiarism, so I have no opinion about the candidate, but I agree entirely with how Malleus and 28bytes described what is and what is not acceptable. I did briefly see Sandy's comments in the RfA, and I think the same message could have been communicated in a less bitey way. No way should we discourage opposers in RfA, but we should encourage civility. I'm OK with editors who start out naively about plagiarism and then improve, but I feel strongly that we should not be lax about plagiarism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish; plagiarism is, obviously, bad. But so is incivility, especially at RFA which are infamous for being "hell week". The candidate probably should not have passed the RFA; then again, they should not have been bullied into retirement either. I do agree that many opposers will see an influential editor opposing with a TL;DR paragraph of text, and put "per" to make it easier to pile on. Often this is a tactic to gain favour with this influential person. But whether what they wrote is true, relevant or useful doesn't matter, it seems. It's easy to hyperbole about not being allowed to oppose, but it's not true at all. All votes should be qualified, and when slanderous remarks are made on a whim, often by somebody with an axe to grind, it doesn't help the process one bit. Some editors oppose quite often and do so civilly; they express their opinion in a calm, polite manner, in a way which makes the candidate realise there's an issue, but doesn't bully them and make them feel small. These opposers don't get picked up on, and often supporters will switch because of these people. On the other hand, we have opposes which launch into personal attacks, false accusations, slanderous remarks, uncivil comments and an incredibly angry tone. These opposes will get picked up on, and rightly so. Many will often support just to counter them. AD 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you agree with me (thanks!), I just want to clarify that I do not think that description applies to what Sandy wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think much of Sandy's frustration comes from the fact that she's almost always the only person to do the research to see if a candidate has been plagiarizing. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the particular comment applies to above; what I'm discussing is just in general. If more people took the time to look - especially at the time of the article becoming a DYK, FA, whatever - then more people would become aware at how important the issue is, rather than it just looking like a minor thing. AD 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

People do take the time to look for plagiarism at FAC, but as for DYK, well the monster has to be fed, no time to check anything there. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fact-checking this: two different submissions are flagged for "copyvio" at T:TDYK right now: and – one of them rejected, the other awaiting a rewrite. A few links to proof when you're making those sweeping accusations about DYK would be welcome. Sharktopus 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two out of how many? Facts would be useful if you're determined to ignore the obvious truth. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure!. That case in point is one of a highly influential editor with numerous advanced permissions. But I take your point that FACs are under a lot more scrutiny than DYKs. AD 21:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It was the Grace Sherwood incident that resulted in the introduction of checks for plagiarism at FAC, although from memory that involved copyright violations. Some processes attempt to learn from their history, others do not. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of conscientious editors at DYK who follow DYK's guidelines instructing them to look for copyright problems. Heck, I used to be one myself, before I got so tired of hearing the DYK-bashing that I figured, fuck it, I'll spend my time working on tasks that are more appreciated. 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the number of simple grammar and spelling errors in many DYKs I very much doubt that the typical reviewer even reads the article beyond what is necessary to verify the hook, but I digress. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

After the Grace Sherwood incident, it occurred to me that there were more problems than just simple spelling and grammar errors, in not just this project's DYK output, but the output of the FA process as well. Of course, to say so is heresy. Insulting the "DYK regulars" was (and still is) all the rage... but criticism of the FAC regulars for failing to deal properly with these issues... well, that sort of criticism produces outrage. Strange that some people develop such an emotional attachment to one camp or the other, after contributing to both. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so strange if you consider the absurdity of Misplaced Pages being "governed" by children on a power boost. Now that ought to produce outrage, but it never does. Why do you think that is? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so. People whose maturity is questionable, can fail an RfA. Not once, but twice! That's a safety valve - the community can turn down people whose maturity is questionable, but whose personal opinion of their own maturity (and "right to govern") is sky-high. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that instead of throwing stones, Demiurge go to FAC and start spotchecking articles, as is required since the Grace Sherwood incident. It's time-comsuming and not fun - some people do it every day. For free. And some people clean up the mess, every day. For free. Help is always welcome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper88. I'm a bit busy referencing unreferenced BLPs right now, but sure, I'll do you a deal. You review one article at DYK, I'll spot-check one article at FAC. (That is, in addition to the articles I already spot-check at DYK, the plagiarism I've already caught there.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deal. I'll go do it right now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done two. Don't expect I'll be very popular in the morning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all very well saying "oh yeah, come help us review, you're very welcome", because whenever I've gone to FAC I've been made to feel very unwelcome indeed, and I know I'm not the only one. It's no secret that non-FAC regulars are often ignored or considered less seriously than regulars there, so why should I bother wasting my time there when I have no idea if my comments will even be looked at? AD 15:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably a valid concern that you should raise on the FAC talkpage instead of here. I thought Demiurge's challenge to me was appropriate and what's clear after looking at two DYK and finding problems, is that reviewers are desperately needed across the board - but this isn't the place for that discussion, imo. It is a very important discussion, though, I think, and good that you raised your concerns. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely not an FAC regular (only one submission to FAC), and I never had any issues at all with them. The times I've seen comments ignored are ones that do not pertain to the FAC, opposes that are not actionable, or supports for an article that does not meet the criteria. I've also seen this happen when all the nominators and their friends support their own article, and, obviously, those supports should be ignored. I'm sure SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) can probably explain this better than I can, and I hope she does! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"...or supports for an article that does not meet the criteria..." If that's the case, then surely it should just be one person reviewing? Who is qualified to decide whether an article meets criteria or not? The answer is, everybody. Anybody should be able to review an article, and vote in support if they think it meets the criteria, without the fear of their vote being ignored, or even worse, ridiculed as is often the case. "...when all the nominators and their friends support their own article..." This happens all the time with FAC regulars, and yet with non-FAC regulars the article fails. AD 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason non-FAC regulars commonly see their supports ignored is because they do not provide any critical commentary about why the article meets WP:WIAFA. This is even stated directly on WP:FAC: "...the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and...such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support." A more experienced reviewer then shows up and offers a lone oppose stating exactly why the article fails the FA criteria and offering reasonable, actionable objections to the articles promotion. If the comments are not resolved, I am relatively certain that the article will fail. As mentioned before, SandyGeorgia can probably answer better than I can. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This dialogue might help you understand the FAC process and why articles can be failed even with five supports and one oppose. The point I'm trying to make is that non-FAC regulars aren't shrugged off because there is a cabal, but because they commonly don't offer critical commentary as to what and how they reviewed the article with their supports. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism and RfA break

This thread is much too long, so I quit, but 1) thank you for the kind words FeydHuxtable about FAC; 2) it is most concerning that some don't see plagiarism or close paraphrasing in such clear examples; and 3) this caught my eye as I skimmed:

I think much of Sandy's frustration comes from the fact that she's almost always the only person to do the research to see if a candidate has been plagiarizing. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, d'oh. Unqualified supports at RFA are a problem, DYK is a huger problem (plagiarism central, shoddy content contributions used to fuel the climb up the grease pole at RFA), and that other editors support without even a cursory look at the content used to fuel an RFA is most frustrating ... I come along 20 or 30 supports in and find that no one even looked at content, and then I'm expected to mince words? The frustration is at the supporters and enablers, not the candidate. I don't know who said anything about "indef block", but it should be expected that anyone found plagiarizing should offer to clean it up or face sanction. And children who haven't completed high school can rarely be expected to understand the fine lines between citing content correctly in one's own words, close paraphrasing, plagiarism, copyvio, etc. Why is it that RFA supporters don't check for this, since it's so basic-- a pattern that is so easy to find? Child wants to be an admin, child writes DYKs that aren't correctly sourced or cited and/or include plagiarism, close paraphrasing or copyvio. RFA supporters don't bother to check: lather, rinse, repeat, then shoot the messenger. Anyone who says we didn't get on this or take it seriously at FAC is not paying attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about DYKs, never did, do not, and won't. However, some of us are working very hard now at ways to convince children that RfA is not their playground - in the nicest possible way of course ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about children, it's about editors who plagiarise. I know some find it hard to understand, but adults make errors as well as children (cf User:Rlevse) :) Plagiarism was clearly not checked at FAC until Grace Sherwood came to light. Who knows how many other FAs passed before that are full of copyvios and plagiarism? Has someone gone through and checked every single one? Doubt it. You can make DYK the scapegoat, but it's editors who simply don't understand how to use sources properly that's the problem. DYK bashing is becoming tiresome to say the least, when it's not the cause of the issue. AD 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC) And yes I would expect someone to "mince their words" (aka use tact) when talking to someone in that situation, especially a child, rather than talking down to them as if they were a piece of sh*t. AD 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

According to stats, 24% of editors are probably not old enough to have children, or to have worked with them to any extent, so they may not know how to address them properly. Not an excuse of course. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One point here Sandy. RfA is about the community stating whether they trust the candidate to hold the mop. Every editor's standard required for the trust is different and the supporters (should!) have checked the areas that they consider a priority and not seen anything brought up in the oppose section.

So, if editors have taken the time to thoroughly check specific areas such as a candidates deleted contributions, CSD record, UAA record, AfD record, temperment, interaction with other editors, levels of drama at ANI, overall levels of edits and so on, but none have reviewed the actual content creations that doesn't make their supports invalid.

I personally believe that admins should have created content, because if you are going to be deleting content/blocking users, you should understand what's like to put the effort in. I don't see that they need to write great content though (depending on what they plan to do with the bit) and I'm more concerned about how they handle discussion of plagiarism or copyvios than the fact that they've actually made it. But that's just me. Worm · (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just one last point from me - Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism includes the following example:

  Sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution.

  The guideline suggests such a sentence not only doesnt need attribution it may not even need an inline cite. So if copying even a whole uncreative and uncited sentence is not plagiarism, then copying a handful of simple phrases like "he passed the gun" along with an inline cite ,is even more clearly not an example of intellectual theft - even if it does count as insufficient paraphrasing. Id encourage anyone who doesnt agree with our plagiarism guideline to head over to the talk page and try to harmonise their views with the rest of the community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree on two counts. First, the example may contain eight words, but it only contains three concepts – a subject, an action and a date. For many subjects, there are multiple alternative words that can be used, but when it comes to a proper name, there is one choice. Similarly, when it comes to a generic action, there are often alternative word, but "born" has few option in this context. As with a date, other than the two main conventions, which may already be dictated, there isn't much choice. In contrasted, even a short phrase like "he passed the gun" could be rewired in several way, (he handed over the gun, he gave him the pistol). Second, it wasn't just that phrase, but a longer phrase, and could easily have been rewritten a number of ways. I sometimes find myself looking at a phase, and struggling to find a different way to say it. This is sometimes hard when looking at it; I've found it helpful to step away, then come back and write a sentence without looking at the original, and it is often very different. I'm sorry that the editor left the project over this incident; I hope the editor will come to realize that the phrasing was not acceptable, return to the project and learn from the experience.--SPhilbrickT 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then how many different ways can you write "Example died in 1977"? --Σ _contribs 20:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Provide me with the context and I'll tell you. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

One error in DYK

What a load of crap on this page: first off, the statements about FAC are just wrong, period. One incident does not a trend make (and correcting shortcomings in the process that allowed it to happen is precisely what we're not seeing at DYK). Second, plagiarism is by no means the only problem at DYK, nor are Fredhuxtable's examples typical of the blatant outright plagiarism and copyvio one finds at DYK. No, at DYK we also have sensationalism, non-reliable sources, and inaccurate representation of sources on a daily basis. Here's the latest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a point about some DYKs being inappropriate, but this is obviously not the right page to be discussing it on. Tarnishing the whole of DYK and all its contributors with the same negative brush is not appropriate either. There's a lot of good stuff going on there; perhaps you could suggest some ways in which it can be improved (other than scrapping it completely) at the DYK talk page. AD 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, AD. It would have been great if, when finding one problem DYK hook, which was about as far from a scandal as one can imagine, SandyGeorgia had reported it at Main Page/Errors so it could be repaired quickly. What she did instead makes it clear she is more interested in campaigning against DYK than she is in the integrity of the Main Page. DYK makes occasional errors, as does every other part of Misplaced Pages. I am considering asking for SandyGeorgia to be topic-banned from her Misplaced Pages-wide dissemination of misinformation about DYK. Sharktopus 11:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly hyperbolic but it's unfair to suggest she is not concerned about the integrity of the main page. I think the issue is the fact that DYK does not seem to be learning from its mistakes and improving, which is what FAC apparently did. But we're off topic. AD 11:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that Sandy alleges DYK is not learning from its mistakes and improving. Recent improvements include a reviewer's guide for novices, suggested here and the plan (not yet implemented) to improve accountability by creating AfD-type subpages showing the history of each nomination, discussed most recently here and supposedly due for coding soon after July 22. I agree this is off-topic, except that here is one of the places where accusations are being posted in the most inflammatory terms, so it seems not unreasonable to offer up a brief answer. Sharktopus 12:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to topic ban SandyG from this discussion may turn out to be the worst suggestion you could ever have made on Misplaced Pages. All you demonstrate is what we all know, that she's right but you don't want to hear that. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC on reconfirmation RfA standards

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The semi-recent reconfirmation RfAs, as well as Hersfold's take on them in his RfB, bring up a dispute which I believe the community as a whole needs to settle. For anyone who dosen't know the background to this issue, see Q15 in Hersfold's RfB, specifically 15D and 15K, the links are there.

If a current or former admin runs for RfA, are the standards for judging the success of that RfA to be the same as or lower than the standards would be if the RfA was for someone who had not previously been an admin.

I'm deliberately not going straight to polling, as I believe that there might be a greater range of options than just the two I listed. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the standards should be the same. Having said that, I do think it would be prudent to more closely scrutinize !votes to ensure they are based on policy and not merely a form of vindictive reprise for an admin action which itself was policy based. My76Strat 07:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think before you get to the standard at a reconfirmation RFA, we should first establish consensus that reconfirmation RFAs are acceptable, and in what circumstances. If we still have people voting against candidates merely because it is a reconfirmation RFA, then the standard should at least be adjusted accordingly. Some consideration also may want to be given to the issue of admins who have developed enemies from appropriate use of the tools. I like the idea of a level playing field, but at the present, that may justify a lower standard in strict percentage terms. Monty₈₄₅ 07:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Monty, in over seven years on Misplaced Pages, this is the first time someone edit-conflicted me to say almost exactly what I wanted to say, so a tip of my hat to you =) Regards SoWhy 08:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I believe reconfirmation standards should be just as strict as an initial RFA; however, bureaucrats must analyze !votes which oppose solely because it is a reconfirmation RFA. Really, every RFA is like this in that there is no bright line and bureaucrats must take oppose and support !votes with a grain of salt. Ryan Vesey contribs 22:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see any honesty in that distinction. As Demiurges's intentionally insulting comments above suggest, perhaps allowances ought also to be made for the second, third ... RfAs of those whose previous RfAs bombed. Not. Whatever the standard is, it needs to be applied uniformly, with no exceptions. Malleus Fatuorum 08:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably urinating into the ventilator to say this, but I'll say it anyway. We shouldn't need reconfirmations at all, so the issue of where the bar is set seems unimportant to me. (An administrator who sincerely wants feedback should go to WP:ADREV, and RfA regulars should contribute feedback there.) What we do need is administrator recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it pretty jaw-dropping that after ten years of this project, people will still try to defend admin-for-life culture. Skomorokh 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The question – is it a good idea to make this editor an administrator? – remains the same. It is only the evidence used to answer the question that differs. Bureaucrat discretion has sufficed in the past, I don't see a formal discussion as being necessary now. Skomorokh 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that it hasn't sufficed at all. Both of those reconfirmations (^demon and SarekOfVulcan) were incredibly controversial. ^demon had 63% support, more than ten points below the traditional cutoff. SarekOfVulcan, at least, could be justified because he'd be on the borderline if the "oppose because it's a reconfirmation and therefore a waste of time" votes were discounted. Yes, there is always going to be controversy, but 63% goes well beyond discretion if prior adminship does not factor in. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two controversial RfAs does not a problem make; it has yet to be established that community standards for reconfirmations are so confused/disparate/unfair as to render appropriate bureaucrat judgement unreasonably difficult. Skomorokh 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where I'd put things on this one. I'd probably pass with a higher percentage than those reconfirmations, but less than my original RfA--as I suspect many administrators would. I think the biggest problem with reconfirmation RfA's is that they are triggered when someone has done something wrong. Not when e.g., two years have elapsed, nor when a user has just gotten accolades for doing something really cool with the tools. They're almost universally triggered when a group of editors is very unhappy with something the admin in question has done. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• I tend to side with Jclemens above. It does seem to me that these reconfirmation RfAs tend to be triggered by extreme dissatisfaction on the part of other editors, generally up to the point that they honestly believe the admin in question has behaved in such a way as to merit de-sysop'ing or, possibly, in some cases, as a form of harassment. I would think that the dissatisfied editors would be the most likely to vote, and, in the event that the dispute involves some content related questions, it would certainly be possible that any individuals who share similar opinions in the content dispute might also be more likely to vote, and that this might rather easily skew the results to some degree or other. My own personal preference in matters of this kind might be to either request ArbCom review of the matter in question, because they clearly have the option of de-sysop'ing admins. Alternately, I suppose, short of ArbCom, it might be possible to perhaps involve any uninvolved editors and/or admins who are regularly involved in arbitration enforcement, on the basis that they might have slightly greater experience with the do's and don'ts of policies and guidelines than that of most other editors. My own personal preference probably is, if such were possible, perhaps having some uninvolved experienced editors or admins "appointed", perhaps by the community, perhaps by ArbCom, to resolve the matter, based on evidence presented to them regarding the conduct of the arb in question. In all honesty, however, at least as an individual, I tend to think myself that these reconfirmation RfAs might be in fact the single least likely to succeed means of resolving such matters as those which trigger reconfirmation RfAs. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm of two minds on this. There are some who believe the saw that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", but there are others who follow "a new broom sweeps clean, but the old one knows the corners." Users who run the RfA gauntlet, despite repeated assurances that having the mop is WP:NOBIGDEAL, rarely want to run it again, and having an admin willingly offer themselves up to that level of scrutiny borders on outright masochism (no offense to those who recently did just that; it's just my take on the matter). So here's a possible third option, one I'm not sure anyone has looked at, and I'll apologize for how this will be phrased in advance, since I'm sort of brainstorming it as I write it. How about, in order to keep the bit without routine reconfirmation, there's some sort of "recent activity" threshold, the same as there is with the ACC Toolserver? The particulars would need consideration and consensus to implement, and there may be some technical challenges involved for recordkeeping, but it would certainly solve the potential security issues with inactive admin accounts. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with inactive accounts. Inactive accounts that didn't disappear under storm clouds can get their mops back just by asking a passing 'crat. This is about the pass/fail number for reconfirmation RfAs. We want people that have not been admins before to hit upwards of 70%, with 75% or even 80% being much preferred. However there is an opinion by some that once one has been an admin, reconfirmation numbers can be lower. Apparently 63% isn't too low if one has already been an admin, even though it's too low if one hasn't been an admin before. If nothing else, this only reinforces the 'admins as an elite club for which many rules do not apply' theme that is oft mentioned. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I understand where you're coming from, and as I said, I was brainstorming that concept out on the fly. I don't think there's going to be a single solution that solves the question of reconfirmations in one shot. Rather, I'm seeing a need to take the overall question of "admin for life" and break it into smaller parts, such as "admin for x years before reconfirmation" and "y% Support !vote threshold needed to reconfirm", or maybe even divide things down even further. The first question that would have to be answered, though, is still going to be "admin for how long, exactly?". That is also likely to answer, once and for all, whether the premise that "adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL" is still a truism, or if it's devolved into a cliché. I'd like to think it still holds true, but I'm known for being altruistic at times. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• The tools and duties of an admin have changed very little over the years, however the expectations that come into play at RfA have increased over time. Adminship is a big deal because the community has decided that it is a big deal. That is the only reason. While many of the justifications that people use as to why it is a big deal are legitimate, the community has gotten so caught up in Adminship being a big deal that attempts to modify it, or anything around it, including the RfA process, tend to fizz out. All of that is besides the point. I'm trying to talk about RfA standards and you're trying to talk about admin term length. Both are topics for discussion, however yours would best be served in a new thread. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's make sure we're both discussing the same variety of fruit here. Are you seeing an issue with the RfA process overall, or just a need to define admin reconfirmations? Looking at the last couple of paragraphs, you're giving the appearance of a moving target. And while my own comments' focus may have been misdirected, and I'm not anywhere close to offering any solutions, I'm still going to hold to the premise that the answer will come in small stages, rather than any single, all-encompassing policy change; the latter will most assuredly meet exceptional resistance community-wide. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Extend RFAs before closing as "no consensus"

Template:Formerly

An idea has crossed my mind, and I hope some feedback will ensue. I think we need to modify our process to allow significantly more time for an RfA before closing it as no consensus. Inability to reach a consensus is as much a failure of the participants to the discussion (if not more so) than the candidate. There are ways to do this and the benefit would be that close RfA's will not always be doomed to the small percentage who can not reach consensus for their oppose but instead just enough to make the majority unable to reach their consensus objective. The seven days is fine for consensus support or consensus oppose, but "no consensus" should automatically receive more time to see if they can. Or the candidate could withdraw. IMO My76Strat 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support I propose we modify the title of this to "Run Strat's got a great idea". I think a no consensus close should stay in place until consensus is reached. If that is too long, or consensus can't be reached, it could be closed at 2 weeks? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment (edit conflict) Technically, as I understand the RfA process, a candidate may withdraw at any time until a bureaucrat closes the process out. The bureaucrats also have the option to examine a "close" RfA and discuss it in a 'crat-chat to determine success or failure; I believe that to be a discretionary function of the 'crat corps. And I don't recall the candidate, nor the final outcome, but I do recall a RfA that closed very close to the threshold sometime in the last few months which was then discussed by the 'crats for a couple of days. If the !votes are running that close to the threshold, would more time really affect the outcome if the 'crats decide they want to examine it longer themselves? It might have the adverse effect of discouraging a candidate from either allowing the process to complete or re-submitting (in the case of an unsuccessful RfA) later on. It's a fine and blurry line, and I'm not really sure it's constructive to move it arbitrarily. Just my 2p worth, save up the change for a root beer or something. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be Lear's Fool (talk · contribs)'s RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - It would just prolong the agony. RFA is stressful enough as it is (and I am currently unopposed, and could hardly image what the suspense would be like at ~70-75%!) Additionally, unless something really bad suddenly turns up, the percentage rarely changes much after around 4 days. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree here with RE. A week is a very very long time to wait - I don't know how N5iln is managing! The last thing we want to do is extend. If it's close, let the crats decide. Worm · (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, crats already can extend an RfA if they believe further discussion will be useful to determine consensus, for example when there was a surge of new discussion just before the RfA is scheduled to end. There is no reason imho to make this mandatory. Crats are tasked to make such decisions and I think we can trust most of them (except those who have not edited for 5 years maybe) to know when extension makes sense and when it would only "prolong the candidate's suffering". Regards SoWhy 14:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment