Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 19 June 2007

Feel free to join the discussion on the future of Requests for adminship process at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Everyone's comments are welcome!

Archives

For discussions from June 2003 till just before what's in this page, see /Archives. RFA discussions before June 2003 took place on a mailing list. RFA-related discussions may also be found at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

• ]

How editcountitis threatens Misplaced Pages

"Edit counting is to be avoided." -- Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Editcountitis is back with a vengeance. For a while, people would veil their editcountitis with phrases like "not enough project-space contributions" or "not enough experience", but now we've got users who will outright say "oppose because you haven't made 5,000 edits". I think that a year ago, a demand for 5,000 edits would be nothing but a bad parody of editcountitis, but now people are making that demand in all honesty.

"So different people have different voting standards," you might say. "What's the big deal?" I want to explain how editcountitis -- and, in general, the practice of voting on admins by numbers, and not by looking at their contributions -- hurts Misplaced Pages.

We've recently had a few trojan admins -- people who became admins for nefarious purposes -- revealed. We should be making extra sure now that we only promote people who have shown themselves to be trustworthy by making meaningful contributions. But meaningful contributions won't get you many votes -- what gets votes is making assloads of edits and avoiding controversy. Many RfA voters will support anyone with a high edit count unless they're blatantly disruptive, and don't even look at their contributions to see if they contain anything of substance.

I'll quote Gurch above in the "trojan admin" discussion: 'After all, if no candidates are promoted, no... ah, "trojans" are promoted. Can't argue with that.' The thing is, as many people above have notied, anyone running for "trojan adminship" knows that the easiest way to pass an RfA is to have a ludicrously high edit count. So they power up AWB or something similar that lets them make thousands of edits without much effort, and they're golden. We turn away people who really care about Misplaced Pages because they don't inflate their edit counts, but I am certain that we are continuing to promote the apathetic and the malicious to adminship because we make it so completely obvious how to game the system.

It's too bad it takes many months or years for these trojan admins to come to light, because it means I can't give examples based on the current state of RfA. Maybe a trojan admin who made 9,000 edits through AutoWikiBrowser and voting on XfD, getting promoted around now, will be unmasked in 2009, and I could say "I told you so", but that won't help anything now. However, since editcountitis has been around for a long time, look at the candidacy of the recently banned Henrygb. The support votes were for things like "Over 3700 edits, all good". (Historical note: 3700 edits used to be considered "overqualified", while now it's "barely qualified" or "unqualified"), and the oppose votes were just for not having a userpage.

Only one person, Ben Brockert (who didn't vote), noticed that Henrygb had made hardly any contributions of substance. He debated in the big debates of the time like Gdansk/Danzig, and made a lot of small edits such as disambiguations, and that was all it took. Just for making 3700 inconsequential edits, he got an admin account under his belt, letting him exert more undue influence on WP than he could do before with his two sockpuppets.

W. Marsh, above, has done a similar analysis of Runcorn's candidacy. He passed in a landslide, when practically all he had done was add Category:Living people to articles.

Meanwhile, we also have a shortage of good admins to deal with our growing backlogs. We may pass about the same percentage of RfAs, but a reasonable candidate with 1200 edits* these days would take one look at RfA and realize they had no chance. So we only get people applying who spend unhealthy amounts of time on Misplaced Pages. When we're lucky, it's just because they're so committed to the project that they don't need a life outside of it, and when we're unlucky, they have a hidden agenda.

• How the Overton window has moved. Requiring 1200 edits used to be an example of editcountitis. But if I used an example less than that, you'd think I wasn't serious.

It is consistently, blatantly clear that you can't cast an informed RfA vote without looking at contributions. But when voters who put thought and time into their votes are drowned out by editcountitis voters, it's hard to have much of an effect by informed voting. The problem is that most of RfA apparently condones the editcountitis. Sure, it's hard to tell when someone is supporting based on editcountitis, but we could start by not taking it lightly when someone makes a vote (which will typically be an oppose vote) that is clearly based on nothing but edit count. These votes are undermining RfA as a way of promoting quality admins.

One more bit of perspective: I passed RfA 16 months ago, with just over 2000 edits. At the time, editcountitis shot down candidates with fewer than 1500; now it seems the same effect happens around 3000 edits. And yet, there aren't twice as many hours in the day in 2007 as there were in 2006...

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll be happy to learn that the template-in-progress {{RFApremature}} suggests anyone would be crazy to even try RfA without 2000 edits. Pascal.Tesson 03:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also consider that any editor that does not always use the preview function (I speak with first hand knowledge) probably inflate their edit count three fold compared to a careful editor using the preview function. Yet, the latter editors care is probably a good trait for adminship. Rather than edit count, we need to consider an impact factor for each edit. Editors with a high impact factor are probably very desirable admin material, even if they have a low edit count. David D. (Talk) 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The factors survey I started back in April seems to have garnered some useful data, one of which is that most people don't consider raw editcount to be an important factor in deciding whether someone should be an admin or not. Experience was considered to be an important factor, however. Some people thought that editcount could possibly be an indicator of experience, but many others agreed that that would not necessarily always be the case, and attention should be paid to the quality of a user's edits.

I think a bureaucrat would be fairly safe in giving less weight to - or even disregarding outright - any opinions in an RfA based solely or primarily on editcount, given this broad consensus that it is not important in and of itself. --bainer (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that what people say is often different from what they do. Most people are going to say edit count isn't important, because "editcountitis" is frowned upon. It would be better (but far more time-consuming) to make an overview of actual RfA votes and see how many people said "only $SMALLNUM edits, come back when you have more experience" or "support, strong contributor as indicated by her $BIGNUM edits." I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a substantial discrepancy between the two measures. Raymond Arritt 04:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As a lot of people are evidently not scrutinizing contributions closely, RfAs have to rely on dedicated users to do so. Nominators should obviously be knowledgeable enough about the nominees' edits to be able to describe them. If it's a self-nom, the first few people making comments at the RfA should not support with a mere glimpse at edit count, especially if they are not familiar with the candidate, because this would give others the impression to pile-on support. Since checking the contributions is time consuming, the effort can be split. One person can go through the candidate's mainspace edits, another can go through the image edits, talk edits, etc. Others read the candidate's talk page, talk archives, and briefly checks the history for any removals. One person can see whether the nominee makes a lot of minor consecutive edits to the same article, bloating the edit count. Someone or some bot calculates the total AWB or script edits to diminish the impressive effect of their raw edit count. And so on. The RfA regulars can allocate these areas amongst themselves if there is interest. –Pomte 05:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole topic talks sense, and I agree with all that has been said. I do not think that voters properly scrutanize people's contributions enough the deduce whether they simply have a truckload of relatively meaningless edits, or perhaps only several thousand good and solid edits. However, the idea above, in my opinion, constitutes what I see as the 'RFA Utopia': RFA would be neraing perfection if things worked as the above suggests, but it would prove too complicated and I doubt many users would either 1. do the job appointed to them properly and carefully or 2. even do their appointed job at all. Anonymous Dissident 11:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is idealistic, but splitting a relatively huge task into much smaller tasks is supposed to be more simple and easy. If some is able to gauge the entirety of a user's contributions, as I expect many RfA regulars to be able to do, then they can easily focus on a specific aspect of Misplaced Pages that they have working knowledge in (e.g. AfD, UW, page moves). A few people following through with this can motivate others to keep up the standard. The results can be briefly stated in the "Discussion" section. –Pomte 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just shoving in two pence worth, but a major draw back of editcountitis is that the numbers are not accurate. Example: I spend a lot of time on RC patrol and inevitably end up tagging a lot of articles for speedy deletion. Then I get embroiled on the articles talk page when it's contested. So far I have only tagged one article for speedy that survived (and that then went to AfD and was deleted later). Consequently all I am left with in terms of edit count is the initial comment on the creating editors talk page advising of the sd tag. I reckon I'm a good 300 / 400 edits "short" becuase of the removal from history. Yet I believe that tagging for SD (particularly attack pages) is good and vital work for WP as a whole. Counting my edits won't reveal this work however. It's just a point..... Pedro |  Chat  11:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends on which counter you use. You have 2370 edits by the server counter, and 2136 by totalling all your namespace edit counts; this implies that 234 of your edits have been deleted, the majority of which are likely to have been speedy-tagging. By the way, I agree with the sentiment in this thread; most edit-counters count an edit as 1 and a pagemove as 2 regardless of whether it was a minor spelling fix or a rewrite of an article. (At least two counters, mine and Voice of All's, try to determine what the edit was doing by its edit summary, but such a characterisation can only ever be approximate and is gameable and prone to mistakes. For instance, my counter counts 490 of your 859 article-space edits as reverts, and you marked 340 of those as vandalism reverts using a summary like 'rv vandalism' or 'rvv'.) But a proper review of contribs is important at RfA, and yet it's rare for RfA voters to actually make one. (I try to put a lot of thought into my RfA votes and comments when I make them, with the result that I rarely contribute at RfA; there have been cases where I've done quite a bit of research and decided on 'no vote' in the end.) --ais523 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting - thanks for the analysis of my contributions - seems I was out (but not that far) on "lost" edits. The key thing is your main point, to which I totally agree. Quality not quantity and type of edits should be the main thing at RfA. At the moment the mentality is otherwise for a lot of contributors to RfA. At present the "count" at RfA is generated by the wanabekate tool, which I use. I believe it should be made clear at the top of that RfA that other tools are available, and that the count from wanabekate will not include salted edits. Again, thanks for your time in analysing my personal contribs. Pedro |  Chat  14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you're suggesting that we have to judge RfA candidates on the quality of their edits? What the hell? I thought the whole point of RfA was to compare e-penis sizes; whoever has the largest edit count wins Misplaced Pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn ! That's where I've deen going wrong! I'm sure this has been done before, but using the wanabekate tool on our glorious leader indicates an edit count at writing of 3106 . So I guess when I get to three thousand I become an admin, 'crat, developer and beloved leader of all ?Pedro |  Chat  19:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

'fraid not, being founder is a 10,000,000 edit equivalency, so to become Godking you have to beat that. I predict we'll get a new leader in 2027, and it will probably be an upgraded version of User:Cydebot. --tjstrf talk 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, if only more leaders had giant red "STOP" buttons... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What to do about it

Okay, I'm glad to see this many other people agree that there's a problem. Now I'd like to get the discussion going about how to actually counter editcountitis.

• If you review contributions before you vote, make your vote more meaningful for others to follow. People like things in bold, so be up front about it and say Support based on contributions or Oppose based on contributions. Then, in your rationale, link to a few pages or diffs that make your point. If you don't find anything substantial, you can even say Neutral so far, based on contributions, mention what you've seen so far, and check back to see if anyone else has found the interesting stuff.
• Challenge editcountitis voters. Ask them what they hope to accomplish by casting uninformed votes. It doesn't even matter what your own opinion is -- you may typically want to vote against them, but it also brings the point home if you challenge a vote and vote the same way for a different reason.
• A more radical proposal: since there's a long-standing consensus that edit counting is to be avoided, isn't it a bit WP:BEANS to put the edit count on the discussion page for all uninformed voters to see? Several Wikipedians who ran edit counters have taken them down after seeing the harm they cause, and the edit count has been sensibly moved off the main page, but why do we still have it there at all?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree in the main, but I have a concern regarding challenging votes that have based on edit counts. I've seen a lot of RfA's recently where they have got sidetracked into a battle, and the discussion has gone of at a tangent from the point of an RfA - which IMHO is to establish consensus that an individual editor needs and can be trusted with a few extra tools. At the end of the day it's not a vote. The 'crat who pushes the button makes the ultimate decision, and if anyone is responsible for digging through past contributions it's them. I agree edit counting is generally to be avoided, but it will allways play a part, however small. An editor with, say, 250 high quality very substantial edits will still not be in a position to prove that they know the policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages. I appreciate that someone with 10,000 edits may still not know those policies and procedures.Pedro |  Chat  08:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The count's there to save strain on the server which would otherwise be caused by everyone separately running an edit counter. --ais523 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is that edit count is directly related to experience, which is always going to be a factor in RFAs. The problem is that beyond a thousand or so edits, how much it is related is something no one can answer. The edit count should stay simply for this fact, and also for the fact that it provides many people a starting ground for research into the candidate; most edit counters provide a breakdown by namespace, and others also provide diffs or the most highly-edited pages. This is extremely useful in my opinion, and no matter how "harmful" editcountitis can be, it can't ever negate the inherent usefulness of edit counts. -- Renesis (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I see what you're saying but I'm not sure edit count is directly related to experience. It's certainly indirectly related, as per my comments above on a user with 250 excellent edits not being a suitable candidate for adminship. However we all know that using AWB etc it's very easy to rack up a high edit count quikly. In addition I thought the thrust here was not that edit counting was bad per se but that an analysis of the quality of the edits by !voters (ugh!) at RfA is more important. In summary a high count does not equal experience but a low count does equal inexperience. Of course defining "high and low" is a whole other debate.....!Pedro |  Chat  13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that many people would agree with the substance of what you say -- it's just that they're willing to define their minimum edit count, below which a user is "obviously inexperienced", at ridiculous numbers like 2,000, 3,000, or even 5,000. The number inflates every month, and it's easy to see why.

Suppose there's a time when the average RfA candidate has 500 edits, and candidates with over 1,000 tend to succeed with flying colors because their high number of edits shows their commitment and experience. Now give all the candidates a tool, like AWB, that lets them quickly add 1,000 to their edit count. Candidates who might have failed before with 500 edits can now have 1,500 edits and pass. But voters notice this, and set their cutoff at 1,500. Candidates who would have passed before fail, except the ones who have lots of experience and inflate their edit count, who now have 2,000 edits and pass. Now the less experienced candidates find themselves a faster AWB that lets them quickly make 2,000 edits...

So even though it may be probabilistically true that a candidate with 5,000 edits is more qualified than one with 500, if you ever vote based on that fact, then you're participating in this inflationary effect and making it so that 5,000 edits will be meaningless in a few months. Perhaps it's safe to oppose an edit count less than 500 or so, but at that point reviewing contributions is easy. You can skim their contributions on one page by clicking "last 500", just as easily as you can go to the discussion page full of numbers. So in the one case where edit count can be meaningful, you don't need it.

Incidentally, I'm okay with using Mathbot's report to look at their most-edited pages (as long as you actually look at what they do on those pages, not just say "Oh, they're a Naruto fan, they must suck"). Voting based on a breakdown by namespace, though, is just the same as editcountitis, or possibly worse. Article-space count doesn't distinguish between well-researched contributions and simple vandal reverts. Project-space count rewards users for undesirable things, as I've brought up before on WT:RFA. There's still no substitute for actually looking at contributions.

But I'm willing to continue this discussion. Renesis, what is "the inherent usefulness of edit counts"? Why is it more useful to cast a hasty vote based on a few numbers than a well-thought-out vote based on contributions? The only usefulness I can see is that it's useful to a particular person to cast more RfA votes faster, because it gives them more influence over the process, but that's not a good kind of usefulness. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's something I'e said before, but we really need an edit counter that can filter out minor edits (ideally, one that will filter out short edits and reversions even if they're not marked as minor). In edit-count world, the 1000 word article I created today counts only 1% as much as the 100 or so stubs I sorted in about half an hour while watching TV, and that's Just Plain Stupid — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, the "inherent usefulness of edit counts" is the same as the reason I say experience is directly related to edit counts. Without edits, you can't have experience. With experience, you gain edits. Now, of course not every edit is equal, and one person with 50000 edits can have the same experience as a person with 5000. You will notice that I don't even quite have 4000 yet; however, I have considered myself "experienced" since I had a few hundred edits. I never used AWB or anything like it, so each edit I made in fact was representative of quite a bit of growth in my case. I don't quite know what to do about people who assume that 5000 edits is necessary just because some users use AWB and rack that up in no time. Obviously a user needs to look further than edit counts, but it is a good starting point for the sole fact that everything you do on Misplaced Pages is recorded as 1 edit. I think being MORE transparent and informative with candidate reports such as edit count (showing just how many are vandal reverts, AWB edits, etc.) would be the right direction to go, but not hiding edit counts. That only increases the amount of research a voter needs to make before they are informed. -- Renesis (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• IMHO - it is counterproductive to set up an organized campaign to challenge people's comments on an RFA. I don't believe that one editor should harass another editor about their opinion, especially over this. I cerianly do not respond to every RFA that I see, but I do comment on some, and rarely mention an edit count. I get really disappointed when someone starts to aggressively challenge my opinion on these, especially when it spills over to my talk page. (I don't mind polite comments, but when you can't edit because the orange bar keep appearing every 5 minutes, it's a bit much.) Consensus is what it is; if you don't like the consensus of an RFA, try to change the guidelines, standards, etc in general, not by thrashing it out on the specific RFA. The 'crats have the ability to discount votes that they feel are non-productive. This should be enough, people don't need to help the crats recognize the obvious. --After Midnight 10:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This "organized campaign" is also sure to degenerate into bad blood and fighting. The result of that will be the exact opposite of what the organizers were hoping to do.--Alabamaboy 11:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But really, what else can be done? When a new set of users are participating in RfA discussions, there are bound to be inappropriate reasons. If they are not corrected then, they might continue to hold the same incorrect opinions when they become experienced editors. Of course the "campaigners" could be more polite but what they are doing is perfectly fine, IMO. Reasons like "low edit count" and "does not need the tools" have to stop. In answer to After Midnight, would the crats ignore 80% of the opinions if that many use a reason like edit count or need for tools? Or would the crats consider it a changing trend and accept it as community consensus? (this is not a rhetorical question. :)- TwoOars 12:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, look I'm really sorry but "does not need the tools" is about the most convincing argument there is (assuming it's justified). Otherwise adminship is a medal, adminship is a promotion, adminship is a big deal - adminship is about getting a few extra tools to do the job. I'm the first to say edit counting is not so hot, but I really take issue with the idea that a lack of need for the tools yet having a billion edits means give 'em the tools anyway. It's just a bunch of buttons people - live with it. Pedro |  Chat  20:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The only case where "does not need tools" is a justified reason to oppose is when the candidate is obviously "power hungry". Most instances when we see this argument at RfA's is when some user wants to be an admin because he/she finds admin tools occasionally useful and says so. By the way, I have successfully sidetracked the discussion!:P - TwoOars 20:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see it like this: Ideally, since adminship is not a big deal, everyone should be an admin. But since everyone does not have the maturity for it, WP is "wikichild-locked" by default and thus adminship should be given to all those who can show that they are wikiadults.- TwoOars 20:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So on that basis you'd give the CEO of a road building company a pneumatic drill then. The fact that he doesn't need the tool to do his job is academic, he gets it because he's done really well, is really important and deserves it - it doesn't actually help him do his work but what the heck.... ??? Sorry, but that's not really a great argument from yourself. I agree you/we have done a grand job on side tracking though !! :) Pedro |  Chat  21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Right :). Anyway, I did not say we should "reward" the user; note that I never said it adminship should be given to the "deserving". I meant, give the admin privileges to anyone who is mature enough to use them. And think of admin privileges not as a pneumatic drill but as a hammer or a screwdriver, something that comes in handy once in a while. And I'd say any reasonably active editor would find the need for any one of the admin tools some time or the other. Not everyday perhaps. But if and when the editor needs it, it is better that he has it with him than run to an admin, right? And no one is losing in the process. - TwoOars 21:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact what the hell, let's take your argument. Yes, I would give a pneumatic drill to the CEO a)if there is enough evidence that he will not hurt himself or anyone with it, that he'll use it well if he uses it b)if the drill doesn't cost anyone anything. - TwoOars 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are actually in agreement here. The tools are given if you need them, even occasionaly, and can evidence that you need them. They are not a reward. Note to following editors - Twooars mixed the metaphor re: the pneumatic drill not me - :)..... Pedro |  Chat  21:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I have clarified above). So, we are really not in agreement. You say, need, or at least occasional need should be demonstrated. I say, there is no need to demonstrate need (ha ha :). It is just enough if it can be reasonably shown that 1)the editor is trustworthy 2)accepts when he is wrong 3)is civil under stress (the qualities of a wikiadult I mentioned above). It is not a reward, but neither is it in limited supply. If the user is eligible (not deserving. Many "deserving" users are not eligible), lets give him the tools and get on with it. - TwoOars 22:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal wikipedia, adminship should be given automatically to all users, provided the user satisfies the above conditions. But because they are not easily measurable criteria, we have RfAs.- TwoOars 22:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone honestly opposes people who they feel would use the tools well. But some people feel that if you don't have need for the tools, the minimal good you can do by having them is offset by the chance that you'll be bad. -Amarkov moo! 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

the minimal good you can do by having them is offset by the chance that you'll be bad: Ok, I have to agree with that. I did not think of it that way. - TwoOars 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

>.< I have to stop making good arguments for things I don't agree with. And my rebuttal to that good argument is really weak, essentially "no it isn't". -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess it can only be decided on a case by case basis, if it is or isn't.- TwoOars 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My Point of view is fairly simple. If you have (say) 2000 edits but spend a lot of time vandal fighting and on Speedy deletion you have a good case for needing the tools. If you have 10,000 edits in the physics portal but have never heard of recent changes or CSD then why would you need the tools? The person that deserves them is the guy who would use them. Otherwise I still feel we are right back at making adminship a medal. Pedro |  Chat  08:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a world outside the vandal fighting and deleting crud side of the project. I can easily see a contributor to project physics needing the tools. History merges, page moves, semi protections and full protections. Dealing with pseudoscience related disruption. All of these are good uses of the tools that an experienced and committed editor who knows bugger all about recent changes and csd can easily justify an adminship for. Spartaz 09:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. But with respect you've missed my point. Many editors are measuring the value of an application at RfA on edit count, not a need for the tools which is, IMHO, not the same thing.Pedro |  Chat  12:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that edit count does not reflect the contribution because it should be the contents of the contribution, not the number, that counts. A person wrote a section on a popular article has the same equilvalent as one who corrects a spelling or punctation. I also find that some people voted oppose to RfA because the nominatee has more edit count than themselves. Is this a reason? I actually view this as an excuse, not a reason. OhanaUnited 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think edit count does have some limited relevance to RfA - its just gets far to much attention and people forget to look at more important factors, such as evidence of experience in general and the contributions people have made. If we people want to "challenge" voters, then I have no problem with that as long as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are observed, and the "challengers" are prepared for strong replies. Camaron1 | Chris 10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you pass?

Well, we all know the passing a RFB is near impossible, but admins, do you think you could pass in the current RFA system, and why? (I know a common answer will be too controversial, but is there another reason, such as you haven't been active at WP:AIV?)--R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Naw. I wouldn't pass an RfA, it I went through that swill again. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 13:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not many current admins would pass an RFA again now. Probably only 5-10% of active admins are uncontroversial enough to do so. – Chacor 13:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I'm far too controversial. ^demon 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I be the first one to say - probably? ;) Maybe I'm overconfident, maybe when I request resysopping I should do it through RfA and see what happens :) Riana ⁂ 14:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Riana - do not do that, not worth the risk :) (although I know you'd pass anyway). Majorly (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a major waste of time! Riana ⁂ 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My meatpuppets don't pass RfAs. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I could pull it off, yeah. This thread touches on something I've been thinking about already, which is "what if?" scenarios of people doing RfAs again... it'd be an interesting experiment. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially if we adopted the rule most of wikis take in desysopping inactive admins by yearly confimation. Majorly (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can safely say that I couldn't pass RfA now, when you become an admin, you get into too many controversies. If your doing your job correctly, your going to grab quite a few enemies. That's not a statement saying I'm a perfect admin - I wouldn't pass because I've had too many tantrums. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would still pass RfA, but it would be a heck of a lot closer than when I actually did. Newyorkbrad 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would still pass pretty easily I think. Very few of the people who I've pissed off know about RfA. :-) Grandmasterka 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If an admin has been doing their job properly for more than 6 months then they will most likely have bothered enough people(enforcing NPOV, NPA, FU etc...) to fail an RfA. Shoeshirt 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Really I believe this is not true. We did elect seven arbitrators in December, all of whom received overwhelmingly more supports than opposes, and all of them were experienced administrators. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Couldn't pass. I've had the misfortune to cross paths with a few psychotic editors here, who would no doubt galvanize the all-important voting block of crazy editors against my RfA. Not that I'm saying there are a lot of crazies here, but . . . :-). --Alabamaboy 17:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're really curious, I can think of way to find out. What's the address of that de-sysop request page on Meta? --W.marsh 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

meta:Requests for permissions :) --R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I'm desysopped right now, and all for experimentation. But you'll have to wait until the first of July :) Riana ⁂ 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could, considering that I passed last month. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bah, newbies don't count. ;P EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I pretend to be a desysoped admin and shove an RfA in on that basis? Just to see how many people go " Support - had the tools before must be ok" without actually checking that in reality I've never had the buttons ? Just because I reckon they'd be at least a dozen, and would reconcile with the edit quantity / quality / count debate above ..... Pedro |  Chat  20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As funny as that would be, I doubt you'd get very far; logs are easy to find, and someone would quickly ask for a diff or two about your de-sysopping. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I bet there would be a few supports before someone actually bothered to check. My point is really in recognition of the above - viz. people comment / support without actually looking at contributions. Present esteemed company excepted of course! Pedro |  Chat  20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not an admin (yet), but I would say it would hang on a tightrope whether or not I would. I'm trying to get my mainspace edits up over 1000 so I have a better chance of being supported though. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

editcountitis? see above? Pedro |  Chat  20:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, mate, I'll even be down to earth about it. ;) I just checked and it's 709. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're all really good edits. Stuff the editcounters and run now! Pedro |  Chat  21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm waiting for someone to nominate me…hey nominator, ya hear me?!? :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting ... :) - Alison ☺ 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS or not ? :) Pedro |  Chat  21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh be quiet. :P If I did any at all (which I wouldn't) it would be by e-mail. :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for flagrant violation of WP:BEANS. —Kurykh 03:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per confession =P - G1ggy /_Contribs 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, based on the weak supports from my rfa and the opposes, I think I'd pass at this time, though it would be really close, around 80%. Then again I said that when I ran, so who knows. If there's a Raul Cabal then maybe I fail, but I am unaware if one exists.--Wizardman 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose you all for not agreeing with all my opinions. Good administrators must never take any actions I would dispute in any subject I care about. -Amarkov moo! 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose opponent for frivolous opposition. :) —Kurykh 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong recursion times infinity. -Amarkov moo! 03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Head asplode. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this thread illustrates why admin reconfirmation is a bad idea. Aside from the brain drain, a lot of effective admins would lose their ability to keep the site clean because half the world hates them. Ah, why can't we all be friends? :) YechielMan 04:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if such a system did exist, we'd have to make sure that all oppose !votes provided damn solid rationales, otherwise we'd toss out their comments. That'd be a good way to address that particular concern. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'd pass if I ran again. If anyone tried to oppose I'd rollback and block them as a vandal.-gadzilla 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think I would pass if I went up for RfA again. I've considered it, just to get an evaluation of my work on Misplaced Pages, but some other people have told me not to do it because I'm not controversial or anything, and it will just be a waste of time. Of course, I'm not sure if they're just being nice, or using reverse psychology to persuade me to go for an RfA again. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they're telling the truth. You (Nishkid64) are about as slam-dunk a candidate as there is. The result would probably be 154/1/0, with the one dissenter being "Moral oppose for wasting our time. Go back where you D.Y.Kame from! :) YechielMan." YechielMan 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be that person, except that last time I did that with a slam-dunk candidate, the deliberately frivolous concerns I brought up turned out to be serious concerns. -Amarkov moo! 03:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I also think I would pass again. I haven't been a controversial admin; ~1000 speedies and a bit over a 100 blocks hasn't made anyone angry as far as I'm aware of. James086 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd probably pass; I mostly do technical admining work and account creation, which tend not to get people annoyed. (I was surprised not to get more opposes due to my low article-writing count when I ran originally.) --ais523 10:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe not. I'm not sure, really. I'm just glad that there's no reconfirmation process to stand in the way of the work I do. --Deskana (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would fail miserably. I don't often need the tools, I average about 4 edits per day and have never used AWB or a bot, I edit at inconsistent rates and have even taken (gasp) Wikibreaks. The large proportion of voters who insist that admins must be consistently obsessed with Misplaced Pages, and to show this obsession by making an edit every 30 seconds, would snowball my nomination. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Part of me wants to do a mock rfa on here just to see of people would support or oppose him. But yeah, basically controversy, good or bad, is inversely proportional to percentage support, as I've noticed more recently (of course, that's if you take out the not-yet qualified)--Wizardman 03:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Pretty sure I could pass, even though my activity lately is low, and my frustration is high. Czrussian's confirmation RFA after he stood down from recall is also a data point in favor. -- nae'blis 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic discussion

I had actually come here to post something going in the same direction. I've had very similar ideas about "shadow RfAs" or somesuch, without binding result, but to give admins feedback about how much community support they're actually enjoying. You see, community support should not be necessary only to become an admin. It is quite necessary to be an admin. And in the current system these two are somewhat totally perverted. —AldeBaer 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Self Nomination

Although I have not been around very long, I have seen a number of very strong editors nominate themselves for RfA. I have also seen some not so great editors nominated by two or even three of their friends. Its troubling to see something like this in regards to self-nom:

• "Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber"
  

This has been posted on several ongoing RfAs seemingly completely without any consideration of the contributions or personal attributes of the editor under evaluation. I wanted to bring this up here to have a discussion not in the middle of an RfA. —Gaff 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a silly reason to oppose. But that doesn't mean that we can tell people what criteria they may use to determine if they trust a candidate. -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone is using criteria that the community broadly regards as frivolous or capricious, then although they are free to use that criterion, their opinion should be given less weight. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it has to be kept in mind that administrators must have the trust of the community as a whole to work effectively. Things like FAC can ignore silly objections to a greater extent because an article is no worse for some people not liking it. -Amarkov moo! 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can draw up Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in RfA discussions? —Kurykh 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me; it could be made into a sort of primer that first-time voters at RfA can read up. But I guess there won't be many people for such a page.- TwoOars 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions already exists, so why not use it? Yes, I know you mistyped the link. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link;I looked for it but I guess I did not look hard enough :). - TwoOars 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the WP:BOLD road and vomitted up some text onto that essay regarding this topic. It needs some polishing, so have at it! I hope that I have not stomped any toes by editing an essay...—Gaff 04:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, that is true, but it doesn't mean that the community can't require people to provide good reasons why they do or do not trust someone. --bainer (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But who will determine what constitutes a "good" reason? I agree that opposing on that basis is ridiculous (and shows a lack of understanding of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY), but I'd rather have that than some supposed 'authority' dictating when people may or may not trust others. Of course, there's nothing wrong with questioning or challenging such opposes. -- Black Falcon 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The usual process of consensus, of course. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it's ridiculous. Having higher standards for self-noms is explainable, opposing them because they are self-noms is absurd. —Kurykh 03:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, heaven forbid someone not take the time to hunt around for someone to nominate them when they feel up to the task... silly reason. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's something wrong with self-noms, we may as well disqualify them altogether. I could easily dig up a half dozen excellent admins who got their mop via self-nom, but I think you all get the idea. YechielMan 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a great reason to oppose. Let's see how this looks. If you nominate yourself, you're considered power-hungry. What if, you choose to accept a nomination from another user? Shouldn't you also be considered power-hungry in that case? You have the option to decline the nomination, but if you instead choose to accept it, wouldn't that mean you're also eager to have the admin tools? The justification doesn't seem right, and I don't see this as being a noteworthy reason to oppose. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's not it at all. Think more along the lines of Cincinnatus, or even George Washington--both men who had absolutely no desire whatsoever for the reins of power, but nonetheless accepted them because they had no choice. Kurt Weber 18:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I should have opposed Nishkid's power-hungry self-nom... :) Majorly (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You should have. :) *Literally takes a bit out of Jimbo* Nishkid64 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Any editor who self-nominates is obviously insecure and wants the power to compensate for that insecurity. Any editor who is nominated and accepts is obviously power-hungry, but is also insecure since s/he didn't have the courage to self-nominate. Any editor who is nominated and declines obviously has ulterior motives and has something to hide ... s/he is also insecure for not wanting to get the power. It all makes sense. ;-) -- Black Falcon 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask all self-noms to withdraw and then nominate them? That would clearly make the process more fair. ck lostsword||_Suggestions? 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is we need more good admins. It should not matter one bit whether they nominate themselves, they are nominated by Steven Colbert, or my girlfriend's cat. —Gaff 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your premise, but not your conclusions. I'm sure you'd agree with me that "we need more admins" does not mean that "anyone who asks for it should be made an admin"--and I know that that's not what you're saying, but it's important to understand this. Clearly, we both agree that the end does not justify the means--that SOME standards should be applied. At the end of the day, it comes down to economics: trade-offs and risk-aversion. You are less risk-averse on this particular issue than I am, so your choice in the trade-off between "getting more admins" and "keeping out people who shouldn't be admins" is different than mine is. It's really not a difference in principle, just a difference in priorities. Kurt Weber 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Kurt, is that you don't even bother evaluating a candidate if they are self nom. You simply oppose "prima facie" under the radical, bad-faith assumption that they are power hungry. Maybe some of them don't see adminship as a power trip, but rather as a chance to contribute on this project in a different way than they do as editors. And really, what power is it that you fear an admin is going to take on? They are still held accountable for their actions and can be de-sysoped if they are causing problems. I think that it takes some care and time to evaluate a candidate for adminship. Looking to see where the nomination came from, however, does not seem very important relative to all other variables. —Gaff 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's not like many nominations aren't asked for by the candidate. If someone wants to be an admin I'd actually prefer they just say so, rather than try to play RFA politics and "arrange" a nomination for themselves. We aren't picking presidents, we're picking people who'll help clear CSD and block a few vandals. --W.marsh 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And people who can view deleted material, undelete it, stand for ArbCom, request checkuser access, block and unblock any user (not just vandals), protect and unprotect articles. SlimVirgin 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, some non-admins went up for ArbCom in the last election *coughDanielcough*. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is getting off topic, but I'm not convinced that stricter (in this case, inflexible) RFA voting makes us any more likely to detect the bad apples. At any rate, I'd think a candidate being honest and not playing political games would be a positive sign. --W.marsh 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the political games part. And Kurt Weber, you are right in saying it is just a difference in priorities; but what everyone here is saying is that your risk-aversion seems to be bordering on paranoia.- TwoOars 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Self noms are fine, some people will hold it against you, but you should already know that going in. 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-noms are OK by me and for those who don't like it, its better that they stay "Neutral" than oppose because as Black Falcon mentioned, it all makes sense :) ..--Cometstyles 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Never ever trust a self-nom. As we all edit this work openly, all know each other on a personal basis, and don't use pseuodnyms for our account names, a self nomination is pointless and a waste of time. Every editor on Misplaced Pages knows exactly how good or bad all the rest are, so someone else will nominate you if you need the tools. Cough. Pedro |  Chat  20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not too sure about that. Some of our greatest admins were self-noms, and some of our worst ones were nominated by others. So using this as a alleged premise for power hunger is disingenuous at best. —Kurykh 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is borderline trolling there. Have you actually looked at the performance of any successful self-noms? You can start with my performance if you like. --W.marsh 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, guess irony doesn't work in text rather than speech. See my edit summary on my comment. W.marsh I'd prefer you looked a bit closer and actuallly read my comments before acusing me of trolling please. Pedro |  Chat 

We should not have to look at edit summaries to discern between sarcasm and reality. —Kurykh 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So I guess You all know each other personally and we don't use pseudonyms was just outright trolling Mr Kurykh? Or is Kurygh your first name ?? Cummon guys, stay real please! Pedro |  Chat 

The "cough" at the end was telling, but I thought it was sarcastic anyway. Leebo /C 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of things that shouldn't be, yet still are. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Like we shouldn't be going "AAHHHHH! Ridiculous oppose rationale! Burn him/her/it!"? :) —Kurykh 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM at work. It would be interesting to look at a dozen or so "problem admins" (those who were socks, abusive, truly power-hungry) and see how many were self-noms. Runcorn? Nope. Robdurbar was, in fact, a self-nom. I won't name any other names since my definition of "problem admin" may not be shared by all, but I'd be surprised if self-noms had any more predictive power than a coin flip. Yes, Cininnatus and George Washington are excellent role models, if somewhat embellished by legend. But realistically, what's wrong with people who are actually interested in being admins coming forward for community scrutiny? I don't see self-noms as a problem; if anything, requiring outside noms encourages the political aspects of this enterprise, which I find a net negative. But that's just me. MastCell 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) Well whatever, I guess you weren't trolling, but you shouldn't be so shocked if there's a misunderstanding when you say something that sounds very trollish unless someone checks your vague edit summary (which I didn't do). --W.marsh 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So I guess you didn't as such read my actual comment (not edit summary) then, and take a brief moments to realise that precious few people here edit under their real name? Complex stuff, obviously.....Pedro |  Chat  21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you just don't get it... if you communicated ineffectively, you're partially to blame. Just trying to insult me further isn't helpful. --W.marsh 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have been so ineffective in my communication. I'm also sorry you think I insulted you. I guess that you accusing me of trolling wasn't offenisive at all. I think self noms are really great. Hope that clears up my opinion! :) Pedro |  Chat  21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Look - I'm sorry if that offended, I really am, but really I was trying to make a serious point within it and accusations of trolling are not pleasent. I guess my humour is better of elsewhere. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat 

<sarcasm>Sarcasm is a great way to let people know what you mean! It will never be misunderstood.</sarcasm> 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good oh. I guess Uncyclopedia is better for me than trying to help out this encyclopedia then.Pedro |  Chat  21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I always find it tiresome when editors start threatening to leave the project like this...—Gaff 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the irony is wearing a bit thin then. Quite how do you interpret that as a threat to leave? Like anyone not editing ever again here is a threat anyhow??? Let's stay with the plot boys and girls, this thread is about people deciding for themselves they need some buttons to help them. I'm sorry if my comments have seemed disruptive, they really aren't meant to be. Self noms are no big deal IMHO. Does that end this ? Pedro |  Chat 

Gaff struck through his comments, as have I. They were both off topic and we have discussed on our respective talk pages for transparency. Pedro |  Chat  22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole arguments eventually fails in the face of this—we do not scrutinize the nominators as part of the RfA process. So long as that continues to be the case, I can ask my next-door neighbor, with three edits to Cats, to nominate me, and in Kmweber's book, it's just as valid as a nom from Jimbo and far less valid than a self-nom. Unless we're planning on changing that any time soon, restricting self-noms is pointless, and serves only to insult those who legitimately want/need the tools and don't want to go through the hassle of finding a sponsor. RfA candidates, self-nom or not, still rise and fall on the basis of their merits, not their noms'. Jouster  (whisper) 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The argument that self-noms should be opposed "prima facie" (how I love that little gem of a phrase), also is ultimately counterproductive for wikipedia. We need good admins to keep things moving smoothly around here. There are constant and sizeable backlogs in a number of places requiring admin attention. Its silly to think that excellent admin candidates are sitting on the shelf waiting for a nom, when it would be so much better to just move forward and get them working with the mop. —Gaff 05:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, the entire above is possibly the greatest proof that editors take a cursory glance rather than digging deeper before casting votes at RfA.......Pedro |  Chat  21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a point of information, when a prima facie case is established, the burden then shifts to the defendant (in this case self-nominator) to provide evidence to the contrary. For an RFA, that would include the answers to questions, contribution history, etc. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff (in this case, the opposer) to address that evidence. The reason this argument is silly is because that last part is not occurring. You can't just say, "This is a prima facie case for..." and then not address countervailing evidence. It's an untenable position. -Chunky Rice 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Very true. However RfA is not a courtroom, and come to that it's not a vote either. It's an opportunity to gather consensus so that the closing 'crat can make an informed decision. Well, I think that was the idea ........ :) Pedro |  Chat  19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it's not a courtroom, but in a consensus discussion, both sides present arguments for their point of view. Therefore, it is reasonable to point out the ways in which an argument is faulty. Here, the refusal to consider evidence which runs counter to the prima facie case renders the argument essentially invalid. A prima facie case is the first step in an argument, not the last. -Chunky Rice 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A good point fairly made. I see where you're coming from now, and agree. Thanks for you time in replying. Pedro |  Chat  20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a good point. However, the user repeatedly !voting this way is not apparently interested in hearing arguments. This leaves it ultimately up to the closer of the RfA to decide how much credence to give a prima facie oppose. As I see it, a prima facie oppose on self-noms is very much against WP:AGF. From my read of the discussion here, it seems that there is a consensus that such argument is superficial, bad faith, and not to be taken seriously. —Gaff 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as RfA isn't supposed to be a vote, and our bureaucrats tend to have at least a trace of common sense, I really don't see the point in harassing !voters who have an obviously flawed rationale. If a nomination has 80 supports and 2 opposes, it's obvious that consensus lies with the candidate. If a candidate is being opposed in greater numbers, then there's obviously more flaws to them than being allegedly power-hungry. Yes, frivolous opposes are annoying, but it's not like you get extra privileges for having zero opposes. I say we live and let live as far as RfA rationales go, since ultimately, it's just a few nuts in a sea of mostly reasonable people. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it sometimes seems to deter oppose voters if the first oppose vote has a strange rationale. For example, I think Kelly Martin's "no WikiProject endorsement" oppose votes helped some candidates gain extra support. Kusma (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that comment. Pedro |  Chat  07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

*cough*Kelly never opposed based on Wikiprojects*cough* Oh, never mind... Riana ⁂ 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing about that pseudonym thing, Pedro. Turns out they use "Blue" as a surname in France and Scotland. *Backs away slowly...* Cool Blue 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

<dry humour - not sarcasm>And indeed Pedro is simply a Spanish variant of Peter....What a coincidence.</dry humour - not sarcasm>. Pedro |  Chat  07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I nominated myself because the poor guy who nominated me the first time got dragged through a heap of crap. And I haven't (yet) destroyed the very foundation of Misplaced Pages. There are sometimes good reasons for nominating oneself. Another might be if lots of people want to nominate you and you think (like I do) that co-noms are lame. Neil ╦ 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:RfA Navigation

Just a note to all, I've re-worde the active nominations section at Template:RfA Navigation so it now reads active nominations for Admin and Bureaucratship instead of Active nominations for Admin and Bureaucrat, if this causes any problems please revert. Regards --The Sunshine Man 09:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine. Of course, I would think "Adminship and Bureaucratship" would sound better, but it's probably fine the way it is. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it accordingly, I thought at first it would sound as if I was repeating myself but you were right. Thanks --The Sunshine Man 18:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving the page

This is only the 22 heading, but the scroll bar is still quite long. Is it fine if I archive the page? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Majorly (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I archived the Gracenotes RfA stuff. Still quite long though. —Kurykh 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I archivd up to the "editcountitis", in case you couldn't tell. :) Just revert it and yell at me if that was too far, ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wah! :-( I made a scintillating comment in an old thread, and now no-one will read it... <sniffle> (well, seeing the sarcasm detector failed a few sections above, I'd better add this disclaimer not to take this comment seriously) Carcharoth 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I had read your comment before the archiving. And I agree it's a good one.:)- TwoOars 07:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• The general rule of thumb here at WT:RFA is that any thread without discussion for 3 or more days can be archived. --Durin 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't we just sic one of the bots on this page? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • We tried that, and it did a rather awkward job of it. --Durin 19:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, silly bots... <cue 80s-era sitcom laughter> EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean a laugh track? bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think bots can do laugh tracks yet... Carcharoth 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One of these days soon... bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason closing rationales are not given?

Maybe it's common and I haven't noticed it, but I have to wonder why closes of RFAs are not given more comment. For example, comparing Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/DoomsDay349 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/AKMask, we see two similar RFAs, both recent. One was closed without comment as a success, one was closed without comment as a failure. Both had nearly the same support percentage by my reckoning. Anyone else think it'd be good to see more rationales given? Friday (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If we work by %, which I hope the bureaucrats don't, Doomsday349 had very nearly 77% and AKMask had nearly 74. A bit of a difference there, and I think both closes were correct and do not need any explanation as they fall into the bureaucrat's discretion "range". Majorly (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They may have a discretion, but that doesn't mean crats don't have to give reasons for exercising it one way rather than the other. From WP:CRAT :"They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner." I'm not sure whether rationales should be given as standard, but if an explanation from a crat decision is wanted, anyone (but especially I would think the unsuccessful candidate) may simply ask them... WjBaway 08:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily belove rationales should be compulsorily, I think just leaving a closing comment on an RfA result would be a good idea in some cases - especially for those that don't pass. Though, as already said, if you want query a result you can just ask. Camaron1 | Chris 11:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All too often, though, if a result is queried it really gets out of hand... – Chacor 11:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Majorly: statistically there is no difference between the 77% and the 74% with this sample size. --After Midnight 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I think exact numbers should be that important, but I make them both a bit below 70% as a support percentage. If you look at only supports versus opposes, then yes, the numbers would be higher. And, not that exact wording is what's most important here, but the RFA page does say that a 75 % "support" is the typical cutoff. I can't see any reasonable way to interpret "support percentage" as anything other than supports divided by total number of "votes". If they mean to go instead by oppose percentage, they'd have said that. Friday (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind neutrals aren't counted. Majorly (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support fraction is generally calculated as support/(support+oppose) with the neutral comments disregarded. I think you calculated support/(support+oppose+neutral)?AKAF 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, I calculated support as a percentage of "votes". If neutrals are disregarded, wouldn't it be more clear to call them comments rather than "neutral votes", and maybe move them to a different section? Friday (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you count neutrals in the equation, they in reality become oppose votes. I prefer to think of them as abstentions with comment, not votes. --Kevin Murray 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bear in mind THIS ISN'T A &(*)#@^(&)#@^$@O#$@O&$)*@%#R@&*!(!@^#Y VOTE! Grr. --Durin 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So what are you trying to say here, exactly? --nae'blis 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (not signed in at present)
    • Good grief. Do I have to spell it out for you? It's a VOTE! Duh! ;) --Durin 17:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I probably shouldn't try to get into the 'crats heads on this one, and I should note that I was on the "wrong side" of both discussions, but here is what I think happened.... For DoomsDay349, there was a strong final flurry of support 14/3/1, while for AKMask, the finish showed a strong flurry of opposition 6/12/3. Also, generalizing, I think that most of the opposition on the former was related to experience/maturity, while the latter focussed on civility. --After Midnight 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thing crats should give a reason for promoting/failing an RFA under 80%. This would eliminate all these discussion about why *$#@& was promoted when *#%*$ happened. It also helps us understand more how the crats make there decisions (which hopefully isn't by reading Tangobots table) --(Review Me) R Contribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's done by reading Tarot cards. --Durin 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought they ask the rabbit in the magician's magic hat. After all, the way they determine it is like magic, you never know how it's done. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I closed both RfAs. I tend to write out my closing rationale only where an RfA has proven so controversial that I suspect my closing rationale is bound to be questioned, but am also happy to respond to questions on the topic. There was slightly more opposition to AKMask than to DoomsDay349, which I took into account, but the main difference was the nature of the support and oppose rationales.

Opposition to DoomsDay349 mostly came over the issue of maturity; notably linking prominently to WP:FUCK. However, many supporters specifically stated that they did not feel that this was a problem, and several specifically praised that essay. One or two objections arose over a variety of other issues. I attached very little weight to objections primarily relating to the candidate's age (as opposed to their maturity). Taking all this into account, I concluded that there was a clear consensus to make DoomsDay349 an administrator.

AKMask's RfA was very finely balanced. There were strong points made both in support of and in opposition to the RfA. Ultimately, I attached significance to the decrease in the support percentage towards the end of the RfA and noted that several users cited concerns over actions AKMask had undertaken while the RfA was ongoing (although unconnected with it). This opened the possibility that earlier contributors to the RfA might have commented differently given later events. Given that the RfA was otherwise so closely balanced, I concluded that consensus could not be demonstrated to make AKMask an administrator.

If anyone has any further queries on either RfA, I will be happy to answer them. Warofdreams talk 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No clear need for tools

Having deliberately stopped following threads here more than a year ago due to repetition ("I have a reform idea for RfA...") I'm sure this thread will itself be a repeat. But I must ask: when did the idiotic "no clear need for tools" meme arise? I think meme is the right word, as it wasn't at all common as an oppose rationale in '05 and early '06, as I recall, and now it seems to be the central oppose rationale on some RfAs. When and why did this happen? I wouldn't even call it a bad argument—it's a non-argument. It literally makes no sense. If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose. I wonder if it might be possible to impress upon the 'crats that the argument should be ignored, as the comments themselves will probably continue to appear. Marskell 08:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The general sentiment in the factors survey on this point was that this is not an important criterion, and as such I think bureaucrats should be confident in giving less weight to opinions based on this. Whether a candidate was trusted to use the tools was regarded as more important than how often a candidate planned to use them, and several users expressed the idea that what people should really be looking for is how enthusiastic a candidate is in general, and not whether the tools were needed to do A, B and C. --bainer (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposing for the reason of we need more active admins boggles the mind. –Pomte 08:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, if they can be trusted not to fuck things up then they can have the tools - clear need can't always be demonstrated, and people may find more confidence in using them when they have them or gain interestes in admin related work. Viridae 09:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Q1, where you talk about your need for tools, is misleading anyway. I thought I'd be focused on vandal-cleanup and block requests. Instead my logs are full of image deletions. Sometimes you don't clearly know what you will need the tools for until you get them. Basically, we need more smart, clueful, trustworthy people with access, that's all. Riana ⁂ 09:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would be nice to see general interest (through editing habits) in some related project space area. It doesn't have to be everywhere, but somewhere would be nice : ) - jc37 09:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it would be nice. Obviously people who spend their time around XfDs, policy discussions etc have a way easier time of it at RfA. But I don't think that we should deny someone the tools just because they haven't participated in 100 XfDs a month, reverted 300 vandalism acts, tagged 200 speedies... (I'm not being facetious... these are someone's actual RfA criteria, I read them somewhere last year and thought I would be doomed when I ran! ;) ) I honestly think that if someone has been around a decent amount of time, showed that they can edit responsibly, be it in the main space or in the project space, hasn't pissed off too many people, and can show a little basic courtesy to their fellow users, they shouldn't have to have a terrible time of it at RfA just because they're not pledging to save the Wiki :) Riana ⁂ 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that I think at least general knowledge of the WP:5P is essential to at least show willingness to learn, be civil, discern applicability of WP:IAR, etc., no real arguments to that from me. But then your response sounds oddly familiar : ) - jc37 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's where the 'clueful' bit comes in! ;) Riana ⁂ 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be more productive to change Q1 then, from a direct question about what someone plans to do with the tools to a more general inquiry about what their interests are with respect to maintenance. --bainer (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Jimbo says adminship is no big deal. It's just a technical matter. His exact words. The technical matter is that an admin has some buttons other editors don't, in the same way logged in users have some abilities IP's don't. I really can't see how these extra buttons can be called anything other than tools. So if you have no need to use the buttons, why become an admin? Because if you don't need the admin tools then I can only see you have become an admin for adminships sake - and adminship is not a medal or reward. I'm not being confrontational here but, Marskell raised the point, and that's how I see the answer. I await being shot down in flames :) Pedro |  Chat  11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why become an admin? Why not? If they can be trusted, why not? Majorly (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You asked the rhetorical question Why become an admin? That's the nail there Majorly. Why? Because you need some buttons to help or becasue it's a reward, or some third reason I can't yet see. Pedro |  Chat  11:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, I did not want to return to this discussion again but I couldn't help commenting. Take DrKiernan's RfA for example. He "did not demonstrate a need for tools" according to many. But he had stated in his answer to Q1 that he might tackle backlogs. That he has demonstrated no need for tools so far does not mean he will not need them in the future. We should give the tools if the candidate if the candidate asks (and is eligible, like I said before). You keep saying it should not be a reward but ultimately you are treating it that way. If it's not a reward, why not give it to someone who asks for it and who is sure not to misuse it? Going back to the screwdriver analogy, if someone is giving away screwdrivers for free, I would like to have one, whether I am going to use it or not, just in case. What the person giving away the screwdrivers should check about is whether I am the kind of person to stick the screwdriver in my nose or into someone else's head. That person need not bother to think why I want the screwdriver, because it was already determined that I am not going to abuse it. Now in this analogy, I do not see the screwdriver as a reward and I doubt anyone will. The point is adminship is not such a big thing as you think it is. No one can wreck all of wikipedia with admin tools. And "admin tools" are not in short supply. - TwoOars 12:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was answering it with another question: why not? Please tell me why not. Also see Misplaced Pages:Yyy?. Majorly (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I'm with you. Why Not become an admin. No reason at all. None. Full stop. If the community trusts you and you want to do some extra work then go for it. But I fear that I can't see a Q1 answer of "I'd like to be an admin because I want to be" sitting too well at RfA. Pedro |  Chat  12:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Granted the "tools" are free and don't cost anyone anything. But what you seem to be saying is, lets give everyone we trust the buttons, and hope they do something with them. And if they don't and we got in wrong and they go on a rampage then we'll just take it on the chin, revert it, and move on. But the point of this thread was that people are oposing RfA on the basis of no need for the tools. And the point of my question is still unanswered. If RfA is not about getting the tools, what's the point of being an admin? Incidentally, I'm not sure I quite appreciate your slight that "adminship is not a big thing as you think it is" Can you come up with the diff's where I've said adminship is a big thing ? Cheers. Pedro |  Chat  12:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent, answer to Pedro)1. It was not a slight by any stretch of imagination. We are having a civil discussion and let us keep it that way, without getting personal. I got that impression because you keep repeating the mantra that adminship is not a reward, paradoxical as that may sound. (But really who cares if the candidate thinks it is? The candidate will realize soon enough that it is not.) 2. If RfA is not about getting the tools, what's the point of being an admin?: often someone wants to do something just to see what options are available. For example, I did not intend to register an account on WP. I edited first as an IP. Then I felt a little curious abt what I can do with an account. Now I occasionally create articles, which I couldn't have done as an IP. I may not have had this need to create articles if I were still an IP. What I am trying to say is even if the candidate has no clear plan about what to do as an admin, let's give them the tools anyway and then if even 1% of such "curious" candidates find that there's a big backlog and want to help out, that would be great. - TwoOars 12:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Of course, we have always had civil dealing in the past and I would not wish it be any other way. Let's move on. 2. Okay, right I do accept that argument. Whether the risk / reward balance is good enough to convince voters at RfA that a deomnstrable lack of need for the tools at the time of RfA is another question. I have often voted support for candidates who need the tools, but very rarely opposed on the basis of not needing them, so in that sense I'm being a hypocrite. However I still think that "need for tools" is as valid at times as "edit-count" and "main space contributions" - both commnly cited - when discussing an RfA, and therefore ultimately reject the idea that it is an invalid comment, which was the nature of this thread at outset. Pedro |  Chat  13:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent, answer to Pedro) By citing "need for tools" as an oppose reason ,we are only driving off people who can possibly help better. There is no "point" in becoming an admin, same as there is no "point" in contributing to wikipedia. And you say we have to consider the risk-benefit ratio: that is true, candidates who have proven that they will not abuse the basic tools, will also probably not abuse the admin tools. Of course, there is a small chance that an occasional bad egg gets in but "no need for tools" as a criterion is not going to eliminate that anyway, so why have the criterion at all?- TwoOars 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"You keep saying it should not be a reward but ultimately you are treating it that way." That's what's so strange. Placing a meaningless demand on nominees only serves to suggest that adminship is a much bigger deal than it actually is. "Demonstrated need..." Why? We're not handing out a license to kill. At a minimum, we may simply be giving people with a large watchlist rollback and protection. If they are otherwise trustworthy, what's the harm? "...got in wrong and they go on a rampage" is totally a red herring. The point is that all other things being equal (e.g. the person is as civil, trustworthy, and reasonably experienced as the last admin through) having or not having plans for the tools is irrelevant; if they are not used, there is literally no harm done. DrK's present nom is a total sham. "You don't intend to make wikipedia better with the tools, you just want to make your life easier." I've read a lot of stupid shit on RfAs, but this one is something else. Marskell 13:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you will notice (1) I made a neutral comment at that RfA, (2) did not make the "You don't intend to make wikipedia better with the tools, you just want to make your life easier." comment, and (3) "stupid shit" is not the valid reasoning or argument I'd expect to be given to disagree with my viewpoint. Whilst TwoOars and Majorly do not share my ideas (and I am trying my hardest to understand why they think I am wrong, in order that I can be a better contributor to Misplaced Pages as a whole) they have expressed their view point in a WP:CIVIL fashion. I'd kindly ask you refrain from ad hominum attacks and argue against my ideas rather than me. Pedro |  Chat  13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Twooars has kindly pointed out that I may be mistaken here. Did you mean "I've read a lot of stupid shit within RfA's" rather than on RfA's ? As one reflects our discussion on RfA (i.e. this discussion) and the other reflects a conversation within an RfA (i.e. DrK's). If so, my apologies for the misinterpretation. Please clarify and I will happily strike through the above if this is so. Pedro |  Chat  13:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pedro here. Question 1 reads "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" If a candidate fails to list tasks which only admins can do, than they really shouldn't be an admin. with DrKiernan, it did read like he simply wanted to have an easier way to revert changes to articles he likes. And being an admin isn't such a big deal, why is it so hard to become one? For every single oppose a user gets, he must get 3 supports. Needing a 75% support rate makes it a big deal. Furthermore, if king jimbo thinks being admin is no bug deal, he should make every registered user one. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 13:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And reverting vandalism helps everyone. Guess why it's so hard to become one? It's because people like you insist on opposing fine candidates for the strangest of reasons, and no, it's not a % vote. Majorly (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing here, but of the top of my head I remember reading something like, 75% support is needed to pass, however some candidates get by with less, and others candidates fail with more. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, in no more than 5 or 6 RfAs has consensus gone the opposite way of my vote. And in four of those, I voted to support, but the candidate ended up failing or withdrawing. So I'm pretty good then. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary unindent) The fact is that "You don't intend to make wikipedia better with the tools, you just want to make your life easier" is stupid shit. And I have to agree with Majorly, one of the main problems with RfA is the perception that many have that it's damn near impossible to pass because people are just waiting for a reason, any reason, to oppose. When you (talking to BH here) oppose on frivolous grounds and make completely unnecessary comments like you are not only harming the candidate, you are ultimately perpetuating the problems with RfA. I'm not sure Majorly always finds the best way to question RfA votes but it's important to make sure people realize the harm they are doing to the project by denying adminship to worthy candidates on superficial grounds. Pascal.Tesson 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you should read the whole edit log, because here I apologized for the comment you mentioned (4). I'm also not the one who wrote the "you just want to make your life easier" comment. And per my abve comment, I've only opposed one candidate who ending passing that RfA, so I'd have to argue that for most part I represent the norm. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's nice of you to apologize but it was nevertheless a rude comment to make in the first place and clearly one that did not assume good faith. As for your "success rate" on RfAs, I think that the mere fact that you're citing it (as proof that you know what you're doing) is a clear sign that you don't understand what RfA is supposed to accomplish. Can you honestly say that your support or opposition on these RfAs has always been the result of your past interactions with the candidates and a thorough review of their contributions? If not, please consider participating in fewer RfAs and make sure that the opinion you provide on candidates is one with substance. Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand what you mean about participating in fewer RfAs, however many of the same people vote in almost all RfAs (Majorly comes to mind). Also I do try to review each candidate before I vote on them using the tools provided (edit log, edit count, answers to questions, candidates talk and user pages), however I'll try to do a closer review of each candidate before I vote. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe do your research before accusing... I've taken a position on seven of the current fourteen RfAs... that's half, not almost all :) Majorly (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accuse you, it just seems that you comment on alot of RfAs. Others users that come to mind are Aldebear, G1ggy, DGG, and JetLover. I'm not saying they comment in all RfAs, just that I seem to run into them at alot of RfAs. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One possibility that may have been overlooked is: "I'd like to help out with admin stuff - but I will need to learn on the job, especially the technical aspects, and I may gain new interests after I've used the tools for a while. From my past record, do you think I can be trusted to do that?" - that is a clear case of a candidate who doesn't have a clear use for the tools, but is only asking for trust that they won't abuse the tools. What do those opposing on the basis of "no clear need for tools" say to that? Carcharoth 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

People who really understand adminship don't espouse the "no need for the tools" nonsense. In fact the number of admins I see who've done that lately is miraculously zero. Perhaps they know what they are talking about. pschemp | talk 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The only reason you should oppose for a lack of need of tools would be if the candidate shows that he doesn't understand what the tools actually are. If someone who's new to the project shows up and his answer to question one is "I'd like to wikify and write articles", then you can use the 'no demonstrated need' excuse to gently let him down. People who know better won't self-nominate or accept a nomination unless there's some need for the tools, and it just becomes an excuse for opposing for no reason. - Bobet 15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

To pschemp and Bobet. So what is it that admins do that other editors can't do? Pedro |  Chat  15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(an aside) Pedro, when I pasted that sentence from the RfA I didn't mean to suggest you wrote it. It's just an egregious example of where the logic leads (so what if he does just want to make his life easier?). And "stupid shit" wasn't directed at you. It's a simple enough summary of some of the comments there. Marskell 16:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the revelant policy pages is that adminship would be, ideally, the default state. The reason that it is not is because of the potential for abuse. Therefore, as long as an editor has demonstrated that it is unlikely that they will abuse the tools (with a history that indicates an understanding of policy and a calm demeanor), there's really no reason to withhold them, in my opinion. Whether they use the tools once a day, once a month or once a year, Misplaced Pages benefits. -Chunky Rice 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely correct, Rice. The most common support used to be unlikely to abuse tools and the most common oppose used to be not comfortable with the tools in the hands of this user, and variations of that. If an admin uses the tools once a day, that's one delete, protect, block, etc that I don't have to do... and we're at a ratio of about 1,500 - 2,000 editors per admin right now, so every bit counts. Backlog at speedy deletions is regularly 300 articles or more.

Later we saw editcountitis, which at least had the virture of a quick-and-lazy way of saying "inexperienced" or "I cannot tell if this editor is likely to abuse the tools, since we don't know much about them." Now people get AWB or TW and rack up the edit count, and we have edit counts far exceeding what would have been very substantial counts on Rfa just a year or two ago, but we still don't know if they're likely to abuse the tools. Later came the Must have at least 1 FA, which is absurd because if we only have FA writers taking care of all this scutwork, who is going to have time to write the FAs? Now we have the ultimate in illogical - six FAs, trustworthy, and being opposed because he isn't meeting someone's undefined "proof" he "needs" the tools. Puppy is wondering where the common sense went. KillerChihuahua 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that! But it does seem that the tide has changed and that those of us who protested the absurdity of the no need for tools argument have been heard. The RfA of DrKiernan was at 13/22/8 at some point and it is now at 46/20/9 and, as Anthony told me earlier today, DrK just might produce the most dramatic reversal since Lazarus. We often forget that for RfA to work properly those of us who have been around longer have to set its tone. By that I certainly don't mean bullying others into sharing our view but patiently explaining what should and should not be relevant arguments. In that particular RfA, I think what happened is that many were put off by the rather minimalistic answers to questions and for that DrK has only himself to blame. Once one editor started with the "no need for tools" argument, the thing sort of snowballed because it does not appear to be such a crazy argument at first glance, especially to participants who are not so accustomed to RfA debates or don't have experience with adminship. Note for instance that the opposes from the more established users came on slightly different grounds. But because, Majorly, BigDT, rspeer and others took the time to explain why the argument doesn't make as much sense as one might think, a few opposers changed their mind and hopefully will now be able to bring that experience in future RfA debates. Actually, if the RfA ends up being successful, it may be a sign that, hey, perhaps RfA is not as broken as we like to think.Pascal.Tesson 01:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a rethink. Editcountitis is bad, but most would accept that you need to have done some editing before going for an RfA. Has anyone with less than 200 edits on any wikipedia being granted sysop rights via an RfA (i.e. I exclude developers or special requests for understaffed wikis).? I doubt it. So we have to accept that in someway it is always going to be referenced a tiny bit bit it is a bad thing. In the same way, I think "need for the tools" will always be referenced a little bit. I think I should have expressed myself better here. What I feel is that there should be some advantage to the editor to have the tools. Point of the tools is the wrong expression and I retract it. A candidate should be able to show that the tools will be an advantage to them in their chores, even if they're going to use them just once ever. But if they are genuinely never going to have an advantage by having them then, even the tiniest risk threatened by a rogue admin, or more likely a compromised account, or frankly just the mates of an admin getting on the admin's PC and vandalising the front page for a laugh, mean there's no point them having the buttons. To this end almost every seasoned editor should get the tools if they can demonstrate their trustworthiness. An advantage in having the tools would be demonstrable by, say, just one report to WP:AIV or one occasion where a rollback would have been used. This would seem likely in most (sensible) RfA's and therefore questioning the point does become academic. I formally switch sides on this debate and now agree it is not a good reason to oppose a candidtae at RfA except in the rarest of cicumstances as outlined above. Pedro |  Chat  12:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument "no clear need for tools" is one of the silliest I've seen on wiki. This can't always be demonstrated and keeps us from having more dedicated helpers. Fact is, no one individual HAS to have them, but SOMEONE (actually many people) does or work on wiki simply won't get done. Jimbo is only half right, admin is a big deal because if we give admin rights to someone that's irresponsible, we've done wrong. If it were truly no big deal, why do we have a nomination process? While I'm on my soapbox, the "I have a better idea" merry go round drove me away from regularly reading this page. No one has yet come up with one better than what we have. Rlevse 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So on the basis that no one has come up with anything better so far, in your opinion, then we stop having talk pages, stop having debate and stay as we are? With respect, accusing dicussion of being "silly" is hardly a positive expression. If we don't propose, analyse and ultimately accept some change this whole project will by neccesity stagnate. Pedro |  Chat  20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Angela had ~83 edits when she was made an admin. Imagine that today, she'd be laughed off the site. Now she's one of the most prominent and respected users on all of Wikimedia. Edit count is nothing. Majorly (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, you contradict yourself. Edit count is nothing to you and many others, and I'm doing my best to inclde myself within the many others. But you stated right above that now she'd be laughed off the site. So I'm afraid edit count is something to others, like it or not, by your very own argument - otherwise why would she be laughed off the site? Pedro |  Chat  20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also Majorly, if you saw a user that had 83 edits try out for adminship, what would you do? I seriously doubt that even you would support that user. Also, there have been plenty of users that make RfAs that have only 83 or so edits. They are not laughed off the site. They are encouraged to contribute more and then try again. Captain panda 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Times have changed. With the rise of vandalism that we've been seeing for the past year or so, our criteria has become even more strict. I find the example with Angela obsolete. (Not meant to be an offense to her abilities) bibliomaniac15 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought from WP:AN/I

This was a response I made at WP:AN/I in regards to compromised accounts:

I also think 3 months is too short a time (a summer vacation, or military duty, for example). Let's make it a year. And we can even use a recent Arbcomm ruling in addition:

• All admin accounts which have been inactive for a year may be immediately desysopped, and since they were desysopped "uncontroversially", they may be resysopped upon request automatically, without need to go through RfA.

I'm trying to think of any examples of how this could be seen as controversial, but I can't think of any. Anyone else?

I realise that desysopping of various types has been a perennial suggestion, but I think that this is fairly straightforward and would seem to me to be rather uncontroversial. What do you all think? - jc37 10:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See also commons:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship and m:Administrator on Meta#Policy for de-adminship. It seems to work well enough for them. --bainer (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'd comment about "great minds think alike"... Except that I have a feeling I've read the meta policy before, so perhaps I was sort of remembering it. That said, the above is even "looser" (sigh @ the grammar). A year of no edits, rather than none in 6 months+10 edits in the last year. This is starting to sound like it could use a consensus discussion "somewhere" in order to be implemented. Since stewards do the desysopping, maybe someplace on meta, with nav links from the Village Pump and here? - jc37 13:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally on board. We don't indef-block inactive users for fear they might come back and vandalize, but we've seen enough problems with admin accounts to justify this very reasonable solution. YechielMan 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons' policy deals only with inactivity, Meta's deals with both inactivity and a form of reconfirmation. Your suggestion is closer to Commons', since it only deals with inactivity. Note that Commons also has provision for planned periods of inactivity (eg, holidays). --bainer (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference here is that they can re-receive the tools on request, so that (planned periods of inactivity) shouldn't matter? (Besides, unless the discussion happened in email, declaring a vacation would seem like providing a guilty opportunity for WP:BEANS.) - jc37 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just a question of not bugging the stewards :) --bainer (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If we give the stewards a list of administrators and an automated tool, we'll all be none the wiser. (Or so we hope.) Sean William @ 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If they can just ask for their bit back, a usurper can do the same. I oppose the idea of expiring inactive admin accounts. 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I never thought of that, H. If the person knows how to get around Misplaced Pages, they may know where to go to get the account that they hacked resysopped. Unless a confirmation e-mail was required or something. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 21:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-05-14/Committed identity and Category:Wikipedians with committed identities. KillerChihuahua 01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah...I forgot about that (I'm already in that cat). --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate thought

Personally I think admins should have to go through peer review every year of 18 months, just to have someone else take a look at what they've done. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which greatly inflates the importance of being an administrator. You think someone's doing a good job, a bad job, tell them on their talkpage. If it's a really good job, give them a barnstar. If it's a really bad job, and talking doesn't help, open an RfC. Peer review should be an ongoing thing anyway. I certainly have a reasonable expectation that some people are keeping an eye on me some of the time. Riana ⁂ 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel like doing it, everyone's contributions and logs are available to everyone else. If you find something alarming, ask the person to explain or report it somewhere. Actively checking all the millions of edits all the admins have made would get old pretty fast. Personally, I think you've got it backwards, and would more likely be getting useful results by looking at special:contributions/newbies. - Bobet 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(Originally written in response to Rianna, but Bobet jumped ahead of me b/c this took too long to type)) Yes, however I doubt people have commented on your talk page now about administrative actions you took a year ago. For instance, say that yo blocked a user for vandalism, but after you did that others thought you did so too soon. However, if that same users continues to vandalize and get blocked, people might applaud you for taking the action you did, even though they felt you were wrong before.

That might be a little confusing, but the essential reasoning behind an all-inclusive peer review is that it would allow additional perspective into your actions by people who have dealt with less often. An admin might have a tendency to too allow more incivility or edit warring than other admins, and this would determine that.

I also don't think that my proposed peer review should be a way for an admin to be desysopped. It would only be used to help the admin. However if other admins felt you could be desysopped, they could then take you to the Stewards, ho would then judge you.

And in the interest disclosure, I am not an admin. In fact I have only been a contributor here since mid-April. But please don't judge my proposal on that fact. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe admins should be subject to peer review every 18 months. When admins get the mop, they have to make tough calls, make decisions that upset people - it comes with the job unfortunately. An admin who is doing an excellent job will no doubt make quite a few enemies which would take any opportunity to take a swipe at that admin during peer review, possibly leading them to lose their bit. Don't forget as well, bad things that people do get remembered, the good things don't - 1 bad call could overshadow all the good stuff that an admin had done. It's the whole reason why the requests for deadminship proposal didn't start up. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I had the plan though out in my head, only admins would be able to comment at the peer review. That would hopefully keep disgruntled users once blocked from commenting. This would be different from the deadminship, as an admin could not be desysopped as a result of it. However the arbitration committee (what i was referring with the word steward) would be able to look at the peer review if the administrator ever came before it for desysopping. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I refer you back to Riana, who explains the procedures we currently have in place such as RfC for bad admins, that's technically a peer review, and if an admins doing a real bad job, ArbCom can get involved. Remember, we assume good faith, we don't try and fish for faults which is technically what a peer review for every admin would be doing. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We have about 1200 administrators (and growing fast), of whom maybe 800 are currently active. If we reviewed each one every 18 months, that would be about 12 per week, which would take a lot of time and effort, and not be a good use of resources. So, a reasonable idea in theory, but I don't think it would be worth the cost. Newyorkbrad 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It would be a project probably bigger than WP:RFA itself, and would continue to grow as the number of admins does. -- Anonymous Dissident -- (dated 03:04, 16 June 2007 UTC)

(I hate threading... this is in response to Black Harry's original response to myself/Bobet) - The times that I have screwed up, people have immediately called me on it, be it on-Wiki or off. And these are times that I myself have known that I might be doing something a bit iffy. Trust me... people keep a closer eye on each other than you think! :) A formal peer review would take up too much time, too much effort, and what would be the result? If someone doesn't pass peer review, what do you propose we do? De-admin? Propose sanctions? No... it would be a waste of resources. As Ryan says, some truly excellent admins do not always play by the book. Sometimes they tweak the rules to get the results they want, and the results are good. And sometimes it's too hard for people to understand that after, say, a year, when the spirit of the block/deletion isn't there anymore. Riana ⁂ 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN

Both the reconfirmation and de-adminning proposals are covered at WP:PEREN#Administrative. These are both dead proposals. --Durin 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In reading over Misplaced Pages:Perennial_proposals#Demote_inactive_admins, I think that things have changed, or at least have been clarified to be different than apparently presumed by the PEREN point. (the non-controversial removing and regaining the mop, being a major one). - jc37 11:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Many people hate these, but would a straw poll be a good way to start finding consensus? Greeves 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another RFA straw poll?! *Commits Hara-Kiri* bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, before stabbing myself to death as Bibliomaniac suggests, I'm curious to know what issue you're hoping to find a consensus on! Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought maybe he was asking for a nominator to request adminship on his behalf, since that's what RFA is... a straw poll! -- nae'blis 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not looking for a nominator right now, (I am currently being admin coached) but as for the poll I was just throwing an idea out there. Greeves 20:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• It wouldn't help, since we don't make policy by voting on it, and crats/devs/stewards are hardly swayed by such. The problem with "demoting inactive admins" is that you're taking something that isn't actually problematic, and suggest a solution that doesn't actually affect it. It doesn't actually help anything. It may seem that way, but if you think about it (or ask the devs) it doesn't. WP:PEREN explains this further. >Radiant< 12:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

I need some help here; ANNAfoxlover has created my second adminship nomination, and I do not want it. I told ANNAfoxlover before posting here that I don't want the nomination; also, I was not informed at all prior to her creating the page. I do not wish to accept the nomination for the following reasons:

1. I am the nominator of two active RfA's, one of which is highly controversial.
2. Somebody else has offered to nominate me, and was going to create the page at a later date.

Can the nomination page be speedy deleted, or do I have to decline it and put it in the unsuccessful RfA's archive? I'm asking because I'm not actually sure what to do. Acalamari 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

done. Agathoclea 22:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll go tell ANNAfoxlover then. Acalamari 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record: declined nominations should be deleted if they didn't start running (and archived as unsuccessful if withdrawn while they were running), as far as I know. --ais523 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was the case, I just wanted to make sure. I didn't answer the questions or accept for my reasons listed above, so the nomination was never a failure because it didn't even begin. Acalamari 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Counter updating

I know that updating the counter is not a big deal, but many people, after casting their !vote, do not appear to care to update the counter. It constantly annoys me that counters, across pretty much every single RFA, are never/very rarely up to date/accurate; I am a perfectionist, when I see things like this, I have to fix it, even though I despise doing it. Is there some sort of way the counter can be made auto-updating? Anyone? -- Anonymous Dissident -- (dated 10:40, 17 June 2007 UTC)

What are we counting? I admit that I never update the AFD counters anymore because I don't think they matter to anyone but the closing bureaucrat. We don't maintain counters on other !votes. OTOH, out of date counters are worse than useless. Maybe just drop them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. This post was just concerned basically with the fact that I'm sick of updating them. Therefore, I see three options: 1. Somehow make sure everyone is aware that the counter needs to be updated. 2. make them auto-updating or 3. Drop em. -- Anonymous Dissident -- (dated 11:21, 17 June 2007 UTC)

I never update the counter, though I know it is there. The reason is that who are the counters helping? If your answer is the b'crats, I think those counters (and the bot) should be removed ASAP, as the crats are supposed to judge consensus, not find if the support was over x%. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Drop them please! They're a complete and utter waste of time and space. And while we're at it, get rid of the numbering too, since it isn't a vote. Thanks in advance! :) Majorly (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess when I see these, I can see whether or not consensus seems to be being reached at a first, quick glance. I know they're not votes, but it can sometimes give one a general view of how and RfA is going. Especially when it was mine, I found the tally helpful. Even if there's 2 votes for oppose and 10 for support, if the 2 had a lot of conversation along with them, as well as many responses, it seems like the RfA is failing to less experienced RfA visitors (or the other way around), and a tally helps keep that misconception from occurring. However, if it's gone, it wouldn't greatly affect my experience with RfA's. Maybe it's bad that I check them to see how they're going (especially by the % tracker charts).  hmwith  talk 14:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Updating them everytime is not a big deal, though they are useful when scanning RFA. I generally don't even look at landslides going either direction...it's a nice timesaver. RxS 16:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I only update the counter because it's there. If we have a counter, then we should at least be courteous enough to update it to reflect the actual stats of the RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(arbitary unindent) If you're sick of updating them don't bother doing it then. I pay no attention to them whatsoever, and frankly my talk page spam "thanks for my RfA that passed 62/12/3" etc. etc. is also a big waste of time and more importantly server resource. <sracasm>New admins that send messages that indicate they belive they just passed an election should be desysopped on sight!</sracasm> Seriosuly, Per Majorly ditch them until RfA becomes a vote by policy (i.e. hopefully never. Pedro |  Chat  19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hate to break the news, but RfAs are essentially just votes. This is from the RfA main page; "The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are the main factor in determining consensus. Generally the line between successful and unsuccessful candidacies lies at 75% support, though a few have failed with more support or succeeded with less support." Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BH, that is way to tricky to answer without inciting a flamewar on what RfA is. If you want to go down the !vote / !notvote line I guess it's best to open up another thread methinks. And we both chip in a few quid/dollars/yens/euros in donations for the inevitable cost in bandwidth and new servers that the discussion will take up!!!! I agree it looks like a vote more and more, but I bet there are plenty of people ready to counter that one! Pedro ducks down to miss the oncoming flack....Pedro |  Chat  20:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I use Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report to keep track of RFA stats. Any experienced user should know that the counter at the top of individual RfAs is manually updated, but maybe a note should be added to the template to state that it may not be accurate? Carcharoth 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? We all know it's not accurate. We all expect some polite gnome to come do it for us :) Why not just hide it right above the Supports section, if it has to be there at all? That way, you see it the moment you come in to cast your opinion; the perfectionists don't see it each time they look at the RfA; and those of us who dislike the darn thing don't have to see it so much either. Riana ⁂ 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know its not necessarily a big deal, but it is either an annoying small deal or a superfluous one. I think some definite concensus about what to do about them should actually be reached - should we keep them and make sure they are accurate (somehow), or resign and believe that they can never actually properly and accurately depict an RFA, and drop them altogether? -- Anonymous Dissident -- (dated 06:41, 18 June 2007 UTC)

• There has been no consensus. Perfectionists can update them, others can use WP:BN/R, and still others will occasionally edit war over the counter's existence. No point discussing this any further, I think. –Pomte 08:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose I'm sorry for annoying you. I realize the counter is there and purposely don't update it. The last thing we should be doing is forcing people to update it. Leebo /C 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I didnt really mean force. I sort of meant try and encourage people to remember. Oh well, this discussion has stagnated now. -- Anonymous Dissident -- (dated 21:34, 18 June 2007 UTC)

Actually, Riana's suggestion to move the counter to the actual voting section seems good to me. When I vote I always use the edit section button, and I'm probably not the only editor who does this. I'm also not sure it's a huge issue... I've never seen the counter off by more than a handful of votes, and I'm sure the 'crats would notice if it was completely inaccurate. --JayHenry 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Minimum rationale length

How about this as a way to de-votify RfA – impose a minimum length restriction on all comments. That is, the length of each comment in the Support, Oppose or Neutral sections (defined as the number of characters in the comment excluding signature, "#" and any text in bold) must be greater than or equal to a fixed value, else the comment is moved to the "Discussion" section and not counted towards the percentage figure. (Yeah, ideally we'd get rid of the percentage figure too, but old habits die hard, and the bureaucrats have already demonstrated their inability to look beyond the number).

Precisely what the minimum length would be is something that would need to be decided, of course – but even something very small, like 50 characters (that's just the length of this comment in brackets) would get rid of the comments lacking any rationale at all, the "per nom" comments, the "good candidate" comments, and also some other nonsense things like "doesn't need the tools". A further rule stating that no comment may be merely a copy-and-paste of a previous editor's comment may also need to be introduced in order for this to work.

Personally, I feel we should try to encourage contributors to explain their view of the candidate, with particular emphasis on establishing that it is in fact their view, not the view of whoever got there before them, and detailing precisely how the candidate's qualities make them more or less suitable for adminship. With this in mind, perhaps the minimum should be set a bit higher. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, of course, so I have already provided a sample rationale as an indication of the sort of thing we should be aiming it. While the responses suggest it is vastly preferred to the usual unexplained "support"s, several users have completely failed to grasp the point and supported "per" my rationale. Much as I hope it does not become necessary to ban all use of the word "per", too, I fear it may be the only way – Gurch 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How would this devotify the process? People could just add filler crap and inflate their rationale. In addition, why would we want to write something again when the person above us has already taken the words from our mouths? bibliomaniac15 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't, because it's more convenient to write "per ". But I have a feeling that sometimes, if you actually asked someone to explain themselves in detail, it would transpire that their opinion is somewhat different than that of the user they refer to in their comments (especially if said user brings up multiple points, and the user who comments "per" that user actually only agrees with some subset of the points) – Gurch 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your intention (discourage "drive-by" voting, encourage explanations), but I don't see enough benefit to outweigh the instruction creep. This would simply turn the "per X" comments into virtually identical paraphrasing. Chaz 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, instruction creep. Make it as hard as possible for the candidates, but as easy as possible for the voters. Yeah, I'm with you. (You people have got to stop taking my ideas so seriously). Oh, while I'm here, here's another thing. Remember when a high edit count in a short time used to be seen as a good thing, and now it's taken as little more than obvious evidence of a sockpuppet? I made 8,000 edits in a month long before I was nominated for adminship, and I wasn't a sockpuppet of anyone. Don't you think it's amazing how "some candidates with high edit counts might be sockpuppets" turned into "all candidates with high edit counts must be sockpuppets"? – Gurch 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. Most people will still unquestioningly vote for someone with enough thousands of edits; people mention minimum edit counts in their rationales like 3500, 5000, or 7000; and we haven't even seen someone with an edit count < 2000 apply recently, so I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that editcountitis and editcount inflation are cured. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

... or am I, too, taking you too seriously? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea, theoretically, to have a minimum length restriction for the oppose and neutral comments. Support comments? I don't see much point, funny though Gurch's monologue was in Cloudnine's rfa :). I see RfA as primarily an elimination process and thus I don't see the point in everyone saying "Not incivil, not stupid, not disruptive, not going to take over wikipedia, etc." as a support rationale. - TwoOars 21:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Most attempts at requiring reasoning fail. For example, in my university, students may appeal their grade if they give a reason for it, the most common reason is something along the lines of "I think I deserve a better grade". However, a good rationale tends to influence other contributors to the same RFA more than a simple "vote and sign" will do. Don't think that writing a good rationale is a waste of effort. Keep in mind also, that there are few or no policy reasons for why a person should or should not be an admin, so consensus is pretty much all we have to go by. (This is in contrast to AFD where policies like WP:V and WP:NOR temper the raw consensus when determining the outcomes.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK to express an opinion (support/oppose) BEFORE an RFA goes live?

I have been hanging around here for many months but I don't have a clear recollection about this question. I am still answering the standard questions for my RFA and yet three editors have already added their expressions of support to the draft RFA. I have a vague memory that maybe some RFA junkies might consider this inappropriate and so I'm tempted to remove those "jump the gun" expressions of support and ask those editors to wait for the RFA to start officially. Am I on the right track or am I just being overly paranoid? --Richard 04:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a few minutes it's probably not a problem, but I'm going to save you the trouble of worrying about it by removing them and contacting the editors who placed them. Good luck when it does go live.--Chaser - T 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it means they've had your (previously non-existant) RfA watchlisted for a while. If nothing else, you can take it as a compliment. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if they're just going to insert the same comment a few hours or a few days later (unless they forget to)... —freak(talk) 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, almost nothing. I only recall it being a serious issue during CSCWEM 2, but I've seen it mentioned in oppose reasons in other RFAS.--Chaser - T 04:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So if people oppose "early" would that be a reason to support? Sounds silly if you ask me. —freak(talk) 05:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When all else fails, RTFM. From Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate...

Do not allow voting or comments to be placed on the RfA nomination page until it has been linked to the main RfA page. This will prevent any controversy or allegations of unfair advertising of a given RfA.

I guess that answers my question. Thanks to Chaser for removing the premature comments from my RFA page. I will be going live with it shortly. I'm reading the FM right now. --Richard 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• That strikes me as silly instruction creep. What matters is whether people trust a candidate, not whether all the proper red tape was followed. >Radiant< 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I agree but I have learned from months of RFA participation that it is not wise to challenge policies and guidelines during one's own RFA. That's a sure recipe for picking up a bunch of "oppose" votes. Follow the rules scrupulously and keep your nose clean. There will be plenty of time to argue about instruction creep later. That's my plan and I'm sticking to it.

--Richard 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't stop me from arguing against instruction creep :) >Radiant< 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You can do it. I can't. At least not by violating the rule during my own RFA. As it is, I've got one editor who thinks that what I wrote above suggests that I'm being two-faced about observing rules during the RFA with the intent of going "rogue" if I'm given the sysop bit. I think I should have been more clear in stating what I meant.

--Richard 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct course of action here is obvious. As with everything else that is not perfect, clearly if anyone votes in the RfA before it has started, the candidate must be punished! Opposes all round! – Gurch 09:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do recall an RFA not too long ago that went down in flames because the candidate struck out an "oppose" opinion that was posted before the RFA officially started. Don't remember whose, though. WarpstarRider 09:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that it should be removed but as soon as the Request is transcluded.. the votes should be re-added to the Request because even though thet voted in advance.. it is allowed..--Cometstyles 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know...I find voting on an RFA not transcluded onto the main page acceptable, as long as the person has definitely accepted the nomination. If they accept it, then you know it's going to go on the main page anyway. bibliomaniac15 17:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Add a BLP question to the standard RfA questions?

Some of those here may be aware of this proposed principle at a current ArbCom case, which looks likely to pass:

Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

In light of this, would it be relevant to make a BLP question standard for all RFA candidates, at least asking them whether they would ever intend to get involved in that area of things? I've written more on this here, and have reproduced most of it here: I feel that this change makes adminship a big deal (or bigger than it was before). There are some admins who I would trust to do regular clean-up tasks, but there are some that I would not trust to carry out BLP deletions. There are also non-admin editors that I would trust to properly enforce BLP. I'm all for more rigorous enforcement of BLP, but why focus on admins? This focus on admins being the ones to carry this out is an expansion of the roles of admins that many will not have foreseen. Many admins at their RfA were given the tools by community approval to carry out tasks such as speedy deletions, and determining consensus on AfD discussions. Making judgements on BLPs is a different mattter again. What you will end up with is a de facto group of self-appointed BLP admins, distinct from the rest of the admins (who will either on principle or in fear of getting it wrong, stay away from such actions). The basic questions are ones such as: (1) Are all admins suitable for BLP duty? (2) Should admins wanting to carry out BLP deletions go back through RfA? (3) Is a pool of BLP admins necessary or desirable? There are more questions, but that should be enough for now. Carcharoth 12:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Should admins wanting to carry out BLP deletions go back through RfA?" Um. You are kidding, right? Please tell me you are kidding. You are seriously suggesting we go through another 1,200+ adminship requests simply because ArbCom endorsed a policy (that's right, not even a policy change – just ArbCom endorsement of one). Did we make everyone go through RfA again last time we expanded the speedy deletion criteria? When we introduced semi-protection? When we introduced proposed deletion? When we introduced anonymous-only blocks? When we introduced cascading protection? When we introduced the biographies of living persons policy itself? No, we didn't – Gurch 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is only making adminship a huge deal. The positon to me has always been about a few extra buttons. What such a question will make is that admins are very close to representing Misplaced Pages on a legal front, and a lot of admins here are under 21, under 18, and some are not even teens. I feel that will cause too much trouble. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great, legal FUD. I can't be bothered to argue against such trash – Gurch 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get you, Gurch... Evilclown93_(talk) 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Gurch, it seems he is annoyed about the recent RFA that foundered on an attacks sites question. I'm not too happy about that either, particularly the subsequent mass banning of IP address. See Gurch's comment here. I'm not coming out with pithy statements like "I can't be bothered to argue against such trash", but I can understand why some editors are stressed at the moment. It seems to be silly season on Misplaced Pages. Carcharoth 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I've mixed up two different RfAs there. Sorry. The silly season comment still stands. Carcharoth 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a little confusing there. You've demonstrated quite succinctly just how bad the situation is, though – Gurch 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Gurch, I was kidding. I was not seriously proposing re-adminship and would oppose that myself. I'm just pointing out some of the problems and some of the possible solutions. Please don't pick up on one point and make a big deal out of it. You make some good points about other times when adminship responsibilities have been expanded, but this case seems, to me, to be a bigger expansion into content areas than ever before. Instead of judging opinion, admins are being asked to decide sometimes tricky cases of BLP policy. Personally, I think all RFA candidates should be allowed to say that they have no intention of ever working in that area. Carcharoth 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We have too many "standard" questions, 3 is more than enough. Ask questions if they are appropriate to the candidate, but don't make any more default, please. Majorly (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The current defaults cover the basics well. We learn the candidates' outlook on administrative tasks, their perspective on their contributions, and their perspective on their interactions with fellow users. I don't think there's a need for any specific questions, such as one dealing with BLP issues, to be default. Leebo /C 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If we start adding "standard" questions on specific topics, we'll soon have a couple of dozen standard questions. -- Cecropia 15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been always a believer in that you can answer those question in the nomination statement itself (Self-nom) or in the optional part (not self-noms). We can always put a hidden comment that asks to mention responses to the three currently standard questions instead of stating the questions. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Not to beat a dead horse (such that Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living horses does not apply), but I think there's no point to incorporate BLP into the RFA process. If I trust an editor in general to do the right thing, I will also trust him or her not to screw around with BLPs. YechielMan 16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no point of added another required question. If you want to know the answer, just ask it yourself on the RFA. And what if the candidate doesn't have a firm understanding of BLP, and because of that, will not be working in BLP at all, but in blocks and xFDs. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Admins are expected to follow policy. I don't see much value in asking if they would obey this particular policy unless the candidate had given cause to believe otherwise. If you want to add a more general question about obeying policies you disagree with, that might be useful. —dgies_c 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't proposing to ask if they would obey the policy. If you carefully read what I said (twice) up above, I was proposing asking whether candidates should be asked if they intended to work in this area. Do you see the difference? Carcharoth 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have responded so far. The consensus so far actually reflects my feeling as well. I was merely raising the issue and pointing out some possible consequences, so I hope no-one will misunderstand my position. Just to make it crystal-clear: "I think all RFA candidates should be allowed to say that they have no intention of ever working in that area". I just fear that further down the line, if things get nasty, people will start adding in questions asking every candidate to submit mini-essays on their views on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people, and how they would apply it. Carcharoth 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they probably would. This would be somewhat analogous to the way in which, while Ignore All Rules isn't covered by the standard questions, every candidate nevertheless recieves and is expected to answer a question on it. Users have made a point of asking the same question on every RfA before, and it generally continues until they tire of it. Not really much that can be done about that – Gurch 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no benefit of adding a "standard" question on such a polarizing issue. On the other hand, if a candidate is simultaneously opposed for being "too soft" or "too hard" on BLPs, either he is doing something right or everyone else is just looking for a convenient reason to oppose. —freak(talk) 18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb

It may be a little too early to start the celebrations just yet, but I think this may be the first time an established, useful contributor has actually been forcefully driven from the project by the response to their adminship request. I'd just like to offer my congratulations to all those involved in this exquisitely engineered fuckup, and hope to see more of the same in future. Remember, if you think you're right, this doesn't apply – so keep screwing over those contributors! – Gurch 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to apply this to yourself as well: Remember, if you think you're right, this doesn't apply. RxS 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Um... she was unquestionably blocked from editing, thus forcibly preventing her from editing. I'm not sure how much room for error there is... -Amarkov moo! 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see. So when good users are driven from the project as a result of the way they are treated on their adminship request, I should assume good faith and... what? Take it as a sign that they were no good to us anyway? Please share with me your interpretation of this situation and how this sort of thing is perfectly acceptable and not in any way a sign that things might not be right, because I'm having trouble seeing it – Gurch 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has driven this account from the project. Gurch, you need to stop your trolling and your hyperbole. If s/he wants to stay, all s/he has to do is stop using Tor; or continue using Tor but not apply for adminship; or apply for adminship but explain the reasons for using Tor, in private if it's sensitive. S/he's chosen to do none of these things. You're treating the person behind the account as though they're completely useless; someone simply being tossed around on wild seas with no control. The truth is very different. You also have no evidence that the person has been driven away, just that that account has stopped editing. SlimVirgin 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)