Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 29 January 2008

• ]

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.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Alleged canvassing

Earlier today I saw in this RfA what I thought to be some unfair accusations of canvassing. It may well have failed for other reasons, but the accusation certainly didn't help.

But I've been wondering. What is the substantive difference between what was alleged there and placing the {{rfa-notice|User}} on your user/talk pages? Is there any? And why are people just supposed to blindly stumble across RfAs anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is whether one puts a notice such as this up on their own page, or whether they go around to the talk pages of others to put up notices. In the latter case, it's all too easy for a selection bias to be introduced, even if the canvasser is intending to be neutral. In the former case, however, it's all up to whoever might come across the notice. In fact, there might even be a negative bias here, as I know I tend to check out the user pages of people I've had disagreements with a bit more than those I get along with. So one might even argue that someone putting up a notice like this is acting against their own interest. (Of course, this is all based on a sample size of 1, so don't take it with too much weight.) --Infophile 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So, as I thought, no difference at all. Just more "happy-clappy" let's do whatever it takes to get those extra tabs.

To be brutally frank, I find the idea of a serving officer in the US Air Force being offered advice on how to conduct himself by a schoolkid to be little short of obscene. Your mileage may vary, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My mileage certainly varies. It is perfectly possible for a school kid to know much more about proper conduct on Misplaced Pages than a serving officer, and be able to give appropriate advice. If BQZip01 is smart enough to listen to good advice from whoever can give it then he may pass RfA another time. Misplaced Pages has decided, for good reasons, that canvassing is inappropriate. Candidates are supposed to read Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate#User notification. If a candidate thinks it's OK to advertise his RfA on selected user talk pages while saying "This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated" , then I think he has a poor understanding of canvassing.

Many school kids probably know Misplaced Pages:User page#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces. Suppose one of them politely advices BQZip01 to remove the false new messages banner, with a link to the relevant guideline. Do you really think that would be "little short of obscene"? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your "I'd have probably supported anyone in the US military" , I suggest you give less significance to an editors workplace, as it may have little relationship to their editing. Besides, Misplaced Pages doesn't verify what editors say about their identity. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the Air Force bit, who an editor is in the real world is 100% irrelevant to how they handle themselves on-wiki. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 8 January 2008

People seem to have drifted away from, or chosen to ignore, the question that I asked at the start of this topic. Curious. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the safest way to go is to do nothing, and say nothing... to anyone, apparently. Hey, I simply put up the standard {{rfa-notice|User}} on my page when I ran, and people objected to even that, somehow! I guess we are just supposed to watchlist the page & regularly check it. However, I've read the Signpost once or twice and seen editors on whom I really would have wished to comment, and be upset that I missed their RfA's. нмŵוτнτ 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have responded to it, but Infophile summed up my thoughts fairly well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as canvassing is concerned, I substantially agree with Malleus Fatuarum. I personally don't think we need to prohibit canvassing in RfAs at all; the people best qualified to judge a candidate are those who have previously worked with that candidate, so I would say that notifying them of a current or upcoming RfA ought to be perfectly acceptable. (Plus, we can't stop people canvassing by email or IRC, so the people who are penalised are those who are honest enough to do it on-wiki.) In a case like this, a few neutrally-worded notifications to other editors are absolutely fine. Walton 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some candidates may not canvass those who know them best but instead those who are most likely to support, for example people sharing a POV. Who will be honest enough to canvass somebody who usually criticizes them? And if editors unfamiliar with the RfA process and admin requirements are canvassed at the beginning then an RfA might start with a bunch of supports before anybody has really examined the candidate. Some editors say if they were canvassed so trying to conceal it can make matters worse for the candidate. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing has never bothered me. If the RfA is public, why does the process have to remain a secret? the_undertow 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Why all the secrecy? Surely the more editors that know about it the better? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the proportion of non-bias voters in an RfA needs to remain as high as possible. If the nominees are allowed to get their friends to vote, the opposers will also be allowed to get their friends to vote, and it will just turn into a battle of who's got the most friends. Epbr123 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So how would be be different to the current RfA process? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. It's true. The consensus is that the only viable voters are those who stumble upon an RfA accidentally. the_undertow 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside, it will become even more true if canvassing is allowed. Epbr123 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd, isn't it. You tell all your wikifriends - and anyone else that happens to be watching - that you're going to put yourself forwards for an RfA on such-and-such a date. But once that date arrives, you daren't tell anyone else for fear of being accused of canvassing. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, people don't need to be **** and tell everyone that they're going to run for RfA. —Kurykh 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it's interesting how many do. Is that not canvassing? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't a difference between canvassing before and during an RfA. How many have been doing this? Epbr123 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The no canvassing rule really is stupid. In this thing we call life, anytime anyone runs for anything, they're allowed to campaign, no? Not that I want "Vote for X" banners posted, I would like for people I've worked with to let me know they're running for admin. Say they drop a note because they know we share a POV and I'll support. I'm sure people that disagree with that POV will see this RfA alert on my talk page when they come to bitch at me about my POV and then POOF, greater scrutiny on the RfA. The more eyes on RfA, the more that comes out. Personal experience does much more for determining one's qualifications for adminship than some admin-hopeful trolling RfA, skimming contribs, and voting to game the system for their own future RfA. However, more scrutiny would probably just result in more failed RfAs, more stress, fewer applicants, less admins, the destruction of Misplaced Pages, the end of life as we know it, the sun exploding. A vicious downward spiral of decay. So I guess it's best to leave it alone. Lara❤Love 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Canvassing? --Infophile 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't know my admin request caused such a discussion. I just recently ran across this discussion. For the purposes of clarifying my intent:

1. I certainly did read Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate#User notification, where it specifically states, "Canvassing for support (asking other editors to vote in your favor) is not recommended." Since I didn't ask for support, this direction does not apply, IMHO.
2. I don't know how explicit I can be. "This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated" pretty quickly shows their support is not the intent of the message. The rest of the message shows gratitude for any positive feedback.
3. As for "I think he has a poor understanding of canvassing." Perhaps you should read WP:CANVASS. It specifically states, "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." This was my intent. This was simply a notification, not an attempt to influence outcome. Otherwise, why would I do this in such a transparent way? I did it almost immediately after submission. Everyone could clearly see that. What happened to WP:AGF?

I believe that those with whom you interact can best help/hinder adminship. There is a very simple way to avoid undue influence on such a discussion, which is what is trying to be avoided in WP:CANVASS: Have users identify when they have been notified; weight on these opinions can be placed accordingly. Would anyone have had a problem if I had stated they should also mention I placed a notice on their talk page?

As for the practical joke, it is humor on my user page. Simple humor is commonplace on user pages and truly disrupts nothing, IMHO. I see no reason to remove it other than to reduce people from whining about some perceived flaw in Misplaced Pages (truth be told, it has many other serious flaws; to waste time on this one seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill). It isn't the end of the world to have a little levity on someone's user page. This discussion shows how far some people have taken it. No need for such hostility. That said, I simply removed it in the interests of improving dialogue, though I see no consensus for its removal. — BQZip01 —  08:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are written to reflect what the community thinks. An important part of understanding Misplaced Pages guidelines is understanding how they are meant and interpreted by the community. Your RfA shows the community (represented by many experienced editors) clearly considered your 14 selected user notifications to be canvassing. Instead of accepting that you continue to do what I will call Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering - and that doesn't mean I agree that you followed the letter of WP:CANVASS. You quoted one sentence here and omitted other things speaking against your notifications. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No. While guidelines certainly are supposed to reflect what the community thinks, they should still be clear, precise and fairly applied. BQZip01 did nothing wrong; he acted within the letter of the guideline. If the guideline no longer reflects community consensus, then update the guideline. And I am fed up with people using the word "Wikilawyering" as a term of abuse. In any organised community, it is essential that there should be clear and consistent rules, so that users can guide their conduct in order to comply with the rules. Otherwise we get arbitrary and unfair enforcement. Walton 10:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the canvassing rules should be reviewed. I wouldn't mind AT ALL getting a message from an editor that I know or work with that she/he is up for RfA. But I would mind receiving a spam from an editor I didn't know or work with. Kingturtle (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin candidates with a chance have thousands of edits and are probably more or less known by hundreds or thousands of editors. If candidates can choose who to notify then they can pick editors who are likely to support. Who will notify their worst enemy? An RfA often has less than 100 votes (and it is largely a vote) out of a huge number of active editors. It may not take much to skew the result. Some people have compared to political elections where people can campaign as they want, but so can the other candidates. RfA is a yes/no vote with no competing candidate. (I'm not suggesting opposers in an RfA should be allowed to canvass). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I emphasized what I thought were the relevant portions, yes. I hate the term WP:Wikilawyering and it is abused far too often when something someone doesn't like is done, but violates no rule (never mind the fact this is an essay, not policy per se). Why can't clear guidance be available? Why is that a problem? Furthermore, you simply continued the critique without looking at the proposed solution. I liken this to having an election where only people who read a certain newspaper are involved in the votes. Simply informing people shouldn't be a problem, especially if they tell everyone up front that they were notified on their talk page. How about simply allowing them to comment in the neutral section without actually voting? Your thoughts? — BQZip01 —  07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate#User notification says:

Canvassing for support (asking other editors to vote in your favor) is not recommended. In order to get editors to notice your RfA, you are free to put a {{Rfa-notice}} on your userpage. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

I think this is enough to disqualify your messages. Admins are supposed to show good judgement. I (and many people who voted in the RfA where I didn't participate) don't think it's good judgement to read that and post to 14 selected editors, saying "This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated". The first part indicates you may have read the guidance and sorry, but the second part does look like wikilawyering around it to me. Do you think the guidance should be amended to say "(asking other editors to vote in your favor or saying you would appreciate their support)"? That looks like unneeded instruction creep to me. And what if a candidate reads that version and then spreads the message "This is not a request for support, and I'm not saying support would be appreciated, but you can probably guess which vote I would prefer. Wink, wink." Should this be allowed because it doesn't directly violate the letter of the new text? If clear rules are made about everything then they become too long to read. And voters in an RfA can still vote as they want. If you want clear advice for another RfA from me then here it is: Do not spread any message no matter how carefully you tried to formulate it to not violate the letter of canvass rules. An RfA is not a legal case with lawyers studying every letter of the law and awarding people who find loopholes. If voters don't like what you did then they may oppose. Arguing about the letter of the rules is unlikely to change their vote.

I'm also against allowing canvassing while saying that canvassed editors are not allowed to vote. Then candidates might canvass editors who are likely to oppose and would probably have noticed the RfA and voted without being canvassed. For example, self-nominators could canvass people known to oppose self-nominations. If the guidance should be changed then I think it should be changed to say more directly that mentioning your RfA outside your user space may be viewed negatively by some editors. But I think admin candidates ought to realize that already. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of User:Majorly/RfA#On canvassing. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some sensible comments there. I don't see the problem with canvassing either, so long as it's done publicly, in wikispace, where everyone can see it. Rather than IRC, private emails and so on. In fact I completely fail to understand why people seem to be expected to stumble across RfAs "by accident". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this RfA is back up. I think RfA canvassing and vote canvassing in general is a problem because it brings in people whose interest is something other than the process of selecting good administrators. The fact is that the process is not hidden or mysterious, and if you want to get involved you can. The less similar RfA is to a campaign for election the better. On the other hand, since folks disagree with the value of the guideline and whether a violation occurred in this RfA, I've voted support on the underlying facts as it were - no canvassing has occurred seemingly in this RfA, so the process is working as it normally does for all the other candidates. 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Archival

I wonder if i discussed this before. Do you think it would be easier if i set up MiszaBot? Say 100kb max per archive and threads archive are over 7 days old. Simply south (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't see any reason why not.   jj137 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, i've set it up. Simply south (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you add multiple archives by bot, the archive box at the top needs to be the sort that supports multiple archive links (like in other high traffic talk pages). Currently, its a list with descriptions of each manually added, might as well reform that if future archives are going to be bot added. 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

After it moves nto the next archive, descriptions can still be added summarising what went on in that archive. I don't really think much needs to change. Btw, I know i reduced from 7d to 5d. Should this be decreased further? Simply south (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise i have restored 7. Simply south (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Relocate tally

Before reading this, please read wikt:relocate and wikt:remove. I'm not suggesting we remove the tally. Seriously, I'm not.

What I am suggesting is that the tally be moved down to the "General Comments" subheading. At the moment, that section is barely used - it contains a link to the edit summary calculator (anyone in favour of removing that? Another discussion please...), and a template that points to talk/contribs/rfc/rfa/rfb/rfx/rfcookie. Not a big deal.

The tally really shouldn't play that big a part in reviewing an RfA. If it is, there's the 'crat noticeboard report (which appears to have popped on this page too, oh the shame). m:Sheep voting is discouraged. However, I do value the use of the tally in gauging the state of the RfA, and don't want to remove it. I want it moved down, under the questions, because apart from reviewing contribs (duh!), we really should be giving those more weight.

I hope those who visit this page often will try and put behind them the prejudice of "OMG let's flame discussions about the tally". I also hope that the result of this discussion will be a better RfA template.

Regards, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be of value for an upcoming candidate for adminship to try the new proposed format (i.e. Tally with the General Comments) before selecting it as the default? Do the candidates have discretion in how their request is framed, to some degree? There's latitude in how questions are answered, and I know some candidates have re-formatted questions for readability... might be worth a go.

I'm neutral on the subject, except that having the tally at the top helps to explain the consensus that is decided (i.e. a No consensus to promote is much clearer if the tally is right there, rather than with the general comments). Maybe it's moved into place at the top when the request is closed by a Bureaucrat? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it a change that would really make a significant difference? I don't know that moving the tally will change the weight it has in an RfA. On a technical side, does the position of the tally have anything to do with the way the report is set up? 20:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DHMO's rationale that having the tally on the top, especially for "aged" RFAs (meaning 3-5 days old) can subtlely change someone's willingness to !vote one way or the other. If I see 94/0/1, I may be intimidated to post an oppose for someone that I may have otherwise opposed, or I may do a less thorough job of analyzing the candidate independently. If I see 8/22/9, I may likely look closer at that candidate. The law of the Lemmings applies here, as does the Rule of First Impressions. I would suggest a trial reformatting with the tally in a less prominent place (after the questions). Once the consensus is reached (successful, unsuccessful, withdrawn, or no consensus), the tally can be moved back to the top. Keeper | 76 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, we could place the tally in three spots, assuming no other changes to the standard RfA. First, it could be the opening line, as it is currently. Second, it could be the first line under "General Comments". Third, it could be the closing line of the entire page, under Neutral. This third idea would permit anyone !voting using a section edit of the !votes section to update the tally to include their vote as they vote, instead of as a separate edit later. I've created a mock RfA to show these alternatives here, for illustrative purposes only. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The only trick is that the "Scheduled to end" time seems out of place without being part of the Tally line, so my example RfA includes it in the moved tally counts. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it at the bottom. What would be cool is if it could be updated by an RfABot and have the tally kept in a collapse box ;-) 20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We can do it for arbcom elections, which use the same formatting (i.e. counting with #, indenting to remove from the count). We could also create a subpage for each RfA consisting of a miniature version of the tally report, above, except that there would be one line for that candidate only. It would then be transcluded behind a show/hide link. This would also offer the option of including the Duplicate !vote check, so that anyone seeing a duplicate vote flag could doublecheck the count. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See my test example (copied from yours) for what I mean. 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An additional transcluded subpage might not be necessary for a show-hide, could be a solution though. I definitely think the tally should be bot assisted, I wonder why it isn't already. 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One way to find out - I've posted a request here. I like your formatting, as users can skip past the background information provided there once they are familiar with the candidate - but it's still there to refer to as needed. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:this: Perhaps you could convince someone to have some conditional code written to the one of the bot-generated reports so the page could be transcluded with an optional parameter. If that parameter were present, then the template would only generate a table with the vote counts for the one user it matched. Then every RFA could have something like {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report|user=Whoever}} (or the equivalent for the other report). Whoever closes it would have to replace this with the final tally, but nobody would have to update it during the live RFA. Gimmetrow 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question - does Tangobot take the total from the tally in plaintext, or from the actual number of votes by counting them? What would good bot tallying parameters be? Update every half hour? Seems like it might be easy to integrate that task into Tangobot. (Tango's last edit was on the 6th, FWIW). 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tangobot takes the total from the actual number of votes; it doesn't even consider the manual counter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear God..its hideous !!...Please use User:Dragons flight/RFA summary this as a temp , it is a smaller version of Tangies stats...Oh please have mercy on our eyes !! ...--Cometstyles 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The closing bureaucrat should add it at the end, on the end. Majorly (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of having it at the end...just doesn't seem right. The collapse box also seems to stand out too much when nothing else in RfA is collapseable, thus drawing attention to itself (and to the tally as a result). I agree with Keeper - Any thoughts on trialling this new placement in future RfAs? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Which/whose new placement exactly? Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True that the collapse box draws attention to itself by being colored and whatnot. Still, logically if someone is going to show the box to see the tally they'd put the same (less really) amount of effort into looking for it wherever it goes. 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Malinaccier, I still like my version best :) Avurch, I think the collapse box being coloured will make people click it just because they can. And then see the tally, which kinda defeats all purposes. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your version does seem the best idea so far. Maybe if the collapse box was put at the bottom of the page, which would make it more "right" in my opinion. Malinaccier (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I boldly made the change - let's see how it goes. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should boldly put it in all the places, and see which one gets updated more often? :-P Betacommand has turned down the idea of a tally-updating bot, btw. 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The request was worth making, if only to clarify the issue - as I had wondered why a bot didn't do the updating, as well. No harm done. I agree with DHMO, as well - it's worth a trial in the middle, if only to see whether it's updated or not. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure having 2/3 tallies is a great idea... Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes my sarcasm doesn't bleed through into text. 01:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, having it in the middle will make it harder to find :) I still think at the end is best - it's part of the end summary. Majorly (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Results of first trial run: (Lquilter nom) Just a few votes in, and someone moves it back and calls it a malformed RfA. 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wondered why the template didn't show the new format, I guess that explains it. Maybe we can have a candidate request the new format and comment out a request that it remain in the new position as a test case, since a request from anyone other than the candidate is apparently ignored. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just dropping a note by after I saw this discussion. I guess I must be having trouble with my sarcasm as well, as I meant "Malformed" in a joking way. (I'd never oppose someone on the basis of any mistake made in forming the RFA or having a different format. We're all humans, mistakes do happen.) Hopefully I didn't cause too much confusion! Take care and happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It's a new thing, still very much in the try it out stage. I've mentioned it to the newest candidate, User:Pb30, so - with a candidate aware of the change - it might stick, at least long enough for a test run. Maybe afterwards, I'll ask the !voters to evaluate it's new placement. We'll see. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

On User:Pb30's RfA, the tally was properly placed and fine, except that Mathbot placed its links above the tally - as shown here. The result was the tally sandwiched between Links and previous RfA's. I've moved it back to the top of the section, but - if this change sticks - that's something we'll have to address with Mathbot's operator(s). Otherwise, so far so good. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, item two: We have the RfA for Undead warrior, withdrawn at 0/9/0. The request was closed as withdrawn by EVula, who added the correct tally to the closing time at the top. However, an older 0/7/0 tally remained with General Comments (per here). Not a major deal, but something else to clarify with the Bureaucrats, if this becomes permanent. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure where it was... personally, I really dislike the new location. Just leave it where it was; people are going to sometimes go with the flow on RfAs anyway, the tally doesn't matter one bit in that. No reason to sacrifice the functionality for no reason. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why again are we monkeying with the tally? This has been the subject of needless edit-warring in the past, and it kind of defeats the purpose of having a tally at all to put it where it's hard to see. I look at tallies right at the top of RfAs to get a general idea of how it's going. Grandmasterka 07:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

seth dalorane

have any of you people looked at the page for seth daloane and have any of you tried to put him on the ballot for adminship that is why i think that i should put the link up here so that you people will notice a great canidate for adminship Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Seth Dalorane Ryan M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth dalorane (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, at present, that your request will be successful. I also note that the history function of the wiki indicates that almost every edit on the page, including 5 support !votes, one neutral, and one oppose, were all made by you. I don't think it's disruptive, but it does look rather silly, don't you think? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit, however, seems ill-advised, as admin candidates who threaten to destroy the wiki are usually unsuccessful. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused at the DethMe0w !vote, though, have to say. 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Also I might suggest the page and diffs with real name be evaluated for oversight to protect the PI of a probable minor). 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. Its most likely a joke nomination (given attempted fake comments from the user requesting adminship). I have told them that if they really want to be an admin, they have to do things slightly differently. --Deskana (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Only slightly. ;) --Infophile 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I note for the record Seth dalorane's indef block for vandalism, which will put a bit of a dampener on his admin aspirations. Bencherlite 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

!!Vote

I think the time has come to end the use of the term "!Vote". It is silly and inaccurate. It makes sentences awkward and disguises the real meaning. Instead, I think we should start using the term "!!Vote", pronounced, "Not-not-vote". It's NOT not-a-vote. This is more accurate because, as we all know, while RFA and AFD and ...FD are not a vote, we also know that they are not NOT a vote. Clarity is something we strive for at Misplaced Pages, and I think this is the obvious next step toward that goal. We might also want to create a task-force to enforce use of the term, user warning templates for those that choose to rebel against this move for the greater good, and an administrator panel to determine whether each future application of the term fits within the given guidelines. Renesis (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just use the word vote to mean what we mean when we say vote, !vote, or even !!vote. People end up sounding really awkward when they avoid or mutate the word. Just document the etymology somewhere so everyone is on the same page. –Pomte 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "!vote" is also employed sort of ironically, because of what you (Renesis) have just pointed out. - Revolving Bugbear 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke. RFA is a vote, and people should just use vote. Instead of making things complicated. Majorly (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the term ¡vote, metaphysically signifying its simultaneous existence as vote, and not-vote. Or, in cases where you really feel strongly about your ¡vote, you can call it a "¡vote!" ¿Bueno?--barneca (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is quite silly, comparable to uncyclopedia:Holocaust denial, uncyclopedia:Holocaust denial denial, and uncyclopedia:Holocaust denial denial denial. bibliomaniac15 21:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget uncyclopedia:Holocaust denial denial denial denial. bibliomaniac15 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've generally found the best words to be "comment", "input" or "discussion" none of which need an exclamation mark in front of them. On a side note I'm !delighted to see Majorly and I are back in disagreement. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I'm not in a good mood for arguing :( Majorly (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The (unblued) point being that you're in a !good mood for arguing. :) Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• I am intrigued by this idea, but it sounds complicated and will probably require the formation of a committee or project to implement. . .not to mention a mini-committee that can settle disputes as they arise (A Mini-Arbitration Committee if you will, aka the Mini-mi). By the way, I have to ask, is there a poll on this idea anywhere? ¡Jokingly, R. Baley (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I !just !shot !diet !Mountain !Dew !out !my !nose. !Thanks a !lot, R. Baley. Keeper | 76 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all here! Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I !agree. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary (decent version) defines "vote" as a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action. It also defines "consensus" as general agreement. At present the WP:RFA header has the word vote included zero times. It has the word consensus twice. If it's a vote, cool, but let's change the header. Until then, we're going to argue semantics. And if it's a vote we also put a hard and fast percentage (it will never be agreed what percentage of course, so I say 79.85555536363554353653% to set the ball rolling) on a pass, we also agree neutral has no value, we also agree "moral support" is either a support or no value, and we also put about 1,000 admins into the Beaureaucrat group, because in the event of RfA being a straight vote the 'crats only purpose will be renaming users and adding a bot flag. Pedro :  Chat  23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the RfA process much more resembles caucusing than voting. - Revolving Bugbear 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument would carry so much weight if you could point to even one example where a candidate passed RfA with less the 50% of the votes. As it is, it's just fiddling with the deck chairs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. Chuck me the diff where I mentioned the 50% thing will you? Athenian Deomcracy and voting aren't the same you know ! Pedro :  Chat  23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said that you did mention the 50% thing. I'm just making the rather obvious point that this pretence of !voting is simply that, a pretence. Being a closing bureaucrat on RfA's is not exactly a very taxing job I'd suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the comment I was to make here to you talk page, as this is clearly not the place for personal disagreements. Pedro :  Chat  00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me there. In what sense was my disagreement with what you said personal? Did I make any personal remarks? As I note that you have now done on my talk page, rather disappointingly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that from now on we use the term VOTE. In other words, I've never felt the need to use anything other than the term "vote" to express what happens at RFA, even though it does not have the normal characteristics of a vote. --Deskana (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. And all these debates about vote/not vote are really getting old. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Deskana, for being !narrow minded. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean NARROW minded? --Deskana (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

!NO, course not. ;D. Malinaccier (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never used the word vote. I've always written it "I've indented your vote comment to the support section of the RFA" or some degree (or try to as much as possible) to remind myself of the quixotic nature of Misplaced Pages's DDV. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. A rose by any other name. Call it whatever you want. But don't hide it behind the pretense of a discussion. When I'm sitting around, getting hammered with the homeboys/girls this weekend, and we're having a discussion about something, who the hell is going to add 'support, neutral, or oppose'? Discussions are conversations. Votes are Ya's or Na's. Just because you 'per nommed' it doesn't make it a discussion. It's vote - and an exclamation mark is not absolution for you !sins. This user uses the 'vote' with pride and understanding. the_undertow 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside, I strongly agree with Deskana and those others above that we should remove the stigma associated with the word "vote". RFA is a vote, a vote where the outcome is simply not decided by numbers alone. -- Renesis (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But.... how will we determine just whom it is that will be on the patrolling committee? I suggest we put it to a (*^{!!!Vote/?\}|+)). JERRY _contribs 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two words... Electoral College. *ducks* UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Now it's time for the cabal to rise and the popular vote to be discounted! bibliomaniac15 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

!Who !gives !a !shit (disclaimer, it's not actually a shit, it's a !shit). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

!yoicks! That was !rude!. Dlohcierekim 05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused, does that mean it wasn't actually rude? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was !very rude. ! :D --Hdt83 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only person in this talk page who isn't mindlessly intoxicated...? — DarkFalls 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably. By the way, I agree with Deskana. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

O yeah. That's a given. the_undertow 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DHMO and Deskana. Anyone who has been around long enough to tale part in these discussions learns pretty fast that it is not a simple matter of talying votes, that it is a discussion. However, tradition, going back to changing VfD to AfD is against us. Dlohcierekim 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really; AfD (or VfD) doesn't have a vote counter (or tally, or #, or anything), so there's a greater justification for that rename. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, then you would be able to provide at least one example where a candidate has been promoted with less than 50% of the vote, or not promoted with 100% of the vote. Can you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AHH, good point and good night.05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

<reading out loud>Who... doesn't... not... give... not a .... not shit? Quadruple negative, good job! -- Renesis (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not Not? Who's there? --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather curious

Anybody who speaks Latin know what the following paragraph means?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

It comes from {{RFA}}. --Hdt83 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore DHMO's link. The exact translation is as follows;

"And it came to pass that the editor did seek adminship. For it was rumoured that this would bring great gains and fulfilment, and a status exalted above all others save for the mythical beast of 'crat. But the editor had not heeded well words of wisdom. He had mady a dodgy CSD A7 call but twenty seven moons before. And thus his request was rejected by his brethren, and great was his shame and ignomny."

Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  08:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And now I have to change my shirt because I just shot coffee out my nose. !Nice. Didn't know the deadlanguages had a turn of phrase that equals CSD A7... Keeper | 76 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, "CSD A7" was a rather free translation. The phrase Pedro was rendering by "CSD A7", "cillum eu fugiat", literally translates as "the 'zillas will purge it", viz., burn it with fire. In the usage of ancient lexicographers, that phrase referred to a practice more akin to salting than to mere speedy deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for !clearing that up....  :-)Keeper | 76 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Pedro :  Chat  16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I have to clean up the milk I was drinking...it's all over the wall...(pretty good distance through your nose, though...) — BQZip01 —  22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Gesundheit! Dlohcierekim 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean !Gesundheit. JERRY _contribs 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, you may want to consider holding your nose while you drink and read Misplaced Pages at the same time from now on ;) - Revolving Bugbear 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See Pedro, that's why you need to be a 'crat. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the love of spurting Coca-Cola out my nose (which is not a good experience), no. bibliomaniac15 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is why I only drink water at my computer. :) Captain panda 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The true nature of RfA

Is this. Discuss. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Courage would make a wonderful admin. I think I'll make me a lovely cup of tea. Dlohcierekim 03:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose He seems like a fine user, but he doesn't have enough Help talk: edits, and I'd like to see more participation in AFD. (he comes back a month later) Oppose Too much participation in AFD. szyslak 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yah, but he remains calm under pressure. Dlohcierekim 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Not enough edits. -- Renesis (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Support -- This user appears to be two-dimensional. I believe it would add diversity and encourage other two-dimensional editors into the project. Wjhonson (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that this is actually more representative of RFA. --Deskana (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't own any pants that tight. Please don't recall me! - Revolving Bugbear 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, too much macaroni/not enough/too much cheese/don't like... that's RFA in disguise if I'm not mistaken :) Majorly (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is so unfair. I can't see youtube from my PC (corporately restricted). I wanna get the joke. Blast it all. Keeper | 76 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What're you drinking this time? - Revolving Bugbear 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Room temperature Diet Mountain Dew. Nothing mixed in, I promise ;-). Although, thanks for the perspective. Carbonated drinks in reverse tend to burn a bit, I guess I can live without youtube until I get home....Keeper | 76 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe in fact that carbonated drinks have on occasion been used as a method of torture. When it starts to fizz in your sinuses, you're in for a world of pain. --Infophile 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any soft drink agency. - Revolving Bugbear 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So would that be classified as a form of carbonated Waterboarding, and if so, does it, or does it not, constitute torture? If you don't get my allusions here, see the myriad of ANs, ANIs, and Talks about Waterboarding that I refuse to link here.....Keeper | 76 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is actually a type of waterboarding. As is my understanding, waterboarding attempts to simulate drowning and bring up the fear-of-imminent-death instincts. Carbonation in the sinuses is simply extremely painful. --Infophile 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

<nine colons? this is crazy>. To steal a previous comment of my own: "Thanks for !clearing that up". Cheers, Keeper | 76 19:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I always thought of RfA as more like American Idol. If you're bad you're snow'd, even if you're good you may still have problems. Plus both are annoying and dramatic. Wizardman 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Room-temperature diet Mountain Dew even without fizzy sinuses, is already torture. I foresee a future career for you in either the CIA or as an elementary-school teacher. Wjhonson (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG, Wjhonson, if only you knew how you just hit a proverbial nail on a proverbial head. If only. Keeper | 76 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss? Remove the link, it's a clear violation of WP:EL. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is? Explain, please. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we use to have a policy that said "external links on talk pages must have no humour, blamange or trout slapping, not a bit, and no rat!"Wjhonson (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See Linking to YouTube, Google Video section. The clip is copyrighted to Cartoon Network and was not uploaded with their consent. Some organizations now do upload their own content, promo clips and such, and are usually clearly identified as a "Director" or use the name of their company in the title. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't see the copyright bit at WP:EL. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Canvassing on the talk page... — BQZip01 —  08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Delete - Patent copyvio. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 10:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Snows, once again

Sorry, I know this has been done to death.

I think it's pretty widely accepted that we shouldn't be having pile-on opposes in snow RfA's. But I've been wondering, is there any point in voicing opinions in the oppose section at all? In my mind, an RfA is about deciding whether we think someone should be an admin; in the case of the snows, it really doesn't make sense to have that discussion at all, which would be the only reason to comment in the support and oppose sections. IMHO, for an RfA that doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, the discussion should really take place on the person's talk page, unless they've already been contacted and have refused to take it down -- then maybe it would make sense to have a few opposes to show them that it's really not going to work. It seems like refraining from opposing might be less painful for them, less of an outright rejection, and it'll spare them the embarrassment. And probably for most people, once they understand the de facto requirements, they wouldn't want a discussion like we have in RfA's anyway, they'd just want to quietly take it back. So my suggestion is this: we refrain from opposing at all (and from moral supports, because they're kind of condescending anyway), at least until they've been contacted about it and had a chance to respond, and just explain to them as nicely as possible on their talk page, or maybe in the discussion section, why it ain't going to work for now. delldot talk 14:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Certainly not criticizing any specific person or people here

How do you know if it will snow if no one comments? Some snow closures happen after some supports get added, because the first supporters didn't find something particularly damning that the first opposers did. Anyway, solution looking for a problem I think. 16:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In the really bad cases, like someone with < 500 edits, I will sometimes try to break in to them gently. Sometimes, that approach runs the risk of hurting feelings or biting. I guess that's why we're letting them run longer now. There is no 100 % perfect way, but I agree with Avruch that we really need to let the consensus develop fully before declaring a "snowball". Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been clearer about what I meant. I'm talking about the cases where the RfA is among their first, like, 20 edits, where we absolutely know there's no chance. Cases where nothing needs to be made clear to anyone except them. I feel like most reasonable people wouldn't want to let them run once they understand what the situation is, so it makes sense to me to hold off "discussing" the RfA until they've gotten a chance to respond to a friendly message on their talk page. delldot on a public computer talk 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to stop people from opposing. I removed a malformed RfA, with no acceptance statement by the nominee or answers to any of the standard questions, transcluded by a third party, and the first oppose was from someone who shortly after became an adminstrator. This is an adversarial process and people are poised and ready to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. There is also no way to stop people from nominating themselves. After a discussion on this talk page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate was changed to try to get potential candidates to actually look at themselves and this process and think before creating their RfA. I have done no statistical analysis to determine if adding that change reduced the number of (wildly) inappropriate RfA candidates, but it obviously did not reduce that number to zero! I am beginning to think that barneca's proposal, to create a new rule establishing a (low) minimum number of edits before an RfA, has more merit than I thought initially. Darkspots (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thought might be to require pre-approval of transclusion by a bureaucrat. Lots of people make proposals extending to the authority of a bureaucrat beyond up or down on RfA consensus, but I don't think would really be much of an extension - it would simply prevent bad faith or clearly impossible RfA noms. I don't think its a big enough problem to warrant additional creeping but if I'm mistaken then transclusion by bureaucrats is a possible solution. 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the recent SNOW nomination with unnecessary pile-on opposition: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Pookeo9. I thank Gromlakh for attempting to provide the candidate with good advice rather than a hit in the face. Acalamari 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The fault is surely that the criteria for a successful RfA are so ill-defined, and nobody very few dare define them for being accused of editcountitis, or whatever the latest craze is. Provide proper guidance to potential candidates and the problem ought to go away. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I bet there will still be people that read nothing or almost nothing before submitting an RfA as one of their first edits though. To me, our best bet with these folks is not to make more rules, but to foster an understanding within the community that it's not good to be unkind, that we should deal with them with the least amount of embarrassment for the new user. I feel like the best way to go about that is to come to a general agreement here and then point people to the discussion if we see them failing to do that. Of course, that is if people do agree ;-) delldot talk 05:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No big deal? searching for the Holy Grail, the perfect nom evaluation tool

What are the per centages on admins getting into serious difficulties and/or recalled or otherwise desyssoped, particularly for those promoted in the last year? My belief is that I can trust a user with a substantial number of edits and term of experience. Does reality bear this out? Dlohcierekim 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There were some posts about this not too long ago on WikiEN-l, I'll see if I can find 'em. 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not very high if you only count involuntary desysoppings; plenty of admins get into loads of controversy but come through OK though. Keilana| 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the percentages are very low. Keep in mind, in order to be a sysop nowadays, you have to have already earned the respect and trust of the community to pass through an RfA (click on RfA to know what I mean by "recently"). In other words, if you become an admin, you are given more grace (it seems) than a non-admin user because you've already earned the community's trust, probably have allies, and probably know what you're doing. A recent example that comes to mind is Archtransit. Mistakes? Yes. Desysopped? No. Nor should he be, IMO. I would be surprised if the number that you're looking for is above 1%. Keeper | 76 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I just seem to keep seeing oppose rationales that startle me. Dlohcierekim 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I find some of the support rationales even more startling. "He's my mate, of course he should be an admin." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Oh, I completely agree that some of the "oppose" rationales are startling. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 for example. That's a different topic though. The 64,000 question that I think you're asking is "Do we promote them to admin and hope they don't make mistakes?", vs. "Do we oppose their admin candidacy with the hope that by doing so will avoid said mistakes." Personally, I think the RfA process is bordering on Absurdity and is completely out of control. I don't think it's fixable at the moment though. Keeper | 76 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think it's gone beyond absurdity. It reminds me very much of a 17th century witch trial. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been compared to a trial by fire, a torture chamber, the gallows, and a public dunking chair. Some still bear scarlet letters from their RfA ordeals. So, why do you think it has anything to do with a witch trial :) Majoreditor (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the original question, I would guess that most desysopping happened to very experienced editors. In fact, it almost seems as those who end up abusing the tools (aside from hacked accounts) were those who became too comfortable with the project. So no, I don't think you should trust anybody simply on substantial numbers of edits. -- Renesis (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As you quite rightly say, you're guessing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done any sort of serious analysis, but I have noticed that many of the desysopped admins had RfAs that passed by a very large margin. Perhaps how controversial a candidate is and how likely they are to be desysopped are not so connected after all? Captain panda 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you can see for yourself here, so actually, I misspoke, I was not guessing. -- Renesis (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a more systematic study, but I've looked at the RFAs of everyone who's been desysopped (as of last summer I guess) and, while some of their RFAs were near-unanimous, in the RFAs where there were serious objections they were almost always about civility. I never saw one where the only concern raised was lack of experience. This isn't to say experience isn't important, in fact it might mean we're doing a great job of screening against people so unfamiliar with policy and norms that they'd have to be desysopped due to incompetancy. But I think it shows we should really take most seriously the RFA concerns about civility... that's the strongest predictor of eventual desysopping. --W.marsh 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There was an admin survey done some time ago I think, that measured what people want most in a candidate. I think civility topped the list, so w.marsh's claim is surprising, although certainly true. Wizardman 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim only makes sense if the admins were desysopped for incivility. Otherwise it's a potential false correlation. Along the lines of "Most desysoppped admins were using Windows PCs and transcluded their RfAs between 21:00 and 06:00". How close was the correlation anyway? Statistically significant? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's closer than any other RFA oppose reason correlates to de-sysopping. And a lot of admins were de-sysopped largely for incivility... usually combined with abuse of admin tools. But you obviously can't oppose a non-admin at RFA for misusing admin tools. Your comment comes off as a bit hostile... I just think we should be aware of what RFA concerns show up in people who end up getting de-sysopped. There's no need for rhetoric about Windows PCs and so on. --W.marsh 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem with charges of "incivility". You misunderstand the point being made and/or resent anyone daring to disagree with you and Bingo! The incivility card gets waved around. Are there in fact any admins in your sample who were desysopped for incivility, as opposed to abusing their admin tools? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I remember why I don't watch this page any more.. sheeeesh. --W.marsh 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You made a very bold claim "But I think it shows we should really take most seriously the RFA concerns about civility... that's the strongest predictor of eventual desysopping" which you now appear to be unabe to substantiate. Sheeeesh indeed. BTW, I found your comment to be a "bit hostile". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particularly reason you are so concerned about incivility being taken seriously at RFA? It seems there might be. -- Renesis (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where have I said that incivility ought not to be taken seriously at RfA? Look back at what I have actually said. I am complaining about poor statistical analysis. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The very first thing I said in this thread was that I'd like to see a better study done. Then you attack me over not having perfect statistics... I started out by saying I didn't! --W.marsh 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one who made the very bold claim that civility was the "the strongest predictor of eventual desysopping". That was you. And to point out that your conclusion has no basis in verifiable fact is hardly an attack. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I said that is what I think, based on the study I did, which I fully explained was not thorough. I wasn't publishing my thesis and standing ready for a defense... I was just making an observation. That people get jumped on whenever they say anything here is why it's the same people here and nothing ever gets accomplished. --W.marsh 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I appear to be unwilling to stoop to this level of discourse. WT:RFA is a place where you could say "the sky is blue" and quickly get a condescending "I oppose! You're ignorant!" comment... it's been that for a while and doesn't seem to be changing. --W.marsh 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

W.marsh, you make a good point, but you are missing one fact: the reason that other "RFA concerns" don't show up prominently in those who have been de-sysopped may be because RFA is fairly good at catching other concerns. After all, it is an extremely strict process and I think it errs on the side of failing more users than it should than passing too many users. -- Renesis (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, W Marsh, I think you gave me something i can use as I assess my own assessment of noms. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, i took some flack for opposing a nom I considered incivil from his nominator-- a fairly powerful admin at that time. Dlohcierekim 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I did address that, though. That people aren't de-sysopped for incompetency probably means we're catching candidates who just don't know what they're doing, for example. --W.marsh 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>. Does anyone else find themselves laughing hysterically at the wonderful irony of incivil bickering happening about whether incivility is the cause of desysopping? Between a sysop and a rollbacker? Anyone? Keeper | 76 19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)