Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 30 March 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.

RfA %

Hey, I have just thought up of a new idea for the RfA template. Both TangoTango's and SQL's templates give the percentage of support. It would be nice for the template to use an additional template, with the text:

({{{1|0}}}/{{{2|0}}}/{{{3|0}}}) {{#ifeq: {{{1}}}{{{2}}}|0|0|{{#ifeq: {{{2}}}|0|100|{{#expr: {{{1|}}}/({{{1|}}}+{{{2|}}}) * 100 round 0}}}}}}% Support

which would show, for example:

(100/15/4) 87% Support

This way, it would be a nice way to see how progress is coming on the RfA. What do other's think? Soxred93 | talk bot 15:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the math, (or for others, maths), working? 100/15/4 is a great deal better than 16%. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's 86%. :P Wasn't this what I proposed yesterday? :) Rudget. 15:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Soxred93 | talk bot 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll attribute the idea to you Rudget - but remember under the Wiki free license, you've given it to the public domain : ). Seriously though, that's a pretty neat idea. Nice job Sox. Better to have it displayed along with the tally than just at the crat's NB or RfA talk. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it update automatically? If so, its a great idea. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That was the part (automatic updates) that has been discussed before - adding a bot task to individual RfA tallies. The problem as I see it is that the bot would have to run pretty frequently to keep the tally "current". Even running hourly, it would seem to lag behind some of the more "active" RfAs. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a bot adjust the percentage now anyway? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 16:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It does. Cool as this may be (and potentially handy for other purposes), it doesn't actually solve anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant, is where users update the tally at the top on their own, they just modify a template instead. It doesn't count the amount of supports/opposes. Soxred93 | talk bot 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But it still requires an editor (preferably the participant) to edit the tally, so this template isn't needed there. The bots can generate the percentages on their own, so this template isn't needed there, either. As a result... it doesn't provide any use to the RfA system. Again, nothing personal, it's just the way it is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but wasn't that bot denied? Soxred93 | talk bot 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. Perhaps we're talking about two different things? Where are you envisioning this template being used? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On every RfA page. Soxred93 | talk bot 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I thought you mean on the summary template. However, I'm not a fan of the percentage being on the RfAs themselves; there's already a strong argument for removing the tally altogether, and those concerns rest primarily on the visible tally being too much of a symbol that RfA is a vote; added the percentage directly on the pages themselves is a slide towards that (in my opinion only). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting new topic EVula! I also believe that the tally shouldn't be there. Think about it: If you went to an RfA, saw 1/5/3, you would react, and probably !vote, differently than if you saw 5/1/3. Or 60/0/0 for that matter. I would support abolishing the tally all together. An analogy (and don't lecture me about !voting): Say during elections, before entering the little booth to cast your opinion, someone came up to you and said "By the way, Candidate X right now has 87% support." Or "Candidate Y has only 12% support". It introduces bias. New topic:

Anybody wanna get rid of the tally altogether?

Resolved – Removing tally wouldn't be a good idea -- Anonymous Dissident 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What does "Resolved" mean? Are we not allowed to keep talking about it? Are you claiming that there is no more to be said on the matter? It seems to me that we will know it is resolved when people stop talking about it, at which point nobody will need to be told. — Dan | talk 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess I jumped the gun. Just seemed like eevryone had cast it off with considerable vigour. -- Anonymous Dissident 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It can stay on BN, it can stay on every user page that adds it, it can even stay on WT:RFA. I motion for removing the tally completely from individual RfAs to remove the possilibilty of voter bias and pileon. To easy to support a 60/0/0 without looking at candidates qualities. To easy to oppose a 1/5/1 without looking at candidates' qualities. Maybe there's a good reason why a tally is there, but I'm not seeing it.

I don't see any reason to remove the tally. To do so would simply strengthen the delusion that RfA isn't a vote, by attempting to hide the evidence that it is. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so that's one !support. Or was that an !oppose. Crap (sorry Pedro, I mean Darn), I don't know if you agree with me or not MF.  :-)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, it was a !vote. ;-) FWIW, I am not in favour of removing the tally. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think removing the tally would change the way people vote: even if the tally wasn't there, RfAs at 1/5/1 would still receive pile-on oppose and 60/0/0 would still receive pile-on support. I think the tally is fine. Acalamari 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up in the past, and there has not been a consensus to remove it. While consensus can of course change, I still think there is little to gain by presenting people with less information. _(1 == 2) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all I needed to hear. Dropping the issue, thanks good editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there hasn't been a consensus in the past, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I'll continue to state I'm for it. I'll always be for moving towards anything that encourages more well reasoned and well supported arguments/opinions and less voting without substance. - Taxman 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the tally would increase the delusion that RfA isn't a vote, per Malleus Fatuarum. So keep it. At least it's more honest. And unfortunately, pileon will still probably happen for those that tend to anyway, as it's not that hard to see which way the wind is blowing after a relatively short time into most of the RfAs I've watched. IMHO. — Becksguy (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, what would be the problem with that delusion? Really RfA is a hybrid and as I said anything that moves it more towards the more well reasoned side of the spectrum would create greater value for the project. You ignored that part and also the damage the tally does in terms of encouraging thoughtless voting. It's not just about knowing which direction the RfA going, it's about giving the impression that the number is all that matters rather than the reasoning. - Taxman 06:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The tally is useful for providing a quick estimate about a candidate's progress - disposing of it creates the mirage that RfA is only a discussion, and that numbers are less important than they currently are. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 06:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the tally should stay. Becksguy is right. To remove it would be crappy. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. Sometimes swimming upstream is still right. :) - Taxman 06:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxman has a strong and rational argument for what should be. And yes, swimming upstream is sometimes right despite a "go with the flow" POV. In a rational world, tallies would not be necessary, AfDs would not count !votes either, even if unconsciously. I wish I knew how to avoid what sometimes looks like driveby or thoughtless voting. And it's a serious problem, from what I see. Strength of argument, as well as cogent and logical discussions would be the only deciding method. But then political elections would be decided on a purely rational basis also, instead of on the basis of attack ads, spin doctoring, and how much money is available. I personally wish it were so. But isn't the first step in fixing something to accept what it actually is, without filters and biases? Then decide what it should be. — Becksguy (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Well since there have been 10^googol proposals for a different RfA system and we still have this one, it appears organic change is the way to go. I also happen to think the hybrid system works and it is a rather efficient way to make the decision. The tally is one way of distilling the conversation into a measurement so that a decision can be made, but that does not need to be done before the decision is made. So in the end I believe that removing the tally is a seemingly small change, but again anything is worth it that shifts the focus to the strength of the reasoning and reduces the belief that numbers are the only thing that matters. - Taxman 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The downside though is that it would perpetuate the delusion that numbers are not the most important thing that matters. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Since they are not the most important thing... well, I hope that I can leave the conclusion up to the dear reader. :) Well then again maybe I am presupposing too much understanding of decision theory and the best way to gather information for the decision, but I'm not sure how I can explain more without repeating myself. - Taxman 12:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've argued this point a dozen times and it always seems to be answered with ILIKEIT, but what the hey, let's argue it again:

• When a tally is the first thing a person sees when viewing a request, there will undoubtedly be a prejudicial impact and/or a peer pressure effect on that person when they come to voice their opinion, conscious or not. People should be exposed to the nomination and the questions first, and then the opinions people have expressed, at which point they can count for themselves if they find that useful for them; they shouldn't come to the debate with the numbers already in their head.
• A lesser reason (but still a significant one) is that the tallies encourage the perception that RfA is only a vote. Weight of numbers is undoubtedly an important factor, but it's not a one-person-one-vote system. Opinions based on frivolous reasons can be given less weight, and opinions based on reasons that are widely agreed to be significant can be given more weight.
• Absolutely everyone who actually wants to see the tallies can do so with ease, by viewing Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard or the RfA Report template, or - as many people do - by transcluding the template onto their userpage somewhere. They can see all the tallies at once, plus the percentages, all automatically updated and with links to the individual requests. Indeed, I know that many people bypass WP:RFA completely and just use the template: removing the tallies would have absolutely no effect on these people.

--bainer (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If somehow this information harms you in some way, just don't look. But for those who find it useful it should stay. Really, if you don't like it just don't use it. _(1 == 2) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading list for nominees

Hi, a suggestion. Would it help to tell nominees up front what nominees are expected to know? To prepare for my RfA I read about Misplaced Pages:Administrators which explains Becoming an administrator and studied the Misplaced Pages:Guide to requests for adminship as well as all of the instructions in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship and some Past nominations (and can see now that reading more of these might have helped everyone). Like "learn all Misplaced Pages policies" or "read everything linked from the Admin reading list" or "read the Admin how-to-guide"? Or "don't read all the 'See alsos'" or don't read everything linked from... but do read...." or "don't overload yourself but do read everything in 'Related reading'", or whatever the case may be. Just thought I would pass along my experience. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not add it to WP:ARL? Make a new section "becoming an administrator" or whatever. Malinaccier (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents from my talk page - I don't agree with that being prepared for an RfA needs to be spelled out word for word for a candidate; simply taking a week or so and observing all the RfAs should give one a good idea of the knowledge necessary. I would think that learning all the Misplaced Pages policies is de rigueur and a pretty obvious prerequisite for adminship. Take this opinion as a mild observation. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nobody wants to overload anybody with required reading in areas in which they have no interest. If an interest develops later, then people will swap in the information they need. Maybe this wasn't such a great idea. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Susanlesch withdrew Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Susanlesch and now wants to leave Misplaced Pages, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikimedia Commons. That is sad. Maybe people who know her (I don't) have something to say to her? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to happen quite a lot. A decent editor gets a kicking at RfA and feels that their contributions have been weighed in the balance, but have not satisfied those baying for blood because of some historical perceived breaches of wikiquette. Sad. I hope that Susanlesch will take some time for reflection, and come to realize that it's content contributors like her that have made wikipedia what it is, not the kiddie admins who see "incivilty" behind every shadow. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Well, overreaction is sadly common after a failed RfA, when people take things too personally. Leaving Misplaced Pages in a huff is almost never a good move - and it's too bad, because in a few months she could have sailed through an RfA. It's not like she isn't able to continue to do all the things she's been doing so well all along. I recently failed an RfA, too, but I realized I can still have a relatively major positive impact on Misplaced Pages, and if all those people voted to oppose, maybe there really was a reason to not hand me the mop quite yet. I would really advise her to just take a few days or a week of Wikibreak before making some final choice to leave. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, PrimeHunter and Malleus Fatuorum and Tanthalas39. I just happened to see you are talking about me here. Nice of you but no need, and I'd rather not see this discussion here if you don't mind, because it is unlikely I would ever see it, besides being off topic. Take care and wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving back to the topic thread. Over at Misplaced Pages:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching#Checklist_before_requesting_coaching we have a fairly decent checklist of the Big Things people look for at RfA as well as a self-coaching section of places users can help out to gain experience. MBisanz 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback on my adminship criteria?

So, I actually went and made one. In keeping with the spirit of no-big-deal; User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a tad feline-centric. Doesn't quote Jimbo, so automatic 5 yard penalty. Fails the 1FA criteria, as well as lacking the required "Will you add to AOR?" statement. But overall a fair attempt at RfA rules, I !vote a solid Neutral. MBisanz 08:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

All issues addressed. Or just to piss off the FAC regulars (ie. me);  Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote oppose, I'm allergic to cats. And in other news, I don't like CAT:AOR Maxim_(talk) 13:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's about wrapped it up. Rudget. 13:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is humor a breach of policy? If so, DMHO should be indefinitely blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 14:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But to be serious for a moment, the whole "being an admin is no big deal" gets touted way too often. I know that's been said/discussed multiple times. If it ain't a big deal, there wouldn't be a rigorous examination. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 14:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Wisdom, and I've banged on relentlessley about it. WP:DEAL is not only an extremly old quote but seems (to me) to be used without understanding. Being an admin is no big deal - you're hardly likely to impress your mates down the pub with it. Admin tools are a big deal, as their misuse can be at best a pain for other admins and at worst costly to the project in terms of loss of editors. Pedro :  Chat  14:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been able to impress people because I'm an admin. However, all my friends are computer techies like me. Never been able to impress a girl with it, though. Useight (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep - that's because the term administrator carries a heavy implication of authority..and almost everybody has heard about Misplaced Pages. I keep telling people I wish to be one soon in the future and they get wide eyed. I immediately qualify my statement and temper their..err..enthusiasm. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly lacking in ferrets. This may be due to systemic bias on Misplaced Pages, rather than a problem with any individual user. Dlohcierekim 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro, but the NOBIGDEAL quote isn't overused in my opinion. I've encountered users who had such a mistaken view of adminship before. Nousernamesleft 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's astonishing. So if you're an administrator your GA nominations get nodded through? I'm with Pedro, being an admin is no big deal, but having access to the tools is most certainly a big deal. Otherwise why would it be so hard to prise them out of the hands of incompetent admins? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the look of Giggy's new criteria, but I personally like WP:WTHN? :) Anthøny 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is scary and really should not be supported. And yeah Anthony, Ral's is always going to be a classic :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nodding through an admin's GA reviews is exactly the opposite of no big deal. Adminship should not be so big a deal that admin's get preferential treatment. We should be admins more because we can be trusted than trusted because we are admins. I guess it's as big a deal as the community is willing to make of it. Arrrg. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First RFAs that aren't used

I'm nominating Cobaltbluetony for adminship in a short while, but I just wanted to ask a question here first. Tony had a first RFA back in 2006, linked (here) but it never went live. So when I'm nominating him now, do I delete that page and renew with this nom, or do I create a second attempt RFA page like mine? The former being the most making sense to me at this moment in time, but I just wanted to make sure. :) Rudget. 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was never transcluded and never considered by the community, I would just update and edit as needed to make it current. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's question about puzzling stuff in RfA

What really annoys me is that RfA is become a 20-question examination. Some questions are certainly fine, like recall, rollback standards... But for stuff like what's the difference between a block and ban, it's a pointless question that adds even more stress to someone who's already stressed. Is the questioner too lazy to look through the users' contribs and find that they speak for themselves? The biggest problem with such a question is that it has one definitive answers that anybody can look up in policy pages. It doesn't require any thought but it still adds stress. The questions are quite optional, and I suggest to all current and prospective nominees to ignore such a question. Maxim_(talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I had to do more than 20 questions to get my drivers license. I really don't think it is that much of an ordeal. While it is true that many questions have stock answers, it is also true that sometimes people either bring new insight to the question, and sometimes they show their ignorance in the subject altogether. I have found the questions to be very useful in evaluating the candidates in the past. In regards to the option of ignoring the questions, all the power to you, they are indeed optional. _(1 == 2) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the questions tough (as they should be), they're way over my head. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on the last part of your post Maxim, remember that the "optional" status of the questions is no more than a title (at least it seems that way to me): in the RfAs that I've participated in, virtually everyone who didn't answer the questions (even one) got opposed. Interestingly enough, not answering the questions seems to lead to more opposition than gaps in policy knowledge. Acalamari 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And somehow community consensus was, on WP:RFCRFA that RfA is not broken... Maxim_(talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because the community is broken. — CharlotteWebb 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing about the block/ban question, and I agree Maxim that it is a policy question with a "definitive answer", is how many candidates get it wrong. Does that make them a good candidate? Answering a question without looking at two very easy policy pages to copy/paste an answer? Also, ignoring the optional questions, why ideologically sound, generally generates more opposes than necessarily policy knowledge/contribution history would merit. .02 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

(EC)What I like about the block/ban question is that, in my opinion, anyone who does not take the 180 or so seconds to look up that difference has signified that they are less likely to take time to research the appropriate policies when the matters get more complex. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)I respectfully disagree (with Maxim). I understand your point, but in the last couple days there have been several RfA candidates that answered one of the various ban/block questions wrong. I see it as a barometer of RfA preparedness - perhaps even a WP:SNOW precurser. It saves everyone a lot of time if we can say, "Nope, you haven't done your policy homework, come back in a few months" and close the RfA. Yes, most candidates can answer the question predictably and correctly, but it helps weed out the poor candidates. Tan | 39 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(Cool new sig Tan:-) And to add to my severly edit conflicted statement above, What if a n00b asked them a policy based question? Should they, as an admin, research and know the answer, or just answer whatever they think up? RfA is a "test" (right or wrong) for future adminship. Not that we admins don't make mistakes, but RfA day is like school-picture day. Comb your hair, brush your teeth. Put a nice shirt on. Smile. Answer questions correctly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecxO_O)There's a huge difference between something like adminship at Misplaced Pages and getting a drivers' license. If you can't properly drive a car, you can kill someone. A user can look at some projectspace contribs instead of asking the same question to everyone. If I were at RfA, I'd look at User X's answers, who's passing 67/0/0 and I'll rewrite in my own words. Maxim_(talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I never did any policy homework, I actually commented instead of mindlessly reading through 40+ pages. Maxim_(talk) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I had more than 20 questions on my grade 9 math quiz. It is not a lot of homework. _(1 == 2) 17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an RfA. Not real life. Practical experience is more important than theoretical knowledge. Maxim_(talk) 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle, it's rare to see a candidate for Adminship with practical experience in blocking or banning... UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How do questions about theoretical knowledge diminish from real life experience? Also, Misplaced Pages is part of real life, so is RfA, it is not some role playing game, we are real people working on a real project. I don't see your distinction. _(1 == 2) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the one that has been annoying me the most is this "cool-down block" buzz-phrase, as if anybody is going to know what the hell it means in this context. Lucky thing I happen to read, with great amusement, every single RFA that floats by, otherwise my response (if ever asked) would likely be "Ummm... 'cool down' from what? Edit-warring? Personal attacks? Jungle fever?" rather than just "cool down from being (apparently) angry for some reason" which is the jargonized meaning. I say "apparently" believing that most of us sound angrier than we actually are. — CharlotteWebb 17:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose you for that answer. Cool down blocks are never to be used. Ever ever. Answering anything different is automatic proof that you belong elsewhere. Just kidding. Levity for levity's sake here, that's all.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen an admin post on a users talk page, that the admin is blocking the editor to allow them to cool down. These were explicit statements, nothing inferred. The text read (with artistic license) I am temporarily blocking you to allow you time to calm down. I won't post the diff, as that would only be throwing someone under the bus. I neither agree nor disagree with the admin actions, but post this rather out of frustration due to hearing and seeing two different things. Yngvarr (c) 18:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only admin that just made a quick check through his blocking log?  :-). Bus! bus! bus! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr I do not know the context, but "cool down" is bloody vague at face value. You can ask someone to "cool down" without making it obvious whether you are referring to the person's attitude or behavior or both or neither. — CharlotteWebb 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be a valid question if expressed in plain English, which if I correctly understand the writer's intent — not that I've bothered to check who wrote this crap — would be more along the lines of:

"Is it appropriate to block User:X on the grounds that you believe User:X is angry and likely to make bad edits?"

Of course that would be too easy to answer, to the extent of being an equally pointless question. — CharlotteWebb 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer more optional questions and was hoping for them to appear on my RFA. I kept checking back, anxious to answer them. I got a few and enjoyed answering them. Useight (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish we'd expand the automatic questions. Besides AOR and Ban/block and cool down block, I think there are several other behavioral and technical questions that an Admin-to-be should know. Like what is the unblock email address? Can you review a block you placed? Where do you refer someone with a major complaint (OTRS, Designated Agent, Arbcom OFFICE)? Open proxies and jumping IPs? Mediawiki space? Cascading protection & &bot=1 functions? These are all things that surprisingly few admin candidates know about IMO. MBisanz 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what's an OTR? Why do we have so many OTRs? IPs can jump? Well, probably because the left their proxy open. How embarassing. And who's a mediawiki? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I once read that "The community grants administrator status to trusted users ...". What questions do you think would be helpful in determining whether a candidate is trustworthy? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could peruse the latest RfAs or take a look at the archives to see what questions the community generally asks for potential administrators. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I could, but that would only be a useful exercise if I believed that the answers to the questions which are usually asked would help to determine the trustworthiness of the candidate. Technical and policy questions are easily answerable by anyone who can RTFM and I don't see any correlation between the ability to read instructions and regurgitate them on the one hand and trustworthiness on the other.

What I really want to know is whether the candidate is likely to do any of the silly things I've seen the small number of dim admins do. Recent examples include, but are not limited to, reviewing their own blocks, appointing themselves an arbcom of one, issuing cool down blocks, making up new CSDs on the spur of the moment, and using the extra buttons to "win" an argument. Flat out asking people "Do you ever do stupid things?" will not, I suspect, get a very useful answer. People who do so frequently will say "Never", the clueful are likely to say "Sometimes".

Standard Q1 is fine because the answer to that can be compared with the candidate's experience. Standard Q2 should probably be inverted as even the very dim indeed can answer the current version well, so something like "Please describe the worst thing you've done on Misplaced Pages". Perhaps I'd invert standard Q3 as well, giving something like "Please describe the last/worst dispute you have had on Misplaced Pages". That would usually do for me, although some candidates will always need to be asked about blocking and banning and WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. If you genuinely have sufficient doubts to be asking the 22nd question in an RfA, and aren't merely grandstanding, have the courage of your convictions and just oppose the candidate. Better for everyone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I really want that to be a standard question: "Do you ever do stupid things?" Do it!. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

These are questions I have sometimes found useful. Dlohcierekim 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are some exemplary questions! Don't be surprised if I lift them for ADCO. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see Admins have a broad proficiency, which is why I ask the odd technical questions. Another question and I know this is controversial, might be asking an admin how they'd handle having their RL identity outted on a certain website. Also, maybe some thing they ~~~~ saying they understand all major policies and agree to abide by them. More for those admins who claim they didnt know they couldn't review their own block or both block and protect a user talk, before letting a review occur. MBisanz 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with "no-one knows what the hell 'cool-down block' is supposed to mean" - I've been here three years, and I tripped up on it. And yeah, having an opinion does seem like grounds for a speedy oppose these days. Sceptre 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the difference between a block and a ban - everyone assumes there's an obvious answer. Is there? The disctinction is pretty subtle. And I'd be interested to learn what people think is the difference, if any, between an indefinite block and a siteban. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing to consider: the current questions are open ended. That is, there are not right and wrong answers. Questions like "What's the difference between a block and a ban?" do have correct and incorrect answers. The problem with making such questions standard is that they quickly become a test of nothing other than familiarity with RFA. Editors with bad judgment who regularly participate in RFA will know the correct answers, editors who don't regularly browse RFA will be the ones who potentially get caught up. Questions with right and wrong answers are good for admin coaching, as they're essentially a Socratic method of teaching our customs. But as standard questions on RFA they'd quickly accomplish little beyond supporting RFA regulars from non-RFA regulars, and that's not actually a very useful development. --JayHenry (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not allowed to vote?

My vote at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Martijn Hoekstra is beiong reverted by Husond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), isn't this cheating. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It sure is. Nobody can delete another editor's vote in an Rfa. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Squeak - it's not live yet and isn't transcluded onto the main page. You're obviously entitled to add it back when it begins. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the Rfa wasn't ready 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's okay. I've decided to stop reverting your oppose. Might come handy. Húsönd 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Textbook

I removed this from the main page; it was transcluded before it was created. I was in the process of trying to talk Textbook out of transcluding it, but got reverted once the page was created . What good does re-transcluding this RfA do? Textbook is going to get SNOWed. Maybe we lose a promising contributor (of course, maybe we don't). I wish that the user had been given a chance to reconsider after my post to his talk page. Darkspots (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just communicate with Textbook and explain the situation civily. It shouldn't be re-transcluded as the snowing will just place additional frustration on the editor and waste the time of some of the other editors who need to oppose and the close it. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was retranscluded; you opposed. Accordingly, I don't understand your post. Darkspots (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So then what's the point of carrying on this discussion? It's going to snow. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is, it shouldn't have been re-transcluded. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask EVula? I don't think SNOWable RfA's are generally reverted - they are closed as failed, and the appropriate entries made. You can convince him to withdraw it, but I don't think reverting it after comments have been made (or even before, for a good faith effort to create a nom) is a good idea. Avruch 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the RfA because it was transcluded before it was created. Obviously removing a nonexistent RfA is in order and not why I'm posting. The point to this discussion is that there should not be a need to retransclude RfAs that were originally malformed, that have subsequently been fixed, by anyone but the contributor candidate. EVula is hardly alone; many people do not think twice about transcluding any RfA they find. I'm not so much saying EVula was wrong as saying that we should all try to discourage obviously inappropriate RfA candidates from going through the process--at the very least, we shouldn't give them the ammunition to shoot their own feet off. Let them figure it out themselves, and maybe try to suggest that they choose another course of action. Darkspots (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the trigger has been pulled. I've closed the RfA under snow. Anthøny 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn, shame on me. I didn't even look at the RfA (due primarily to the fact that I'm at work). I just saw that the transclusion had been reverted strictly because the RfA didn't exist, saw that it was no longer a red link, and then reverted, since the whole reason it had been removed had been addressed. Poo. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

*trouts EVula* :) It's not a huge deal, the RfA's closed, and I don't think anybody here's going to take mortal offence to your actions. Just make sure you read more thoroughly in the future! Best regards, Anthøny 20:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm only pissed at myself because I am (or used to be, at least) quite active in locking down RfAs like that: sub-1k edits, etc. I'm not so much embarrassed as I am angry that I missed out on one. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're getting old. :P Useight (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guitorchestra

To Whomever may read this:

My name is Mychael John Thomas, and I am the originator of a concept and trademark for GUITORCHESTRA (TM). The name has been documented on my website, originally on line in 1997, on IAC, where my music is for sale, and on MySpace, where it is linked to the sites afore mentioned. I would like to add my history in the form of an article. Can you please help me? I was the first one to use the term in ANY format. I would like credit for this, as a new work is in progress. Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

Mychael John Thomas (75.139.58.152 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

It would probably suit you better to ask this in the help desk. Personally, I don't really see how this would be notable enough for an article. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship

At Misplaced Pages talk:criteria for speedy deletion, we find this:

WP:RFA culture now places much weight on accurate C:CSD tagging. So yes, sadly, it has become a race to place the tag first.

A newbie creates a new stub article. Then adds more to it ten minutes later. Then more still after another ten minutes. And so on. Right? Wrong: the way it now works is that the initial stub is tagged for speedy deletion and deleted within three minutes—often within two minutes. The newbie is disgusted and goes away and never comes back. The person who does this to the most newbies becomes an admin. That's how it works. And they don't bring any intelligence to the decision about what to tag for deletion. "I don't understand it effortlessly since I've never studied advanced physics, and it's too much work to think about it for a moment, so it must be crap. Delete! That's how to become an admin. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So sad, and so true. The problem is by no means limited to RfA though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that sad at all. If you actually look at new articles created by new editors, the majority are "Joe is crazy and his dog stinks" or "(Name of editor) was born July 15, 1992 and attends X high school and is really cool" or "Gnarpharg is a sound I make in my throat sometimes." These are articles that the second or third edit ten or twenty minutes later are very unlikely to improve enough that it no longer satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion. Edison (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict reply mainly to Edison) It doesn't just happen to newbies, though, as I found out around 2 months ago. I pointed out to the over-eager tagger that it might be an idea to give more than 3 minutes (the time it was) to allow someone to carry on editing the article, especially since his over-eager tagging had caused edit conflicts that meant I was unable to add sufficient detail to the article because of his speedy deletion tag! I got a lecture back about how to edit an article, which I thought amusing as it meant he had not attempted to look at my editing history at all. However, he did say he would wait 3 minutes which is all he had left anyway, and I had to point out that I said "longer than 3 minutes" and had suggested substantially longer than that. He just replied with "I got the message", but I note that later messages on the editor's talk pages are complaining about the same behaviour, so I guess he didn't get the message after all. I think this borders on the disruptive at times if it is done frequently, and I would certainly not shrink from pointing this out in any RfA.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stretch, please tell me that your initial article, when you first hit the "Save" button, was not equivalent to one of the typical three examples I cited, which represent actual deletions I did in the last couple of days? Say it ain't so! Edison (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I can't recall clearly now, and don't have the time to find it, but it had content, valid categories, a reference, and even an infobox.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how badly savaged RfA candidates get if they mistakenly tag articles for speedy deletion, I'm not convinced that tagging articles for speedy deletion incautiously would be a wise way to try and earn "points" towards adminship. Whilst it is certainly true that experience of tagging for speedy deletion is likely to benefit a candidate, I don't think more tagging equals more support. Similarly, fewer well reasoned XfD contributions are likely to be viewed in a more positive light than simply "voting" delete on hundreds of discussions. Those thinking of applying for adminship should be thinking about demonstrating the sound judgment they propose to bring to that role, not the volume of work they would do if appointed. WjBscribe 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If an article is even remotely useful, I am starting to userfy more often. This takes care of a lot of issues at once, and doesn't really piss anyone off. Experienced editors should already know to build their article to minimum standards in their userspace before "releasing into the wild". Tan | 39 01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But experienced editors should not always have to build their articles to "minimum standards" on their user spaces before they start to create them, and nowhere, when one fist creates a page, is there a notice recommending that one should have done this. In the case I was involved in, it was already arguably of a minimum standard for a stub article, dealing with a notable subject (a civil parish in a county within England), complete with references. I think that this option is useful, however, but I think telling people they should do this is not a good way to combatting a trigger-happy reaction to new articles without elementary checks on who was the creator of the new article. Or is this going to be another new means by which suitability for being an admin is to be assessed, without actually giving anyone a clue that is?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the tags are fine to just slap on for most pages, but A3 should be used with caution. That's the one that can stop a newbie trying to create a good page --Chris 02:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As we all know, anyone who creates an article has a bold text box staring them in the face saying, "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted". Fair warning. It's hard to draw the line between overly aggressive tagging and letting no-context articles slip into the encyclopedia, I think. This is veering rapidly into a village pump type of discussion, but I wonder if there's a way to change how articles are deleted under A3. Instead of speedy (i.e. instant) deletion, if they could get a tag that stays on the article for a period of time like an hour or two, then can either have the tag removed or the article deleted. Complicated, but I think Chris points out a real problem. Darkspots (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More new article I see presently added to Misplaced Pages that time is unlikely to improve. Should RFA potential candidates be wary of tagging them, so they have lots of time to add refs and rise to Featured article status? See The periodic table of elephants:"the periodic table of elephants is a table classifying pachyderms based on their size and plce of origin. it was created in 1920 by renowned german zoologist hans gubenmeister. it today is widley used in most countries in europe asia and africa." It was tagged for speedy deletion one minute later. Bless the tagger. Edison (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin, it's easy for me to say...over aggressive tagging isn't the problem. Over aggressive deletion is. Anyone can tag an article. Only people who have the confidence of the community have the buttons to delete. I try not to tag anything that I don't think qualifies, and I stand by the majority of tagging that I've done. At the same time, I hope that admins deleting pages I've tagged have taken an extra moment themselves to verify that the tags are legit. --Onorem♠Dil 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As a rough estimate, I'd say that 90-95% of tagging is correct. I probably refuse about 5-10% of speedy deletion tags, and I always err on the side of caution. One thing I would say is that sometimes editors are too quick to use the G1 tag when "nonsense" actually has quite a narrow definition. Often such wrongly-tagged G1's are valid A1, A3 or A7's, but many aren't. Anyway, probably veering off-topic here.Black Kite 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)For what it's worth, I do recognize that the tagging itself can be a problem. Even if the tag is removed, a new editor might be lost if they feel that their original contributions are about to be unfairly deleted. --Onorem♠Dil 03:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think articles are tagged quickly because they have to be, or they will no longer be on the first page of special:newpages and harder to find and delete if they are never improved. Useight ( talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not going to deny this problem exists, but just three small points: 1.) Exactly what is the meaning behind the title of this section? Is it a common view that most candidates who are granted administrator status are excellent SD taggers, or is it just obnoxious sarcasm? 2.) Newbies are instructed to develop their articles in adherence to our guidelines before clicking the save button. They are given the opportunity to make a suitable stb. 3.) By far, the most common articles created are absolute trash/nonsense. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat it's not just the newbies... the other day I forgot to write an article in my user space. Saved it. Went in to edit it, before I had a chance to edit it, it was speedily deleted per A7. Needless to say, I was not pleased. A lot of articles do need to be speedily deleted, but not all. Discretion should be used to see who is creating the article (do they have a track record or are they a true newbie) and has enough time passed to give the article a chance.Balloonman (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to get an argument from me about that. The tagging has become rampant. Goodness knows I've tagged rapidly a few times. In order to curb the problem, I suggest the following: 1.) Check the history and identify the author, check their contributions. 2) If you have any doubt when tagging for A7, don't (contemplate the relevant notability tag). 3.) People need to stop tagging every short article as "no context", as the subject can easily be ascertained. 4.) Add a stub template for short articles and add helpful article templates to identify potential problems. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just my two cents, and more than likely written in the guidelines. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think there are 2 types of CSDs. One would be attack pages, blatant spam and copyvios, and genuine nonsense. But then there are the notability and context CSDs, which are an entirely different animal. I wonder how fierce the opposition would be to a 1 or 2 day PROD for all notability based deletion propositions? MBisanz 08:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's kind of what I'm talking about above. I think it would still need to be under the speedy rubric rather than PROD (PROD tags can be removed by the creator), but we could require that A3 and A7 tags to be placed on articles for a period of time before deletion. OR strongly suggest to administrators that any article with the remotest hint of merit be given a period of time for development (6 hours? 24 hours?), because there are plenty of A7 articles that probably should be deleted on sight. Darkspots (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that far more often than formerly, I have recently seen good articles tagged for speedy deletion by people who were unwilling to know what the articles said before they tagged them. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and these are the people who eventually have failed RfAs because of overzealous CSD tagging. It's a problem, unfortunately, and when admins are asked "why did you delete my article" for the 50th time that day, we/they need to remember to be civil/polite. It's only fair - we were all newbies once too. Keilana| 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion really is getting into something that is more relevant to the village pump. Per the original poster of this topic though, bad CSD taggers tend to not pass RfA (don't know whether I was lucky or not :p). Sephiroth BCR 08:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem has to do in part with the understatement in the first paragraph of WP:PATROL#Patrolling new pages. Is it meant to be an understatement? I guess that a lot of people don't read it as one and believe that tagging Crustaceans in Byzantine hagiography 15 minutes after its creation is OK if they have followed this process. Unfortunately this means that its creator, after a 2 hours' absence for breast-feeding, nappy changing and a few other household duties, will learn that we don't want her expertise.

There is also a psychological component. If someone patrols an article, they want to feel that they are being useful. They want to click a button. Not being allowed to press the "patrolled" button because they don't have the necessary knowledge to assess an article no doubt creates frustration in some editors. (This paragraph is speculative and based on introspection when I just patrolled a new article for the first time in my life.)

We need to change the process. Blatant nonsense and attack pages need to be deleted immediately. Other CSD articles need to be deleted before the author has invested too much time, to avoid drama when it is finally deleted. The current process is skewed towards the first problem and to radical concerning the second. Perhaps the ideal solution would be a technical one supporting a second stage of new pages patrol. Instead of marking a page as patrolled, it could be marked for repatrolling. This would occur, say, after 3 days or 10 edits to the article, whichever happens earlier. It would be inserted into Special:NewPages at that stage. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...and now I just found the article titled Bochica. User:Excirial tagged it as patent nonsense. Then User:SatyrTN deleted it, saying there was not enough context to identify the subject. I'd never heard of the subject, but I identified it in seconds using Misplaced Pages and Google. Clearly these two users couldn't be bothered. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly resent being singled out for your example. The version I deleted was one sentence, thirteen words, some of them spelled wrong. It didn't qualify as a stub, didn't assert any notability, and was labeled by another editor as "patent nonsense", which it certainly seemed. Futhermore, it had been tagged for three hours, plenty of time for the article's creator or anyone else to have removed the speedy tage, added context to it, anything to make it suitable for keeping. I may agree with your arguments, but this is the wrong article to use as an example. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen words with clear meaning doesn't qualify as a stub? Being a god of a culture isn't an assertion of notability? There are two types of patent nonsense, and the article was neither. It already had context, all anyone (including you) had to do was correct the typos and wikilink the relevant words. The fact that you've never heard of the subject means that you should look it up, or else refrain from taking any action. –Pomte 18:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The typo "mitology" was particularly unfortunate there, since it does make the article incomprehensible. I have to agree with SatyrTN's deletion.

We've known even before the Mzoli meats incident that every new stub should have at least one reference or external link to establish notability. The message presented when a new article is created directly asks the author to add references, or else the article may be deleted, so nobody should be surprised. Personally, I haven't had trouble with people deleting my stubs, even on highly esoteric subjects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the thirteen words, two were spelt wrongly, but their meaning was clear, within the context of the article using the word "god". Consequently, I do not accept that it rendered the article incomprehensible. Although I have only involved myself in nominating deletions occasionally, I thought it was only polite and sensible to do a web search, etc prior to nomination, just in case it was more a problem with my own knowledge rather than the article itself. I'm surprised that this elementary precaution is not almost universally done, and I suggest some appropriate guidelines be edited to include this advice, if it is currently absent from them. If the web search threw up references, then I would simply add them to the article in order to start it off with a good track record with referencing, but I am sure this is also not a universal strategy. Indeed, I've just added one! I think this particular case was unfortunate.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate. But I don't think we can reasonably expect people looking at CSD backlogs to research each article before deleting it, especially since by all accounts 95% of the articles tagged as nonsense really are nonsense.

The 'nonsense' criterion has to be read as referring only to the literal content of the article, not to its possible content. In this case, the article was, for all reasonable purposes, indistinguishable from a random "Earloben is the god of corn, well known in Iowa" article. Did anyone ask the creator (politely) why he or she didn't heed the advice to add a reference? Maybe if we follow up on some of these problem articles, we can find a better way to inform new users about our requirements. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carl, above, that spelling "mythology" as "mitology" made the original article incomprehensible enough that SatyrTN's deletion is acceptable. I don't want to call into question the experience of anyone participating in this discussion, but Special:Newpages is simply insane. Like tryin' to drink from a firehose, as the saying goes. We need to support new contributors, but watching this page for an hour or two justifies speedy deletion policy in a visceral way. If anyone here hasn't done this, please do so before singling out individual administrators for criticism. Darkspots (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Incomprehensible"?? It should have been obvious to anyone that "mythology" was intended. I saw that instantly and I'm as far from an expert as you can get on that subject. Obviously a non-native speaker of English wrote the article, and the misspellings were easy to fix, including that of "mythology". Michael Hardy (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it is often a difficult job, given the amount of rubbish one sees being added or created on occasion. I would think enquiring why the person did not include a reference would be useful, especially since I found one which was very simple to add in virtually no time at all. However, along with improvement in the behaviour of article creators, there are two more stages that need to be mentioned and clearly separated, since they can be mixed up together in ways which might hinder any closer examination: the first is the act of adding the Speedy Deletion tag to the article; the second is the action prompted by the placement of that tag. It does not take an administrator to add the speedy deletion tag to an article, and so perhaps we should encourage more responsible people to take their turns at the first stage or task, emphasizing that looking at some articles with a view to tagging them for speedy deletion might just mean spending short amount of time improving them. As for the second stage or task, if the workload is too much, then there probably there is a need to be able to create more people who can make decisions about speedy-deletion-nominated articles (as far as I am aware, one must be an administrator to be able to do this.) This need not mean creating more administrators if appropriate changes could be made, but it could mean this. And that brings us back to the issue of being able to better specify the characteristics of good behaviour one might be expected to see in good administrators. "Point scoring" on the basis of number of successfully nominated deletions, etc may not be the best way, if we think there is something at fault in the present process, for example.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating in user space

I have just one comment: People should not have to create pages in their userspace, to prevent them from being deleted. This is a wiki. A wiki is most beneficial when people can collaborate on articles to bring them up to speed.

Let me repeat the key phrase: People should not have to create pages in their userspace.

Did I mention that the moment people start creating pages in their userspace... that's a really really bad sign, and whatever the cause is must be eliminated asap?

So you're saying CSD tagging is encouraging people to create pages in their userpsace first?

Ok, then let's kill CSD tagging. (Either that, or put a time delay on the CSD tags, so that they don't show up for admins until hours or days later... hey wait... isn't that PROD? Maybe other solutions could work too?)

Could I see a quick show of hands of people who create pages in their userspace?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I create articles in my userspace, because as an experienced editor I know that I need to satisfy wikipedia policy/guidelines. Although collaboration is what a wiki is about, if people come across an article that could be deleted, they are welcome to either improve it or tag it. You just have to rely on there being good admins who would choose to reject the speedy. Seraphim♥ 13:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I often write new articles on my own computer and then copy them here once I am sufficiently happy with them, but that's mainly to try to avoid inflating my edit count fixing all the errors I make when starting an article. I think that creating articles in userspace, rather than mainspace, is a practice we should discourage. Having the page in userspace has the effect of preventing others from improving the article, and goes against the point of a public wiki. If experienced editors feel they need to to it because of overly hasty CSD tagging, it's a sign the CSD system needs changed. I have advocated for a long time that the CSD criteria concerning importance, rather than spam, nonsense, libel, etc., should have a time delay like the image criteria do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't create articles in userspace. I might have once or twice, but I have no clear recollection of doing so. I certainly hope that does not become expected behavior for newbies or any editors (except perhaps for reprobates attempting to salvage their reputations). And I might note, the problem with CSD is not only with newly created articles. On more than a few occasions, a vandal defaced an established page, someone else came along and tagged it for speedy deletion, and another editor comes along and "poof" no more article. In some cases, I happened to notice the vandalism or CSD placement on my watchlist and was able to rescue the article in a timely manner. In other cases, it wasn't until some time later I notice a redlink that I knew should have an article and looked into the history. What is worse, when I pointed out the faulty deletions to the editors, I got snarly responses, as if it such accidental deletions were acceptable collateral damage in the war against vandalism and spam. I think such editors have misplaced their priorities. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I create articles in user space in order to avoid conflicts. This is based on what I heard and other people's experience, not my own. I don't mind doing it: Normally I only create articles on topics that I strongly care about, and I want to get them right before anybody else messes with them. I know this is not a good attitude, and I wouldn't do it that way if I didn't have a rational argument. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I create in my userspace for two reasons. One, I tend to write slowly, finding one source one day and another other days. So rather than put something live that isn't obviously notable, I hold off until I have something that seems to be good enough. Two, DYK's are based only on new article expansion. So if it took me 2 weeks to get an article from an unsourced one line stub in my head to something sourced, with formatting, etc, in the mainspace, it would be ineligible for DYK consideration. MBisanz 14:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I create in my sandbox because I like to get it right before I release it. I fix my typos, insert formatted inline references, edit copy, add categories, etc. Then after a few hours work I put it into article space. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I make my own sandboxes and lists of templates and to-do lists. I work from home, from work, and from cafes with wireless. Having these auxiliary pages helps me keep organized with my wikipedia work. They also help me work on articles not ready for publishing. Kingturtle (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am curious what your question has to do with adminship. Kingturtle (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Experienced editors should already know to build their article to minimum standards in their userspace before "releasing into the wild" was actually used above in rebuttal to the complaint that RFA favors rabid deletionists who, following an easy promotion, gain the ability to more efficiently and more assuredly alienate the contributing poplace.
Of course the real issue is a vast fundamental disagreement as to what "minimum standards" are, and what a reasonable timetable is for achieving them. — CharlotteWebb 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do it (in my sandbox) for the same reasons as Sbowers3. I just keep it there for a few hours while working on it. I also do this if I'm extensively changing an article. Both of these times, I do it when I need/want to make frequent saves, and that would needlessly clog up the page's editing history. нмŵוτнτ 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally blindsided

Here's what the article said:

Bochica is the protecter god, social planner and benefactor in the chibchan mitology.

It was completely irrational to label this article "nonsense" and to speedily delete it, but the person who deleted it is saying that the misspelling of "mythology" made the article incomprehensible. I was just completely blindsided by that claim. I would think that anyone who in those circumstances failed to understand that "mythology" was intended would be embarrassed to realize he had done that. Yet he's saying that in his defense. I am as far from an expert as you can get in the topic, and it was obvious to me that "mythology" was the word intended. I can understand it not being obvious to someone whose familiarity with the English language is limited. I can understand it not being obvious to a sixth-grader in at least some cases, even if the sixth-grader is intelligent. But when an admin asserts that he can't see such an obvious point, that makes it really difficult to sympathize with him. A person who is that mentally challenged shouldn't be trusted with an adminship. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but the above example is fairly ludicrous, and, frankly, alarming. The nomination is one thing, but the deletion is quite another. I'd say that an administrator that robotically deletes such articles should just be reprimanded (not with sanctions), but more of verbal admonishments. I'm sure after a few complaints, they'll start to pay a little bit more attention. No need to assert that they are unfit for adminship. Sometimes people get lazy. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To Michael Hardy: I do see your basic point. I've pulled A3 tags off of enough articles myself to appreciate your frustration. I'm not saying that the article was incomprehensible to a careful reader, just that it was at that point incomprehensible enough to make deleting it understandable. I do think that calling a specific editor "mentally challenged" is not acceptable. Darkspots (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from the originator of the remarks

1) I am disappointed to see this huge thread without anyone bothering to let me know. 2) I note my original remark has been stripped down to one line, losing a lot of context. 3) Out of my 3427 deletions one has gone to WP:DRV and I admitted my error in that case so I think I know whereof I speak regarding C:CSD. 4) I believe I am pretty well seasoned in the RFA process. 5) I stand by my remark that accurate CSD tagging is important at RFA. 6) I also stand by remark (not included in the original quote at the start of this thread) that admins should be more active in advising editors that their tags are incorrect - if the tagging editor is considering RfA this will rightly be viewed as a negative if they have a number of such comments on their talk page; If they are not considering adminship, well, frankly, no-one likes admonishments on their talk pages, no matter how gentle they are. Pedro :  Chat  21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it's a shame that a few erroneous speedy deletion tags invariably put RfA candidates in the gallows. My point about the admonishments, though, was simply a more lenient way of dealing with an administrator who can't catch blatantly false or inappropriate tags. Although, that becomes a problem too, because, as Pedro indicated, no one wants their talk page peppered with admonishments and WTF comments. I'm not entirely sure what can be done. Do you request a WP:RFC on the admin, make a note on WP:ANI? There is no one easy solution. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A speedy tag is a recomendation that an article should be quickly removed from an editor. It is for an administrator to determine if this removal is correct. However at RFA candidates can, self-evidently, not be judged on poor deletions. Therefore they are judged (in part, and particularly if Q1 indicates they wish to work in deletion areas) by their C:CSD tagging. The buck stops with the deleting admin, no question, but editors who also wish to also have admin buttons should move from seeing CSD tags as a "I think this should be deleted but I may be wrong, doesn't matter if I am" mentality to "I want to be an admin and I'm sure this is clearly inappropriate so I'm going to put it to CSD and not PROD or AFD". Editors not interested in adminship should be assured that they have a backstop in the administrative team. Editors who are interested in adminship should be sure they know policy and can demonstrate it, and this is one method. The solution is, therefore, simple. Admins do as they are entrusted and give proper consideration before hitting delete, and, as I suggested in the non-quoted element of my original remark, advise users when their CSD tagging is incorrect if they decide that the speedy request is wrong. I will hold my hands up now and say I haven't been doing enough of that. I will do so from now on. Pedro :  Chat  22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)