Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:16, 22 April 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.

Number of admins

I noticed that the current number of admins is 1531. But from what I remember there were over 2000 admins last year or so. Is the number of admins falling or is my memory failing me?

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest your memory David! The number of editors with the admin bit is rising. How many are using the bit is another thing again! Pedro :  Chat  11:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, okay. I was kind of worried there for a while. Thought something made admins leave in great numbers. So it was just a case of my bad memory for numbers.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this tells me that the number of active administrators has after an increase in 2007 rather fallen over the last weeks.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we easily create a list of the ~550 non-active admins so we can do so research as to why they are inactive? Kingturtle (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough to create, but what value will it serve? They reasons for inactivity will be variously carved up into "pissed of with WP in gerneral", "pissed off with the abuse" "pissed of with the politics" "got a new boy/girlfriend (maybe both?)" "doing my exams" "busy at work" etc. etc. etc. We can't force people to edit, and we can't force admins to use the tools. We have to recognise that we have less than 1,000 active admins and just live with it (or create more admins, obviously!). Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that if they can't be bothered to edit at all, they should have their admin flag removed, so that we have a more accurate number of actual admins. Majorly (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two such lists that I know of: Misplaced Pages:List of administrators, mentioned above, and User:BetacommandBot/Admin edits, which βC mentioned on WP:BN a few days ago.

Really, for a project like this, I take a contrarian view: I'm impressed that (based on βC's list) approx. 50% of admins have edited in the last day, 2/3 in the last week, and 4/5 since March 1st. Don't have data on frequency of admin actions, but as far as participation is concerned, that's a pretty good participation rate in a voluntary project, isn't it? --barneca (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the raw data on admin actions, timestamps only(but all of them) in my SQL server... I could answer any specific questions if presented in a form that such a DB can answer. _(1 == 2) 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly above, that if admins disappear for 3+ months, they should have their tools removed. Many of these admins are never coming back (some haven't edited Misplaced Pages in years). Apparently, though, it's a perennial proposal that has been rejected. Enigma Review 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the point? In the case that the admin does not comes back, stripping them of their tools will have no effect on our articles. If they come back for one single admin action, that is a net benefit to the encyclopedia that stripping would remove. If you want better stats, write better programs, don't disable our valuable contributors. Skomorokh 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a year at least rather than a few months. The way I see it, why have a false number of admins? Wizardman 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. If we know an admin isn't coming back, I'd prefer their account not have the tools, that's all. Look at the number of admins that haven't edited in well over a year. It's staggering. I personally don't feel anyone gone for a year or more is suited to come back and resume administrative actions anyway. Enigma Review 15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed views with removing the tools after a period of time, say a year: on one hand, there is a chance that they may not be familiar with policy when they return, but recently, Gator1 has come back after almost two years of inactivity, and he seems to be doing fine. Would removing the tools due to inactivity have been a good idea in his case? I don't think so. That's why I'm not sure removing the tools after some time is a good idea. Acalamari 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, or at least something worth exploring. If an admin comes back after a year, there could be a simple expedient way to re-sysop them, instead of having to do an RfA again. Tan | 39 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone is de-sysopped for inactivity, that would qualify as a non-controversial demotion in my opinion, meaning that any 'crat could restore the bit. Personally, I'd be fine with a system that removed the bit after a year (give or take) of inactivity, and would restore it to any editor who was active again for a month's time (giving them an opportunity to get reacquainted with the site) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Look at the number of admins that haven't edited in well over a year. It's staggering." Eh? Doing a quick count at User:BetacommandBot/Admin edits, I get about 90 admins that haven't edited in one year. That's hardly staggering. That's an impressively low number, actually. :) --Conti|✉ 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity should not be grounds for adminship removal. Having to re-activate admin tools later only adds to the remedial task lists that we should be working on thinning out. Kingturtle (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone has gone for a year, it'll be very unlikely they'll return (some have, but a tiny amount). Considering the number of bureaucrats, and the tiny amount of users that may return, it's hardly a difficult task. Additionally, there are several users who have gone for more than a year who have specifically said they were not coming back, or were retired. I don't see it as an issue. We're just keeping admins for the sake of keeping them, and I don't see any point in doing that. Majorly (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. How many admins in the history of this site have been gone for over a year and then returned? I'd bet it's less than 10. And if someone leaves the site and says they're sick of it, they're retiring, they're never coming back, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume they're not lying. :) I would fully support this, and saying it's adding more work is not a very good reason. It's very quick, and it's something that very rarely happens. Enigma Review 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if for no other reason than that I find it strange that we don't have an inactivity policy, whereas several other projects do (most notably, in my mind, being Commons and Meta). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as they don't have to go through another RFA if they do come back, I don't see a problem with this. --Kbdank71 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A simpler version could be that inactive admins (who haven't edited in three months or so) are removed from the active list but still retain the bit. That way we don't have the worrying that the admins might come back and then start asking for their bit back (which is already relatively simple, unless in exceptional cases) but the list is more up to date? (Apologies if this has been proposed before). Rudget (review) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Inactive admins are removed from the active list and retain the bit currently. 30 edits in last 3 months required to be "Active. Enigma Review 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rudget just proposed the current system...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

:) Apologies. I don't spend that much time monitoring the list so I don't how that refreshes itself and whatnot. Rudget (review) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed time and time again if we should de-sysop admins for not editing for a period of time and it has been rejected each time. Now I know consensus can change, but that usually coincides with some other sort of change, and I have not seen that yet. For the record, I am opposed to desysoping anyone who has not abused their tools. _(1 == 2) 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OK then, let's look at this. The main reason folks don't want an inactive account with sysop status lingering around is in case someone hacks it (right?) and does something like delete the mainpage etc. Therefore past history should reflect this. Now as far as I am aware, most of the shenanigans have occurred with accounts that have been more or less active until the time they went 'rogue' (?). Ultimately I am not in favour of removing sysop rights from inactive admins as I think it is an extremely rare occurrence. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Other than the minor niggle of having to do a bit of mental arithmetic to workout how many active admins we have, I'm failing utterly to see the value in desysopping. Desysopping for inactivity = more process as a steward will have to check that the admin has indeed not edited and then push a button (yeah, we could get a bot to check the times, but the steward would still need to double check the bot). In the (albeit unlikely) event the admin comes back 'crats have to waste time checking the desysop was non-controversial before pressing the button. Given that the developers have stated that an inactive account is a far lower risk than an active one for being compromised the only vague reason for desysopping due to inactivy is that the admin will no longer be "in touch" with current policy. Given that we select admins for their judgement one would assume a long inactive admin would have the judgement to reacquaint themselves with policy. Essentialy, to argue for a desysopping procedure for this reason seems to me to just add process with exactly zero net benefit, so why even bother? This is all perenial anyway, as noted abovePedro :  Chat  20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Must admit that I cannot see the point in "removing the bit" from inactive admins. They will have their reasons for inactivity, and quite often I'd imagine will come back. I say that as somebody who was inactive for at least 8 months. If an admin truly has had enough and wants to revoke the status then it's trivial for them to do so. There is no harm done whatsoever by an inactive admin bit. Thanks/wangi (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. From what I gather from the discussion above: The benefit of doing this is to make the number of admins posted places more accurate. Well, technically, the number of admins we have posted is perfectly accurate. Leaving doesn't make you not an admin, at least not unless this system is implemented. What you want is the number of active admins, which is easily available anyway. The cost of doing this is extra work, even if minimal, for the stewards and 'crats. I don't see how this makes any sense at all. It is more work for a very tangential benefit that is not particularly helpful. I'm not going to bother refuting the assertion that more admin accounts equals a greater probability that one will get hacked as it is utterly nonsensical.--Dycedarg ж 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead, why not have someone who knows what they're doing create an accurate Template:NUMBEROFACTIVEADMINS, and then the one benefit to this idea would be provided. --barneca (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for joining the conversation so late (it's been a busy day), but I'd also have to agree that it would serve no purpose to remove the tools from inactive admins, it's not like we have a limited number of permitted sysops. However, a list of active admins, as compiled by BetaCommandbot, is quite useful. Useight (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it was not necessarily intended, but this conversation is now being cited as a reason to oppose an adminship candidate who does not plan to be very active. This is a very counterproductive result. Antandrus has observed: "Many people, leaving the project, blame either the project or the people working on it for their departure, rather than recognizing that it is normal in life for one's enthusiasm to wane. It does with all things that we once found exciting. This is neither pessimistic nor tragic: one needs always to find new exciting things to do. All things in life change and end, and this includes one's involvement with Misplaced Pages. "He who kisses the joy as it flies/lives in eternity's sunrise." (William Blake, "Eternity") Enjoy it while you are here, and enjoy what you do after you are gone." There's nothing more that needs to be said, really, but please don't allow a good candidate to be scuppered for some illogical desire to increase a meaningless percentage of activity. --JayHenry (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this conversation could be cited for that, and please link to what you're referring to. Enigma Review 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly not make this up!  :) See here --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone (e.g Majorly) contacted inactive admins and asked them to consider a voluntary desysop? I'd say chances are some would be willing if you explained to them the situation about numbers and that they could be resysopped anytime, etc. John Reaves 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start on it right away. Contacting Clifford. LC doesn't have an e-mail on record, so can't reach him. Enigma Review 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of them don't even have an e-mail address on file, making it difficult to contact them. Enigma Review 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

None of them have valid e-mails on file. Must've been a different system back then. I tried the ones who've been inactive since 2006 and earlier, and any e-mail attempt results in a "no email address" message. Enigma Review 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Clifford agreed to desysop. He didn't know he still had an account. I guess I'll e-mail a 'crat? Enigma Review 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, and I realized that I've often seen RfAs opposed because the candidate didn't give good reasons why they need the tools. Shouldn't this apply doubly so to admins who aren't even on Misplaced Pages? I guess we're making it a high bar to jump in the first place, but once you hurdle it, you never have to worry again. IMO, if you don't even edit Misplaced Pages, let alone use the tools, you obviously have no use for them. Enigma Review 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some remarks on the above discussion (you know which one)

One of the many things my parents did right was to raise me with a thick skin (metaphorically--they didn't beat me!). A thick skin lets you accept and learn from legitimate criticism, rather than fear it. It's what enabled me to enjoy and appreciate my experiences in marching band and drum & bugle corps, with excellent instructors who had no intention of letting me get away with accepting crap from myself and so immediately pointed out every mistake I made that I did not discover myself (and whose example I currently try to emulate with my own band kids). So no, I'm really not bothered by people commenting when I oppose a self-nomination at RfA. Either they're asking a legitimate question, which I can learn from, or they're just being childish and immature, in which case they're giving me a great warning for future interactions. I'm not interested in drama. Perhaps at one point I was, but I've grown past that. I have some thoughts on what's best for the project, and I act on them. Most people are reasonable enough to realize that, even when we differ on specifics, we share the same ultimate goal--those are the ones who politely try to engage me. The rest...well, the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand put it best: "Those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. Leave them alone." I have better things to do with my time.

Are the more immature responses to my opposes incivil? Probably. But I don't care. To be perfectly honest, even apart from my general disdain for the idea of "rules" on Misplaced Pages I think just about everyone enforces WP:CIVIL much too strictly anyway. Intelligent people tend to be passionate people. If you're engaged in a dispute with someone, instead of whining to ANI about it like a little child I say let it go for a bit. As long as he calms down himself (which I think most intelligent, reasonable people, will do), you don't need to do anything. He's just blowing off steam. Let him do it--it keeps it from building up into something big. There's a reason the NHL doesn't penalize players for fighting on the rink, as long as it doesn't get too out of hand. I think we could learn from that.

Contrary to what a few have asserted above, when I first began opposing all self-nominations on principle, I did in fact respond to all the honest questions and comments--either on the RfA itself, on my own talk page, or on the RfCs that some of the more unreasonable individuals filed. I generally don't do it anymore because, frankly, no one has raised a novel point about them in the last several months. It's just the same questions over and over again, and understandably I get tired of answering them when with a little bit of poking around they can find my answers themselves. I used to point people to my talk page archives (just about EVERYTHING has been raised there at one point or another), but now I don't even do that because, frankly, it's getting old. So I don't worry about. When someone starts to harass me on a significant scale (such as Fredrick day) I may report it, but if it's just a one-off I don't worry about it. I may consider responding if I can do so without too much work and if it's necessary to correct a blatant falsehood (see my response to a comment of Transhumanist on his own RfA), but even then no guarantees. For the most part, I'm sick and tired of it.

If you have a new thought that no one's ever brought up before, yeah, I'll probably reply as soon as I can. You may even change my mind. But it's not that I'm ignoring everyone (although some people I am)--it's just that everything everyone's saying has already been brought up, and I've already considered it and rejected it. It's not prejudice; it's postjudice. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That should be converted into a Misplaced Pages essay as your personal manifesto. Well said. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Wisdom stated, well said Kurt. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, very well said. I don't personally agree with your stance on RFA, I don't think Kurt should have to take all the flack he gets for voicing his opinion. Would I still be editing if everyone ragged on me all the time? I don't know. But Kurt is resilient and I respect that. Useight (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, please take heed to the advice here convert this into an essay, that way you have an easy response for every time you are questioned after voting on an RfA. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict}Nobody agrees with his stance </sarcasm> Only a few believe that it is alright to disparage him because of his stance. But to echo the above, well said.Balloonman (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to oppose a candidate for whatever reason you want without having to contend with sarcasm, incivility, or assumptions of bad faith from any supporters. The bureaucrats probably have enough experience to determine if an oppose rationale or valid or not. Specifically in this case, I suppose some who self-nominate probably really do just want to be admins to help the project out, but who knows? Maybe there are instances where some are "power hungry" as Kurt believes. In any event, imagine if someone opposed because he or she saw that someone else was supporting! Also, I don't see Kurt using swear words or other extreme language in those rationales that candidates or supporters should interpret as overly insulting (I have seen far worse on this project). If being an admin is really "no big deal" then whatever reasons people oppose or support should also be "no big deal." If a candidate feels he or she can and should defend his or herself to an opposer, then fine, but those supporting and opposing should not use any incivil means to discredit or ridicule either side. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well-spoken (written?) and I agree that it is essay-worthy. May I suggest an addition to WP:POWER? Adam McCormick (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa and Editor assistance/Requests

During a lot of failed RFAs there are a lot of pat on the backs, go and get some mainspace or experience. Editor assistance/Requests is a sadly forgotten part of Misplaced Pages. It is often a first (or last) port of call for editors with a wide range of problems. It always has a backlog despite its aim to assist within 6 - 8 days.

If editors fail Rfa wouldn't it be a good thing to ask them to review some of the posts at EAR? Some of the issues are complex, they involve diplomacy, correct use of policy and guidelines and explaining, referring to relevant noticeboards and sometimes acting as an advocate. These are all vital skills for sysops. The advice an editor gives can always be checked if it is wrong and it gives editors an excuse to re-refer to policy, guidelines and dem essays. -- BpEps - t@lk 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think I ever saw WP:EAR, and it does look like a useful place. Why is it so un-easy to find? I looked at links here, but it's not really prominent. Yngvarr (c) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, how do a lot of new editors find it? That said, I think there's far too many avenues for newcomers to find help - although whether that is a bad thing or not is up for debate. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from the Admin Coacing point of view: PLEASE SEND FAILED RFAs TO EAR. We don't have the number of coaches to mentor all the people who want coaching to begin with, and sending someone from a failed RFA to wait in line for 6 months, tends to demotivate them. Now telling them to help at EAR, they might gain enough experience to not even need coaching. MBisanz 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a fan of this - sounds like punishment! That said, what about this, this, this or this? I wouldn't like to single out a single noticeboard. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please I cringe everytime I see someone say "I'd reccomend you go get some admin coaching" and the person only have 500 edits and doesn't know WP:AN exists. They should be adopted or work on backlogs. MBisanz 02:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Looking in the history of RfA on an unrelated matter, I was very surprised to note how much vandalism this page receives, usually from anon or new editors. I further note that an anon or new editor would have absolutely no reason to edit RfA, as all candidates and nominators are going to be much more than four days old (and an account is required), and all comments are posted on subpages. I can see no reason why this page cannot be semi-protected indefinitely. I would have been bold and done it, but the protection log suggests that this has been attempted before, albeit almost a year ago. Comments? Happy‑melon 19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea... I'm not completely sold, but I could be persuaded. My concern is that it might prevent some people from making legitimate comments. Right now anon accounts can't !vote, but that simply means somebody has to create an account to contribute or their participation doesn't get an !vote. They can still participate. With semi-protection, they might not be able to add crucial information to the discussion.Balloonman (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman here, while a lot of the more recent IPs have "contributed" in memorable ways, I don't see a prolificness to it, and IPs are usually good editors that are allowed to contribution to the discussion section. They have a unique perspective on this place, and could perhaps provide valuable insight. Although, I see your point, as the individual RfAs are in fact subpages that wouldn't automatically be protected....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I don't disagree with Happy-melon, the thought occurs that WP:RFA is heavily watchlisted. So any vandalism quickly goes, and it really doesn't seem there is that much to warrant IP dis-enfranchisement. I'm generally against protection unless it's to keep the encyclopedia clean for our readers - and I suspect few readers peruse non mainspace areas like RFA! Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against protection because I've seen a few times where IPs brought up valuable points in RfAs. Maybe they were users with accounts who didn't want it traced to them, but still. Enigma Review 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what Happy-melon is getting at is protecting WP:RFA, not any of the sub-pages, just the main page. I agree that anon and new editors should never have to edit the main WP:RFA page and agree with semi-protecting it indefinitely. (I could be misinterpreting what HM said, but that's what I got out of it) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman, you do realise that the RFA's would still be unprotected? They are transcluded in to the RFA page so IP's could still edit them. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, seems clear Happy-melon is talking about WP:RFA, not the individual RfA's themselves. I doubt anyone supports protection of the individual RfA's, and I agree with Pedro's reasoning for not protecting the WP:RFA page. Protect if it ever becomes a problem, otherwise default is don't protect. The page is already move protected. Also, this sems to indicate there's no consensus for protection. --barneca (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the main page would essentially prevent self-noms as only admins would be able to nominate candidates... not a good idea.Balloonman (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was most definitely talking only about protecting Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship - maximum participation in individual RfAs, including comments from IPs and new accounts, should be fully encouraged. The watchlisting comment is fair, but that doesn't obviate the fact that we have the opportunity to remove a drain on editors' time with no negative consequences. I'm generally an "openist" when it comes to page protection (I don't think we have protection equivalents to "deletionist"/"inclusionist" but you know what I'm getting at) but here I can see absolutely no circumstances where semi-protecting WP:RFA would prevent a constructive edit being made. Vandalism anywhere is a "problem", no matter how quickly it's corrected; this seems (to me) to be an effective way of freeing up a few minutes' editing time for more constructive purposes, with no side effects. Happy‑melon 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also mention that Misplaced Pages does not work on precedent, and we certainly shouldn't consider ourselves bound by an 11-month old log summary. consensus can change. Happy‑melon 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Think of it as a honeypot. If someone tries to vandalize WP:RFA, and can't, they are unlikely to give up. They're gonna vandalize something, and waste somebody's time. Might as well be here, which is widely watchlisted and will be reverted quickly, and which is outside of article space. If anything, we should somehow, thru reverse psychology or something, try to sneakily encourage a vandal to hit WP:RFA rather than anywhere else. --barneca (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, didn't mean to imply we were bound by that; but a look at the back and forth in the log seems to show this is a perennial issue that always seems to end up back at unprotected. useful info, even if we aren't bound by it. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't buy that: what's to say that they wouldn't happily vandalise RfA and somewhere else if given the chance? This page doesn't suffer the run-of-the-mill "evolution-is-only-a-theory" or "joe-is-teh-best" vandalism, it's the target of vandals knowledgeable in Misplaced Pages process (otherwise how would they even find it?), most of whom I expect are on a campaign. Protecting any individual page won't stop that campaign, but it stops a vandal edit which would otherwise have occurred. How can that be a bad thing? Happy‑melon 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is this. If someone launches a multi-IP attack on WP:RFA, it should be protected. But if it's a vandal who, as you say, is on a campaign, I don't think they're going to stop their campaign because RfA is protected (unless it's a very specific, and unlikely, anti-RFA campaign, instead of an anti-Misplaced Pages campaign). So, if they're going to vandalize something 2-4 times and get blocked, why not here? Protecting WP:RFA doesn't stop a vandal edit that would otherwise have occured, it just relocates it to another page. Being able to vandalize WP:RFA isn't "free", it gets you noticed and ultimately likely blocked sooner.

Plus, on a whole other issue, pre-emptively protecting pages goes against the "spirit" of WP. What if someone has transcluded their RFA incorrectly (f.ex. forgotten the damn "----" for the 10,000th time); why can't an IP editor fix it? I think the guiding philosophy behind protection of any page is protect if necessary, unprotect as soon as it isn't.

Anyway, I'm mostly bored; I don't actually feel strongly about this, I jsut think protection isn't warranted, and unprotected is actually better. --barneca (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not something I feel particularly strongly about either, it was just a "hmn, vandalism... hmn, no reason not to semi... hmn, log says it's already been tried and reverted... hmn, better ask on talk" set of musings. Happy‑melon 13:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood. Actually, I don't see why the main RfA main page should be unprotected. I understand what Pedro is saying, but we wouldn't be losing much by protecting it. Enigma Review 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I came into this wanting to support it, and came out nodding at barneca.... I kept a certain group of small children busy for hours a while back at WP:RFA, where they got pissed that their revisions weren't sticking, and eventually caught the interest of a checkuser, whom blocked the lot. I'd rather have the 10-20 socks hitting RFA then 10-20 articles, where it's harder to find them. And yes -- they were experienced vandals (even had an off site page bragging about it). I believe the RfA incident wound up with parents being contacted or something, and a stop being brought to the problem. So, anyhow, my bizarre and rambling comment could quickly summed up as: "Good idea, but, it's actually better in the long run to leave WP:RFA unprotected". SQL 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't think the reasoning behind this request is wrong. However, we would not accept such a reasoning on any other page. For example, templates. We could safely semiprotect every template. It's highly unlikely anons will need to edit them. But that's just not what the core ethos of the project is about. The levels of vandalism are minimal and plenty of people watch this page and deal with it, so I don't think we really need to protect it. --Deskana (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, User:John Reaves semiproted the page. I don't think he should have ignored this discussion, so I wrote something about it on WP:ANI. --Yooden ☮

I think it should be unprotected since the edits new users make can always be removed. John has behaved badly over this entire incident... "John, could you reverse the protection and join the discussion?" "No." - from his talkpage. Unimpressive. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're definition of bad behavior is saying no? That's a bit perplexing to me. Sean William @ 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support the RfA protection. It keeps brand new users from trying, failing, and then leaving, plus there's really no reason for IPs to need to post here since they can't vote anyway. Wizardman 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the protection. There is too much time spent reverting vandalism on it, and as mentioned above and elsewhere, there is no reason for new users or anonymous users to edit it. To note, there are multiple instances of vandalism to this page every day...any other page would be protected and this one isn't special. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I don't believe protecting this page will prevent one single instance of vandalism. It will relocate it to less heavily monitored pages, where it will last longer. Any other page with this level of vandalism would likely be declined at WP:RFPP. --barneca (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't decline it. And if what you say is true, we shouldn't protect any pages because that will cause people to vandalize other pages anyways. I don't buy it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. We generally protect pages only to prevent disruption to the project; highly visible pages like George W. Bush or the main page, or other articles being targeted and hit so heavily that other editors cannot edit contructively. If that was happening here on a regular basis, I'd support long term protection. But it isn't; it isn't highly visible, and it isn't being targetted heavily. The fact that it's a good thing a few vandals hit this page instead of another one is icing on the cake. --barneca (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the protection of this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I admittedly don't know how most vandals work, but I still don't agree with barneca's logic. I don't think it's the case that protecting pages will only shift vandalism, not reduce it. I think protection reduces vandalism in general. Would be hard to prove, but it seems logical to me. I assure you that there are vandals that come here to vandalize specific pages, and one example is WP:RFA. If they can't vandalize it, I think it's more likely they leave than to vandalize a different page instead. Enigma Review 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just slightly off-subject, WP:WPVS asks some of these same questions. Who knew there was a whole project to the study of vandalism? Yngvarr (c) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to semi-protect the main page indefinitely. Established editors can edit it, and IPs can join individual discussions. I just don't follow the "keep the vandalism here" argument, as it implies vandals are desperate to vandalize one page and one page only before they head out to the mall. Key pages which can be legitimately edited by IPs are heavily watchlisted too, and I don't see someone desperate to vandalize RFA (or any project page in particular) and being thwarted hitting random page to find a quiet corner of WP to get their fix. Deiz talk 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don't see anything wrong with this protection. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have protected it. BUT, I have no problem with the main page being so protected. Anons and new users can still edit on the subpages (the pages with the discussion.) I would have serious problems with full protection or protecting the sub-pages, but not the main page.Balloonman (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since WP:RFA is a forum where established users are to add their noms to the page, it truly isn't a place meant for the new user who created an account within the past 24 hours to use as a sandbox. Barneca makes a valid point about the honeypot effect but in my opinion the RFA page is not a place where it would be safe to allow such an effect. It is rather disruptive that we repeatedly have to clean up after people who believe they are qualified for adminship when they just came off the boat or trolls who want to bomb this page with hit and runs. It also gives new users false hope when they see how easily they can set up and nom and transclude it only to have their hopes politely (or at times bite-ly) crushed. The only place I would draw the line is instating automatic sprotection of RFA noms themselves. At that point it would become a waste of the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeating here what I've said about this issue: All pages fall under our protection policy. I remember this well from past discussions about semi-protecting all policy pages with similar logic. As long as there is no requirement that a user be auto-confirmed before making a nomination, then the page should not be protected as such. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. You want it protected, change the protection policy. Until then it is neither a high risk target for vandalism (like templates) nor is it receiving anything like enough vandalism to warrant indefinite semi protection. Stopping newbies bombing in RfA is an admirable thing to attempt, but is neither covered by the protection policy or is it paticuarly sensible because most accounts will be autoconfirmed anyway. Viridae 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

IAR anyone? I can only see advantages in protecting, and no disadvantages. Sticking by policy to the letter isn't the best way forward here. Majorly (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Majorly here. A number of sensible reasons for protecting this page have been put forwards. The only argument against is "policy says". That's not good enough. Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy and we don't decide not to do things just because the right form hasn't been filled out in triplicate. Protecting the main RfA page (a) stops vandalism and (b) stops nominations from very new users who are likely to put off by the experience of a premature nomination. What harm does it do? If it's "an admirable thing to attempt", why not do it? WjBscribe 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I never once said "policy says", or anything resembling "policy says". Disagree if you wish, but please don't ignore. --barneca (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to apply IAR, to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Absoloutely not. We do not apply page protection pre-emptively. It should be use sparringly in cases of vandalism or BLP problems etc. Viridae 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there is more to gain than lose in having auto-conf protection, but what a lot of us are worried about is more about stuff like.. the mentality that we might create, or the slippery slope, for a lack of better words (I just got off work, forgive me if I'm not making a lot of sense). I'm seeing people say that only established users should nominate other users, which really shouldn't be the case. It's almost as if we're ok with some of these things because we know that us "hard core" wikipedians will always be included. However, it seems we step more and more away from allowing input from the outside world.

This is part of the logic behind the protection policy. Misplaced Pages, and not just the article space, is something we want everyone to be able to edit. That doesn't mean we'll accept every edit, obviously, but the idea that it really is possible has long since been something that draws people to this site.

But this isn't a slippery slope, or a statement about who can edit, nor is this individual page going to realistically impact people's attraction to Misplaced Pages, right? If it was only this page, probably. One of the things that's upsetting is that this change was made despite opposition to it, by editors (while meaning well) who believe that they don't need to consult the community if they don't see the action as important. If individual or small groups of admins are going to be making our choices for us, and there's nothing we can do about it, then that fear of this getting out of hand doesn't seem as silly. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

looks like wheel warring to me. 06:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect any less from Viridae. John Reaves 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I can't communicate how shocked and appalled I am at the semi-protection of such a community-oriented page. If there is ANY page, ANY PAGE AT ALL that EVERYBODY needs to be able to edit, it is the page where we choose those people that we entrust to read consensus. In days like this, when A7 is vastly overused, wheel warring is common, deletion is rampant and administrators go on crusades, there is NOTHING more important than the ability of users (not just editors, but the lurkers as well), to express concerns about someone entrusted with some of the most powerful tools available. Protection should be used in cases of extreme vandalism to common articles such as the main page and possibly BLP articles if slanderous/libellous material continually gets inserted. Celarnor 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you even know how the page works? It's a technical page where RfA subpages are transcluded. Protecting it does nothing to hinder the RfA process. John Reaves 07:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes the fallacious assumption that all editors edit by section rather than by page. New editors especially, or editors who haven't contributed much, may not realize that functionality. Celarnor 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You still obviously don't understand the technical side of subpages being trancluded. My protection didn't prevent anyone from editing anyone's RfA. John Reaves 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly how transclusions work. I run 3 different installations of MediaWiki, 2 of which get at least a thousand unique hits a day. However, many users, especially new ones, don't have the MediaWiki experience I do and may not realize how to properly access the RfA subpages, get confused as a result, and give up. You should never trust in the ability of a user to figure out a UI. I guess the "voice your opinion" thing is viable, but to someone who is used to buttons labelled "edit", its iffy, and I think the marginal gains that you get by having a page watchlisted by a large number of people protected is small compared to the loss of potential contributions. Celarnor 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact alone that this was done without obtaining consensus first and went without any repercussions at all to the admin makes me ashamed at the lack of transparency and oversight on the actions of admins. Doing this leads down a slippery, dangerous slope. What's next? XfDs? ANI? The pump? Articles themselves? Celarnor 07:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? As John pointed out, you seem to lack any understanding of how this page works. We weren't in anyway stopping anyone from voicing their opinion of admins.

See my reply to the above comment. Celarnor 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And read up on WP:BOLD, waiting for consensus to do everything would make Misplaced Pages a chaotic charade. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with BOLD. You may want to read up on CONSENSUS and PROCESS. Being bold is good for the project when it comes to articles where changes can be easily reverted by anyone with the initiative to do so. Being bold is not good for clear-cut cases of things that should be discussed first, such as page protections whose damage can only be repaired by other admins. Celarnor 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor, please do something for me. Go to WP:RFA, click the "edit this page" button at the top of the WP:RFA page and try and edit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3. Do you see what happens, when you go to edit Wisdom89's RFA by clicking on the edit button on this page, all you see is {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3}}. That is because this page is transcluded onto WP:RFA, think of it as a page on top of the page. Please, please understand that John's protection affected absolutely nothing, no one had to do anything out of the ordinary to edit and RFA. No offense Celarnor, but you are arguing with a couple of admins about how an administrative tool works, how bout you give us the benefit of the doubt that we know how protecting pages works. Go and give Misplaced Pages:Transclusion a good read and hopefully you will understand how this page works. To address your other points, John followed WP:BRD, he was bold, someone reverted him, and now we discuss. Admin actions can be reverted just as easily as any edit. Oh, and page protection does not need to be discussed beforehand, see WP:RFPP where usually just one admin at a time makes a decision on whether a page should be protected or not. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RFPP is centrally documented and requires that at least two people interact somehow. It also requires that a good reason be provided for page protection. This is some guy deciding that a very important community page needed to be protected and did it without giving it a second thought. Please don't lecture me about the administrative functionalities of MediaWiki; I'm well-acquainted with them, and have edited the source for most of them for our on-campus wiki-farm's implementation. I don't need to be told how page protection works. Celarnor 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion is coming from the fact that there's no longer an button to the right of each RfA's section when the page is protected. Still, all you have to do is click on the RfA section, or follow the bolded "Voice you opinion" link and then edit, but (I think) Celarnor's point is maybe someone won't know that. I don't think this is a big problem; anyone able to find WP:RFA should be able to get to the individual pages fairly easily. I'm still against protection, but this isn't a good argument against it. --barneca (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm realizing that I misunderstood this issue in my only post in this section. Just in case this comes down to some silly straw poll in the near future, I support protection of the RFA page, as the nominee's pages are transcluded and not affected by the protection. There has not been presented, IMO, a valid reason not to protect the RFA page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On the use of "Optional Questions"

I know this has been discussed before, the cheatsheet exists for a reason, but things are getting a little over the top. The origin for this discussion is Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Gary King, and this is a copy of my post in the "Discussion" section:

The number of questions as of now, a day into the RfA stands at 27. You can call questions "optional", but then people will oppose if they are not answered. People will oppose if they are not all or individually answered correctly. It is hard for a prospective admin to answer many of the question with 100% accuracy each time off the top of the head. I compare it to going to law school or business school, and then going into the practice of law or business. It is not the same at all, and places candidacies in peril.

I wanted to gather opinions here as my issue stands with not this particular RfA but the trend in questioning the candidate relentlessly, which is fairly new in the process. So I didn't want to divert the discussion in Gary King's RfA, which is why I am centralizing discussion here. Keegan 05:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this trend where the number of optional questions asked has gradually escalated with time to the point of absurdity. I'm not entirely sure why editors feel such a compulsion to ask so many questions. Perhaps it's the perception that RfA should be exceedingly difficult. What makes matters worse is that half the time the questions are mixtures of rehashings of previous RfAs and personalized queries meant to satisfy a few particulars. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, yes the tools are a "big" deal, but RfA is not a rigorous exam, hence why I endorse the existence of Majorly's cheat sheet. I'd endorse (although I'm not convinced much would change) either an expansion of the main questions, or setting a limit to the number of optionals put forth. It's ridiculous that some editors receive 7 or 8 while others get peppered with 25+. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually 21 on that RfA, but it's 18 too many still. I think users should be limited to a maximum of one question each, and all stock questions that don't have anything to do with that candidate should be banned. Majorly (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

21 postings, ArcAngel asked 6 questions, making 27 The part a, b, ect. by SunCreators is what I was counting. That particular number of questions from ArcAngel has already been resolved on the page, thankfully so. I'm counting raw number of questions. Keegan 07:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to ban anything from RfA, ever. It is a discussion and weight of opinions. Ask all the questions you want, oppose for the same reason you want. It is discretionary. I'm talking about working with the community in coming to an idea of what the questions are all about, and limiting excess by knowledge of the process itself. It has taken about eight months, but the community has finally come around to Kmweber's RfA opposition. This will take time, but it takes discussion and recognition of a need to reform this particular part of the process. Polls and whatnot for this kind of environment creation won't help a thing. Just talk about it. My humble opinion, and what got me started on this in the first place. Keegan 07:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed the significant rise in the amount of optional questions on RfAs, and this has only been a recent trend. In my first RfA, back in July 2007, only 3 optional questions were present, and at the time, this was the norm. In my successful attempt, in November 2007, there were no optional questions. Again, at this time, optional questions on RfAs averaged only about 4-6. Now they've escalated, and I'm sure it can't be a good thing from the candidate's point of view. Lradrama 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of questions is frankly getting ridiculous. On more than one occasion I've seen the person asking the question never return to the actual RFA. One question per user sounds reasonable. Rudget (review) 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I feel the same way. Limit the question to one per user. And ditto on editors not returning after asking 4-5 questions. It's mind boggling. The same thing goes (mostly) for users who are "on the fence". Frankly speaking, I don't see a reason to even !vote neutral if they're not even going to come back. But, that's another matter altogether. My question is this though: Can we actually enforce the one question per user recommendation? Or could it be made official rubric? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 16:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think one OPTIONAL (if it doesn't get answered, the candidate doesn't get "dinged" for it) question per editor is a good compromise - or perhaps we could agree on adding three "stock" questions that have to do with policy. But here's the thing - most of my questions were policy related, and weighed in my decision whether to support, oppose, or go neutral. Not asking policy questions may make it more difficult to gauge a candidate's policy knowledge, and I know that's a big bug with some. ArcAngel (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, we now have the cheatsheet, so your questions are kinda meaningless. So can you please not just go and ask different questions that aren't on the cheatsheet. We don't ask questions to candidates to make ourselves feel good, or to probe around for possible issues ({{fishing}}...)...we ask questions if we seek clarification on a major screwup a candidate made, or if we have a darn good suspicion they don't know a policy. RfA additional questions are not for fishing. Please think about the fish in future RfAs, ArcAngel. Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Limiting questions sounds good but I do agree with what Majorly appears to have been stressing lately - and that's regarding the pointlessness of stock questions. Any prospective admin who hasn't the ability to lift answers from elsewhere, with a minor tweak, wouldn't be able to turn their computer on in the first place. Perhaps the questions should be scrapped altogether. It's easy to give the answer people want most of the time, anyway George The Dragon (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: Being that three of the most common admin-tasks are (in no particular order) blocking, deletion, and, of course, prima facie power-hunger, admins are much more likely than the average non-admin to find themselves sucked into a fast-moving, heated conversation. (see, for instance, the latest shindig over at AN/I) Admins who aren't very good at explaining their motivations, admins who aren't good at handling a lot of questions, and admins who easily "stress out" over silly shit like questions are not beneficial to the project. I think it's therefore important for an admin to be able to handle the occasional "press conference", and the barrage of !optional questions does help give us an idea of whether or not the candidate is readily capable of expressing him/her/itself. This is, of course, in addition to the fact that the answers themselves can prove to be helpful. Nobody's forcing anybody to become admins. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Limiting things to one question per user is the least we should do I think. That can still amount to a lot of questions. As ArcAngel has suggested, the questions asked should only have something to do with policy. After-all, the purpose of these questions is to help determine whether a candidate is suitable for adminship. Lradrama 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If people are asking excessive questions, or stupid questions.. they can be ignored. A stupid question left unanswered will reflect poorly on the questioner, and well on the candidate who chooses not to respond. It's useful for us to be able to see, in an RFA, how the candidate responds to unreasonableness. Friday (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But I think most candidates will feel obliged to answer any questions thrown at them, to make it look as though everything is taken into consideration by them and they are able to face anything. Under pressure, candidates will feel every question must be answered to show that they're capable of doing a thorough job. Lradrama 16:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone considering the candidate will make of this what they will. In my book, knowing when to stop is a highly useful skill for an admin. Friday (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly support a limit on questions of some sort. I mean, when you're asking 25 questions, and you're opposing for 1 of them, you're basically trying to find something to oppose the candidate on, which is rather disturbing in itself. No one should need to ask even more than a couple questions of their own to determine suitability. If someone has to ask questions on top of 20 more, try looking at the candidate and his/her work again. Wizardman 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman. Opposing based on one question's answer is frivolous, and strikes me as lazy (not wanting to look at contribs/talk/archives him/herself). I would support a "cap" on the number of "optional questions" at a given number, either per editor (1 or 2), or per RfA (call it 10, maybe 15). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't support a maximum number of questions per RFA, but a cap on the number of questions a single editor can ask, I think that could be a good idea. Useight (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a cap. We should just use common sense and only ask questions when they're needed. (see also User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Fishing.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is people seem to be increasingly fishing. If one fishes two much, then they can't complain when there's no fish later. Wizardman 04:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the questions asked in RfA's are asinine. I don't even think limiting questions to "policy" questions is going to help much. I mean, anybody who has half a clue will know how to research issues. The only type of question that I see as value added is when somebody does their homework and asks a question based upon the candidate's history and can provide links as to why the specific question is relevant. Other than that, most of the questions are busy work for the candidate. I mean, what's the difference between a block and a ban? If you don't know how to look it up in the policy/guidelines, just look at another RfA.Balloonman (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet some people get that question -- and many of the other "homework" questions -- wrong. It shows that they're not willing to do the legwork, which is a good reason to oppose. But two or three such questions will succeed in uncovering that fault, and a dozen aren't necessary. - Revolving Bugbear 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is just Good Faith. The requirments of being an admin have gotten more strict, so people think by adding these questions they're helping out. People seem to assume these days that admins should be able to handle it. All you really need to do is make it clear that too many optional questions does harm. Don't enforce it as a rule, but as a suggestion/guideline. If the problem is brought to light on a large scale, it will be toned down on a large scale.--KojiDude 03:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask 5 of Filll's questions, score the candidate, if they get better than 55% of the questions correct, they get promotoed. I might get support for that much, but possibly I won't get too much support for making all current admins take the exam as well though. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC) <very innocent look>

Not all of those have a totally unambiguous answer. That's the advantage actually of ad hoc user provided questions--the point is to see how someone deals with a situation that make them actually think about something with a preset response. DGG (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would not be surprising, as I believe they were intended to illustrate ambiguous situations. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim: . :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

\o/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the number of questions is becoming ridiculous. I've seen users hampered by the RfA process because they were answering questions after questions, some of which had no relation to being an administrator or a user at Misplaced Pages. Some questions revolved around a person's personal tastes or beliefs. And many are never followed up by the original poster of the question. Limit one question per individual, or create a question bank that can be used in place of the optional questions. seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Going to start removing stupid questions

In fact, have already started. Stop trying to be stupid, it makes you look clever. Wait... Splash - tk 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Was that really necessary? They are innocuous and bring levity to an otherwise rigorous process. Also, WP:SARCASM. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 14:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply troubled by the idea of someone redacting someone else's post like that. Just because one person does not see the value of a question does not mean it lacks value. You may simply not understand the underlying meta logic. Dlohcierekim 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Though in this instance, I would certainly discuss the matter with the poster. This candidate is having a hard time and flippancy is just cruel at this point. Dlohcierekim

(e/c, and then the server hiccupped, then e/c again. last attempt.) I'm all for levity, but the RfA candidate is under a lot of stress here, and I wonder if this is levity at their expense (or, more accurately, if he/she might interpret it that way; I'm sure it wasn't intended that way). If they had been added to an RfA that was doing well, I can see levity; being added to an RfA not doing well seems a little mean and piling-on-ish. That said, I wonder if a brief mention of this to Sceptre, rather than reverting someone else's questions, would have been better. --barneca (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say, with an apparently straight face, that there was "underlying meta logic" to the stand-up routine that I removed. These particular so-called 'questions' were not innocuous for the reasons detailed in my edit summary, and elsewhere in this section. If Sceptre has a theme he wishes to pursue, I am certain that he can find a more constructive route. Making points (of the kind dangerously near to a blue link) at a candidate's expense is unreasonable and unnecessary. Splash - tk 15:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the questions are jokes, I don't see a problem removing them. Most RfA candidates are not regulars of RfA or WT:RfA - its unlikely they are approaching the process as a time for games, and they won't connect joke questions to a running commentary on too many questions in general. The questions were joking, ill-advised, and well removed. Avruch 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Avruch. Dlohcierekim 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was definitely well said. I don't particularly agree, as I mostly see those questions as benign. Although, granted, the candidate may not have seen it that way. They probably shouldn't have been so prolific. Nevertheless, Sceptre doesn't need an accusation of "trying to be stupid". Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note letting Sceptre know about this thread. Dlohcierekim 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The optional-but-mandatory questions are lame and require no brainpower to answer - you either cutpaste an answer or fail your RFA. These questions aren't automatically useless; seeing the light side of things sometimes should be required in an admin. Sceptre 15:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the questions were hilarious. I may start removing non-joke questions if they are just as lame (What is IAR? and Are cool down blocks allowed? come to mind here). Majorly (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I might be more inclined to support someone with enough sense to ignore stupid questions. John Reaves 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Majorly. Given answering the standard RFA questions requires nothing but the ability to rehash the same answer from the previous hundreds of RFA, these questions might, God forbid, allow us to find something useful out about the candidate George The Dragon (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked the questions as well, especially the Roman one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps between us, we will be able to reach a more sensible equilibrium, Majorly! Incidentally, from reading the novel questions that people have asked (rather than the copy-pasted ones) I get the impression that some questioners are thinking more deeply themselves, which I suppose is a good thing. It's a pity that the only outlet for their Deeper Thoughts are pseudo-braindumps to RfAs (and I'm all for improvements on the original 3, just not some of the weakling stuff that's turned up lately). Otoh, so far my removal of the Jongleurs efforts has stood; I wonder if removal of the more serious questions would or not. Splash - tk 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of questions currently being asked at RfA is widely cited as a reason why candidates view the process with trepidation at the moment. We do seem to be very short of RfA candidates at the moment. I would like to see about 30-50 new admins each month (and ideally a lot more than that). We will be lucky if we get 20 this month. WjBscribe 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasons of why the questions are being asked (to bring a slight bit of humour to this particular part of Misplaced Pages) but just not why (hopefully, that'll make sense). A line can be drawn on what sort of questions are asked, and most commonly, those are the ones that are asked at RFA. On the other hand, candidates can choose whether or not to answer the questions. If its a stupid question, then it deserves either no or a similar response (I think I may have seen Friday publish something like that the other day. Hmm.) It all depends on what floats your boat. Rudget (review) 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't laugh, you're in trouble. I recommend that Splash should seek treatment for acute Misplaced Pages:Adminitis. Has someone reverted already?

In any case, these questions seem to be predicated on:

This was discussed earlier on this page, and did seem to have at least some support. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me as if Sceptre was doing this to be mock the excessive number of questions asked these days, and how there's not always an obvious point to them. I don't mind them, and I do agree with his statement that a positive trait in an admin is seeing "the light side of things" & knowing how to deal with unprofessional situations, in which he or she will definitely be caught. hmwithτ 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know even a fraction of what goes on, and can't laugh at it, I figure you burn out way too quickly :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I mulled this over for a little while and settled upon the idea that laughter is universal, and an admin candidate who can laugh at a situation is probably a good thing. However, one's sense of humor is not universal, and thus a simple joke can easily be missed by someone who's culture is different than the person making the joke. Misplaced Pages is an international project so we should, to some extent, avoid turning someone else's RfA into a piece of performance art, and then judge said individual on whether or not they "get it". If you have an established relationship with the nom, I really don't see this as a problem... just in those cases where you do not have a good sense of what the nom finds funny. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with joke questions is that they can be taken far too seriously by people who have little or no sense of humor. Several of the above commenters note that they can be (and possibly should be) ignored, but how many people here have opposed nominees because they failed to answer questions? I for one would be really irked if anyone voted against me because I failed to answer a question such as "Boxers or briefs?" at an RfA. Horologium (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to all the candidates?

Now, I know I've been away for a week or so - but there is something conspicuously missing from the RfA process... the candidates! Much as people seem to be trying to compensate by asking more questions of the few candidates they can get their hands on, I don't think that's going to work longterm. I don't think we can say that a candidate asked 50 questions about everything from their precise views on what constitutes a legal threat through to how they like their eggs in the morning is a substitute for a greater number of (less thoroughly probed) new admins. So come on guys - thumbscrews out, get more people running. Otherwise we may need to restrict question asking to "one question per candidate nominated".

More sensible suggestions for curing the overabundance of questions vs. dearth of candidates problem also welcome... WjBscribe 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think some nominators are scared of a candidate failing, which could inturn look worse on them–which is utter nonsense. If you believe someone is good enough, nominate them. Rudget (review) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A few of my admin coachees may be ready in a week or two...Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a few in the works, hopefully at least one in the next couple of weeks. -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to lean on a given party who might get 200 votes if he ran. I honestly don't see why he doesn't, getting repeatedly elected lead coordinator of the film project is probably just as hard(sorry, must preserve subject's anonymity). If there are any other obvious candidates out there, maybe we can try some concerted leaning on them? John Carter (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaning on qualified candidates sounds good. Also, we probably have to do more to stamp out the utterly misguided notion that you have to use the tools some certain minimum amount in order to get them. If some responsible, qualified editor wants the buttons so he can use them once a year, give them to him. We're all volunteers; it's not reasonable to demand some minimum level of contributions. Friday (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The increased volume of questions and the increasing over time stress of an RfA probably scare off a number of candidates, or at least make them wait a lot longer than they otherwise would. Mine might go up at some point in the next few weeks, but I'm not excited about the prospect of being the only one! Avruch 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait,your not an admin? Wah? When you transclude Avruch, feel free to copy paste this: "#Support per Duh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)"

Holy $*!&, he isn't. While you're at it, add #Support - based on opposition to silly questions. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional question, back in third grade you called Mary Sue dumb, can you explain how your civility skills have improved since then? MBisanz 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I scared them off? Rawwwwrrrr. --Deskana (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back, btw... WjBscribe 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

heehee. Enigma Review 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know in my case, it's part that I can't really find anymore, but mostly that RfA has gotten pretty ridiculous. It's a game of 20 questions that I don't want to put any candidate through, and it's making it a lot harder for speciailists to pass, with people opposing for lack of block knowledge when the candidate has no intention to use the tool. Wizardman 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for there to be no RFA's at all, as I believe this to be prime time to launch my RfB. With no other distractions, not only will I enjoy maximum community exposure and fine toothcombing of my edits, I can look forward to an almost unending selection of questions, of which almost 90% will have no correct answer. So to prevent this whole misguided plan happening, I hope we can all find some more punters candidates who will be WP:BOLD enough to throw their hat in the ring. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In case I miss your RfB Pedro, please copy/paste "#Support per Duh" to yours as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss that for the world. No need to cut and paste anything from me, however. I'll beat all you guys with my Unwavering support that it's ridiculous !vote. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the reason so few step up as admin candidates is the way candidates are treated here. I was nominated for adminship with the assurance that adminship isn't a big deal. Some time ago, I nominated Benjah-bmm27 on the same basis. However, his adminship was dogged by comments like "doesn't need the tools" and "not enough projectspace experience". If I were in his shoes, I'd feel a tad demoralized, and will be reluctant to be nominated again. Perhaps we should look in the mirror when we ask why there aren't any candidates around. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't RfA just become a revenge forum? As in: "You disagreed with me a few months ago, so of course I'm going to oppose your RfA." Why would anyone want to put themselves through that, and for what exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At times, Malleus, sadly yes. One can only hope that it is rare. And Rifleman, I agree that a failed RfA can deter and demoralise editors, and in no way is that a good thing (though I've seen comments here to the exact opposite - that it is a good thing as if they were demoralised after a failed RfA it proved they weren't cut out to be admins - utter nonsense). Wether it's a vote or not is one matter but it's not an election, and we're not in the business of driving away contributors - or we shouldn't be. An election is a yes / no. Here we have yes / no / neutral and a whole bunch of comments. Editors should take time to add value (particularly when opposing). A huge number of admins failed on their first / second etc. RFA - so what? It's like this rubbish of hitting WP:100 - you're not a better admin for getting more votes than someone else. In summary, let's try to remember that whilst this is not light hearted we better serve our end product (the readership) by retaining valued contributors even if they don't have a couple of extra buttons, a couple of buttons that really aren't the proverbial big deal. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've raised elsewhere the issue of the duty of care that nominators have towards those they nominate at RfA. What's more important, another administrator or the potential loss of a good editor? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that there is, in a sense, a duty of care not to nominate someone who would fail RFA and may take it badly. Of course. I'm fairly certain, Malleus, that you would agree there is no inherent difference between the loss of an editor with admin tools or the loss of an editor without admin tools. Assuming equality in contributions, to argue that the loss of an admin is worse than the loss of an editor simply reinforces this ludicrous view (that I don't believe you have, and certainly I do not) that admins are in some way "better" or "more valued" than non-admins. The loss of any editor is a bad thing. Full stop. Pedro :  Chat  22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't quite agree. (Damn, there goes my next RfA down the pan.) My perception is that once having being given the power of "the bit" too many administrators forget why we're all here, to write an encyclopedia, and stop editing. And too many only edited in the first place just to get "the power of the bit". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, in case I miss it, Malleus feel free to copy/paste "#Support per Duh" on your RfA. Or maybe I should just nominate you. That outta get your blood boiling...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have my next RfA scheduled for the first anniversary of Hell feeezing over. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

*Malleus - my hurt feelings* I did write a DYK only the other day! Mind you, only 'cause I was talking about booze with Keeper and I couldn't believe we didn't have an article on the particular vineyard :) Seriously, as I said, assuming equality in contributions there is no difference between an admin editor and a non-admin editor in terms of loss - we don't want to loose anyone. I'd also say that people that edit and write articles just for the "bit" will be deeply disapointed when they get it. Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't pointing a finger at you, or any other admin, it was a general point, but I stand by it. How many administrators continue to contribute to the encyclopedia once elevated? Not that many it seems to me, or, to put it another way, many seem to consider their policing duties more important than their editorial duties. But what are we short of? Police, or productive editors? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. May I follow WP:PEDRO Pedro? MBisanz 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:) - WP:BEANS (sorry to cut in above you as well - happened whilst editing) Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to immediately nominate my admin coachees after the process. I would rather have them incorporate what they've learned for a few weeks, see how they're learning, then nominated them. bibliomaniac15 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't get me started on admin coaching. If I was to say what I think about that, then I'd have to wait for the second anniversary of Hell freezing over before my next RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a reason for the dearth in RfAs is that there is currently a fear of nominating a less-than-perfect candidate. We need more RfAs like Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MilborneOne, where candidates are nothing spectacular—no FAs, no admin coaching, not well-known at AfD—but they know the basics. Most of the current admins where not ideal candidates during there RfAs. Epbr123 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing about MilborneOne that I like is that he has shown the need for the tools and a willingness to work in an area not often investigated by others (Images.) This helps Milborne stand out above the other run-of-the-mill "I want to fight vandalism" admin candidates. Or I want the tools to do everything, but have shown no background in those areas. I like seeing candidates like Milborne with a passion for a specialty.Balloonman (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know a prime candidate for admin: CapitalR. He's the one who cleaned up all the different navboxes last year and standardised them down to a single very versatile {{navbox}}. And now he is hard at work making the next even better version. I have worked with him in some places and he certainly got what it takes. And he needs the tools to be able to maintain and update the templates he made. (They are locked as high-risk.) I just haven't got around to nominate him. I asked him long ago and he said he would like the tools so he can handle the templates he made. Anyone with more experience in nominating people feel free to check with him and check him out and nominate him.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread is rather encouraging :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A very important policy question for prospective admins.

Over on the Village Pump a discussion took place about if IAR was appropriate for Admin actions. Without rehashing the whole discussion one gem came out of it:

I think this is a very important question to ask prospective admins. I would go farther and ask them to expound on all 5 Pillars in the same way. -- Low Sea (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This question used to be frequently asked to admins in some form, but seems to have tapered off. Definitely a far more useful question then half this recent stuff. Wizardman 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm very curious to find out what those Romans have done lately. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) perhaps they've been busy ignoring all rules? ;-)

I love that question. Answers could go to the heart of how an admin will handle a very difficult, perhaps uncommon situation. I also don't see it as a trap question much, but at the same time could weed out a candidate who lets slip some unwholesome aspiration that concerns the community. Most importantly, it is totally wide open and we could get different responses from most candidates, and all could be great. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I suppose not answering would be just as fitting. A good example of Ignoring all questions......Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was always waiting for a prospective candidate to invoke WP:IAR and delete the question from the RfA :) Black Kite 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I always ask prospective admins about WP:TRI (a 5P prototype, which I actually prefer) when I get the chance.--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, now it is possible to be "over-prepared" for RfA. If one has learnt too much about the admin process, they are dubbed a "manufactured" candidate... the mental image now conjured up about a viable candidate is someone walking down the street, mostly oblivious to the RfA process but well-versed in all policies. Make sure they don't see you coming! Tap them on the shoulder as they go about their article-building business; they should act surprised that someone thought of them for admin candidacy but completely innocent of any preparation work. "Well, I'll be a son of a gun! I never thought of adminship before, but if you think I'm adequate, by gosh, I'll humbly accept your nomination!" I'm waiting for the era of RfA where a candidate can have too many edits. Tan | 39 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for constructive criticism

I implore you all to be gentler and kinder with your oppositions. Some comments are simply lambasting. Please, if an editor isn't adminship worthy, give advice to help that editor improve for next time. Thrashing an editor is mean. Being constructive is useful and adds to the sense of community. Please think twice when you explain your opposition. Kingturtle (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason the oppositions sound mean is because their oppositions. Naturally we read them expecting a negative tone. It's just a mental thing. Most Opposes I see give fair reasoning behind their "vote". I would say that Supports should be further elaborated upon. Most people don't even give a reason for support, and some just put their names (or "per above").--KojiDude 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Most opposes are fine, I think, but we do have to be extra careful when commenting on a new editor's far premature RFA; remember WP:BITE. Useight (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree - it's simply inherent to the nature of the opposition. The candidate, and everybody else for that matter, should expect criticism and feedback, albeit constructive. Let's be candid here for a moment. When a user opposes, they are doing so (ordinarily) for a good reason, which they expound on. It's inevitable that it would carry with it a negative tone. It can be frustrating to the user running, however, everyone who comments needs to be mindful of WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE and WP:SARCASM. Make sure your comments are critical, yet exceedingly helpful. Think of RfA as an in depth analysis of a candidate's progress. It could only serve to benefit the user under scrutiny. Goodness knows I've learned from my previous RfAs. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, candidates can get croaky when they start getting opposes. It works both ways in my view. Rudget 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the most constructive thing for the project would be in fact to suggest the candidate not rerun for RfA in the future as they don't appear to have the proper temperament (or for other reasons). I'm all for constructive criticism, and totally believe in being civil in all circumstances, but I don't think this neccesarily means we all have to go overboard explaining how candidate X can be an admin next time and all the caveats of how much we still enjoy their work. I feel like sometimes I want to oppose and further make a statement that the "net positive" for the project would be for the candidate to never become involved in admin duties and the inherent drama in that status. Kingturtle, I do see what you are saying, but on the other hand I wish some of these RfA's would just get real with the admin applying requesting. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Obviously, all selfnoms and accepted noms have a candidate that, on some level, finds the thought of the extra tools potentially useful, on some level. Telling them they'll never make a good candidate, while quite possibly true, is quite possibly extremely damaging. I would strongly recommend never saying you should never be an admin, civil or not, and I never say never. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true that we could be a little more harsh on users for the sake of truth, but you should never say never. Anydody can become an admin at any time, all they need to do is practice and do alot (alot) of reading.--KojiDude 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, in that you are probably right in that such "never" terminology will only serve to inflame. Maybe I am just trying to make a point. If you don't believe a candidate currently qualified (assuming this is for good reaons)... you should be able to vote oppose, give a direct but civil reason why, (diffs are always good) and that should be it. Or even give tons of reasons and tons of diffs if you feel neccesary. I think I'm saying that constructively commenting on how a specific candidate can work to improve isn't a requirement of RfA. An editor shouldn't comment that the candidate will never be ready, or tell them they should never run again, but on the flipside that editor doesn't need to go into constructive criticism that they may or may not really believe in. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the onus should be on the opposer to provide the constructive criticism, regardless of whether he/she believes the candidate will heed it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just throwing it out there, but alot of times I've been put in a situation where I want to oppose, but any constructive critisim I could have given has already been said.--KojiDude 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, there's been the odd one or two that I've wanted to oppose, but, the issue I had with the user was already mentioned (Note: According to my tool, I've never opposed anyone, ever). In those cases, I've usually just not commented, or, gone neutral. I'd probably oppose, if I thought that argument was so gravely serious, that it demanded extra weight. Usually for me, the run of the mill stuff ("Tagged 2 out of 927 pages this week wrong for CSD", "Was mean to a puppy in primary school", etc) generally aren't that gravely serious that they warrant the extra (ofttimes borderline excessive) weight on that argument, and, often times are either easily explainable, or are within a reasonable margin of error. SQL 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I know. The question question...

I know there are several threads already about optional questions. I just find it to be a bit of a travesty that currently (as of this post), there are more questions than supporters or opposers in this RfA. For a candidate with 30K edits, FAs, GAs, no blocks, no civility issues. We've gone grossly awry. I have no solution, I only see the problem right now. This needs to be curbed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

People just ♥♥♥ their questions. It just wouldn't be right without 25 questions on an RfA. We MUST keep the questions, they are really, really important to the process. People should ask more really, there aren't enough. There should be twice as many questions as voters. Majorly (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Yeah, Everyone by now knows my opinion of how awful the question process has become on RfA of late. My vote in Kumioko's RfA explains my stance pretty well. It does need to be curbed, badly. It's one of the reasons I don't look for potential candidates these days. Wizardman 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)Eh, I only asked one question on this one - while another editor asked a few questions that I did previously. I suspect policy knowledge is again rearing its head, but I did notice a question asked from an editor I've never seen in RfA before. The votes may come with answers to the questions. Each RfA is different - some candidates get a dearth of votes, while others, not so much. ArcAngel (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny should have had well over 600 questions. :) Acalamari 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec x lots)Majorly, noting the recent contribution of yours to VanTucky's RFA, exactly what are you hoping to achieve? I've got a lot of time for you personally, you know that, but I strikes me that you have become disillusioned with en.wikipedia at this present time. I'm sorry, but I find both this response and your recent round of valueless questions at RFA to be on the verge of making a POINT become very blue. Pedro :  Chat  20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a harmless joke between myself and VanTucky. Majorly (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the jabs are all in. I usually post utter tripe here at wt:rfa, and I really enjoy this little meta page, one of my faves. But I asked a serious question. What the hell is going on with Kumioko's RfA? I am absolutely flabbergasted at the reception this fantastic editor has received by "rfa regulars". I almost want to canvass the wikiprojects to beef this thing up. 25 q's. 21 supporters, 23 opposers. WTF, folks? (and I'm serious). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this has to do with how the candidate answered Q1. I feel if a different answer would have been given, a different outcome would have prevailed. ArcAngel (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keeper. My personal opinion on this RFA was an oppose, for reasons already cited (my opinion formed on review a couple of days ago). But as the RFA is going to fail, and I can add no extra value in terms of constructive criticism, I don't feel any point beating the candidate up any more. And I expect that is the reason for the low level of further activity from other "regulars". The number of questions is a concern, but a wider issue from that particular RFA as discussed above. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the serious response. My intentions are not to change anyone's opinions, or to get anyone to switch their opinion, the vast majority of which were given in good faith. I just find this particular Rfa to be one of the more ridiculous one's in recent memory. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, it might not actually fail. There are five days left. If some sensible people found about it, perhaps there could be a good change. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan. Majorly (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To this day, I consider DrKiernan's RfA a prime example of what a good argument can do to an RfA (in that case, from -%50 support to a success). The candidate has gone on to become a good administrator, I might add. Acalamari 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"If some sensible people found about it, perhaps there could be a good change." So then the people who said Oppose aren't sensible?--KojiDude 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that was the meaning behind the comment at all. More than likely Majorly just meant that all hope isn't lost and that there are still valuable, sensible, well intentioned editors out there who can chime in in the next five days. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in here and disagree with Majorly. Many sensible people have already !voted in the RFA. Just because we have different admin criteria, it doesn't make us unsensible. Useight (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Majorly did mean to imply that those who have voted are not sensible, I agree with the above, although I highly doubt that was the conveying intention. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> My intentions with this post are being misinterpretted. Majorly's post is being misinterpretted. Nobody is advocating a switch of positions, and nobody is calling anybody insensible. Overreactions. Majorly's post, as Wisdom said, is meant as optimistic. My post was meant as meta, using Kumioko as an example only of an ongoing plague of questions at RfA. Please don't let this blow up into anything beyond that. (or I'll delete the whole damn thing as the instigator) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the !current !voters. I simply said I hoped for some !more sensible !votes. Majorly (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent due to multiple ec's) Let me be more blunt. I don't believe the candidate is ready at this time. But I won't oppose as they are clearly a valued and dedicated contributor, and I see no benefit to Misplaced Pages to shove in an oppose on an already doomed RFA. However if another 40 odd supporters appeared (which is about the margin currently required) then I would add my oppose due to my concerns. I am making the assumption (and it is just an assumption) that a number of other editors would be in the same boat as me. It's called being honest to your feelings whilst juggling the net effect to the encyclopedia. I don't believe this candidate is ready at this time. I also don't want them to be discouraged by a resounding kicking at RFA due to current (and I stress the word current) community "standards". So whilst I agree that technically this RFA could pass, I'm afraid it is unlikely. So let's do our best to keep the candidates chin up, and real value to our supports or opposes, and look forward to a future RFA when the candidate can better demonstrate why the community should grant them the admin bit. And let's stop adding questions with no value.Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime my 2 cents in and say that I have taken your advice and added the RFA banner to my user page as allowed. Maybe that will drum up some votes one way or the other. Either way I admit I am learning from the process and am actually excited to see how this pans out either way. As a parting comment here I also think that perhaps the voting criteria for an RFA could be formalized (like the criteria for a Good or Featured article).--Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Excellent suggestion Kumioko. Also, I sincerely apologize for using your Rfa as an example in this thread, especially since I did not notify you that I was doing such. My point (purposeful not bluelinked) with doing as much was to highlight the fact that you've received more arbitrary ("optional") questions than you've received !votes from any given opinion, whether support, oppose, or neutral. I didn't mean to draw unnecessary attention to your specific RfA, I certainly was not trying to sway or criticize those that have already participated. I merely found it ridiculous that so much was "asked" of you, and at the same time, so few opinions were given. Again, sorry for shining bright lights in your eyes. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that a good-intention self-nomination has to turn into a example of what's wrong. I shake my head when I hear there's nothing wrong with RFA, and then see this. Of course, Kumioko's RFA is probably just "bad timing". After all, it's really the only one, so it's bound to attract... well, I was going to use a word which others would slap WP:CIV on me, so use imagination. Yngvarr (c) 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question -- do questions breed questions? In other words, does the complexity of some of the questions lead to an answer by the candidate that inevitably just leaves more questions in participators minds? If that is the case, questions are not just annoying, they are harmful. (And everyone knows that "100% optional" is BS, since not answering even optional questions always looks bad). -- Renesis (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats a physics question Renesis, did you know that?... And a good one. Also, I somewhat misspoke above I was thinking of the assessment process, but the GA,FA thing is good too I guess. I don't mind at least something good has come from the raw carnage that my RFA has become.--Kumioko (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like to know is, why the sudden influx of completely useless questions? Why even bother adding ones that have nothing to do with adminship? It is completely and utterly ridiculous, and I'm actually very disappointed at those that are doing them. Wizardman 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What if (aside from pointless questions about lunch and bird velocity) the massive ammount of questions could be viewed as a good thing? Maybe they help to really dig into the nominee and find out if he/she's ready or not. It could also be an endurance test of sorts, because admins do run into situations/discussions where alot is asked of him/her. Maybe we've been looking at this the wrong way?--KojiDude 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but definitely disagree. Most admin tasks don't require endurance such as what we're suddenly asking at RfA. Plus, since there's not that many tools we're giving them, it may turn more people off that would be good admins. Wizardman 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The "massive amount of questions", at least IMO, does not serve any purpose at all, other than to highlight the askers' inherent laziness to dig through contribs him/herself. don't misinterpret this. Many questions are good questions. Many questions are warranted. Whenever I see a "neutral pending answers to my very own questions" though, I want to puke. As if those answers will make or break a situation? How 'bout looking yourself? Or just not !voting? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, that the questions are an act of laziness. I never looked at it like that before, and I agree with you, but what about in cases where the nominee has tens of thousands of contributions? It's damn near inevitable that people would rather ask questions than dig through 20,000 edits all night. I see a problem, I see the problem being outlined, but I don't see any possible solution.--KojiDude 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Check the talk page (archives or history) of the candidate, check contributions by namespace, like user talk, mainspace talk etc. Garion96 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me help out with the edit query, the majority of the edits where on military subjects, especially the united states (although not exclusively) and of those the majority are dealing with military biographies. In fact I dare say that there are few military biographies between the war of 1812 and the current day that I haven't touched at least once. Most of them several times, and, If by some small chance I pass this admin gauntlet, I will probably still stay in my own swim lane, but being an administrator will expand my tool set to do even more within that scope. Which by the way constitutes a huge portion of wikipedia articles. As far as the talk page goes you will find some complaints, mostly due to AWB edits and I fixed them as promptly as I could. You will also find a few CORENBOT tags from added articles due to its inability to verify the copyright status of Medal Of Honor citations.--Kumioko (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, while I oppose having people add questions to RfAs willy nilly, it was the tsunami of questions unleashed on Kumioko, and his ability to answer them in a timely and gracious manner, which convinced me that he did in fact know what he was doing, and that he would be fine as an admin. Consequently, I changed my original vote of opposition over to a vote of support. I think it is worth it for all those who are opposing (or at least those who oppose in the first 24 hours like myself), or on the fence, to take another look at the RfA in its current entirety, and reconsider the candidate. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While I did not initially cast any vote, after looking over what has transpired over the course of this RfA, I have decided to give this candidate a fair shake, and added my support !vote. ArcAngel (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I point out that 19 of the optional questions were added by just 3 editors. I guess, take that for what you will. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the person up for adminship refused to answer the questions

My fear is that, say for instances if I'm in an RFA, and I have 25 questions, but I simply feel most of them are pointless and not needed. What if I said:

IMO, this is far too many questions. Please remove some of these questions as I simply refuse to answer them. I wouldn't mind answer 6 or 7, but 25 is too much IMO.

If I said that in an RFA, I would be very saddened if a lot of people started to do things like this:

VERY Strong Oppose: - the person up for adminship is refusing to answer the questions.

I think that would be unfair. I would also feel that if one particular person asks 12-13 questions, that (s)he is trying to prove a point. For the record, if I did get 25 questions, I would ignore some of them. D.M.N. (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This RfA shows that a candidate can pass quite convincingly even if they decline to answer all questions. Some opposition is bound to result, but the questions are not compulsory and a candidate who politely explains why they have chosen not to answer them should not be unsuccessful for that reason alone. WjBscribe 16:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As the #2 support for Ragesoss, I will always maintain that that is one of the greatest RfAs in recent years. The community took the time to read the statement, check the contributions, and then voice opinion. Process in its purity, a bureaucratic dream ;) Keegan 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a candidate should have every right to answer what question he wants to. That being said, if editors vote oppose because of how the candidate is handling the RfA, that is still a valid oppose, although it probably isn't the strongest reason. I think not answering questions could certainly be a risk to passing, whether or not it should be is probably irrelevant. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To DMN, answer them with RfA additional questions are not for fishing., and point to this page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As a newby, all these silly questions do is make sure that I never run for admin. It looks like a big process, and it only gets worse when silly, pointless questions get asked. Is it the so-called insight of the candidate we are looking for in these questions, or showing how witty and ego-driven we are? I, for one, ignore these questions when looking at a candidate, since there serve no community purpose, only an individual's purpose. Ignore 'em. King Pickle (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, any reasonable editor who monitors RfA semi-regularly will be dissuaded by the crash course that seems to have cropped up, hence the discussion. I just hope people take this seriously enough to mend their ways. This isn't a fishing expetition. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Would you block an editor with a username of i3hifhi9b43n3?" - policy says no, regular templating and reports to noticeboards say yes. "How would you block a COI role account?" - it seems that bad faith is given to role accounts, and there's not much explaining of WP policies (and how to do things right) before blocking. My questions (and I only ask one per RFA, and not if a similar question has been asked) try to find the answer. Some candidates answer better than others; some mention not biting the newbies and providing information. that's good, no? Dan Beale-Cocks 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Golden Ticket

I wrote up a new essay, WP:GOLDENTICKET. Feel free to expand the page or comment to me, the talk page, or if relevant on here. Crossposting to the Village Pump. Keegan 06:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A well written essay there. It's needed as well, because I find a lot of people still take this sort of opinion. (You don't have to laugh, it's just my attempt at creating humour). Lradrama 07:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Keegan, your idea is great. I agree with it. The problem is that it doesn't describe reality. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh come one. What does describe reality? <grin> (grin on loan from Kim Bruning) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with it. But its redundant with about 200 other pages. -- Anonymous Dissident 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it is redundant. An essay attempting to tackle the issue of sysops having de facto or perceived higher status might be interesting. Also "Though rights may grant certain technical privileges, there is no golden ticket that will grant any actual authority to an individual user." isn't exactly right. The ability to block and unblock is certainly a type of authority, although not a "golden ticket". Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with redundancy. That's why we have categories and lists. (smile on loan from Avi. ) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This one's better , -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree its ueful but I do recommend it be exapnded to include perhaps some examples of how the Golden Ticket persona has been used in the past or could be used inapproriately.--Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful there, Kumioko. You keep posting to Misplaced Pages pages, you might end up cursed with admin buttons, and we'd lose one of our good content writers...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They did say I didn't have enough Wikispace edits..--Kumioko (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad this is Misplaced Pages Talk instead of the Misplaced Pages namespace... :P Useight (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with it. The general conclusion is correct, obviously (no-one disputes it), but the rest is just using odd definitions of words. The groups are special in that only a select few have membership, the sysop bit is a measure of status - whether or not your are a admin is a state of being. Sysops do have authority. They don't have unlimited authority, but policy does grant them the authority to make certain decisions - the key authority admins don't have is over content matters, on procedural and behavioural matters, admins have significant authority. Adminship may be no big deal (I'm not sure I agree with that these days), but it certainly is a deal of some kind. It's not a meaningless bit in a database. --Tango (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way: If an admin and a non-admin disagree on an issue (whether it be content, policy, or whatever), is the admin correct because they have the admin bit? Surely the non-admin could be correct, depending on what they actually say. This is what WP:GOLDEDENTICKET aims to express, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, admins are always right, no matter what. Did I miss the memo? oh, and before you reply to this, please understand that this is a completely sarcastic, useless comment. It is not how I really feel. If you think this is how I really feel, then you have my administrative permission to troutslap yourself Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If they disagree on something which policy gives the admin authority over, then the admin is assumed to be right (there are usually appeal procedures in that event that the admin is wrong). For example, if an admin closes and AfD as "delete" and the author of the article disagrees, we assume the admin is correct, at least until a DRV is complete. --Tango (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not yet aware of a policy which gives admins absolute authority over anything. The exception would be ArbCom sanctions, and in my humble opinion (and with due respect) now wouldn't be the best time for you to discussing that sort of thing. I understand your AfD example, but even then they don't have completely authority (eg. they still need to read consensus). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about complete authority. They have the authority to determine the consensus and act on it - that is an authority. --Tango (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem lies with the word "authority". Admins certainly have more permissions, more technical abilities if you prefer, but their contributions do not have more intrinsic merit (except those of EVula, as noted above). SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I love scanning a topic and seeing this sort of statement without knowing what's actually being discussed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to expand the essay, feel free. It's why I put in the Misplaced Pages: space and not my userspace. I think the fundamental idea of there being no golden ticket is a topic touched on in several other pages. I've always felt that those pages dealt with exclusives to situations, such as the cabal pages and the No Big Deal page. The essay is meant to be a focus all of those sorts of thoughts into a fine tuned idea. I encourage others who are interested to work on the page, and perhaps discuss this more at the essay's talk page. Keegan 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, what has "Golden Ticket" to do with authority? I always thought it's like the ticket to enter a fantastic place (such as a certain chocolate factory). Time to change the title, I must say.--Alasdair 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that, had Charlie not found the Golden Ticket, he would have been poor and lived a sucky life forever. So the Golden Ticket changed him from dud to stud. But UserRights don't change Misplaced Pages users from dud to stud. That's the point (complete with analogy! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, don't be knocking the title - Golden Ticket is an apt title methinks - afterall, a user's status doesn't make one "golden" or give them a free pass to act differently than any other editor. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship poll

It's the time of the year again. I've started a survey on adminship and its procedures, to find out the general sentiment on our UserRight procedure or precedent. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated! And yes, this time round it has got less questions on the table (possibly a good sign?). - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Its about time you showed up. ;) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You've been missed. Dlohcierekim 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Administrators

Since this seems to relate to several ongoing topics might I suggest that someone with the appropriate level of access take a look at this page and revoke or at least suspend the administrative rights for users who have not been active in say the last year. There are several administrators who have not been active since 2003 and 2004 and I doubt they are coming back. Even if they do they likely don't remember the things needed to perfomr admin functions after that length of time.--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My perception is that a significant number of editors stop contributing after having achieved their goal of becoming an administrator, so I think this proposal makes sense. In any case, very many editors are opposed at RfA on the grounds that they don't appear to need the tools, so why keep administrators who clearly don't need the tools? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This has certainly been talked about ad nauseum, perhaps even in this current page and not even archived yet. But it keeps coming up again and again, so maybe there's something here? How about as a compromise (between those, like me, that say admin tools don't rust, age, or expire), and those that believe that an admin can disappear into oblivion to the point of being obsolete and therefore have their userrights adjusted to remove the toolbelt (and probably likely to make mistakes because of the changed environment after being gone so long that they should be reconfirmed anyway) The hangup, correct me if I'm wrong, is the time that would elapse before "de-adminship". What if it is made into something outrageous, similar to what Kumioko said above? What if an admin, after going a full calendar year (and on the internet, we all know that is an age + an eon) without a single edit, regardless of whether it was an admin related action or simple edit, is autmatically bot-desysopped? I would agree to that, as it is highly unlikely that editor is returning if they even remember their password. Heck, they might even be dead. Or married. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That would certainly be a start. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What, getting married?  ;-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with desysopping inactive admins. They serve absolutely no purpose to us whatsoever, and cause the need for unnecessary pages like the one mentioned. I have yet to see one good argument for keeping inactive admins, and how they are a net benefit to the project. The same goes for bureaucrats, especially ones who are active but refuse to use the tools. Majorly (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not paying those administrators. The tools are not being leased. Is there some issue I am unaware of concerning admins coming back after an absentee period and wrecking shop? The answer is to add new administrators, not prune the bush of old ones. Misplaced Pages is growing, and RfA criteria is becoming more and more strict - now if you are too prepared you get !voted off the island. Admin coaching? "Factory manufactured". Any sort of personality? "Uncivil". Great answers to questions? "Too scripted". As I said above, I'm waiting for the time when someone opposes for a candidates having too many edits - I predict in the next three months.

My point here is that we should not be concerned about taking the tools out of the hands of inactive users if there is no problem. We should be addressing the actual problems facing Misplaced Pages - bloated AN/I pages, increasing concerns about off-Wiki canvassing and factions, etc. Nothing at all personal towards anyone, just my opinion. I also EC'd with Keeper and Majorly (that gets frustrating, doesn't it :-), so some of my comments might be redundant. Tan | 39 22:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note:Opposing for too many edits? It's already happened. :) Enigma Review 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree here, to me even if an editor is relateively inexperienced at least they are editing and therby learning by proxy, if you have been gone for 2 years, how much has changed. What if a sysop that has been gone for 3 years comes back and starts making edits immediately based on the policy established then, how many things have changed? To me the chance of a rusty administrator doing damage is greater than a boot editor doing harm.--Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"I'm waiting for the time when someone opposes for a candidates having too many edits - I predict in the next three months." It's happened. Majorly (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be me next year who knows. This time next year I should have around 70,000 edits--Kumioko (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My faith in Misplaced Pages as the future of online information dissemination is waning rapidly. Tan | 39 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)We have had problems in the past with compromised accounts running amok before emergency desysopping, so an account with admin functions that is not being used is a hand grenade with a pin just waiting to be pulled. As long as these sysops can be re-granted the tools without going through RfA again, there is absolutely no net loss to the project, and it gives a clearer idea of how many admins are actually still with the project. I suspect it is lower than many realize. Horologium (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ZOMG EC)My main concern with inactive admin-enabled accounts is that they, if hijacked, are unlikely to be spotted before serious damage can be done to the project. The chances of such accounts being hijacked are the same as with my account (or yours, or anybody's), but the account's owner isn't around to notice odd edits or shenanigans. Picture a sleeper sock that is actually a long-time admin with 10,000+ edits who decided to walk away. Problematic. Is removing the tools a solution in search of a problem? Possibly. But setting up such removal would serve some purpose, if only a minor one. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Think about it. If something like this isn't done, there will come a time when wikipedia has more administrators than there are humans on the planet. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, There are 6,942,941 registered user accounts, of which 1,536 have administrative tools (including the above mentioned). ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about registered user accounts, I was talking about humans on the planet. The number of humans, unlike the number of administators doesn't always and inevitably increase. The number of administrators, on the other hand, is presently without limit, and in time will include many generations of long-dead editors. I'm picturing a future SignPost with the headline "WikiPedia reaches it's 5 millionth administrator, with a subheading that 4,999,015 of the others are actually dead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. My will speculates that the mop will be inherited by my eldest son, which will pass to his son, and so on. Expect to see Bibliomaniac18, third admin from the line of bibliomaniac15, followed by my coat of arms. By the way, my plan also involves marriages with other administrators. From the fifth generation on, none of my descendants are allowed to sully the bloodline with any one with less than three administrative quarterings. bibliomaniac15 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still single, if you know any good-looking female admins with a good sense of humor, let me know. Useight (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:o Oppose people passing on their accounts to their children!!! Enigma Review 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To me this simply is good housekeeping, everyonce in a while you have to dump the trash.--Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually supporting this, but not because I think accounts are gonna get hijacked and do "serious damage". That's really just silly, and rather paranoid, IMHO. I really just think there is validity for the simple reason that the editor that has been sysopped is no longer an editor, plain and simple. "Inactive" is a very fancy word for denial. They're gone. Again, plain and simple. It's a matter of unchecking a box on userrights. A bot could do it, and should. Nothing to do with "compromised accounts". No hand grenades. Just editors that have left us. Uncheck the box. No drama, no !voting, no recall, no de-RfA. Just uncheck the box of an editor that has left. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Double Edit Conflict) I doubt it. The ratio of admins to users is like 6,000 to 1. Anyway, when somone opposes on RfA saying the candidate doesn't need the tools, everyone always says "But if they do at least one good thing with the tools, it's worth it." So why doesn't that apply here? If there's an in-active admin and they decide to come back one Saturday while their friends are out of town, and they happen to do one good thing that they couldn't do as a non sysop, isn't it worth it?--KojiDude 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the BOT idea, plus if the admin wants their priveleges back (which most likely they won't come back anyway) all they have to do is ask. This just removes that small chance of something going wrong and allows better management of the RFA's that are out there working.--Kumioko (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

KojiDude, why would they suddenly come back after 3 years? It's so unlikely. And if they did come back, they can simply ask a bureaucrat to set the right back. No harm done. Majorly (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also to Koji, if they do come back, at least once per year, the bot won't remove the bit. If they come back after being gone +1 year (which is highly unlikely), what are the chances that they need the admin bit anyway? "I've been gone 3 years, I don't know WTF is going on with Misplaced Pages anymore....hmmm...I think I'll close some AFDs today...." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Er yeah, that's if they even know what AfD is... Majorly (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin rights are not really rights. They are priveleges. You get priveleges for doing stuff, not for doing nothing. It's only reasonable to expect that if you stop volunteering for a project, you will lose these priveleges. I honestly think we're too kind to even allow them to have them back without an RfA. I mean, some users passed RfA back in 2004 with 7 people supporting. Hardly representative of the community is it? Majorly (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As I stated in the above discussion, I fully support desysopping inactive admins. I also said above that to allay concerns, we can be lenient and make it a full year without any activity. Some of the inactive admins are dead, and most of them cannot be reached (talking about the ones that haven't been active for a year or more). I actually tried. I was able to get a response from Clifford Adams, who said he wasn't aware he had a Misplaced Pages account. 85 admins have not edited in over a year. I think they should all be desysopped. And per what Keeper said, this can be automated so as not to add another task for stewards (even a ridiculously minor one). Enigma Review 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol did I read that right ... he didn't even know he has an account? And we trust this guy (no offence intended at all here, but it's so silly) more than many people who actually make edits here? Majorly (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yep. I can forward you the reply if you'd like. :) That was the only reply I ever got. I responded to his e-mail, but a week later and no reply from him. Enigma Review 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I will never understand this desperate desire that so many seem to have for administrator tools, and to hold on to them no matter what. Isn't it supposed to be "no big deal"? So it's no big deal that an administrator that hasn't edited in a year isn't an administrator any more? Right? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's no big deal to get the tools (or supposed to be). It should be no big deal to remove them. Majorly (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was no big deal either, the brutal and tragic demise of my RFA showed me the error of my ways.lol--Kumioko (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship is a big deal. RFA torture proves it. Which is exactly why there should be an automatic (bot) desysop for inactive accounts. If/when an editor does come back (and remembers they have an account, lol), deal with that then. Don't think that's happened yet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It is sort of a joke that adminship (or the tools, making the distinction is also silly) is not a big deal. Look at the RfA process. My god, it's a huge deal. Majorly opposed Wisdom89 based off some deletion trust issue - not that I have any problem with that, but don't claim adminship isn't a big deal if we can oppose such a clearly dedicated editor based off that. If adminship was truly no big deal, we should all go "Eh, looks fine" to 99% of applicants. This whole "not a big deal" thing should be discarded, as it's only said and never actually followed. It's a platform for hypocrisy, at the moment. Of course its not a big deal to editors who are already admins - they can dismiss aspiring admins with a brush of the hand, claiming the whole time adminship isn't a big deal. It's patronizing and condescending. Tan | 39 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now if you knew me a little better, you'd see I rarely oppose RfAs. I opposed because speedy deletion is something that is a great contributor to driving off potential editors. When done incorrectly, it drives the user off the site, never to return. Who knows, it may have been the next Newyorkbrad, Phaedriel or whoever. I am well aware how dedicated he is. It's not like I was the only oppose. With improvement on speedy tagging, and less semi-automated tools (I see too much Twinkle and Friendly being used) I'd love to support him. I only opposed because I believe his errors would drive away good faith editors. Majorly (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do see you around, Majorly, and I didn't mean to dismiss your oppose !vote. I used you as a quick example, and if it was in bad faith, I apologize. My point is that claiming adminship is no big deal, and then opposing the RfA of an editor who has put in thousands of hours, tens of thousands of edits, and has worked very hard on many articles, is essentially telling that editor "You don't even rate as "no big deal". You are less than no big deal." To tell an editor that they don't meet the standards of "no big deal" is harsh indeed. Tan | 39 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also now like to state my support of Kumioko's idea. There is simply no need for inactive and dormant people to retain unused accesses. The fact is that people in need here on en.wp often turn to the list of admins to find someone who can provide help, both editorially and administratively. If so many of them aren't around to provide that administrative assistance... then they shouldn't be counted among the list of administrators. -- Anonymous Dissident 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet Jimbo is sitting at his desk reading this and grinding his teeth as we speak.lol--Kumioko (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NBD is outdated, and wholly inaccurate. Misplaced Pages is too big, at the very least, it's way bigger than when Jimbo uttered those words that created that essay. Anyone wanna MfD that essay, or archive it as obsolete (because it is) ? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, and Jimbo is way smarter than that. He long ago decided that WT:RFA is ridiculous. I'll bet he hasn't read this page in ages. :-) and if you're reading this Jimbo, please accept my apology for assuming you were smarter than this, and please add a smiley face or silly picture to prove it. Or add your two cents. Either way, pleased to meet you, we haven't conversed as of yet. My talkpage is open! :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, I think that we can all agree that its simply been overcome by events. I guess they were right you don't need to be an admin to help change policy, but it does help if you want to clean up the mess after the policy has been made!!--Kumioko (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support desysopping admin accounts that have been inactive for a year. But I think we're in the minority. Useight (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see one user here against this. I suggest we make a straw poll lol. Majorly (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who managed to change something was once in the minority. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, many of our English and Australian editors are fast asleep, several of which I can think of off hand that would perhaps be opposed to an automated desysop after one year, based on prior opposition to ideas of this ilk. But, WTH, start a poll Majorly! Do it! do it! Us wide awake Americans should get to decide everything of importance anyway! Wooot!!!! (zOMG, I'm so freekin joking...please don't blast my talkpage with tripe.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

Admins that have not made edits in at least a year should be automatically desysopped.

Support

1. Support I support suspending sysop (and buearocrat too) privileges after 1 year.--Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as stated several times. Enigma Review 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. After 1 calendar year of exactly zero edits, be they regular edits or admin specific actions, a +admin account will be automatically changed to an editor (desysopped) account by an automated bot. 1 month prior to the desysopping, a talkpage message shall be left on the talkpage of the affected party, warning of the pending action. A second message will be left 2 days before the pending action. Resysopping can occur via the normal channels of "requesting the bit back because of non-controversial desysopping", namely, on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. In other words, if you're gone you're gone. If you're back, you're back. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Inactive admins are totally useless, pointless, and probably clueless when it comes to making decisions that may have once been acceptable but aren't now. As I said above, there are inactive admins who wouldn't even know what AfD is. That's clearly a sign something needs doing. Majorly (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Mostly just because I think it's a good housekeeping procedure. For the same reason that I like to keep most of my hard drive empty and my desk uncluttered, we might as well tidy up a bit. Useight (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support if done using Keeper76's method. The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. If I were to leave for a couple years, I should expect to have my tools gone. I'm not entitled to leave an admin account floating out there. Plus we can give them the tools back if they come back, they know that. Wizardman 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. See my comments here. Acalamari 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Would you be comforted by the fact that he could just ask a bureaucrat to set the right back? Majorly (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   It helps, though I'm still not sure I like the idea of removing the tools. I'll have to think more about it. Acalamari 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per this. Cheers. --LV 00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   Well wherever you've been for the past two and a half years, welcome back! But the point is, if you wanted admin tools back, you can just ask a bureaucrat (btw, Essjay and Danny are no longer bureaucrats, so don't ask them) Majorly (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   (e/c) Welcome back LV! If this were already in effect, you'd be able to easily get your admin toolset back. No reason to oppose. You are in the vast minority, BTW. (apparently Gator is another) Most editors, after being gone 1.5 years, don't come back. Welcome back! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   (ec)This is pretty bizarre. Not just that he came back to post this, but I was reading his talk page earlier this week. How odd. Welcome back. Enigma Review 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) What are the odds of just showing up for the first time in years to participate in this poll? Wow. But welcome back. Are you planning on staying? Useight (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   Unsure at this point. I got word there was a more serious proposal to de-adminfy dormant admins, and had to say that I still want my tools... you know, just in case. My WikiBooks tools... nooooooo! ;-) --LV 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   Well, now that you edited, you'd still have 1 more year before the tools were removed, in the event that something like this was instigated. P.S. - I really wish I had your username. Useight (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

3. No, at least not this way. Set up a page where users with legitimate problems with a sysop can request the removal of the flag. Likewise add the inactive accounts there. Being an admin is not a lifetime thing; admins should have to stand through re-confirmation. Monobi (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   Admins in conflict (i.e. recall) is completely separate from admins inactive. If they haven't edited in over a year, how exactly will any of there (in)actions result in conflict? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I just don't see the point. What do we gain from doing this, exactly? I don't mind it if we do this (assuming that admins can get their bit back whenever they want to), but apart from some more bureacracy and a cleaner list of admins, what's the point? --Conti|✉ 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Well that's the point. It's a cleaner, more accurate list of admins. And reduces potential for misuse should the admin return and not know what an AfD is. 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   That's a pretty minor point, tho, and it's already taken care of by sorting Misplaced Pages:List of administrators by "Active" and "Inactive". And I very much doubt that an admin who was inactive for a year or two will jump into closing AfD's without reading what's happened in the meantime. I've been inactive for a few months, and before I did anything AfD-related I simply read the rules again to see what's changed. I hope that all admins will act like that. :) --Conti|✉ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   The only reason really that I'm supporting this is because there is no bureaucracy. A bot removes the bit from an inactive (dead/married/moved on/retired/disallusioned/WTF-ever) account. No bureaucracy, just housekeeping. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   That's still one more bot than we need, I suppose. And I can already imagine admins making an edit at least once a year just to keep their bit (which would be rather silly, of course). --Conti|✉ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Shrug. I think expending this much time on this issue is silly and a great example of a solution in search of a problem, but since the outcome is basically irrelevant, I don't care either way. Dragons flight (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   If you didn't care, then why did you bother to comment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral. It seems that removing the tools after a year goes along with the evidence of adminship being A Very Big Deal, as current RfAs conclusively prove. However, as long as the facade of "no big deal" is being bantered around, it seems silly to think that we need to remove the tools from people who once had the trust of the community. Yes, I'm sort of doing this to prove a point, but this is a straw poll, right? Seems like there's other pressing issues out there... Tan | 39 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I'll make that my next target-)--Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite, "once had the trust of the community". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Doesn't matter much either way. Epbr123 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I lean slightly towards oppose for purely sentimental reasons, which is why I'm putting it here so no rationalists jump me. I respect the memory of our departed and inactive administrators, that's all. bibliomaniac15 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Another face on adminship

There are some administrator tools that can cause serious harm, even though every administrator action can be reversed. That reversal may come too late to appease the grievance felt by an editor who feels that (s)he was unjustifiably blocked though, and to that extent not all admin actions can be reverted.

Learning from the experience of handing out the rollback tool to non-administrators though, which I believe has not resulted in the predicted widespread mayhem, maybe there are other admin functions that could be granted in the same lightweight way? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

zOMG, Malleus, why are you starting a new thread when the one above (finally) has some steam? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree him, in fact I think that it would be very beneficial if WP were modularized like Mr. Potato Head style in that you have admins with a given toolset but each of the tools could be granted individually like the rollback is. For instance if you ony deal with vandals then you don't need to be able to block accounts necessarily, just to Speedy delete a page. Just an example. I will say that I do like the way that WP is allowing scripts to be easily used and deployed from the perferences. Maybe something like that could be in order here.--Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There aren't that many tools that an admin has, and I don't see a problem with having them all at once. Useight (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's add even more complication, chaos, and confusion to the admin-tool-granting process ;-) Tan | 39 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) ( to kumioko) :::I don't necessarily disagree with this, just too much change at once. I'm about to wet my pants at the idea of two hugely discussed admin/tools related controversies being discussed at once.. :-)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Last time people demanded and tried too much change at once, we ended up with this. bibliomaniac15 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)