Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:28, 3 July 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 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Opposers being Attacked

I was just reading BJweek's RfA and I was kind of surprised at the level of badgering some of the opposes were getting. I was thinking of going straight to the review of the RfA process with my concerns but I figured I'd see what you guys think first, to see if maybe I'm wrong. Beam 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is generally expected that candidates or their nominators will react to opposes. Of course, some opposes are more arguable than others, and I agree that the civilty of the replies is creeping downwards, but they are entitled to their opinion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread gives the impression of a Zimbabwean election, can you please elaborate or give some examples of "badgering"? There might be a bit more questioning of opposes than usual (some stern replies to otherwise acceptable opposes, but otherwise I'm not seeing much out of the norm. —Kurykh 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA has sadly become an adversarial process, a little like hazing. I've seen much worse badgering than that, quite recently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, opinionated diatribe happens. Read the section above for an alternative view. This RFA is, well, interesting, but drawing undue attention should not be encouraged, see Schrödinger's cat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Schroedinger's cat, but could you possibly explain what its relevance is to the RfA? Did you perhaps mean Pandora's Box? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just afraid of changing the outcome through observation alone. Mind you, if despair is all that's left after RFA then, yes, I'd opt for the lady's box... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Or that there's a 50% chance that the RfA will be poisoned in some way? :) (I love physics) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It would perhaps be interesting to know how many candidates retired after an unsuccessful RfA. The experience is unlikely ever to be a positive one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the last month or so when I've been lurking around RfA I've seen much worse "attacks" on opposers, but it was pretty constant as I read through BJweek's RfA which prompted me to make this post. I'm going to see what a few more people think and I probably will bring it up at the RfA review. Oh and to be clear, I haven't seen BJ himself harass the opposing, but a supporter or two have. Of course we shouldn't let that look down on the nominee although if it got drastic I hope a nominee would say or do something to try to calm it. Beam 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A number of RFA's I've witnessed, the nominee stays well out of any wikidrama going on besides refuting inaccuracy or injustice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah usually a wannabe admin who is that close to achieving their goal won't fudge it up at the last moment. Beam 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Or it's a wannabe admin (and anyone who goes for RFA is, by their nature, a wannabe admin) who doesn't want to get embroiled in wikidrama and induce oppose !votes (as I did) by trying to respond to other comments. If anyone has opinions/questions etc for the candidate, they should be discussed in the discussion section, not in the Support/Oppose etc section. Or better still, on the RFA talk page or on the talk page of the candidate. This vitriolic bloodlust we see from time-to-time should be avoided by everyone at all costs. And that includes opposition to the candidate taking the 'higher ground' to avoid such conflict. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

All cooperating nominees are wannabe admins, just to be clear. :) Beam 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hence why I said " (and anyone who goes for RFA is, by their nature, a wannabe admin)"... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you thought that I thought that wasn't the case. Beam 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look through Bjweeks' RfA. You mention "I haven't seem BJ himself harass the opposing, but a supporter or two have." I'll have to take another look at the RfA, but I see nothing there that qualifies as harassment. Maybe a little bit of heated discussion, but no harassment. Acalamari 20:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the term badger better than harass. Beam 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the term badger as well. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

QUOTED. Hilarious! My god, that was beutiful...--Koji†Dude 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Great edit summary. :D Acalamari 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages... Badger Badger Badger. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's badgering either. Besides the support/oppose/neutral part, the other point of an RfA is to discuss if someone should be an administrator or not. As long as people remain civil towards one another, there's nothing wrong with responding to opposition (or even supports or neutrals, for that matter). Acalamari 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For the majority of opposes to be questioned by one or two ardent supporters is badgering in my book, especially if it's petty. Someone should feel free to oppose without worrying about a supporter immediately saying that they are wrong, blatantly/directly or not. Beam 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter what position you take in RfA, you should always be prepared for a response: when I participate, I know there's a chance that someone may want to respond to me, and I do not view it as badgering. Most of the time, when someone responds to you, they're not telling you that you're wrong; rather, they are trying to get a better understanding of your opinion. That's not badgering. Acalamari 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing wrong with responding to opinion but, in my limited experience of such, I've witnessed all manner of hyperbolic screeching over "badgering" the opposers. No wonder candidates seldom respond to the !opposers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Was contemplating starting a thread about this on my own, but apparently somebody beat me to the punch. RfA should more or less be a civil community discussion, but far too often the supporters become indignant at what they perceive as horrible reasons given by the opposition. You can have that opinion I guess, but, seriously people, keep it to yourself. The next time I see Support - Per user in the oppose section, I'm going to slam my head into my keyboard. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my French but it's fucking retarded to support because the opposes don't seem any good. Beam 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it undermines the candidate. That kind of a support certainly doesn't help. It's to make a non-blue linked point. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll do that simply to see your "oi;4efhikhbr" reply :-) Tan | 39 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I nom someone for RfA, I go into it telling them that it would take something greater than NPA to make me respond to an Oppose. They are free to do it, but I've seen so much Oppose hounding in my time that I prefer not to. Ideally there shouldn't be *any* responses, since there shouldn't be threaded discussion. If it was all moved to the discussion section or the talk page, things would be a lot better I think. MBisanz 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes... "oppose hounding". It's so classless and almost arrogant. Beam 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe... but some of the opposition comments are downright stupid. Hell, I once opposed Useight for screwing up the tally box formatting. Anyone calling me out for that would have been in the right. Then you have Kurt, and everyone who comes up with an arbitrary count of some type, or lack of equally arbitrary requisite experience in one area or another. Those votes are simply dumb, just like my opposition comment to Useight last year. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall that event quite clearly. I had no idea what went there and I couldn't decide if I should put the time or the date there. Useight (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa. :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some opposes can be rotten or seem unfair - nitpicky, cherry picking, whatever you want to call it. But, that's no excuse for being argumentative, and it's certainly against etiquette and the spirit of Misplaced Pages for the Support section to become angry to the point of spiteful !voting. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is either a discussion, or it is not. If an RfA were held in person, I guarantee you we wouldn't see half of the opposes that we do simply because there is no way they could be said with a straight face into the eyes of the nominee. Calling them out in writing is entirely legitimate. Certainly, I believe it is equally legitimate to question absurd supports as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there was a little bit of honesty about whether RfA is, or isn't a vote, then we might one day see this much vaunted but little practised idea of consensus in action. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this thread highlights a bad feature of RfAs, and similar polls. Certain editors seem to feel entitled to browbeat and attack and harass and intimidate those they disagree with at these polls. Some even threaten others, or take revenge for voting the "wrong way", sometimes a year or so after the RfA or other poll is closed. I have complained about this repeatedly, and nothing is ever done. Frankly, this behavior is inappropriate.

I would favor a rule that ANYONE who engaged in any such badgering or threatening be banned permanently on the first offense. And I would also ban anyone who complained that this kind of banning is unfair, or went off to whine offwiki about how unfair it is not to be allowed to attack fellow editors who vote the "wrong way". I do not think it would take very long before this very unpleasant part of wikiculture changed if such a plan was implemented. I personally am sick of the attacks and threats and bullying.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a like like steamrolling to me.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

... and certain editors who also happen to be administrators seem to feel that they are immune to those conventions. Because they are administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they basically are immune... Beam 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They are, or at least they appear to be, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And what's worse is, after they browbeat and harass and intimidate users at an RfA and the RfA passes, they become more immune because they would now have another admin buddy. A buddy who will be thankful for the badgering performed for their benefit and will surely stand up for them in the future. Beam 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes the WP:CABAL is growing, sign up today! Seriously, if you feel browbeaten take it to the admin, or to arbcom if it's that bad, but this all just sounds like accusations of elitism and conspiracy theories. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're offering the arbcom or admin route to me, but I wasn't browbeaten, I did not oppose or even comment in this RfA at all. I was just pointing out what is happening. And why should someone have to put up with badgering in the first place? A constructive attitude wouldn't be "well if you feel that way goto arbcom", it would be "they shouldn't have to feel that way at all." Think about it. Beam 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposes that show the candidate won't make a good admin are fair and shouldn't be questioned. Ones that don't should be questioned. Any opposer that claims they are being "harrassed" or "badgered" should not have made a comment if they don't like to be responsible for what they say. Excuse my French as well, but it is fucking retarded to enter a discussion and not expect someone to reply to you, especially if your oppose is really rubbish too. People who enjoy opposing others (there are lots of people, sad I know) should expect a response, not get upset because someone dared to question it. The way to stop the apparently feeling of harrassment is to... stop making such crappy opposes! Simple as that :) Al Tally 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well "laddy", I have stopped voting entirely because of people with your attitude. And the next time I have a chance to talk to you in private, I will tell you what you can do with your attitude. How would you like a few personal threats? Think that would make this a nice editing environment for you? For anyone? Good grief. What a load. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

fyi I didn't oppose. I was reading other people get badgered. But if someone opposes because they feel the candidate doesnt' have a enough experience, why isn't that good enough? Why does an ardent supporter have to immediately say something along the lines of "What does that mean? Define experience."? Beam 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't help the candidate or the discussion. Experience is different for different people. Some like 3000 good edits, some like 10,000 just in the Misplaced Pages: space. It helps to show why they think the candidate is inexperienced. I could, for example support "Has good experience" when an opposer says "Is inexperienced". It doesn't help anything. Al Tally 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to oppose without defending your opposition. If it's a shitty oppose than the crat will realize that. People should not fear reprisal for opposing. I think you understand but don't want to admit it. Or maybe you don't understand and I'm an idiot. Beam 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And you should be able to reply to opposition to defend your candidacy or herald without having a river of cries from the opposition. Any and all who are unwilling to address the concerns of their opposition should be failed (in any sphere of society, whether on Wiki, or in federal politics) right then and there, as well as any and all opposition that's unwilling to have their opposition questionned. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem if you're replying to facts, but not an opinion. That's badgering. Beam 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) FWIW, in my limited experience with RfA, I think there is definitely a double standard where opposers are badgered but supporters are not. Sometimes supporters feel the need to counter to what they apparently see as spurious !opposes, but I rarely if ever do you see opposers challenge "per nom" or "don't see any problem" !supports that have been piled on long after numerous detailed opposes have been filed. I do think it's fine (and perhaps even to be encouraged) for the candidate and maybe even the nominator to respond to specific incidents mentioned in opposes and to tell their side of the story, but in most cases there's no need for others to badger opposers, and doing so doesn't help build the community or the encyclopedia, IMO. Yilloslime (t) 23:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight:

• editors do not always want to give their reasons for opposing, to avoid hurting the feelings of others, or revealing privileged information, or to avoid swaying the other participants
• editors should not have to defend their right to oppose
• editors should not feel harassed or bullied or badgered or intimidated for opposing.
• editors sometimes oppose because someone they trust has also opposed. This should not be a federal crime.
• getting revenge on someone for opposing 6 months ago, or a year or two ago is obscene and should result in an immediate ban.
• threatening to do something negative to someone who has voted to oppose in good faith is disgusting and should result in an immediate ban.

People who just are so full of themselves that they feel entitled to be bullies and demand the right to attack others should take a good hard look at themselves and the reasons they are on Misplaced Pages. You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who exactly you're replying to, but please refrain from making personal attacks such as "You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me". Not only are your comments made from bad faith, but these are completely unproductive. No one has ever said anything about people not having the right to oppose. We're speaking about the right to question the opposition (or support). I don't like it is a downright poor argument that is disreguarded everywhere else on wikipedia, and I really don't see why it should be given special treament. You're fully entitled to not like something, but if you can't back it up by concrete reasons, and concrete facts, then it's non-admissible.

And threats should not be met by an immediate ban, but rather a warning that such behaviour is unnacceptable and that the next instance will result in administrative actions. To immediatly ban removes the opportunity for people to retract their statements and will only lead to more bitterness when they are unbanned, and opens the door to widespread admin power abuse. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Immediate bans is a bad idea, but I also agree that badgering the opposers doesn't help. If you take a look at my RFA criteria (which I'm in the process of revamping), I think that badgering the opposers, unless the oppose !vote is really, uh, out there, kind of shows a lack of class. Useight (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it badgering? If a candidate is being opposed because the opposers have misunderstood something (for example, an RfA where a certain diff has been raised and regarded as a personal attack and opposition is rising, when in reality, the incident was friendly humor between two users), why would it be wrong for a candidate to respond to the opposition to clear things up? As along as the candidate is civil, I believe responding (to anyone in the RfA, not just opposition) shows that the candidate can communicate, and I try to look at it as a plus. Acalamari 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I think Filll's response (whomever it was in response to) was perfectly civil. I don't see any personal attacks. It's true. People with that mind set really are an embarassment to this project. We're building an Encyclopedia, not questioning Steve's evaluation of Jim at his RfA. An immediate ban would be fine. Warnings give everyone the mind set of "I can do it X ammount of times before I get punished", so without them it'd be "If I do this, I'll get punished". It would dramatically decrease how often the act is commited.--Koji†Dude 23:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban from what exactly? Questioning people with editcountitis and other strange ideas who clearly haven't the slightest clue what adminship is about is now a bannable offence? Good grief. Al Tally 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you think someone politely asking to clarify your reasons is bullying, I suggest you take a look at some WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW RfAs where people enjoy piling on. That's what bullying is. Al Tally 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok "Al": Obviously I am not talking about "politely asking someone to clarify their reasons". Let me try to show you what I mean. Let's suppose I hounded you for the next 10 kilobytes about your reasoning in this thread, and called you names, and insulted you, and threatened you personally and got a bunch of people to attack on you on-wiki and off-wiki for disagreeing with me in this thread. And then in a month, when you were involved in an AfD, we all showed up to say how stupid you are since you disagreed with me in this argument. And so we were getting "even" and getting our revenge. And then we did it again and again and again and again for the next 14 months. And then filed RfArs against you as "revenge" for you disagreeing with me today. And posted blog posts about how stupid and horrible you are for disagreeing with me today. And said all kinds of other uncivil things about you. And filed RfCs against you for the next year for the same reason.

Would that seem rational to you? Would that seem like a friendly thing to do? Would that seem like a good way to build a productive collaborative community that worked well together? What if I obtained your personal information and made assorted threats against you and your family for your position in this argument? Would that seem like a reasonable response? Would that seem like a good way to work together in a collegial supportive environment?

Or do you think that maybe, those sorts of extreme behaviors might be counterproductive?

You see what I mean? This entire "attitude" of "let's attack that disgusting bastard he dared to oppose and therefore I hate his guts and want to see him dead" or "I don't like the fact that P.O.S. did not give a reason I like for his oppose so I am going to have a vendetta against him for the next year" just is fostering the worst possible environment. Do we want to volunteer to contribute work in an environment like that? Is it is constructive to allow people to vent and rant and spew hatred at other editors for something like a disagreement over an oppose?

Obviously, a simple polite single question is no big deal. The problem comes is that the discussion is often not a single simple polite question, but an inquisition. And there can be threats. And people seeking revenge for months after. The entire atmosphere around these RfAs is poisonous because we do not stop the conversation at a single simple polite question. People feel justified in mounting a MAJOR attack on someone who does not vote the "right way". And frankly, that is bull. And needs to stop.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Al here (shocking, I know!). Banning/blocking is overkill. Trouting perhaps. But when I see someone opposing for the most ridiculous reasoning (you know who you are), I wanna throw something through my monitor. We should be finding reasons to support, not finding reasons to oppose. I can't think of a worse environment on or off wiki than RFA. What a shithole of a process. Even the word oppose is too harsh when talking about another human being. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(3 e/c, my god magnum) Yeah, it should be bannable. If all someone's gonna do is bitch about somebody's vote because they don't like their rationale, I think a proper "Get lost" is in order. And nobody enjoys piling onto SNOW RfA's; assuming that is assuming bad faith.--Koji†Dude 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Golden rule of wikipedia is WP:GOODFAITH. Immediate bans are the most blatant violations of WP:GOODFAITH I can think of. As for Filll's comment, it most certainly is a personal attack. See Ad hominem. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. You apparently don't know the meaning of Ad Hominem and I recommend you take your own pointed advice and read it yourself, carefully. Beam 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain to me how "You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me" is not a textbook case of ad hominem? How does that statements address the quality of the arguments being made by whoever is the target of his ire? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ad Hominem does not mean insult. It does not mean insult someone when you are arguing with them. Ad Hominem means that you insult someone as part of the argument, as if that insult means you win the argument. Simply insulting someone or attacking them during an argument is not Ad Hominem. Like i said, you don't understand what Ad Hominem means apparently. Beam 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Who did I address that too? I addressed it to "People who just are so full of themselves that they feel entitled to be bullies and demand the right to attack others should take a good hard look at themselves and the reasons they are on Misplaced Pages. " It was not directed at any person in particular. It was not necessarily addressed to anyone in this thread even. It was addressed to anyone who feels they are entitled to be bullies. I guess if you put yourself in that category, you should be insulted. Do you think that you personally are entitled to be a bully? I would hope that most people reading this, if not all people, would read this and think "no I do not feel I should be acting like a bully, and I do not think anyone here should be acting like a bully". It is a statement that is more of a rhetorical nature. If it offends you, I apologize. If you want me to remove it, I will.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept apologies, but please understand that when you barge in a thread all guns blazing, placing a indented comment to the effect that anyone who questions an oppose vote is an embarrassment to wikipedia and a disgusting person that should be banned on sight, right after someone who said there's nothing wrong with questioning an oppose vote makes it look like you're replying to that user in a less-than-graceful way. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb, you shouldn't accept that apology, he shouldn't have apologized. You misrepresented what he said, you don't know what Ad Hominem means. And now you seem to just skip over all of the points Fill made. Beam 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some like to say "HELL NO would make a crappy admin!!1!" I don't suppose people give a toss about how the candidate feels when they make opposes like that. The reason we don't question supports is the same reason we don't question other nice gestures - "Why did you give me that barnstar?" "Why did you buy me those flowers?" "Why did you get me that birthday present?" "Why are you such a nice friend?" We just do not ask. If someone does something unpleasant or nasty in real life, we question it. The same applies here. Al Tally 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposing isn't "unpleasent or nasty", it's part of process. If nobody were allowed to oppose anything, Misplaced Pages would suck.--Koji†Dude 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly is. Saying "no" to someone is something that should be avoided. It's hard to turn someone down for a job, right? The same should be here, but people don't find it as hard or awkward because they can't see the candidate. They don't care for their feelings. They simply enjoy their power to say "no" to someone, often for a really petty reason. I consider it a form of bullying. I didn't say we couldn't oppose anything. When we are dealing with a real life person, we should be sensitive in what we say, and not talk about them like they were no better than the mud on your shoe. We do for BLP AfDs, and we should have the same respect for our editors. Al Tally 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So then, if Filll were to run for RfA, would you support him on that basis? Or if I were to run? Or what if WoW were to run? And if you should never say no to somemone, what if I started a poll to replace the Misplaced Pages logo with a gigantic ass, with the words "FUCK" on the left cheeck, and "YOU" on the right cheeck? Would opposing be "unpleasent or nasty" then?--Koji†Dude 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not on that basis. I never said I never oppose. I do oppose people. I haven't said that we should "never say no ever". We should, when making opposes, be polite, be fair, be nice, be helpful and prepare to reply to people without kicking up a silly fuss about it. Whenever I make an oppose (or a support for that matter) I always reply without complaint. Why can't others do the same? Al Tally 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But some do not want to reply. Maybe they have some privileged reason for not supporting that they are sworn to keep private, for example. Is that a problem?

And what if you are not asked just once or twice about your oppose, but 29 times why you oppose? And when you give your answers, you are told your answers are invalid and others argue with you over and over and tell you that you are stupid for opposing. Or worse. And this goes on over and over and over and over. And then someone threatens you for daring to oppose. Does that sound like a pleasant experience to you?

THAT is when things cross from the reasonable to the unreasonable. And that is why there has to be a change in direction at these "votes".--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You would only have to ban someone once or twice, and the message would get around pretty quickly. If you warn editors two, three, four, five, ten, 20, 30, 50 times, and do not act, then eventually the rule has no meaning. Just like things are currently. In principle, it is highly uncivil to threaten people, and it violates the banning policy against coercion, but since we do not enforce it, it is ignored and meaningless. In principle, it is highly uncivil to say "I am doing bad thing X to you since you opposed me/ my friend/ editor Y at RfA 6 months ago, or a year ago". However, I have seen this several times. And no one bats an eye. It is just "business as usual" and totally expected. And people start to expect that it is their right to take these kinds of actions and make these kinds of statements.

I disagree. This is all part and parcel of the idea that it is permitted, and expected, that people opposing should have the ^%$#@ beat out of them for daring to oppose. Well I say that is a stupid attitude. And if the voting is to mean anything, people have to be allowed to vote "oppose" without being attacked. Or badgered. Or threatened. Or someone taking revenge on them later for daring to oppose. If your goal is just to operate like some sort of criminal enterprise and brutalize other editors, then maybe Misplaced Pages is not for you. I thought Misplaced Pages was actually about creating an encyclopedia. I did not think it was some sort of a social club and an excuse for you to attack others at meaningless "votes" like RfA.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that revenge opposes are bad and should be discounted. Al Tally 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Al Tally spoke of "bullying" by piling-on. I'm doing a small study about piling-on and I should be done with it in the near future. I'm interested to see the results and I'll put them on this talk page when it's ready. Useight (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been accused of seeking revenge or holding grudges against editors who have never wronged me. It is impossible to create a working definition of "revenge oppose". Go ahead and try. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. --JayHenry (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, folks, calm down. AGF doesn't only apply to people who are opposing - it also applies to the folks who engage the opposers. On occassion it looks like badgering, sometimes it can get impolite, but I don't think I've ever seen it get nearly as bad as Fill describes above. Its important, for the candidate and for other participants, to understand what the opposers feel the problems are. A detailed and rational oppose can have a huge effect on a request (and rightly so), while an unexplained oppose will prompt people to wonder "Why is this person opposing? Is there something we should know?" Not to mention the not unusual situation where an oppose is based on a misunderstanding of some sort, and a bit of discussion clears things up. At any rate, few people who can be accused of "badgering opposers" on RfAs read this talkpage and hardly anything can be done about it from here. Best to address these people on their talkpage or the RfA itself, if you wish to correct the problem you perceive. Avruch 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but unfortunately I see many more "oppose hounds" who seem to have thrown their assumptions of good faith in the garbage prior to their "questioning" of an oppose than you do. Beam 01:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. I haven't been around Misplaced Pages as long as many, but I've been reading through most RfAs at least cursorily for about 8 or 9 months. Your first edit (as Beamathan) was in March, so maybe if you give it a few more months you'll have a better sense of what happens on a regular basis. I think that the threshold of considering a response "oppose hounding" is probably too high - engaging with critics, either by the candidate or others, for the purpose of explication is not going to be a bad thing in itself. Only if it becomes impolite or personal should it be considered in poor taste or disruptive to the process. Avruch 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should become desensitized to the harassment of oposers, so I hope after I'm here for 9 months I don't "get used" to it. Beam 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, it's not harassment to respond to people, opposers included, in RfAs. Harassment is something totally different to discussion, and in my opinion, it's not a word to be used lightly. Acalamari 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can fully accept that Beam and Filll and others above believe that people are being harassed badgered, etc... but just like with such a claim made at an actual RfA where are the diffs? Where are the plethora of ArbComm cases and RfC's indicative of such a widespread and horrendous issue? I haven't seen them, and you saying "it happens, I've seen it" isn't convincing anyone. Moreover, pointing at the aether and claiming that all who badger opposers "disgust" you makes any of us who have ever questioned an opposer defensive. What does your definition of badgering cover, does a question of an opposer's reasoning in good faith make your list of badgering opposes? I for one have no idea. I agree that the example given above is absolutely unacceptable, but where does it leave good faith discussion and reach this bannable state you call badgering? Assume far a few seconds that some of us understand your argument but still disagree with you. Just show us the diffs that show this 14 month badgering spree you talk about, or even an oppose over a single vote six months ago. I might be convinced by that but hand waving isn't good enough. Adam McCormick (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to take a look at my talk page where I describe, with diffs, a couple of cases. However, I have seen more than these; the situations I list on my talk page were just the easiest to dig up quickly.

Although I admit that people are likely curious when they see someone oppose with no explanation, they have to accept that sometimes the opposer does not want to reveal any more information. The information might be sensitive, it might make the candidate feel bad, it might overly sway the other voters in a fashion the opposer does not want to do, it might lead to further unpleasantness. Maybe one could start a precedent where opposers who do not want to be questioned could put a short notation after their "vote" signalling their willingness or unwillingness to explain further, that others would respect. In the past, requests by opposers that they not be questioned have not been respected, leading to lots of unpleasantness.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to discuss and defend your vote, then don't vote. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy (or rather it should not be, because right now that's what it seems to be). Discussion is infinitely more important than votes, especially votes made by people who aren't willing to justify and discuss them. This is the way it works for FAC and FLC reviews, and it works very well. This isn't the way it works here, and look at all the problems it causes. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is a vote. If you've got 5 supports with people giving some good reasons, but 58 opposes that were all just name signs, it'll be closed as un-succesful.--Koji†Dude 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Isn't the rule on wikipedia, be it RFA, AFD etc. that you go for consensus. In case of RFA with 5 good reasons in favor and 58 votes to oppose without giving any reasons, granting the RFA would be a decision that is consistent with the reasons given by the 5 voters who are in favor, and it is also consistent with all the reasons given by the opponents (as there were none). If you don't grant RFA, you ignore the arguments of the 5 who are in favor. I don't see any valid reasons why you could do that in such a case. Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately policy and rules do not always match reality as the "💕 Anyone can Edit!". Beam 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(5/58/0) seems unlikely. Where it gets tricky is when it's (58/24/0). This is where the bureaucrat's discerning mind comes into play. So, yes, it is a vote - to a point. But when it gets into the grey area of the margin, some RfAs will succeed that have lower support percentages than other RfAs that have failed. Kingturtle (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I am willing to discuss my vote sometimes. Othertimes, I am voting based on information I would rather not discuss or reveal. If you don't like that, then maybe you don't need to be participating in these polls.

What I am unwilling to put up with is:

• being attacked as "revenge" for voting "incorrectly" on an RfA six months or a year or more previously.
• being threatened with outing, or worse, for voting "the wrong way" on an RfA
• being the target of RfCs and RfArs because I did not support the "right candidate" on an RfA.
• being called names and worse at assorted offwiki sites such as blogs operated by Wikipedians, or offwiki attack sites, for voting in a politically incorrect fashion on an RfA or other poll.

These types of harassment are nonsense and have no place on a website like Misplaced Pages.

The reason I am disconcerted by the "discussions" after every oppose vote is they create a very negative atmosphere. And they often go way beyond what is reasonable and polite. And these "discussions" more often than not turn into angry fights. And this contributes to the impression that some editors have that anyone who votes the wrong way (that is, usually oppose) is a suitable target for intimidation, for harassment, for badgering, for threats, for vengeance, for personal attacks, for pestering, for persecution, for torment, and other assorted irritations. And worse. And since no one does anything about this, or speaks out against it (particularly those in positions of authority like administrators or arbitrators), this emboldens the harassers. They feel confident. They feel justified. It is their "right" to attack those filthy $#@% jerks that opposed them at RfA, or opposed their friends at RfA, etc.

I even see this in this thread. Some claim that even opposing anyone at all is harassment and must be stamped out (except possibly those editors that they personally decide are "politically incorrect" - maybe for not wanting to unblock a notorious troll, or for making a negative comment about Misplaced Pages Review. Heaven forbid that anyone would say anything negative about Misplaced Pages Review! Oh my !!).

So I ask you, if you are so sure that you are correct, why not propose mandatory banning of anyone who ever votes to oppose? Just ban immediately.

If you are so %$#^& sure of your position, then I dare you. Go ahead and propose it. Make it at Administrator's Noticeboard, say. And let's see how far it gets. If you don't want to take me up on this challenge, clearly you are not so serious after all, right?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! After reading through the wall of text above, I think one note hasn't been made yet. I think that oppose !votes can reasonably expect to receive more scrutiny than a "Yayz support!" because an oppose is essentially five times as significant as a support, based on the rough 80% guideline applied towards determining consensus. If someone fires off an opposition that seems unclear or ill supported and it single handedly "wipes out" 5 supports, then requesting clarification would seem appropriate. Hounding is crap, though, and this is not an endorsement of hounding. Polite discussion should always be the goal, but an oppose !vote can also be far more useful to the project and the candidate if it helps identify an area of improvement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please clam down. Anyone with half an ounce of decency agrees that harassment is disruptive behaviour. If you are harassed, then RfC for said harassers, and if things don't improve go to ArbCom. You could also make a request to bureaucrats to crack down the whip at harassers, to ban harassers from RfA (after a stern cease and desist warning of course), and to remove harass votes as they appear rather the de-facto non-involvement policy that seems to be followed right now. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He appears calm to me. Beam 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

All good suggestions. So far, my efforts to highlight this problem have not been successful, but I am not giving up. Since you have some good ideas, maybe you would like to informally join me in my campaign to modify our culture a bit to discourage this kind of activity?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm there, believe me. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although this thread is a bit old and soon to be archived, I invite comments on User:Filll/Peaceful Polling Pledge--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Extra questions on RfAs

This may have been discussed before, or may easily be a "solution in search of a problem," but is it a good idea to have a 6-hr limit for editors to get any extra questions in before voting starts on an RfA? The objective is to allow the candidate to fully answer any/all questions and give every voter a complete picture to base their vote upon. Any thoughts? Vishnava _talk 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I give way more weight to the candidate's contributions than their answers to the questions. I don't think waiting around six hours would be necessary. Useight (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to adress a concern of my own. Lately, RFAs have fallen victom to like 10 extra questions. I think this is very frustrating. Should there be a limit to how many extra questions a candidate can recieve.Gears Of War 15:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Both good points - the issue I'm raising here is to give a full picture to the voters. You may have your own perspective in judging candidates or a desire to limit the number of questions one is loaded with, but in both cases it would help to allow the candidate to clear all questions he/she desires before the decision process begins. Vishnava _talk 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No, there should not be a limit. These questions are supposed to find more information about the candidate. The candidate can answer however they choose (or not at all), because they are optional. I'm an Editorofthewiki 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just a thoght. :}Gears Of War 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They are de facto not optional, as evidenced by opposition simply from not answering the questions. Why people continue to pretend they are optional, I don't know. Tan | 39 15:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The "optional" part is little more than a title at the moment. To be honest, I don't know why the "optional" part is retained still, as there's been plenty of evidence to prove that not answering a question tends to have negative effects to an RfA. Either questions should truly be optional, or the "optional" part should be dropped. Acalamari 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I made that suggestion somewhere, once upon a time, but it didn't go anywhere (as usual). Tan | 39 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread has taken quite a tangent from the original question. But, yeah, suggestions never go anywhere, this is RFA. Useight (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that needs to change. Jimbo Wales should be more active in these sorts of conversations, especially ones over here at RFA.Gears Of War 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, totally, disagree there. Jimbo (and Larry) did great things in setting Misplaced Pages up and Jimbo did great things with the WMF (and arguably does great things as a general ambassador for the WMF), but he has less experience with the current version of Misplaced Pages than many one-month-old accounts. His essays and ideas on the day-to-day maintenance of Misplaced Pages are, by and large, geared towards a small to medium-size site with few thousand articles, not the eighth largest website in the world. The "Jimbo is always right" cult does nobody, including him, any good. – iridescent 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, once again, just a thoght.Gears Of War 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEAL being the most obvious case in point. Tan | 39 19:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For those who missed it, he's given his thoughts on the matter. Gears, you're probably not going to like them. – iridescent 20:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has. My idea was to have time cap, be it 6 or 12 hours, to get questions in and the voters to get a full picture. The issue of "optional" or non-optional questions does not arise, as the candidate may still choose to decline answering any question, as much as he/she is entitled to do so now. Yes the pressure is there for the candidate to answer all questions regardless of the "option" not to, but that isn't the point. Vishnava _talk 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the way it's done now that could justify a change?--Koji†Dude 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said in my disclaimer above, its prolly not a serious issue, but the objective is to (1) make things fair and easier for the candidate, questioners and the voters and (2) allow better information and absence of confusion. As it has been noted, being given 10+ questions to answer requires some time on part of the candidate to judge whether or not he/she should and could answer, and allow people to get complete answers (or none at all) to the questions before deciding one way or another. I've seen several cases of the candidate having to re-assure people as the votes pile up that "no I didn't mean that," "no my record is clear on this," "no I've done what you are saying I haven't" and keep the messy debates over objections limited. Vishnava _talk 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I just think that allowing some organization and time allowance in the process helps make things clearer and fair to both candidate and voters, and allow the process to be clearer and more stable. Consider how easier and clearer things may have been in the recent RfA where the age of the nominee was a major concern, or the other one where the Huggling was a concern - questions could be asked ahead of voting and time given for the nominee to respond without stress and with due consideration. The voters can arrive at decisions once they've heard what the candidate has to say. Often times, the objecters make arguments that the candidate has virtually no time to answer or address properly, meanwhile others vote on the objecting argument of the first one. Vishnava _talk 16:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no pressing cause or urgency, but what's the harm in tweaking the process a bit for sake of fairness and stability? Vishnava _talk 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think if the nominee can't handle the stress of answering questions while the voting is open, they shouldn't be an admin? It's probably (and I say probably because I've never had an RfA, so I wouldn't know) not as stressful or urgent as you're making it seem, and you still haven't really shown what the prolem is that needs solving.--Koji†Dude 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point.Gears Of War 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern would be that the tone of the optional questions might become more inquisitorial, particularly in controversial nominations, than it is already. RfA can be a horribly bruising process without a candidate being openly confronted by editors who want to make a comment but cannot do so in a vote because of the time cap. I am thinking of a recent request in particular and, while I don't wish to go over old ground, I think this idea would have made the situation much harder for the candidate with no gain for the community. Rje (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, there are too many questions, IMHO. We should be looking at the candidate's useful contributions to the encyclopaedia (and other namespaces), not merely how they speedily answer 1,000 questions. I would suggest a 10-question limit, because sometimes it just goes too far. We've all seen RfA's where a candidate receives nearly twenty questions, sometimes more. I think it's just unfair, and causes too much stress. --Mizu onna sango15/ 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If being asked questions causes a person "too much stress", then I respectfully submit that said person is not a suitable admin candidate. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

By the same token I would suggest that someone who takes offence at their "optional" questions being ignored has no right to offer an opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I don't think we actually have the same token. Even if we ignore the prevailing tradition (whereupon sysops take an "ombudsman"-like role, usually being the first to field questions from new users, even if said fielding is as simple as telling them to read a particular FAQ, or, in this case, check out the Help Desk), adminship still involves activities which are bound to raise questions - from "why was this article deleted?" to the cherished "why did you block user X?". If a candidate cannot deal with answering questions, it'll just mean more traffic over AN/I (see: Betacommand, Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me, et al.), or a candidate who avoids the very situations which the tools are most often used for - a useless admin, in other words. I consider this as utterly non-controversial as requiring a runway model to be comfortable with being stared at. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a 6 hour limit will disenfranchise those who live in different time zones. It needs to be at least 24 hours, if at all. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? Misplaced Pages time uses UTC. I don't quite understand what you mean. --Mizu onna sango15/ 06:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Look at the RFA chart (on top of page). Have RFA standards instantly become higher or are many inexperienced or not qualified users just applying at the same time? RedThunder 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Both, I'd say. Also, it may be noted that the users in red might just not be withdrawing. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing happens instantly around here - although some speculated that after Giggy's RfA, there was some leniency offered to new candidates. However, if that were true, it certainly was fleeting. Looking at the table at the top of the page, I'm guessing we're back to the approximate 50% success rate. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and what Web says is true. Headbomb for instance made it clear that they did not wish to withdraw. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that a lot of users are applying right now, inexperienced or not. Can't… keep up… with backlog. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a time with around 30 RfAs on at once? Maybe a year ago? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have only been following RfA closely since May. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that SoxRed has a bot that tracks these things.Gazimoff _Read 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The point, of course, is that if we removed the MYSPACERS and MMORPG'ers from even asking for +sysop (given they haven't a clue what the buttons actually do, and the damage they can cause) then the community might find they lower their standards. Not commenting on our current candidates, but if we want to reform RFA simply stop the leniency on "address books" "hidden pages" et. al. that is given to "established" editors. Anyone with half a clue and five hundred solid edits should be able to get the bit. The legion of "I've made 10,000 huggle reversions so I must be a good admin" editors need to wise up and understand it's not a reward. I'd suggest wanabee admins in this category read The Monkey's Paw ..... M♠ssing Ace 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A great example is here at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/JeanLatore. W have asked this very inexperienced user to withdraw but he thinks that: he will prevail in the end. Like other users have said, that RFA is just a blood bath waiting to happen.Gears Of War 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That RFA is a poor example to cite in this context. This user stands no chance not due to inexperience or higher standards, but due to a fundamental inability to understand Misplaced Pages let alone adminship. Have you made the candidate at that RFA aware of this thread, by the way, as they are now mentioned in it? M♠ssing Ace 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your confusing me. That RFA is a good example of ineperienced users entering RFAs. All your other questions confused me, sorry.Gears Of War 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about Questions

I've followed RFA since about last summer, and it looks like the amount of questions asked at each RFA continues to rise. Any thoughts? 5:15 00:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it has. Useight (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your observation is keen. As Useight so succinctly put it. Indeed. There's not much we can do about it (if view it as a negative occurrence that is). The only thing I can say to future candidates is this: Answer the questions, and answer them straightforward without circumlocution. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There have been some that have reached up to over 20 questions. But I don't think there is a certain number of questions that could be asked in an RfA. The number of questions vary depending on the candidate and the question givers. If someone has to give a question so they can decide to support, oppose, or even neutral, then they can no matter how many questions are present already. Yes, it could be worrying for others, and tiring for the candidate, but it happens. -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to remember that questions remain optional. Andre (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rehashing an argument we've been over a number of times. Of course they are optional, and of course there will be opposes for not answering optional questions. It's a conundrum. Enigma 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If the questions are reasonable, they shouldn't be a big deal to answer. If the questions are unreasonable for some reason, a simple explanation of why instead of a proper answer would suffice. If the answerer has a limited amount of time to edit Misplaced Pages and insufficient time to answer all the questions at once, this too can be clarified and explained. If the user ignores the questions, obviously that may provoke an oppose. Andre (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems simple to me. Instead of using the word optional, we should just use the word "recommended." Solves everything. Beam 05:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This solves absolutely nothing. It encourages opposition based on not answering optional questions, and doesn't do anything to actually reduce the number of questions (particularly stupid ones). --Rory096 03:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hacking adminship

Whatever happened to this range of incidents of compromises? Simply south (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Devs installed captchas so you can't brute force crack an admin's account. You could still use social engineering though --Chris 10:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought

Over the last few weeks I have started to notice that its hard to get Admin help in the early hours. Be it page protection, reporting vandalism, AN or ANI admins are harder to come by in the early hours. The other week page protection requests went unanswered for 4+ hours, there are many other examples I can go into. My question being, would it be acceptable to support a nomination at RfA based somewhat on the editing hours of the person. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Define "early hours" if you'd be so kind - early hours for me is not certainly the same as for you. M♠ssing Ace 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We have editors that live oin all parts of the world on the English Misplaced Pages. Someone will cover it at all times. America69 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

America is correct. However, I do wonder about the statistics regarding the country of residence of the active administrators. Perhaps there's a disproportion towards North America. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean early hours in wikiland. Its not specific science but Im talking 04:00 - 10:00 UTC ish. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We cetainly have very few in the Asia, Africa and South America sections of the highly active user lists. The latter two have two each to be precise. --Cameron* 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would be nice to see some stats, this isn't about countries, its just about the hours that admins edit. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 20:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) Indeed - I've found 06:00-10:00 WP time to suffer an admin paucity. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that this means we should give lenience at RFA simply because an editor is active at times when others are not. This would seem akin to allowing the apprentice to fix the brakes on your car because the trained mechanic is not around. M♠ssing Ace 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But certainly its an issue, if it means that we need more admins in that editing period I would be inclined to say "so be it". — Realist (Who's Bad?) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. If we need more admins at certain times of the day then this is an issue. But to rectify it by granting +sysop due to a bias because people edit at those times seems folly. It just then leaves yet more work in undoing poor administrative actions later on. We "promote" (bad word) based on competence, not on the time that someone contributes. M♠ssing Ace 20:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I typed "somewhat" in both italics and bold. Indicating that it would only be a minor issue in deciding. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:HAU? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, firstly it says "users", is it admins only? Secondly this isn't about what continent someone comes from, its just a matter of who edits between 04:00 - 10:00 UTC. Maybe we should have a list of admins who edit in this period for editors to get hold of them? — Realist (Who's Bad?) 21:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Highly active users suffers from the same problem and it is often slower to go through each user on the page seeing if you can get there help than to go to AN even at the slowest of times. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 21:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

HAU does detail most active editing times, as well as geographic location - and geographic location will tell you nothing about when someone edits. The list also contains both non admins and admins. However the question raised in this thread still appears, to me, simple; Should we alow the time period someone edits from influence our decision to support an RFA? Answer - no, not in my book. M♠ssing Ace 21:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that list is of much help, but it might be wise to get a central point to contact admins who edit in this period. Well at the very least its raised some interesting questions. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you've got something that needs admin attention more urgently than the boards will provide, simply look at Special:Log/delete and click the most recent username there. That way you know you're going to get an admin who is around and can help you out. It's probably the most active special page to use and I'd bet you'd struggle to find a period of >15 minutes of inactivity on it. M♠ssing Ace 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the go-to guy at HAU, we used to have a status bot that kept track of who was online and who wasn't, so you could easily find someone (if there was someone) who was editing at that time. However, the status bot got blocked, so I'm still working on the best workaround. The tables there used to list each editor's blocks of time in which they would most likely be editing, so perhaps we'll have to bring that back. As for finding someone around between 04:00 and 10:00 UTC, I'm often around up until 05:30 or so, so perhaps I could be of some service during that time. Useight (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that Special:Log/delete is a really good idea. That should be added to HAU. Useight (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless, of course, one wants to find an arch-inclusionist admin it's a good idea :) M♠ssing Ace 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(out) Lol, its a nice link, I'll keep hold of it. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It used to be better, before the status bot got blocked for editing too much. Useight (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, you meant the deletion log, not WP:HAU. Man, I'm too hungry to edit coherently. I'm going to get some food and then come back. Useight (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry the delete log. Sorry for wasting your precious admin time folks. :-) — Realist (Who's Bad?) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In my 1 year and 7 months here I've edited at all hours of the day, and I've observed at some times admins aren't active, and requests take a while to get fulfilled. In some cases this can cause some damage. However, you shouldn't take into account when an editor is active when deciding whether or not to support someone.

I personally look to see how often they would use the tools, if they would misuse the tools, and if there personality makes them fit for an admin. If a person passes all these things, I'll support them, unless there's a huge problem with the user. If they don't pass these three things, I may support them, or I may not. The times they're active doesn't influence my decision at all. However, it would be great if we could get more admins who are active at times when not many admins are active;-)--SJP (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Banning trick questions from the RFA process

This should be a no-brainer. I'm pretty sure quite a few people are pissed off at trick questions such as the infamous cool-down-block question, which automatically fails your RFA if you don't answer "never", and I don't think they add to the process at all - as I said on TDH's RFA, we should encourage candidates to think. Reeling off answers from a cheatsheet doesn't say anything about your potential skill as an admin. I'm sure this has been brought up many times as well. Thoughts? Sceptre 14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a trick question? Cool down blocks happen all the time. The trick is, never say thats what the block is. — _Maggot 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a trick question because of how its loaded - answer anything other than "never", you fail your RFA. Even if you write a five-hundred-word essay. Sceptre 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats a load of bull. Did you ever consider that neutrality would prevail over the word never? Simply acknowledging the fact that its current practice, yet inciting its misuse and consequences would easily justify an adequate knowledge of the blocking policy. Far better than No way. I'd never make a cool down block. — _Maggot 14:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet on another note, a discussion was started here about cool down blocks being removed from the policy altogether. — _Maggot

We could just ban all questions. Or cut it back down to one question, "Why do you want to be an administrator?" The candidate could then write a couple of paragraphs about why being granted adminship would be a benefit for the encyclopedia. If people can't be bothered to go through an editor's contributions (and therefore find the candidate's style/opinions and understanding of policy/thoughts on meta issues), they shouldn't be voting anyway. :-) We don't need dozens of questions to determine the answers that could be found by actually evaluating a candidate thoroughly. But maybe that's just my opinion. ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sort of like the old days... Although I'm inclined to agree, the first three should still remain. I don't mind restricting some questions just not the first one proposed. — _Maggot 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The first three questions are fine. Optional questions can sometimes be unfair if they are, as stated, trick questions, and all too often, there ends up being far too many of them. Either restrict it to just the three, or, if there are some optional questions that get asked all the time, have a set of about 4 or 5 questions that get asked all the time, instead of optional ones. We have had a fair few discussions circling around this topic, but nothing ever seems to be done about it. :( Lradrama 14:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult, online, to judge people's clue level. A personal interview could probably easily tell us in only 10 minutes who is a suitable candidate, but we don't have that luxury here. Whatever questions people come up with are probably OK, unless they're completely unreasonable. Even the unreasonable ones are perhaps useful, as they call give us a clue how the candidate responds to unreasonableness. Friday (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a trick question, as long as it is not malicious or misleading(ie "Do you still smoke crack?"). _{1 != 2} 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps no trick questions for RfA Irregulars? Qualified editors who just don't know the RfA process, and have no history of taking a political position on one editing policy or another should be spared the indignity of getting slapped around by one faction or another for answering a question in good faith. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, how many people running for admin are regulars? Most people are running for their first or second time. If the question is truly unfair then the community can decide that, if the answer shows a lack of understanding of an area then the community can take that into account too. _{1 != 2} 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, admin-running regulars. Perhaps TenPoundHammer? Note: That is not an underhanded jab at TPH, if he ran again, I'd support in a heartbeat. Useight (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter how many people are running who are regulars? The point is that those are the only people who could adequately/diplomatically answer a trick question. You have 13 people who are regulars here decide using markup in signatures is so distracting that it should be banned. These 13 people could devise a question which states "What is your position on markup in signatures?". Anyone who then says they support it, or have no problem with it, could quickly find they have earned 13 opposing votes for it, even though signature markup has nothing to do with being a competent administrator. Since an experienced editor who is inexperienced at RfA would never see that coming, it would be unfair to ask such a question. As an RfA noob, I would certainly assume that any questions allowed by the community to remain in my RfA would be admin related. Allowing trick questions, or questions which simply have no bearing on actual admin related duties is misleading to candidates who have come here innocently expecting to be judged on their contribution history. It can lead them to believe that they do not actually understand what the mop is for, when in fact they are essentially just being pushed around by the cool kids in the cafeteria. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is the questions that are asked, so much as how the contributors respond to the answers. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as we base our criteria on trust, then everyone is going to have their own way of determining trust. I do agree that contributors occasionally forget about trust and it turns into prom night sometimes though. _{1 != 2} 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to extend the number of standard questions. It's too easy to go look at successful RFAs for the best answers. Any optional questions should be specific to the candidate. Editors who go down the list of candidates and drop the same questions on them, it's pointless. Look through their contribs and their talk page, and if you have a question for them, ask it. Otherwise, cast your vote and go on with yourself. There's no point in asking some standard question outside of, perhaps, the recall question. Not that it even matters so much, because you can easily fail to add yourself or do so with impossible criteria. LaraLove|Talk 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many of the "optional" questions are intended as trick questions and some even use them as "If you disagree with my opinion on the subject, I'll oppose." Terrific. Enigma 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Lara, of course. Additional questions should only be used to clarify a point about that particular candidate. People going around asking the same questions at every RfA is problematic. Enigma 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the initial stance of banning trick questions (they're more trouble than they're worth) but how do we go about enforcing that? Who gets to decide whether a question qualifies as a trick question or a genuine interest in the candidate's knowledge of policy? Some of them, such as the CDB question, are no-brainers but others may not be. And, if we do agree to ban those questions and allow admins to remove them from debate, what happens with potential as per trick question 5 !votes that were cast between the question being asked initially and the time when it's removed. I guess my point is that the reason why this issue has been brought up before and no consensus was ever reached is because of the high level of interpretation of what constitutes a trick question as well as the difficulty of subsequent enforcement. Maybe I'm terribly nearsigthed for saying this but the only option I see is a strictly pre-determined set of questions without any variation whatosever which would have the drawback of the community not being able to ask a candidate any questions that might alleviate concerns specific only to that candidate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit subjective. Can somebody offer examples of inappropriate "trick questions" other than the bloody "cool-down block" meme? — CharlotteWebb 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't seen Misplaced Pages:RfA cheatsheet? There's plenty! —Giggy 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for a start, we can ban the CDB question from being asked. It's bloody annoying. Sceptre 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

People should be allowed to ask any question they would like as long as its not malicious. We really shouldn't tell people what they can say, and what they can't say unless, of course, it goes against wikipedias code of conduct. As for questions on cool-down blocks, they're legit. The most important criteria for adminship, in my opinion, is that the user won't misuse the tools. One way to misuse the tools is to do something that goes against policy. The blocking policy currently doesn't allow cool-down blocks, and if someone gives someone a cool-down block, they are misusing the tools. Thus its currently a legit question to ask to determine if someone will misuse the tools.--SJP (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't legit. The question is informally fallacious because, while it asks for a question, there is really only one correct answer. Sceptre 12:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the conventional wisdom on that point, and I can't support someone who endorses it, or who doesn't endorse it but is more interested in following some so-called "rules" than with using his or her own best judgment. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, here are the possible scenarios that can arise from this situation:

• Says "no cool-down blocks" because he or she agrees with CW, in which case I can't support because the person is wrong
• Says "no cool-down blocks" because, even though he or she disagrees with CW, still will follow the so-called "rules". In this case, I can't support because the person is more interested in following a bunch of so-called "rules" rather than using his or her own best judgment—not a desirable trait on a project that's supposed to be the antithesis of "rule-boundedness"
• Is in fact favor of cool-down blocks and would in fact go ahead and make them, but goes ahead and answers "no" to pass the RFA. In this case, the person is dishonest, and so I can't support.
• Says "Yes, cool-down blocks are fine" and really means it—I can support
• Says "Yes, cool-down blocks are fine" but is just lying to get my support—likelihood is slim to none, given that everyone else would oppose. Certainly unlikely enough that I can, for all practical purposes, afford to ignore it.

I fail to see what's wrong with forcing people to get off the fence and take a position. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions

Lets explore something different. Would anyone consider creating an essay on non-preferred questions? Also possibly adding a detailed explanation, along with specific examples? Lets face it. I've seen crappy questions removed at will from RfA's in the past. This could possibly solve the thousand optional question problem whilst retaining original questions provided they be fruitful, in good faith and make those candidates think. (Misplaced Pages:Optional questions anyone? Unless someone has a better idea. I'm sure we can think of something.) — _Maggot 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential RFA change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, okay, here it goes. Yes, I'm aware that various editors bring up potential changes to the RFA method here all the time. And they are all shot down, often with a link to WP:PEREN, so I'm pretty sure that consensus will be impossible to find here again, but I don't believe this idea has been brought up before, and now nobody can say that Useight didn't try to help improve the RFA system that many say needs to be improved. Anyway, I have spelled out my idea at User:Useight/RFA Fix, so any feedback would be great. Here, it'll just be sufficient to say it involves Skype. Useight (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds awesome. That'd probably be the coolest solution yet. Hell, if this gets OK'd, I'm gonna run for RfA just for the fun of it! <---- Which is where one problem may come from. Those SNOW close RfA's would be a gigantic pain in the ass with the Skype interview, and the ammount of SNOWy RfA's is likley to increase.--Koji†Dude 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I will start off by saying that I think this is a nice, (and funny) well-meaning idea. With that said, I don't know if it would be worth it in the long run. True, the Ryan issue would potentially be resolved (I can't think of many cases of people speaking to a children in person and thinking they were adults), but some really don't like this kind of thing. Who will co-ordinate the whole project? Will we need to disclose out personal information and identification, such as First/Last/Middle name, address, credit card number? Social security number? Will the WMF need to contact the candidate and actually speak to them? How much time will this typically consume per month? --Mizu onna sango15/ 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea but what about people who don't have a mike or their bandwidth is so low that it can't take real time audio transfer. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What the essay states is, "if you don't have one, get one". So I suppose if I want to be an administrator, I'll just have to get a brand new computer, a microphone, webcam, et. al. :-| --Mizu onna sango15/ 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it, but realistically, it will never happen. Enigma 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Thinking it over more, I think it could happen as a very optional kind of thing. Most won't be willing to participate in it, so it couldn't be implemented on a broad scale. Enigma 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be just optional. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as well, because the idea is frankly ridiculous. How on earth can anyone be certain who they're talking to at the end of a phone? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Do you mean that people could hire more experienced Wikipedians to do the interview or whatever for them? -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for second guessing someone else's reason, but I think he means, how could we verify it is the same user? Rudget (logs) 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I said more or less. I don't think that is a problem really, in theory you could do that now (have someone else come up with the answers for you then post them yourself). -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I will peform anyones RFA interview for them for a nominal (fucking huge) fee. Beam 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

... and in practice that's what already happens, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I am much more charming and handsome than my edits would have you believe. I also have a sexy voice. This is awesome for me, sign me up. Beam 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and maybe my seductive voice can defer your attention from the words coming out of my mouth rather than if I'm making sense or not. Maybe requests should be changed into a beauty contest instead and only allow the hottest of the hottest editors request adminship. Would anyone agree? --Eric (mailbox) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be good: in the event someone ever blocked my account inappropriately, at least I'd know that the blocker would be good-looking. :D Acalamari 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. That is just plain ridiculous. That is just complicating the process even more and yeah, not everyone has a microphone nor should they be bothered to download other programs and applications. I already feel the critera for adminship is already through the roof and this will make it even more complicated. So no for me, but that's just me. --Eric (mailbox) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Useight, this is an awful idea from a purely technical point of view. Skype might be fine in places with broadband connections as standard and a generally rich population; in the rest of the world, you're excluding a majority of users, who don't have fast connections and/or aren't willing to purchase hardware they're only going to use for just this one occasion. Even relatively advanced economies like the US and UK, broadband penetration is only about 50% – and I'd love to hear what a VOIP conversation over dialup would come out sounding like. I'd also venture to guess that Skype usage is well below 1% of the population; I certainly wouldn't even know how to begin should I want to install it. – iridescent 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming around to this idea, because in real life I'm pretty cute myself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be done over a text based messaging program, it would not have to be audio. That would eliminate the bandwidth problem. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Absolutely not. This idea is only slightly more realistic than asking people to get themselves down to the WMF offices for an in person interview. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the fact that you have to be over 18 to RfA. Would listening to a voice from a 13 year old make sense? --Eric (mailbox) 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree with that, Useight's "Skypedia" method is not the way to go, IMHO. The cons outweigh the pros immensely, and many admin hopefuls will not be able to run, for various reasons; mine being purely technological. --Mizu onna sango15/ 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw shucks. I was hoping that my cute English accent might swing it for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I support Eric's beauty contest idea. I suggest we limit adminship to attractive women with large breasts and insist that every candidate post a photo at RFA. Even if they ended up posting someone else's photo, at the very least we'd wind up with an encyclopedia of attractive women with large breasts. Oh, wait a minute... – iridescent 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! I just say I look like this, and I remain an admin in a landslide. :) Acalamari 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• A nice idea, but in principle, it's got some serious problems. Firstly, some people don't use skype - my ISP won't even let me use voice over IP which is needed for it so I'd be out of the equation completely. If people can use skype, but don't have the equipment, why should we expect them to buy it, just to run through RfA? Secondally, there's a privacy issue - some users don't like admitting whether they're male or female, young or old or where they geographically locate to - having there accent broadcast across the web wouldn't be something they desire. Definitely an interesting proposal, but there's just too many problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is on Skype, where would I put my opinion - "Oppose - editor's internet connection is too slow.". Seriously, I cannot support an off-wiki solution to an on-wiki problem. Kevin (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or do the majority of people here seem wicked insecure with their personal image? I mean, why else would someone object to an OPTIONAL interview done in this manner? Beam 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds cool. As so many people above have pointed out, it's not practical at all, but it'd be interesting to have as an option. Coordinating it for candidates who want to would be a pain, and so would just about everything else involved, so I'd think anyone who wants to do it would have to start planning it before transclusion. That said, if it does become an option, I'd be happy to serve as a recorder or moderator. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Flaws

Okay, if I got everything from above, here are the flaws with the idea:

1. Snow RFAs would increase
2. Who will coordinate?
3. Will we have to disclose personal information?
4. Will the WMF have to contact and speak with the candidate?
5. This could consume too much time.
6. Some people don't have a mike or enough bandwith
7. I'll have to buy a new computer, microphone, and webcam
8. How can we be certain we're talking with the actual candidate?
9. People with nice voices are more likely to be promoted
10. Process is too complicated
11. Less than 1% of population use Skype
12. Foreign countries don't have enough bandwith
13. Some ISP's block VOIP
14. People don't want to reveal their accent
15. Some people use public computers and can't download the software
16. Some people don't want to download the software and/or can't figure it out

I believe I got them all, if I missed any please add them to the list. I will address each of these concerns the best I can this evening. Useight (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just you I think. Insecurity with personal image has nothing to do with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'd quite welcome the idea, but others may not have the same seductive and mellifluous telephone voice that I do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm biased in thinking up the idea as I, too, have a nice radio voice. Useight (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If Privatemusings ever decides to run for RFA, by all means, Skype would be fun! For the rest of us mortals, who don't have the darn software or hardware, the on-wiki system will have to suffice. :) Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the few times that I disagree completely Useight. It's a clever idea, but I think way too complicated to streamline. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As an option? You can't see this being an option? I would love to actually answer the questions with my own voice. That way the community could look me in the eye and actually understand exactly who I am and what I'm going to do. At least much more so than text responses. I hate to be so simple but I think some people are just insecure. Beam 00:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really felt the need, you could always upload a sound file to Commons of yourself answering the questions... Seriously, a policy that's effectively asking people to pay to run for RFA isn't going to happen - I suggest we archive this. – iridescent 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, Skype and Audacity are both free and if a candidate doesn't have the hardware or bandwith, this Skype method would just be optional and they wouldn't have to use it. Useight (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

People could look you in the eye by hearing your voice? That's way too weird for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it sounds nice, but it's not practical at all. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 00:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the above flaws at User:Useight/RFA_Fix#Flaws, perhaps they will help calm the concerns above. Or perhaps they'll just bring up more issues. Again, let me emphasize that this method must be optional, for the many reasons listed above. Perhaps a test case could be run without an actual RFA on the line. Useight (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea at all. We currently have candidates opposed for not answering optional questions, some of which have nothing to do with being a trustworthy admin. I can see candidates being opposed with "Will not skype". What I can't see anywhere in the above debate is

• Which candidates whose RfA's have failed should have passed and how will this fix it
• Likewise for candidates whose RfA passed, but later turned out to be a poor choice.

This seems to be just another layer of complexity with much downside and no real upside. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The RFAs that failed but should have passed? Well, if the RFA failed then there wasn't community consensus and it shouldn't have passed. If the reason consensus wasn't reached was because of some strange trifling matter, then no, this change would not address that. I don't know if any change to RFA could fix that; it'd have to be a change within the people, not a change with the system. As for candidates who passed but turned out to be a poor choice, this method would somewhat ensure they they are at least not just copying answers from other RFAs and we could better discern what they do and do not know about policies. Useight (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to try to improve the Rfa system, but I strongly oppose this idea. First of all, the Rfa process should be done 100% on the website. The second reason I oppose this is because its unneeded. We should make the processes here as simple as we can, and not more complex. Finally, I don't think anybody should be forced to download something to take part in a process here, and some don't have the technical ability to.--SJP (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Useight, I think you're pushing yourself too much here. Misplaced Pages is the 💕 anyone can edit, and I think that a user having to install a whole bunch of new stuff that they might not be able to violates that mission, prevents the encyclopedia from being benefited with a potential admin, violates personal privacy, and promotes a potential "Skype" cabal. Perhaps some of these are on the extreme, but I strongly, strongly oppose such a measure. bibliomaniac15 05:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the community is kind of bipolar on this particular optional method, some think it'd be good, some think it'd be terrible. I'm going to archive this discussion and go back to the drawingboard. I'm such a technophile that I guess I got overeager about this idea. But I got a lot of feedback on the idea, thanks everyone. I'm going to take that feedback and mull it over, along with whatever I can glean from Misplaced Pages:RfA Review, and work on formulating new improvements to the RFA system with an emphasis on simplicity. Hopefully I'll be back someday with a new idea, one not so radical, yet somehow improves the system arguably deemed to be the most "broken" on Misplaced Pages. Until then, I need some time to think, so I guess I'll spend more time in the shower, the place where all ideas come. Useight (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)