Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KojiDude (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 23 June 2008 (→Opposers being Attacked: my god). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

An alternative RfA approach

I just had an idea that might improve the whole RfA process somewhat. How about a 3 step process for achieving adminship:

1. A 2-3 day process in which a person puts forward their interests, and are compared against a standard set of requirements (e.g. 2000 edits, 6 months tenure, no warnings etc), during these 2-3 days people can voice only precise concerns, such as indiscretions on the part of the candidate.
2. If that time passes without a legitimate concern being raised, the candidate begins a one month trial period as an admin.
3. A 1 week period begins after the trial period with the community discussing how they did, where possible improvements could be made, and wither they should be allowed to retain their admin rights.

Its just an idea, feel free to propose alternatives to the steps or general idea as much as you like, but give it some thought, I recently read a comment likening the process to a Chinese water torcher, which sums up the negative vibe it has fairly well, and I could help but think it can't be improved. This way the admin decision can be made on actual admin activities rather than the hypotheticals that are often raised in the current RfA. I also feel that the minimum requirements I mentioned above can't be a bad idea.

One final thought, maybe we could have both practices and the candidate can select their preferred method. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can fail based on #1 alone. We've never been able to agree upon specific requirements for adminship; not only that, but such a process can be excessively negative (and be even more formidable than the current system). As for #2, who decides what a "legitimate" concern is? The bureaucrats? My own RfB experiences have shown that the community doesn't want us acting as the judge for every !vote. The trial period doesn't do much, either; if someone was going to bananas with the tools, all they have to do is keep their nose clean for a month and then they're in the clear. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A legitimate concern is vandalism or other such breaking of the policys, in otherwards anything not based on ones own opinion. Thats nothing to do with bureaucrats.

True, desiding a standard for application will be tuff, but also a onces off. How is the comparison of the number of edits an editor has made to an agreed standard negitave? Thats mathamatics. (Thats only an example requirement of course).

There not in the clear, I've never seen misuse of admin tools go unnoticed for long periods of time, admins are scrutinised more then anyone, the trial period is to show you know what your doing, not that your not a vandal. Showing weither your a vandal or not would be the job of step 1.☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be extraordinarily difficult to get through step 1. We've tried that multiple times before and we can never get a consensus as to the numbers. That's because there are a lot of other factors besides the quantitative edit count. Useight (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I totally agree, but if we can do this I think the trial period method would be so much more appropriate for admins to sign on ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the current process does a reasonable job of excluding vandals from adminship. The issues we should be looking at are much more complex than vandalism, edit counts, or # of talk-page warnings received. Admins don't get in trouble because they vandalize articles. They get in trouble because they make poor, hasty, or ill-considered decisions and then circle the wagons and react defensively when concerns about those decisions are raised. They get in trouble because they wheel-war first and discuss later, if at all. If we're going to improve the process, we should have a clear idea of what the problem behaviors are, and proceed from there to decide how we can pick up warning signs during the RfA. Practically every admin whom I consider unsuitable (no names) passed their RfA with flying colors. Often, even with hindsight, it's hard for me to pick up an indication of the problems which ensued. A trial period as an admin is not a bad idea, since the learning curve is so steep. In fact, most sensible admins realize this intuitively, and ease themselves in with relatively uncontroversial or straightforward actions before getting into thornier uses of the tools. MastCell  16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the trial period is the center point of my idea. Now to expand the point, the thing that I think is the problem with RfA's is that ones own opinion has to much of a place on the table, to follow my way, there would be no starting questions for the candidtates, instead people would bring concerns to the table, the candidate would then have first response on that concern, and then others would be allowed to voice there opinion. The good bit about that is that if the persons concern is to personal, or doesnt make much sence, the candidate can have there say, and then others could voice there opinion on weither the concern is worth much of the 'crats attention, because of that it would be so much more concensis based, and lets face it, the current one is a vote, in a big way. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing that's in the way to meaningfully fixing RFA is our weird attitude toward crats. We say RFA is not a vote, but then we want crats to treat it (almost) like a vote. We set a high bar for who can be a crat, and then we don't want them using their own judgement. If we were willing to trust the crats more we could probably skip RFA as we know it today. Friday (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I continue to self note that my method isnt perfect, thats one thing my proposed method fixes, none of those steps are votes, its basically, "the editor did this, which I think is a no-no to aquire/retain adminship/the trial" and then that point can be discussed. Perhaps the candidate should be entitled to first response on those now that I think of it, just so his/her own opinion is in the center of the discussion. Also that no-no they raise should be firmly based on reality, i.e. policy indescresions etc. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How would that make it any easier on the candidate (which you've suggested would be a good thing)? Currently, the RFA process doesn't really require much input from any candidate, if they so choose (I made 3 edits on my rfa). And yet you suggest that the candidate should be the first to respond to every piece of criticism. Plus, the three-step process with a trial run just means a longer spotlight will shine on a nominee, which I can't imagine being any easier on honest candidates. I think it's great that people think about rfa reforms, but you don't seem to address the concerns you yourself have about the process. - Bobet 12:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I said that the candidate should be entitled to first response, I don't recall saying they had to, my approach doesn't require any input from the candidate what so ever, they can go about there business for the entirety of the process, which to me indicates not only minimum stress for the candidate, but the candidate can be almost totally oblivious to the fact. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 12:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And like I said, the current process doesn't require any more input from the candidate, they could just accept a nomination and disappear for a week (not that it ever happens). The stress comes from the fact that people's perceived faults are brought into the spotlight, and it's hard for people to just ignore it. This suggestion would keep that spotlight on them for a lot longer, which would increase the stressful part. - Bobet 13:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perceived faults, where as mine only allows objections and supports that are based on exact instances (i.e. he broke this rule at this diff, or this was a particularly good call, etc). I've seen Opposes based entirely on what user name the editor choice, and other such extreme, and I use the word extreme in its most heavy sence, other such extreme nonsense as that, my approach does not allow for this. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 13:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For that, the problem isn't the process, it's the editors involved in the process, who presumably wouldn't change all that much. People aren't going to agree on what's extreme nonsense, and if they could, you could just fix the current process by telling people to only oppose based on serious issues, and I don't think the solution is that simple. - Bobet 13:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the current process, irrelevant of what is said about it, is a vote. I can go onto any of the 3 current RfA's and put:

# Support - I Love Cake ☯Ferdia O'Brien /(C) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That vote then immediately counts, and the content is only brought into view of the crat if the vote is a little on the close side. If enough people put that down, that RfA passes. My method is a discussion, it requires the crat to read it from start to finish, and promote the editor based on his impression of the editor at the end of reading it, therefore putting nonsense simply doesn't count for or against the candidate. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I should also point out that I'm perfectly OK with dropping the trial run. Although I think its a good idea its not vital, but reform is. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 13:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense issues have never been a deciding factor in rfas. If someone opposes based on a reason that everyone else thinks is nonsense, it's not going to affect the outcome of the rfa. If enough people agree with a reason, it stops being nonsense, even if a particular person might disagree with the definition. For supports, the reasoning has never really mattered much, since it's the default choice, and pretty much the only real reason for supporting is 'I believe the candidate will do more good than harm with the tools'. - Bobet 11:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is a vote, and there have often been votes that don't make much more sense than "I love cake." Enigma 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it really is, but its not supposed to be, my idea would form it into a discussion, I might put together a dummy RfA to show exactly what I'm thinking it should look like. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<un-indent> - How, though, do you have a discussion with up to 400 participants (eg: DHMO) or even the 100+ that is common in RfAs - in any way so that consensus can be reached. Reaching consensus on something as simple as the correct use of dashes, with only a few dozen participants, is hard enough. Determining from a massive, multi-threaded discussion, that consensus is that the applicant is trustworthy or untrustworthy with the extra buttons does not seem plausible. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it, the section right below this one has a link to the only ever rfc style rfa (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt) which was more of a discussion. The most commented section there was "This method of RFA is so confusing that I am unable to participate", which should tell you how well that went. In case you've something different, hopefully simpler, in mind, it could work better, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. - Bobet 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That example turned into a serious of mini votes that combined into one, which is understandably confusing. My approach is people putting forward points as they did in that discussion (accept mine requires an example diff), and then people discuss weither the view is valid or not, not vote weither it is or not. Its more reading but substantially less mathamatics. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A request for guidance

I just returned today after answering some suspected sock puppet cases last night, and found my user talk page swamped with a pile of new messages, including a request to block a stack of IP addresses, and a note that some guy called me an "incompetent admin." I am very reluctant to try an RFA for a large number of reasons, but I cannot continue indefinitely in my capacity reviewing SSP cases unless I can be given the access to block and unblock users, protect and unprotect pages, and review deleted revisions. I don't need the adminship for status or honor or anything like that. I just need a set of tools. Again, if people would prefer to solve problems without my assistance I have no objection to that, but at a certain point it becomes impossible to act in the role of a sysop without actually being a sysop. I should note, in this context, that I am one of the only users, sysop or otherwise, who reviews SSP regularly, and if I don't do certain jobs, these jobs simply don't get done for weeks on end, and the functioning of the community suffers as a result.

So in spite of my commitment not to reapply for RFA for the next five years after my last request in November 2007, I would like a few opinions as to whether it might be a good time to give it another try. I am deeply committed to integrity, so I would seek an alternative by which I could apply without technically violating the content of the statement I made then. I suggested one alternative when I discussed the matter with Sarcasticidealist on meta. Namely, I would voluntarily offer not to use a certain subset of admin tools. Another alternative would be to appoint another user to request adminship on my behalf as a formality so that I would not be requesting it myself. Still another would be to use admin recall, which I am open to anyway, as a way to say that I am applying for adminship with the possibility of recall and not adminship without the possibility of recall.

Since any real RFA for me will likely generate well over 100 votes, I'd like to get a general sense of whether people think it's okay for me to apply given my commitment not to apply and my generally problematic history. For background on the history, for those who are unaware, please read User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Revelations (March 2008) and User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/RFA review (June 2007). Thanks in advance for your advice. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just redirect the enquiries to the correct board or to WP:AN/I? Dlohcierekim 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics not withstanding, and making no comment whatsoever on past history, a request for adminship is a request for additional purely technical abilities on this website to further the aims of said website. Ask for the tools. If the community balances the "risk/reward" properly then the outcome (whatever the outcome maybe) is the answer to your question. Pedro :  Chat  23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also not commenting on past history, but you are under no obligation to wait 5 years before submitting yourself for an RFA. If you think that you have a need for the tools and that you are ready to use them, then stand for RFA. Otherwise, don't. On another note, I think it's kind of cocky to say that "any real RFA for me will likely generate well over 100 votes." Useight (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro, but I have to say that I'm less than impressed by your apparent desire to find a "technical" solution to avoid appearing to have gone back on your word instead of simply saying that you've changed your mind, and here's why. Reminds me of another "technical" solution that I believe used to be popular amongst a certain schoolgirl population: "You haven't had sex unless you took your knickers off." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

<ec> ::Just explain that you realize now that was a silly restriction to impose on yourself and explain how recent events helped you see you have a use for the tools. It's been 7 months? That's a easonable wait. Dlohcierekim 23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dlohcerekim (and with Malleus, although I'd have chosen slightly more polite words than he did), and my offer to nominate you stands - but it will have to be nomination for full adminship, on the basis that you can be trusted with all the buttons. I'm no great prognosticator of RFAs, so I don't pretend to know how yours will turn out, but I'm ready when you are. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I did over-egg the pudding just a little bit, but my basic point was not to look for technical loopholes, simply to come out boldly and say "I've changed my mind". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I will make one comment after a brief review. You've had the honesty to admit your early mistakes and not simply create a new account. That speaks volumes to me. And "Poacher turned Gamekeeper" also springs to mind! I'm not making favourable representation as such (sorry), and this was a brief review, but your honesty and forthrightness does you credit. We all make mistakes, and we all type stuff we reflect on later that we didn't mean. I don't see that you changing your mind on the 5 year thing reflects poorly on you. Rather, it shows you are prepared to admit errors and learn from them - which is a positive. Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Shalom, you know I love you (but not in that way). You know I've always supported you. I nominated you last time and if you'd have me, I'd be honoured to do it again. But my advice, for what it's worth, is that you won't pass. 1) The stuff that killed you last time(s) will never go down in the eyes of some. 2) The more recent Poetlister stuff has made you a lot of enemies in certain factions. As someone who hangs on WR, I'm sure you understand exactly what this means. giggy _(:O) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay everyone, thanks for the advice. I'm not in a rush to do this tomorrow, but it will probably be soon. I'll just go ahead and ask for full adminship with no strings attached; that seems to be what everyone here is recommending. As to what I said in November, I think it was a mistake for me to respond in that manner. You will note that I also, in that same statement in November, asked for a certain user subpage to be deleted, but I later asked for it to be restored - so I changed my mind on that, and nobody objected to it. It doesn't detract from my general trend of honesty.

Regarding the statement that an RFA will likely get 100 votes: I didn't say 100 support votes, just 100 votes of some kind or another. My last RFA got about 90 votes, and it was closed early.

Regarding Giggy's concern: if people want to oppose me over the Poetlister controversy, let them. In private correspondence FT2 and I have agreed to disagree on our respective conclusions, and from my perspective the issue ends there. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/User:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/User:Ikf5 may need to be closed or something. Also, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/User:JayJ47 probably should be moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/JayJ47. Bebestbe (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking Dlohcierekim 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted under WP:CSD#G6 - no need to close or archive. Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The JayJ47 one seems fine as is although malformed. Pedro :  Chat  23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Avruch

I untranscluded this and marked as final an withdrawn by candidate. I think the candidate closed it. Listed under the unsuccessful RFA's. Don't remember the other place to list. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody wanna add the poor guy to WP:100?--Koji†Dude 00:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) is the other place. — _Maggot 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks done. Dlohcierekim 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. — _Maggot 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Enigmaman/SNOW :) Enigma 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

I am here to ask a question: in RFA standards, people have been focusing on article writing, and not the normal admin respinsibilities (blocking, protecting, deleting). Since when will article writing make you better at doing those things? Some people may be brilliant writers, but just don't get the sysop tools. And some people (me included) are not very good at writing articles, but have a good understanding of blocking, deleting and protecting. Just raising the question. Shapiros10 _{My work} 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Because at the end of the day, the only important thing on Misplaced Pages is the articles. With no admins, we'd still work (albeit become quite messy); with no articles, we'd be a poor-quality chatroom. Adminship isn't about blocking, deleting & protecting; it's about deciding who and what needs blocking, deleting and protecting, and explaining why to those users - generally perfectly good-faith users, not mindless vandals - who are blocked, have their work deleted, or can't edit a protected article. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. While I don't insist on article writing experience, I do insist that someone who's given the power to delete content has some experience in just how difficult content creation is. Also, admins are (for better or worse) generally the "public face" of the Misplaced Pages bureaucracy, at least to other users, and I think they need to have shown they understand the process of collaboration in order to explain it to others. – iridescent 00:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Dean B (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to adminship, the reason why people like to see article contributions is a couple of reasons; firstly, they want to know you're here for the right reasons - users want admins to be here to improve the encyclopedia and without article contributions, you have to question their real reason for being here (power?). Secondally, article edits show an understands of our content policies/guidelines. Often admins have to mediate disputes/make calls with regards to content - without article edits, it's hard to show experience that you understand the content requirements. It's also important to have experience in admin related areas such as participation in xfD debates, speedy tagging and reports to AIV so you show you understand exactly where and when to use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was asking because I am not a good article writer (all I have is a couple of stubs). I know that creating content is difficult.

I don't get why people who haven't contributed large amounts of work to articles can't deal with non-admins.

So, to be an admin, you have to have lots of article writing now? In that case, I can throw away my dreams of being an administrator. As referenced here and other places, it's now impossible.

And I also don't get why people can't accept reverting vandalism as the reason you are here. I am here to help write an encyclopedia by cleaning up. Is that unnaceptable? Shapiros10 _{My work} 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't have to show an amazing strength at content, just a willingness to actually contribute. If you prefer to do more administrative tasks, that's cool, but you need to show at least a basic understanding of content by contributing to some articles. With regards to it being your dream - that's not always a good thing. We're here to create an encylopedia and that should be your ultimate goal, however you contribute. I personally think that everyone who puts a request in, should want to be an admin, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Ryan; too Shapiros10) No. To be an admin you have clue. Telling people you dream of adminship doesn't inspire confidence. To be here to help with maintenance is great, but I (for one) don't feel comfortable giving the blockhammer to people who, after having spent over 9000 hours vandalwhacking, is going to exert rage by blocking everyone. I'd rather give it to an FA writer who appreciates the effort of building content. But that's just me. Ironically, the community's current mood is kinda in agreement with that. giggy _(:O) 01:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) If this didn't help, re-read what the folks above - both admins (for what that's worth) said.

My dear sirs, with all due respect, I want to serve Misplaced Pages as best as I can, and adminship is a way to serve the community. Should I continue doing anti-vandal work, or should I start focusing on article work full-time now? because it seems nobody will care if I revert vandalism, or report users, or participate in AFDs. The reason I posted this question is because I think that Administrator is not an administrative position: it's just a service award for being an Article Writer with some extra tools thrown in. Shapiros10 _{My work} 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"it's just a service award for being an Article Writer with some extra tools thrown in" - Yep, that's what it's supposed to be. Because we're here to build an encyclopedia. giggy _(:O) 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And Giggy, that is an offensive stereotype. Not all anti-vandal hunters crack under the strain and block everyone in sight.

I also don't get the point of giving the tools to an article writer when all they'll do is article work, and nothing involving deletion, blocking and protecting. Shapiros10 _{My work} 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's about writing articles necessarily; it's about contributing to articles. I've only written one or two articles from scratch but I have been heavily involved with the wikification effort. Articles can be improved through more than just writing. Metros (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if I run for an RFA (which i won't, because it will be snowballed fail since I don't write articles), people will not care. Thanks for listening to me whine. You've made me feel a lot better about myself. Shapiros10 _{My work} 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's why purely article writers don't often get the tools. It's all about a mix, but content contributions are important for the reasons above. People don't want anything amazing, just something. Both admin and content related experience is important to show a thorough understanding of the Misplaced Pages way. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is about whether we can trust the candidate to use the tools appropriately. Very very rarely are candidates opposed for lack of article-building alone; it only becomes a factor when the candidate has exhibited questionable judgment elsewhere. Many candidates can be trusted even though they are ignorant of a lot of policy, because they are adjudged to be eminently trustworthy. Some recent successful RfA's in which the candidates were not very focused on article building but were supported near unanimously include Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman 3, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Xavexgoem, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Pegship and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Huntster. It is far more common for candidates to be opposed for lack of familiarity with Wikispace activities such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA and WP:AFD. If you doubt that an absence of focus on article writing can negatively effect your judgement, I suggest you try regular new page patrolling, and see how rapidly the trigger-happy urge to delete imperfect additions overcomes you. Then try writing a few; you'll be surprised how much your perspective shifts. Sincerely, Skomorokh 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you want an example of an RFA for someone who hasn't written a lot of articles, your adopter's RFA is quite a good example to show that it can be done. Lara's written very few articles, but by her cleaning up here and there, she's shown that she understands collaboration and working with other people. – iridescent 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, while I don't think "adminship is no big deal" is true any more, adminship isn't any kind of award; it's about whether people think you can be trusted. There are at least two people on this talkpage who are among the best article writers on Misplaced Pages, but will probably not be admins for a long time if ever because some people don't trust them with the tools for one reason or another. As Ryan says, you need to show an understanding of policy and an understanding of what we're here for; as Ryan doesn't say, you also need to show a reason why Misplaced Pages would be better off with you as an admin. RFA may be a bad process (it's not so long ago that RFA looked like this), but for better or worse, it's the process we've got.

What I will say, is don't be too keen on adminship. It's not the "superpower" it is on some other websites and gives you no special status; all it means is that you have a couple of extra buttons, and your talkpage will mysteriously double in size every night while you're asleep. – iridescent 01:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam (Shapiros10), here's some things to think about. I find it rude that a person would not contribute anything and just spend all their time tagging other folks' work. To me its like saying, "I don't do this dirty work, I'll just tell you to go do it". Article writing gives folks some appreciation of sometimes how hard and time consuming it can be to come up with material for an article. I believe that having 'admins' and 'editors' in two camps leads to splits in thinking and behaving that cause problems. All you have to do is look at some of the debates at Arbcom or RfC to see how hugely draining these things are and how much time they consume. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam, I know I'm normally known for speaking in clipped, formal tones, but I'll try to level with you - I kinda feel for you on this one. You spend a lot of time doing work on the wiki, doing what you feel is both useful to the project and what you enjoy. Hell, I've fired up Huggle myself and clicked through contributions, making a revert here, a warning there and adding the occasional AIV report. The problem is, the tools make it efficient to make quick judgement decisions and if you get it wrong, it's easy to fix. One of the things I find incredibly hard to do is article writing. You know, the start from scratch article writing where you have no idea how it's going to turn out and you're basically following the sources. I think I've created a grand total of three new mainspace articles and they felt like pulling teeth. But I do it to understand what it's like for the other editors, they guys whose edits you watch for a few moments before clicking on to the next one. Every once in a while you have to bite the bullet and do it, just to remind yourself what it's like. One thing you can do to break the back of an article is to do cleanup - taking an article that's been tagged for cleanup for months and fixing it. Sometimes it'll mean pulling out unsourced information, but in many cases it'll mean digging through sources in order to fill in the blanks.

One other thing I'd add is that if you're looking for feedback, ask your mentor. If you want something more, file a request at WP:ER, point me to it and I'll give you my honest opinion. I can understand that you want to help the project, that you feel you could do so much more with just a few extra tools. But you already know that you can do a huge amount with what's already available - you can build articles and encourage others to do the same. Anti-vandal work, deletion debates and so on are just cogs around the edge of the machine.

I'm sorry this has gone on a bit, and that it might be a bit over the top, or covering stuff Lara's already talked to you about. Seriously though, don't sweat it about RfA. As someone once said, it's no big deal. Gazimoff _Read 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, I am giving myself the challenge of either creating a new article from scratch each day or substantially expanding existing stubs each day. Yes, I am a masochist. But I am also aware that the foundation of this project is the content. As I see it, we are here to build an encyclopedia. For a minute, let’s stop thinking about our internal shenanigans and think about how the outside world looks at what we are presenting. People in the “real world” don’t know about blocking or 3RR or XfD – quite frankly, they don’t know any of us exist. They’re coming to this site to look up an article about a person or topic or whatever. If we are missing information in the articles or if we are offering badly written muck, then our work here is a waste. The vast majority of vandalism to the articles is erased within a very quick moment, and I am glad for those who spend the time protecting the articles. But the core content is our public face, and I think this project would benefit if we had people who are serious about writing. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of admins who couldn't or wouldn't write articles before they were admins. There are plenty of admins who shine in other areas. To have article writing be a benchmark is not useful, IMHO. Kingturtle (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam, this is what your assignments were supposed to help teach you. I asked you before I adopted you to tell me what you thought adminship was. After reading your response, I told you that I'd adopt you and we'd focus on building an encyclopedia. There are plenty of ways to improve content other than writing articles. Copy-editing, reference formatting, MOS fixes, reviewing. These are all valuable and desperately needed. So just because you don't write articles doesn't mean you'll never pass an RFA. It just all depends on where you focus your attention.

To comment on what Iridescent said about my RFA, it actually wasn't unique for lack of article writing. A large percentage of my edits were to content improvement. I had written a handful of articles, including a couple GAs and another in que, and I had heavy participation in the GA project, which is devoted to article improvement. Mine was unique in that I had literally no XFD experience during a time when the trend at RFA required it.

The desire to have content improvement, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the fact that this is an encyclopedia and that is our purpose, as far as RFA goes. I think everyone here is volunteering their time because they want to, and if content writing isn't your thing, that's fine. But, to be granted adminship, I believe there is a need to have experience in article space beyond vandalism reversion. You have to collaborate with others, gain experience with content disputes, and learn the policies that apply to the article space. For me, that's why content improvement is important for adminship. You need to show you understand the goals of the project and that you can be trusted to use these extra tools to protect the project and assist us in reaching our goals. You can't do that when all your participation is reverting edits, warning users and reporting to AIV. That gains you experience relating to the block button. We want to know you can be trusted with the protection and delete buttons as well.

Lastly, let me say that adminship isn't necessarily a healthy goal... particularly when you don't have a strong grasp on what adminship really is. Above all, the key thing to remember is that this is an encyclopedia. Focus on improving it and don't worry about adminship until there comes a point that you feel you need it, or once you feel you've really got a good understanding of policy and could be a greater asset as an admin. If your sole interest is in vandal whacking, don't worry about adminship because mostly likely you'll come to find it involves a lot of stuff you don't care to do. LaraLove|Talk 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had meant writing could include wikifying, finding references etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For my money, editors who aren't massive contributors to articles can still generate trust. They do find it harder, but we have had many such successful RfAs. The kind of things !voters will respond to well is seeing good grasp of the kinds of key policies we normally expect people to get from involvement in writing, such as WP:N, WP:BLP etc. The other thing is that people are a little suspicious of those who contribute literally nothing to the mainspace. From memory, the successful RfAs of those not particularly involved in writing have usually nodded to their gnomish contributions to mainspace. Those utterly uninterested in the mainspace get the "why are you here" question thrown at them, which is difficult to deal with. Note: the preceeding is not necessarily my opinion, but my observation of how !voters respond --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the answers. I was just being scared for the distant future, because I am an awful writer who barly managed to get 6 stubs out there in 9 months. Shapiros10 _{My work} 10:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with creating stubs. All articles here are works in progress and stubs have the potential to blossom into bigger pieces. Besides, a concise and cogent stub is always superior to a flabby and mediocre article. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By no means, as others have stated above, writing aren't the only part of contributing to the encyclopedia. A LOT of work is to be done improving stubs and other bad-looking articles. But if you want an idea of how to create and improve on stubs, just click Special:Random in other language Wikipedias. Most of these don't have articles here, so you just try Google Translate and do your best in formatting. With all due respect, I do not think you are ready for adminship until you have several decent monts of mainspace work, not random tagging or Huggle reversions. As an "editor of the wiki", I do not revert 1000 vandals using automated tools (they're usually gone within seconds), have about 3 edits to the AIV, and only participate in AFDs of subjects that interest me or really need it. However, I view my rare occurances of participating in AFDs much better than copypasting "Delete Per nom. ~~~~" all the time. There is plenty of work a lousy article writer can do as long as they show the effort. And finally, while I think that pretty much everyone probably has a dream of becoming an admin here, IT IS THE CONTENT, not these lengthy discussiong or 4,000 edits to the AIV, THAT COUNT. I'm an Editorofthewiki 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than try to meet a set of RfA worthy criteria, be bold (make some charts, some categories, some stubs, upload some images), use your brain, and avoid common mistakes. Get to know the place in your own way. Kingturtle (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that would make too much sense. ;} Dlohcierekim 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RfB, RfA prerequisite

The page doesn't actually specify this, but the idea I am sort of getting is that since Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats have superior inferred abilities and superior inferred responsibilities to Misplaced Pages:Administrators/SysOps, should it be noted to avoid the hassle of users nominating themselves/others directly to that position that only current Administrators can be nominated for election as a beareaucrat? Considering how powerful the position is, I don't think there's much trouble with requiring going through the process twice. One would expect someone to serve as an Administrator for a while to gain experience before advancing anyway. I think by mentioning it as a prerequisite on this page that it would get rid of a lot of hassle and would make sure that people don't confuse the election process because they'll know to apply for Administrator first. Tyciol (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this solve a problem? My involvement has been pretty low lately, has there been a rash of drive-by RfBs by non-admins that this will address? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, solution in search of a problem. I don't think there's been an RFB by a non-admin in recent memory. –xenocidic (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It does say at WP:RFA that "Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here." This lays out that bureaucrats have to be administrators first. Rudget (logs) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily says that. You might take it as implying that, but a Bureaucrat being a type of administrator (high tier admin) doesn't say at all that you need to be an admin first to become one. It's important to clearly explain the process. Tyciol (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't think of an RfB by a non-admin. (though, really, I don't see a specific reason that we'd restrict bureaucrat candidates to just admins: the tasks they perform are very different) Not an actual problem that needs addressing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it did happen and quite recently in fact. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/I'm On Base. It's deleted now, so only admins can see it, but it happened in early May. I guess I just pay too much attention to what's going on here on the RFA page. Of course it was snow-closed, but my point was that there was an RFB by a non-admin. Useight (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the closed RfB mentioned above. It doesn't seem to have caused any disruption or grief. I'd tend to lean towards avoiding instruction creep here. Just my opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Especially considering that was a disruptive user anyway. –xenocidic (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that RFB came and went pretty quickly. I, too, think we'll be fine without the instruction creep, I was just pointing out that there was, indeed, a RFB by a non-admin, since others above were wondering whether or not there had been one recently. Useight (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, an RfB by a sockpuppet isn't the most compelling piece of evidence. :) I was talking about an actual request, preferably one that ran for at least a day. To the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to provide evidence, as that implies that I'm trying to prove someone's point. I was merely giving an example of a recent RFB by a non-admin. Useight (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think my statement stands, however, as a sock-RfX doesn't really "count" as an example (since socks usually don't follow logical behavior anyway). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

From the way I read it, EVula was saying it was not a problem because people should be able to apply directly to be Beareaucrats as they perform different tasks. Not because no one had tried to do it. In this case, a disruptive user sure but if they are indeed so different and there are advocates for making the jump directly then I think having the issue brought up would be good. I wouldn't call it intruction creep to add one sentence saying either "only admins can apply to be bereaucrats" or "both admins and established users can apply to be bureaucrats". Very short and concise. Tyciol (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's ever specified a rule about that, but any RfB by a non-admin would likley get shot down. Quickly. A SNOW NOTNOW close would be almost inevitable.--Koji†Dude 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding something like that Tyciol imo would only likely increase the amount of snowy RfBs put forth. I think it's fine the way it is now. While you don't *need* to be an admin to apply for bureaucratship, it's doubtful one could make the jump from user to bureaucrat. –xenocidic (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A parallel can be drawn between this and any prerequisites for RfA. All of us here will readily admit that there are certain criteria that a candidate should make sure they reach before running (chiefly: if someone has 500 edits, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell). But is it an actual prerequisite? No. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

True. It's a prerequisite, but if we told people that, it'd be too bitey. They have to learn the hard way, so everybody opposing can share the blame for the inevitable bitey-ness of the experience.--Koji†Dude 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dagoth Ur, Mad God just had a non-admin RFB. Snowed, and I filed a WP:RFCU on the basis that User:Edward Smiley's only edit was support. Shapiros10 _{My work} 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Current RfB

When I undid this edit, I meant its the wrong request, not the wrong spot. Clearly this user shouldn't have an active RfB (they aren't an admin to begin with). Any takers? — _Maggot 12:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just Snowball closed it. BG7even 12:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

it looks like he socked a support vote. Check it out at WP:RFCU. Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If it turns out to be a sock, the whole damn thing can just be deleted under G6. We should save actual requests, not bogus "hey, let's screw with everyone!" requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (that was actually my reason for posting it here). — _Maggot 15:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting situation

At Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Mark_t_young, a user cast a rather harsh oppose without evidence, and was indefinitely blocked for harassment soon afterwards. User has received increasing blocks from five different admins. Is making a note below the vote enough? I'm not sure if the closing 'crat will see the note, although it is at ~70% right now. The RfA closes in a few hours. Check oppose #21. Enigma 16:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it's acceptable to de-number indefblocked users voters, and even strike them out if they're disruptive. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Wizardman 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The note was sufficient. Dunno if I'll be back in time to close it, but I certainly wouldn't pay it much mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about indenting or outdenting or what not. I think just a comment is probably sufficient as well. The question one would need to ask, since it's obvious that the !vote (which gave some detail/rationale) was cast before the block, was whether it was in made in good faith. The user may have temperament issues, but a valid rationale. Look at the reason, not the user in other words. Sockpuppets notwithstanding. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the comment since the user has been indef blocked. Despite this I found no true consensus to promote although it was tight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought what I wrote at the RfA was pretty mild, but apparently I also have become a target of his ire. Heehee. Enigma 04:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to provoke a blocked user when he/she cannot respond? Did you come here to gloat? --Blechnic (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I came here to respond to the accusations because the talk page is protected. Enigma 04:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no accusations against you on this page that require your response or giggle here. --Blechnic (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not on this page, but on the protected talk page that I cannot edit. Out of my options, this is the most appropriate place to put my response. Enigma 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than {{editprotected}}. Kevin (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No one can edit it right now. That would be a good time for all parties to take a break, rather than parties who can still get in jabs continuing to do so in other forums. I wonder if your comment on the talk page of the blocked user would have gotten you blocked--laughing at someone who can't respond? If there's a possibility, there's no place for it anywhere else. A blocked user is probably pissed off. Provoking them increases the overall negativity on Misplaced Pages. Why not just leave the user alone? --Blechnic (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PS This is the talk page for RfA, not for the user. --Blechnic (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because if someone accuses me of "defamation" or anything else, I'm going to respond. I don't appreciate baseless accusations and I feel the need to defend myself against them. I usually will reply in the same location where the accusations were made, unless for some reason that isn't possible. Enigma 05:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't defended yourself, that takes a discussion. This is not the user's talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quit flogging a dead horse. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 14:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In flogging response to Wisdom89's last flog: Usually more effectively done without the request. --Blechnic (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Bjweeks#Questions_for_the_candidate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just wanted to point that out. Enigma 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda creepy. No questions? And yet people can make decisions? Darkspots (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a real RfA yet. Quick, someone add five questions! Enigma 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I never read the questions/answers. Everyone can "behave" at RFA and answer what they're "supposed to" anyway. We should be looking at contribs anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting but nothing more. This discussion need not continue further should it unduly prejudice the outcome. It's fascinating that this candidate is popular to the degree than no more than the standard questions are asked but we unless anyone here has something to contribute to the RFA, move along, nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely don't want it to influence the outcome. Just thought it was an interesting thing, given that we've had many complaints about too many questions at RfAs and said RfAs turning into a question drill. Enigma 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)