Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) →Banning trick questions from the RFA process: here we go again |
|||
Line 313: | Line 313: | ||
::::::::If you ever alter anything that I've typed on a talk page, then God help you. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
::::::::If you ever alter anything that I've typed on a talk page, then God help you. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::[[WP:AGF|AGF]] Mal. Fixing typos is not altering comments unless you seriously cannot spell. You could in fact clarify the reasons why some editors don't like correction, instead of making borderline threats. It was a typo, not a complete rewrite of the comments. — <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:SynergeticMaggot|<b><font color="#222222">Syn</font></b>]]</span></sup></small> 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
:::::::::[[WP:AGF|AGF]] Mal. Fixing typos is not altering comments unless you seriously cannot spell. You could in fact clarify the reasons why some editors don't like correction, instead of making borderline threats. It was a typo, not a complete rewrite of the comments. — <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:SynergeticMaggot|<b><font color="#222222">Syn</font></b>]]</span></sup></small> 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Here we go again. Idiotic words from idiots. It ought to be quite plain to ''anyone'' that altering another's words is completely unacceptable. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(<-)Headbomb, please see the last entry at [[Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind]]. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 02:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
(<-)Headbomb, please see the last entry at [[Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind]]. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 02:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 02:31, 7 July 2008
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- All cooperating nominees are wannabe admins, just to be clear. :) Beam 20:44, 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)
- 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)
- 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 (C) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Great edit summary. :D Acalamari 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia... Badger Badger Badger. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the term badger as well. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 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)
- 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)
- I like the term badger better than harass. Beam 20:44, 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 / C) 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)
- 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 talk 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes... "oppose hounding". It's so classless and almost arrogant. Beam 21:16, 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 talk 21:12, 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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia for the Support section to become angry to the point of spiteful !voting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 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)
- They are, or at least they appear to be, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well they basically are immune... Beam 22:10, 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)
- 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)
- Tell me about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 23 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 talk 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 Wikipedia: 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 talk 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)
- 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 Wikipedia: 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 talk 22:35, 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 Wikipedia. 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 (C) 23:49, 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)
- 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 (C) 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 Wikipedia. " 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 talk 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Opposing isn't "unpleasent or nasty", it's part of process. If nobody were allowed to oppose anything, Wikipedia would suck.--Koji†Dude (C) 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 talk 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 Wikipedia 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 (C) 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 talk 00:30, 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 Wikipedia 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 (C) 00:19, 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 talk 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Opposing isn't "unpleasent or nasty", it's part of process. If nobody were allowed to oppose anything, Wikipedia would suck.--Koji†Dude (C) 00:07, 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)
- 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)
- 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?
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 Wikipedia is not for you. I thought Wikipedia 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 talk 00:04, 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 Wikipedia 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 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)
- Hmm, I don't know. I haven't been around Wikipedia 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 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. Wikipedia 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)
- 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 "Free Encyclopedia 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)
- 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)
<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 Wikipedia.
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 $#@% jerks that opposed them at RfA, or opposed their friends at RfA, etc.
I even see this in this thread. Some claim that even opposing anyone at all is harassment and must be stamped out (except possibly those editors that they personally decide are "politically incorrect" - maybe for not wanting to unblock a notorious troll, or for making a negative comment about Wikipedia Review. Heaven forbid that anyone would say anything negative about Wikipedia Review! Oh my !!).
So I ask you, if you are so sure that you are correct, why not propose mandatory banning of anyone who ever votes to oppose? Just ban immediately.
If you are so %$#^& 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)
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 / C) 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 message 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 Wikipedia 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)
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. — Realist2 (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 Wikipedia. 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 / C) 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. — Realist2 (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. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:24, 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)
- Sorry, I mean early hours in wikiland. Its not specific science but Im talking 04:00 - 10:00 UTC ish. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:19, 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 / C) 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have editors that live oin all parts of the world on the English Wikipedia. Someone will cover it at all times. America69 (talk) 20:15, 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". — Realist2 (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. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:56, 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)
- 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". — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:32, 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? — Realist2 (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. — Realist2 (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)
- 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)
- 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. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 21:22, 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)
- 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)
- 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? — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 21:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(out) Lol, its a nice link, I'll keep hold of it. — Realist2 (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. :-) — Realist2 (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.
- Yes, sorry the delete log. Sorry for wasting your precious admin time folks. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 22:00, 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)
- 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 (talk) 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. — MaggotSyn 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 (talk) 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. — MaggotSyn 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. — MaggotSyn
- 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 (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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. — MaggotSyn 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)
- 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. — MaggotSyn 14:35, 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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 message 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 message 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 Wikipedia: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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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)
- To clarify a bit, here are the possible scenarios that can arise from this situation:
- Having only one correct answer does not, by itself, make a question "tricky" or otherwise inappropriate. The problem here is the use of a non-obvious term and the lack of context (specifically the failure to answer the question "cool down from what?" before it is asked, see previous discussion, lest I continue to repeat myself). — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 5 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)
- It isn't legit. The question is informally fallacious because, while it asks for a question, there is really only one correct answer. Sceptre (talk) 12:49, 3 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)
Wow! Feel free to argue semantics all you want but those are some pretty strict rules you follow on why you can't support someone who follows rules. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Internal rules (i.e. principles, morals, etc.) are quite different from external, arbitrary rules. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see nothing in his list of internal rules that's not arbitrarily imposed. No difference. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just because you might not understand something, doesn't make it incorrect. Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I fully understand his rules, thank you very much. You missed my point in a very spectacular way. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, the question relates to policy. The blocking policy currently states that cool down blocks should never be given. I don't think we should ban people from asking questions that help them get a better idea of the nominees grasp of policy. You're free to have your own opinions. By the way, I appreciate you bringing up a concern you have here, even though I disagree with you:-)Cheers!--SJP (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I fully understand his rules, thank you very much. You missed my point in a very spectacular way. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just because you might not understand something, doesn't make it incorrect. Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see nothing in his list of internal rules that's not arbitrarily imposed. No difference. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has observed and learned at RFA for a while now - although I haven't so far felt I have sufficient knowledge or experience to vote - I'd say the only useful conclusion you can draw from a "yes" is that you're probably dealing with a candidate who is answering in good faith. (Or someone who values a yes from Kurt more than a mop and bucket. Or someone who doesn't mind snow.) Any newbie who visits RFA more than twice will know that "no, never" is required to dodge that particular booby-trap. So someone who answers yes is probably going off personal observation, and knows that short blocks have the practical effect of "time out to cool off", even if their stated aim is to protect or to prevent disruption. I happen to support the cool-down blocks policy clause, because treating fellow adults like two-year-olds having a tantrum is rarely a good way to engage their goodwill for later. It would be unhelpful if admins could issue blocks with the stated aim of cooling a user down. But I think it's a shame that a kneejerk wrong yes-or-no answer about a nuance of policy should signal game over for that RFA. Couldn't the standard question be rephrased so any thoughtful candidate would feel the need to check their understanding of the policy before they answered (thus learning the rule if they were in any way unsure)? What if you asked "Wikipedia has a policy on cool-down blocks. Please explain it in your own words, and say under what circumstances, if any, you would be prepared to issue one." It's still a trick question then, but for all the right reasons, because if they haven't the sense to go and make sure they know what the policy says, they probably shouldn't succeed in an RFA at that point. --Karenjc 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Was there part of Kurt's response that was specific to cool-down blocks, or would the same logic apply to all questions of the form "do you understand and follow Wikipedia policy?" I ask because there seems to be a logical flaw in Kurt's position regarding admin candidates. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- There could be a flaw in your understanding of Kurt. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst I will happily accept I may be wrong here and apologies if I am getting too far off topic, I think SheffieldSteel has pinpointed Kurt exactly there. As I said I may be wrong, and anyone may feel free to correct me, but any reasons that Kurt will ever give are full of logical flaws. The CDB question is a logical flaw in that there is no 'correct answer'. If you put the 'wrong' answer to the question you will lose his !vote, even if you sincerely believe that to be true. As he is stated you are 'wrong' (by which he measn that he disagrees with the policy but does not ever try and change it other than complaining that the policy is 'wrong' here). The logical flaw being that no one's opinion can be 'wrong', it may be unpopular or without merit or basis but it is not wrong. As mentioned there is no factually correct answer as the question is asked about an opinion which inherently cannot be answered wrongly. Kurt is not the only person that does this either, there are lots of 'trick' questions in which the answer is either I understand the policy and yes I'll apply it, or no I don't understand the policy but my answer if 'wrong' will lose me either one of all my support !votes
- There could be a flaw in your understanding of Kurt. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
There are also examples that either certain people's reasoning is logically flawed, or his understanding of Latin is. It has been writting in the past that self noms are primae facie evidence of power hunger. Now either this user does understand that primae facie means 'on the face of it' and as such inherently implies a lack of any evidence gathering and therefore fails to comply with the instructions at the top of each RfA, or this user is intentionally refusing to check the merit of any RfA and also fails to comply with the instruction. Not everyone has wikifriends who will be willing to support them but still deserve to be admins.
Now I may be wrong but the purpose of an RfA is that we are looking to find good users who should be sysopped. We are not looking to give people an instant fail question; be that instant fail of the RfA or a question to instantly give someone a reason not to vote for the user. The instant fail is counter productive, if someone says they'd consider a CDB they're not going to pass even though they probably never would. NO one is expected to be the perfect admin before they come in to an RfA. How would they manage it? BigHairRef | Talk 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are clearly wrong, and no amount of appeals to faulty logic can change that. For instance, you say that the purpose of RfA is to find good users. In what way does it do that? Adopting the philosophical position that self-nomination is a prima facie reason to oppose a candidate, as Kurt does, is perfectly reasonable, and a position that has been adopted by other cultures in the past. You may not agree with that position, but that does not make it illogical. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The so-called cooldown block thing confused me; it is a trick question to me, and not all candidates know that... Blake Gripling (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Did you just change what BigHairRef posted above?[1] Do you really think that's a good idea? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with correcting other people's typos? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is that really a serious question? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a big supporter of fixing typos in the mainspace, but it's best to leave others' comments as-is. Useight (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I say fix'em all you want, if the other person has a problem with his/her typo being fixed, then he/she'll revert. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you ever alter anything that I've typed on a talk page, then God help you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- AGF Mal. Fixing typos is not altering comments unless you seriously cannot spell. You could in fact clarify the reasons why some editors don't like correction, instead of making borderline threats. It was a typo, not a complete rewrite of the comments. — MaggotSyn 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here we go again. Idiotic words from idiots. It ought to be quite plain to anyone that altering another's words is completely unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- AGF Mal. Fixing typos is not altering comments unless you seriously cannot spell. You could in fact clarify the reasons why some editors don't like correction, instead of making borderline threats. It was a typo, not a complete rewrite of the comments. — MaggotSyn 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you ever alter anything that I've typed on a talk page, then God help you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I say fix'em all you want, if the other person has a problem with his/her typo being fixed, then he/she'll revert. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a big supporter of fixing typos in the mainspace, but it's best to leave others' comments as-is. Useight (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is that really a serious question? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(<-)Headbomb, please see the last entry at Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind. -- Avi (talk) 02:21, 7 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. (Wikipedia:Optional questions anyone? Unless someone has a better idea. I'm sure we can think of something.) — MaggotSyn 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 (C) 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/Discuss 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/Discuss 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm all for it, but realistically, it will never happen. Enigma message 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 message 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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/Discuss 20:13, 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)
- ... 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)
- (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/Discuss 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)
- Aw shucks. I was hoping that my cute English accent might swing it for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:20, 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/Discuss 21:08, 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)
- (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)
- 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:
- Snow RFAs would increase
- Who will coordinate?
- Will we have to disclose personal information?
- Will the WMF have to contact and speak with the candidate?
- This could consume too much time.
- Some people don't have a mike or enough bandwith
- I'll have to buy a new computer, microphone, and webcam
- How can we be certain we're talking with the actual candidate?
- People with nice voices are more likely to be promoted
- Process is too complicated
- Less than 1% of population use Skype
- Foreign countries don't have enough bandwith
- Some ISP's block VOIP
- People don't want to reveal their accent
- Some people use public computers and can't download the software
- 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)
- 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)
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 / C) 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)
- 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 / C) 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. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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)
- I agree. Useight, I think you're pushing yourself too much here. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia 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 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)
- 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)
- This seems to be just another layer of complexity with much downside and no real upside. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Questions before an RFA opens
I don't know if this is allowed, but I see no reason why it should be prohibited: I've prepared Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel and will be ready to open it early next week. (For the next 48 hours I expect to be logged out and unable to answer questions.) If users who frequent RFAs would be kind enough to post questions so that I can answer them when I return, instead of waiting for the RFA to open, that will make it easier for me to reply without worrying about edit conflicts and other pressures. I will of course be answering questions throughout the RFA if people continue to ask, but it would make my life easier if the RFA is open to questions before voting opens. Thank you. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to instruct people that there should be no !votes before transclusion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- STRONG OPPOSE - for not following protocol. Beam 20:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think you can look through recent RfAs to get an idea of what questions you're likely to be asked. They typically don't vary too much. Frank | talk 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Spend this time honing the perfect response to "When should cool-down blocks be used?" It will be a productive use of your time, I'm sure. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are there so few RfAs?
With the backlogs we see at various locations, shouldn't there be more good editors applying for administrator tools? Four seems like a low number to me. Is there any concerted effort to recruit good editors for adminship? S. Dean Jameson 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- There were about 10 going a week ago. It comes and goes in cycles I guess. –xenocidic (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- XC is right, but there has been a decline in the overall amount of users who have gone for more than a day without getting snowed or notnow-ed. C'est la vie, methinks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. I'd been lurking at RfA for a bit, before deciding to jump into the fray, so I know that it's cyclical, but it just seems that we aren't seeing that many of our qualified editors trying for adminship. Some of the "combat mentality" undertaken during the disucssions might have something to do with it, but whatever it is, we definitely need more good admin candidates than we currently have. S. Dean Jameson 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why? What's the ratio of active administrators to active editors right now? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's about 37,500 to 1 right now. Beam 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)One too less for the former, one too many for the latter... Malleus... :D --Jza84 | Talk 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm firmly entrenched in Wisdom89's "staunchly opposed" camp. Never again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize, I'm slacking on finding users to nominate. I'll try and remedy this. Wizardman 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well first you have to know that good editors that can resolve longstanding problems of 2+ years in their first months on Wikipedia are rare and should be valued aren't experienced enough because they spent more time editing obscure and low traffic articles, as well as policy pages than hanging out around RfA and other "admin"-like places on Wikipedia. Since they are unknown by the RfA folks, it is obvious that they need to nominate themselves to get exposure are self-aggrandizing power freaks, as chances are that RfA folks don't edit their specialist area didn't notice them as modest and humble users will wait to be noticed by the RfA people.
They are the kind of people who let the users most affected by their possibly eventual adminship canvass, are uncivil because they rebuke their insulter in a curt manner after the first 10 times they've asked said insulter to stop insulting them and to get back to constructive editing. They also question their opposition when their arguments are poor badger their opposition, because Wikipedia is not a democracy and should be based on the quality of arguments because consensus is based on votes. You know that they have integrity because they give references for every claim they make and insist their opposition does so too an attitude problem because they have an "I'm right, you're wrong attitude". Since they are concerned with the overall quality and structure of Wikipedia articles, they need don't need the tools.
The final reason why you should pick good editors nail in the coffin is that good editors are also the bread bane of Wikipedia and it would be wise disastrous to entrust the admin tools to them. Especially when they've been known to quickly correct their mistakes make mistakes, and that their making of a mistake is infinitely pale in comparison with the fact more important than the fact that they immediately correct themselves when someone points out to them that they've been doing something in a less-than optimal way.
There's also the fact that those who fail their RfA will look forward to apply next time as the criticism they received was constructive and sane will often leave with a bitter taste in their mouth as the whole process encourages Ilikeit and Idontlikeits, and that whatever criticism they have about the RfA process will be considered and taken into account to improve the RfA process will most likely be held against them and probably brought up in their next RfA request as a negative. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- That seemed to come from the heart Headbomb. I know it's easy to get upset over a failed RfA, but really, who cares. I've failed two, but I simply view it as a failure of the system, not as a reflection on me. ;-) In general terms though, I do think that at least some editors are put off the apparent brutality of the RfA process. That's something that does need to be addressed, and is perhaps behind the low number of candidates that started this topic off. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- It did. I don't mind failing stuff for the right reasons, but I do mind failing it for the wrong reasons. Especially since it hampers my ability to lead WP:Phys. To be fair, not all opposition was insane, and most of them made their comments out of good faith. A lot of my frustration comes from the fact that I expected things to go like an FLC/FAC review. You present your case, people point that the stuff you have to fix, you fix it, then they update their vote accordingly. If people oppose something, you explain why you did things in a certain way, and then they will go like "Hmm... alright that makes sense" or "Hmmm, while I see what you tried to do, however things shouldn't be done that way for X, Y and Z reason".
- However it was made clear that asking questions and replying to your opposition was seen in a bad light. Hell it's even frowned upon to ask questions to candidate! You can't debate (and I don't mean bicker), you can't argue (and I don't mean harass), you can't talk, you can't try to see why someone votes a particular way, nor explain why opposer #32 got things wrong or clarify the context of your actions. You can't do anything other than say "Yes Mr Oppose vote, please continue to take the stuff I write out of context :)" and "Yes Mr. Opposer, please make more baseless and unsupported accusations :)" And if you dare speak up against' such practice, you're labeled as being a "badgerer", or as being uncivil. This sort of atmosphere is completely asphyxiating and is the sign of a great cancer, and it is directly related to the problem of expert retention. And thus you end up with "manufactured" admins, as someone else put it, that would rather apply the letter of policy than their spirit, who are afraid to not follow rules when rules are in the way of improving a situation. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a philosophical discussion is in order. When an active, conscientious editor like Headbomb has such a difficult experience with RfA, perhaps a rethink of the process whereby we nominate administrators is in order. Is it truly not considered acceptable for a candidate to respond to each oppose vote? This strikes me as odd, especially if the oppose is seen as specious or misguided in some way. S. Dean Jameson 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I still think this image says it all. Garion96 (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Most candidates that have successful RfAs have the qualities that the ad shows. And it's really up to themselves weather they want to try an RfA or not. -- RyRy (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Hilarious image (but true). Is that in the ad-rotation? –xenocidic (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- That ad is awesome. Enigma message 22:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it's okay for me to put that on my userpage?--Koji†Dude (C) 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why not. It's already on my userpage for over a year. And yes, I think it is in the ad-rotation. Garion96 (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I don't think anyone will be really offended by it if you did. I'd like to know who created that one. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- As the title implies, User:Qxz. Enigma message 23:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, there's something wrong with my browser today that's not letting me view it properly. I think I'll restart my machine. Poor admins... --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- hehe. Enigma message 23:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Who knows (but them, naturally) what they have to endure daily: Just looks at PPG's user page. It's been vandalised
a googolplex of instancesad infinitum. Tut, I greatly sympathise. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Who knows (but them, naturally) what they have to endure daily: Just looks at PPG's user page. It's been vandalised
- hehe. Enigma message 23:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, there's something wrong with my browser today that's not letting me view it properly. I think I'll restart my machine. Poor admins... --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- As the title implies, User:Qxz. Enigma message 23:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I don't think anyone will be really offended by it if you did. I'd like to know who created that one. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why not. It's already on my userpage for over a year. And yes, I think it is in the ad-rotation. Garion96 (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it's okay for me to put that on my userpage?--Koji†Dude (C) 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- That ad is awesome. Enigma message 22:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. Mine was more of a logistical, "how can we get more good editors to stand for adminship" than a philosophical "why don't more people stand for adminship" question. Is there some coordinated effort we could start to recruit more good editors for adminship? The ratio of admins to editors is way too high, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- The best solution I can fathom is to simply go to admin-friendly places (NPP, AFD, DRV, et. al.) and find editors that are active there. If they meet the general standards, nominate them. Nota bene, if it makes you feel any better about this, I'm planning on accepting a nomination next week. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- And per my rationale at the four I've commented on this week, I'll most likely be supporting you! :) Seriously, I like the idea about the NPP, AfD, and DRV thing. The only problem is, it would be nice to get some "writing admins" as well that, while they may not be active in the traditional areas, could represent the regular editors in the admin ranks. I'm thinking particularly of the discussion that's gone on at Carcharoth's page. S. Dean Jameson 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, S. Dean. :-)
- Very good point; I almost forgot about that last one. WP:FAC would also be a great place to find admin hopefuls. So long as they know how to clean up spills as well as writing and have plenty of clue, they'll make good admins. This isn't to say that you have to have a FA to apply (otherwise, I wouldn't be running), but it definitely is a plus. Generally, just any WikiDragon will be desirable, as long as they're good with adminny-tasks. ---Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- One suggestion, perhaps mentioned above, is Editor Review. Not only could a reviewer find good candidates there, they could help quash the backlog there. Useight (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, (forgot to mention this yesterday) if a bot such as this is approved and run, it will also help in increasing the RfA candidate count, so there's another solution. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- And did I say that there's a really bad backlog over at Editor Review on feedback for the admin-hopefuls? - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd help out, but I'm hardly qualified to review other editors, as inexperienced as I still remain. I do think looking at ER for potential candidates is a good idea, though. S. Dean Jameson 05:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- That, and there's also WP:ADCO. Some (fair to say "many") oppose it, but I believe it's a good method of gaining more experience. I also found reading RfA reviews a good sign of the clue level needed for an admin. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 06:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd help out, but I'm hardly qualified to review other editors, as inexperienced as I still remain. I do think looking at ER for potential candidates is a good idea, though. S. Dean Jameson 05:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- One suggestion, perhaps mentioned above, is Editor Review. Not only could a reviewer find good candidates there, they could help quash the backlog there. Useight (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- And per my rationale at the four I've commented on this week, I'll most likely be supporting you! :) Seriously, I like the idea about the NPP, AfD, and DRV thing. The only problem is, it would be nice to get some "writing admins" as well that, while they may not be active in the traditional areas, could represent the regular editors in the admin ranks. I'm thinking particularly of the discussion that's gone on at Carcharoth's page. S. Dean Jameson 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Putting a different spin on things; I don't think we need more admins. Discuss. —Giggy 06:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. We really do need more administrators. 1,600 admins are not enough to handle everything, and since there are so many admins leaving the project, and at such a speedy rate due to stress, there is a great demand for more. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 07:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think basically the current situation at RfA agrees with you in principle : we don't need simply more admins, we need more quality admins, and in RfA we can afford to simply do that (by being more picky). - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I just can't envision a negative impact on the project from having an abundance of administrators. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't believe we'll experience a problem caused by having too many admins. Unless we lower the bar significantly and have hundreds of thousands of admins, then Wheel Warring could potentially become a rampant problem. But I don't foresee that happening. Useight (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- True. We are unlikely to promote that many admins in the near future, anyway. I do see Mailer's point, though—we just need to choose candidates who are right for the job. I don't think we should necessarily raise our standards, however; they're rather high as it is in my opinion, what with recent incidents such as the Ryan RfA, Kurt's self-nom opposing, etc. We merely need to be more careful in whom we appoint. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 08:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't believe we'll experience a problem caused by having too many admins. Unless we lower the bar significantly and have hundreds of thousands of admins, then Wheel Warring could potentially become a rampant problem. But I don't foresee that happening. Useight (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a more radical change?
I think it might be hard to push through on Wikipedia (a lot of people really seem to like !voting, which might actually be the problem), but has the "mentorship" approach ever been considered? Wikiversity has a very strong ratio of "Custodians" (=admins) to active users, and while not all the custodians are super-active, there's always someone around when work needs to be done. Assuming you're not familiar with it, the mentorship system works by simply having an experienced sysop mentor a new sysop as a "probationary custodian" for a month, and after the month is up it goes to an open RFA-style vote (more sensible since the new admin by then has some admin-tool logs to be looked over). I realize that might sound a bit cabalish, but the current system is arguably even more cabalish... it's often the same small group of folks !voting on these things. Just food for thought :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure about that - that suggestion, to me, seems to increase the barrier to entry even further. You still have an RfA torture-festival to go through, but with an added lengthy piece of testing that would probably be reasonably time-intensive both for the candidate and the mentor. ~ mazca t | c 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- We need to decrease the barriers to good editors, not increase them. As Mazca said, this seems to do the latter. S. Dean Jameson 14:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Huh, that's surprising to me that you'd see it that way. We've been doing it for 2 years now on WV, and the general consensus among new sysops is that it's a lot nicer to avoid the process *before* getting to learn the tools than after. The whole point of the mentorship system was to avoid the sorts of things that happen on Wikipedian RFAs, and we've been pretty happy with the results. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to reduce days active from 7 to 4
- I think reducing the number of days an RfA is active from 168 to 96 hours would greatly reduce the time a candidate has to spend undergoing the stress of the RfA, while still allowing for plenty of time for a full and fair discussion of the merits of the candidate, as well as allowing for a quicker up or down discussion. In my limited experience, it takes perhaps 15-20 minutes to fully vet a candidate, so that shouldn't be a problem. In discussing this proposal, I would ask that anyone participating offer their rationale. I am also creating an "Alternate proposal" section for those who might have a related, but slightly different idea. S. Dean Jameson 15:26, July 5, 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
- I don't think this is such a good idea. 7 days ensures that we can get a full spectrum analysis; for example, there may be those who only edit on the weekends. A 4 day period would allow someone to begin on Monday, and completely skip that segment of editors. –xenocidic (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not certain I understand this concern. If someone is truly concerned about vetting candidates, could they not at least check in at the RfA page on, say, a Wednesday or Thursday, and take a few minutes to vet any Monday/Tuesday candidates? And if they couldn't/wouldn't do so, what is the net-negative of losing the contributions of what must be an extremely low number of potential vetters? S. Dean Jameson 15:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- If they can't take the stress of a 7 day RfA they can't take the stress of being a good admin. —Giggy 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand this point even less. What does the "stress" of a 7-day RfA have to do with pressing the delete button at CSD, the block button at AIV, or the page protect button at RPP? S. Dean Jameson 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you don't seriously think that's what I refer to when I say "the stress of being a good admin"? —Giggy 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- When it's boiled down, the 3 things I mentioned above are the core of being a good admin, are they not? S. Dean Jameson 15:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, they're not. They're the crux of basic adminship chores. Anyone can do them. (Sorry to use you as an example but) You've been around for a month and a half and you could do them. We need "good" admins to resolve disputes, deal with subtle POV pushing, and ensure high article quality. Not just anyone can do that. —Giggy 15:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In my view, narrowing the time window when people can grill a potential candidate from 168 hours to 96 hours doesn't materially affect the ability to assess the candidate's demeanor and ability to perform both the "basic tasks" and the "down and dirty" aspects that you point out. How does the extra 72 hours materially affect that? S. Dean Jameson 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, they're not. They're the crux of basic adminship chores. Anyone can do them. (Sorry to use you as an example but) You've been around for a month and a half and you could do them. We need "good" admins to resolve disputes, deal with subtle POV pushing, and ensure high article quality. Not just anyone can do that. —Giggy 15:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- When it's boiled down, the 3 things I mentioned above are the core of being a good admin, are they not? S. Dean Jameson 15:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you don't seriously think that's what I refer to when I say "the stress of being a good admin"? —Giggy 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand this point even less. What does the "stress" of a 7-day RfA have to do with pressing the delete button at CSD, the block button at AIV, or the page protect button at RPP? S. Dean Jameson 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- (outdent) I don't mean to 'pile-on' here, but I see this as somewhat a solution seeking a problem. Yes, RfA is stressful, but there are more reasons for keeping the length at 7 days (unfair to full-time workers, allows things to be brought to light if not immediately obvious) than there are for shortening it to 4 days. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not "piling on" at all. I should have anticipated that there would be heavy pushback from experienced editors to any changes in the RfA process. I don't see the big detriment to moving the time frame back from 168 hours to 96 hours, but to each their own. I'll definitely think two or three times before proposing any more changes to the RfA process, though! :) S. Dean Jameson 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is a bigger issue here. Not only is there no reason to drop the length to 4 days and plenty of reason to keep it at 7 (or even more), the comment that 15-20 minutes is enough time to vet a candidate is worrisome. That is not enough time to thoroughly vet a candidate. That's not to say that those who can't spend more than that much time looking over a candidate should not vote, but they should not consider or attempt to convey that they have a good grasp of the candidate's true qualifications for adminship. Also, speaking on CSD, AIV and RFPP being the foundation of adminship; those may be some of the areas with the most traffic, but they're also the areas of least controversy. They're good examples of the respective administrative policies, but certainly not good examples of what adminship is about overall. LaraLove|Talk 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I take about 15-20 minutes to make certain that the editor-in-question hasn't demonstrated any tendencies that would seem to indicate they would misuse the more volatile tools like the block and delete buttons (~10 minutes or so), and to make certain they at least have a basic knowledge of Wikipedia space. Let's not forget that being an administrator isn't a big deal at all. S. Dean Jameson 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's an outdated and inaccurate essay. Adminship on en-wiki is a big deal, and anyone that says otherwise is in denial or doesn't have a grasp on things. There's too much potential for abuse and no easy way to deal with such abuse on this project, thus adminship is a big deal. And the fact that RFA has become so strict is evidence that I'm not alone in this opinion. LaraLove|Talk 17:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Amen Lara. If WP:DEAL were true, this talkpage wouldn't be 142k long. – ırıdescent 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not. It's a section of official WP policy, and has been iterated by Jimbo himself. The fact that RfA has become so strict is a symptom, not a solution, in my opinion. S. Dean Jameson 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo said that in 2003, when we had perhaps 10,000 users; we now have 47,465,804. I don't want to be rude, but as I've said on your talkpage, please read that essay before you cite it, as there's a lengthy explanation as to why that quote's no longer relevant other than in the technical sense of admins having no specific privilege when it comes to editing. – ırıdescent 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Very good point. Here's a quote from Jimbo from this month, so even he agrees. LaraLove|Talk 17:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The diff you post doesn't indicate support from Jimmy for adminship becoming a big deal. I don't want to argue about this, though, as we seem to simply have irreconcilable differences as to what makes a good potential administrator, and what standards editors requesting (or being nominated for) the extra tools should be held. I do appreciate your and Irridescent's taking the time to discuss it with me, though. We all learn from each other, I think, which is one of the points of this project. S. Dean Jameson 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Very good point. Here's a quote from Jimbo from this month, so even he agrees. LaraLove|Talk 17:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's an outdated and inaccurate essay. Adminship on en-wiki is a big deal, and anyone that says otherwise is in denial or doesn't have a grasp on things. There's too much potential for abuse and no easy way to deal with such abuse on this project, thus adminship is a big deal. And the fact that RFA has become so strict is evidence that I'm not alone in this opinion. LaraLove|Talk 17:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I take about 15-20 minutes to make certain that the editor-in-question hasn't demonstrated any tendencies that would seem to indicate they would misuse the more volatile tools like the block and delete buttons (~10 minutes or so), and to make certain they at least have a basic knowledge of Wikipedia space. Let's not forget that being an administrator isn't a big deal at all. S. Dean Jameson 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
S. Dean Jameson, we don't care too much about whether the candidate can push the buttons. Anyone can do that. What we do care about is whether the candidate knows when to do so, knows the consequences of doing so, and is able to deal with said consequences. It's not the button-pushing part that's stressful. It's dealing with the fanatical editor squawking at your face at every turn because you deleted his pet article that's stressful. It's dealing with the mob mentality of a horde of editors clamoring for your blood because you blocked one of their friends thats stressful. And these things don't start and end instantaneously. They drag on for hours, days, weeks, even months and years. So if editors can't handle a mere trifle of RfA compared to the stress of adminship, something that has a real impact on the encyclopedia and the outside world (i.e. the news media), then they shouldn't be admins. —Kurykh 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Alternate proposals
- Sort-of-proposal for WP:100 RfAs. If it was my choice (which it isn't) I'd prefer it that WP:100 RfAs should be closed automatically when they hit 100, unless their opposition fields more than 5% of the discussion (i.e 100 supports, 5 opposes). If there is 5% it should carry on until the 7 days period is over. If it does hit 100 and their is little to no opposition I see no reason why it should be carried on, considering that most supports after 100 are pile-on's. Rudget (logs) 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I could definitely support a proposal like this, even with only a 10% oppose standard. There seems to be no possibility that an RfA that hits WP:100 with 10% or less opposition will fail. S. Dean Jameson 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I could see this, with some sort of proviso that it be kept open a minimum period of time to prevent obvious vote stacking getting a dubiously qualified candidate pushed through before the possibly substantial opposition appears. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- That would be a part of the 'proposal'. Rudget (logs) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I could see this, with some sort of proviso that it be kept open a minimum period of time to prevent obvious vote stacking getting a dubiously qualified candidate pushed through before the possibly substantial opposition appears. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I could definitely support a proposal like this, even with only a 10% oppose standard. There seems to be no possibility that an RfA that hits WP:100 with 10% or less opposition will fail. S. Dean Jameson 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, with the same rationale in which we shouldn't reduce the days (in the above section). Some RfA's receive a lot of attention, and could get 100 !votes in less than a full day. It would reduce the RfA from 7 days, to 1. Either way, leave this up to the crats. — MaggotSyn 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, but if a candidate is so well-known by the community to reach 100 in that space of time, they would also have received more than than 5 opposes too. Rudget (logs) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I also disagree. It's not that unusual for an RFA to be sailing towards a pass/fail, and then someone comes along with some new bit of information they've uncovered which makes a bunch of people change their minds. I've sure one of the contributors in the thread above can think of a couple of obvious examples. – ırıdescent 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- To bring up that "obvious example", at this point, an RFA was at 100/8/2, which is in that 5-10% range mentioned above. But this RFA didn't end successfully because of more things being brought to light. I oppose cutting RFA times down just because some arbitrary threshold was met. Useight (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. That RfA is Exhibit A for the need for reform of the process. That an outstanding content contributor like that gets shouted down by some (not all) VERY weak opposes is exactly why the process needs reform. Amazing. S. Dean Jameson 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's responses like yours that are exhibit A to me that there is a need for reform in the process. Beam 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you really just now learning this? How long do we need to put this editor in the spotlight as a (bad) example for RFA reform? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Keep - there's a reason I didn't link or name it. If you want one going the other way, this looked like it was headed for a surefire WP:SNOW fail and ended up passing at 128-10. – ırıdescent 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- And there's a reason why I linked it. There's no need to beat around the bush. Everyone should've been familiar with it, but apparently wasn't when they brought up the idea of the "100 supports without significant opposition = automatic successful". Am I cold-hearted and unfeeling for bringing up this direct evidence rather than merely alluding to it? Some might think so. But I'm just using transparency rather than "there was this one RFA". And I'm not using the editor as an example, rather the RFA itself. Useight (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Keep - there's a reason I didn't link or name it. If you want one going the other way, this looked like it was headed for a surefire WP:SNOW fail and ended up passing at 128-10. – ırıdescent 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- (EC x 2) It's not all about content. Adminship involves a lot more than you seem to realize. I agree that it is an example of why RFA needs reform—which is why a study is being conducted on RFA right now with possible reform as the goal—and that RFA was weighed down by quite a few shamefully weak opposes, but there were certainly legitimate concerns raised. Adminship is about trust. Trust that one won't abuse the tools or reveal sensitive information. It's not just about one's contributions alone. LaraLove|Talk 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's "all about content", as I indicated in my "neutral" on the quickly withdrawn "Cubs Fan" RfA. He's a good editor, but had very few wikispace contribs. I think that mainspace contributions should weigh as much as wikispace contributions, though. BTW, where can I find the study you mentioned? I think I dismissed it awhile back from the notices at the top of my watchlist. S. Dean Jameson 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RREV. LaraLove|Talk 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent, although, S Dean, you do realize you're about a week or two behind? Many (I think close to 200) editors have already given their opinions at WP:RREV/Q. Never too late though, I suppose. Keep reading, and know that your opinion is equally as valuable as anyone else's. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Keeper. If I don't get to it in time, I guess I'll just continue to check in at this page from time to time, and offer my humble opinion. S. Dean Jameson 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with the in-laws at the moment after spending a fair amount of time out of town on business, or I'd have chimed in on this one sooner. Yes, there's a lot of thought about the whole RfA process, from selecting and recommending candidates to contemplate an RfA, all the way through to post-adminship mechanisms. We've had roughly 200 responses through to about 15 questions, which is a phenomenal response rate. Currently, I'm going through those responses and putting a report together on all these responses. It's hoped that this report will be deep and comprehensive enough to be a starting point for any potential reform proposals, if it is felt that they are required. Hope this helps. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Keeper. If I don't get to it in time, I guess I'll just continue to check in at this page from time to time, and offer my humble opinion. S. Dean Jameson 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent, although, S Dean, you do realize you're about a week or two behind? Many (I think close to 200) editors have already given their opinions at WP:RREV/Q. Never too late though, I suppose. Keep reading, and know that your opinion is equally as valuable as anyone else's. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RREV. LaraLove|Talk 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's "all about content", as I indicated in my "neutral" on the quickly withdrawn "Cubs Fan" RfA. He's a good editor, but had very few wikispace contribs. I think that mainspace contributions should weigh as much as wikispace contributions, though. BTW, where can I find the study you mentioned? I think I dismissed it awhile back from the notices at the top of my watchlist. S. Dean Jameson 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. That RfA is Exhibit A for the need for reform of the process. That an outstanding content contributor like that gets shouted down by some (not all) VERY weak opposes is exactly why the process needs reform. Amazing. S. Dean Jameson 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- To bring up that "obvious example", at this point, an RFA was at 100/8/2, which is in that 5-10% range mentioned above. But this RFA didn't end successfully because of more things being brought to light. I oppose cutting RFA times down just because some arbitrary threshold was met. Useight (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Any statisticians around to provide graphs on the number of support/oppose over time (in particular, for controversial RfAs) should prove very useful to why the time for RfAs to run should not be shortened. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The information you are asking about is basically embedded in this figure I made last year showing how the probability of RFA success evolved as a function of support precentage and time. At the time I made this, if someone had 95+% support after 2 days they had over a 95% chance of passing at the end of 7 days. Of course on the flip side of the coin, there is one example where the person had ~98% support out to 5.5 days and still managed to fail by the seventh day. Dragons flight (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't really feel comfortable because what if those 5 Opposes are really good reasoned opposes and the supports are bullshit "I Helped you get that article into Featured" or "We're friends" or "IRC buddy" votes that don't represent the consensus of the community. Beam 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- From my experience, this doesn't happen often (but what do I know, I've only been active at RfA since May), but is a legitimate concern nonetheless. All things considered, I don't think this is a good idea, we should just let the RfA run for the full duration, regardless of support-to-oppose ratio. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I really hope you don't expect 100 separate people all to make terrible supports, Beamathan. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It could happen due to ignorance. Beam 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I really hope you don't expect 100 separate people all to make terrible supports, Beamathan. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
BAG membership nomination
Per the bot policy, I am making this post to inform the community of my request for BAG membership. Please feel free to ask any questions/comment there. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I've Got a Proposal for ya
Can we leave RfA the way it is?--Koji†Dude (C) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, considering it's virtually impossible to implement changes, I don't have any compunction with leaving it the way it is. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course not. If we did, then we won't have anything to occupy our time. I mean, write articles? What are you, nuts? —Kurykh 23:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's always copy-editting. --Koji†Dude (C) 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, we came here to sling mud at each other, you should know that. :) In all seriousness though, I believe that while there might be improvements that can be made, there is really nothing wrong with the current system. —Kurykh 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's always copy-editting. --Koji†Dude (C) 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
We'll just have to wait until RREV is over. I doubt anything serious will happen after it's finished; we can't seem to reach a consensus at all. The sad fact is, Iridescent is right—WP:DEAL is no longer true, and RfA is almost entirely a vote, not a discussion. Hopefully feedback at RREV can help improve our current situation. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I support no change for the sake of no change! — BQZip01 — talk 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- strongest support ever Naerii 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Kurkyh and WP:NOTAVOTE. —Giggy 11:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. We should not fear change. There are too many concerns to let all of them fly out of the window for no reason. — MaggotSyn 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect ...what? Do you know how rarely I get to !vote Redirect? Cut me some slack.--Koji†Dude (C) 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per nom. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Two and a half Needs more experience with AfD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support per my discussion on IRC, and so do all my sockpuppets. – ırıdescent 15:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support I view RFA Change proposals as Lis alibi pendens evidence of things better discussed elsewhere. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - Per Nom. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mizu onna sango15's brilliantly eminent argument. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The blinking support is the worst. Make it stop, make it stop! Gary King (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely The most stupendously brilliant proposal ever on wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support. Wizardman 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the reason why I do not like going on the RFA talk anymore. bibliomaniac15 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see humor as a good way thing every now and then. If you don't like it, just close the discussion. It didn't get too out of hand. — MaggotSyn 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like humor just as much as you and the guy next door, and I have no intention of closing the discussion. I was merely voicing a opinion. bibliomaniac15 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Signatures
What do you think of making it mandatory for comments in the question and answer section to be signed (and timestamped)? This is the only area on Wikipedia in the project and talk namespaces that I have come across where "please sign your posts" does not apply. No negative effects come to mind. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)