Hiberniantears (talk | contribs) →Meta discussion: rambling elaboration |
SheffieldSteel (talk | contribs) →Copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: a modest proposal |
||
Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
::I don't think there ever was such a consensus. I saw a lack of consensus for a topic ban, but that is not the same thing as a consensus that the behavior is acceptable. I do see a general agreement that the edits are not appropriate. It would be a lot less of a problem without so many people enabling the trolling. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
::I don't think there ever was such a consensus. I saw a lack of consensus for a topic ban, but that is not the same thing as a consensus that the behavior is acceptable. I do see a general agreement that the edits are not appropriate. It would be a lot less of a problem without so many people enabling the trolling. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I was wondering if this user should be blocked on the grounds that there are too many editors currently, and that many of them disagree with one another. Does this seem reasonable to everyone? <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|S<small>HEFFIELD</small>S<small>TEEL</small>]]</font><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]]</b></small></sup> 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Candidate suggestions == |
== Candidate suggestions == |
Revision as of 18:07, 17 April 2009
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Current time: 21:08:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
From the top of this users contributions:
- 20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ 2 (→Oppose)
- 20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ged UK (→Oppose)
- 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 (→Oppose)
- 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Al Ameer son (→Oppose)
- 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa 2 (→Oppose)
- 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Someguy1221 (→Oppose)
- 20:22, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto (→Oppose)
- 20:21, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto (→Oppose)
All of the votes are the same comment:
Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk)
Should these votes be allowed? I personally think they should be indented, the user is clearly making a point. iMatthew // talk // 1:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, DougsTech seems to be basically a vandal fighter when he's here. Month here, month there - lot's of AIV and reporting User names. Not what I'd call a regular or big content contributor, but I don't see anything wrong either - everyone is entitled to their opinion and !vote. Perhaps he's just not aware of how many admins are not active, and sees a "total" rather than who's actually doing the mopping up. Either way, I don't see a reason to strike a vote, I'm sure whoever closes will take the "whole" picture in perspective. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Honesty only bothers me in a rationale if the honesty itself is a blatant display of bias ("I never vote for Australians"), because that's an open invitation for others to join in the bias. There are a lot of voters who nearly always support, and none who nearly always oppose, so I don't think it does any harm. Maybe DougsTech can be persuaded to tell us why he doesn't want more admins. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with your opinion here, Dan; it's a legitimate opinion to be holding, though it's a shame when worthy candidates suffer because of it. Also, thanks for notifying the subject of this discussion when the original poster didn't have the class. GlassCobra 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Er, glass try to assume good faith, just because the original poster didn't notify the subject of the discussion doesn't mean that the original poster "didn't have the class." He may have forgotten or didn't think about it, it only lacks class if you assume the worse in motives.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with your opinion here, Dan; it's a legitimate opinion to be holding, though it's a shame when worthy candidates suffer because of it. Also, thanks for notifying the subject of this discussion when the original poster didn't have the class. GlassCobra 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Honesty only bothers me in a rationale if the honesty itself is a blatant display of bias ("I never vote for Australians"), because that's an open invitation for others to join in the bias. There are a lot of voters who nearly always support, and none who nearly always oppose, so I don't think it does any harm. Maybe DougsTech can be persuaded to tell us why he doesn't want more admins. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I respect DougsTech's opinion, of course, but this seems rather WP:POINTy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a pointy and rather lame rationale to oppose someone. Prima facie, anyone? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I was thinking. It's very clear he hasn't even bothered to look at the candidate's qualifications, and for him to go on claiming that he's doing "what the community is looking for" is absolutely preposterous - if the community didn't want more admins, we'd have shut this down or you'd see a lot more opposes. With only one current RfA in the "danger zone" of less than 70%, I don't see how that's at all a justification for this sort of biased commenting. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's nothing but the next Kurt Weber. Look where that got Kurt. Let the 'crats decide, and stop giving him attention. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a legitimate reason to oppose. I don't agree with it, in fact I believe the opposite, but I'm not about to start indenting opinions I don't agree with just because I consider them wrong. Townlake (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Although there are many elements that help RfA function ... crats, attentive "regulars", well-wishers, coaches, etc. ... there are two groups that we absolutely can't do without, or RfA collapses in an instant: we have to have a steady supply of suitable candidates, and we have to have people who can oppose convincingly and not come off as dicks. About 75% of what makes RfA work doesn't happen at RfA ... it's the fact that people with dodgy pasts take one look at what happens at RfA and stay far, far away, and that will only continue to happen if there is solid, persuasive opposition on some kind of regular basis. But people rarely come off as brilliant opposition in their first opposes, so I really try to be friendly with new opposers rather than slapping them down. I think the history of RFA supports this approach; opposers tend to write better rationales with time, if given a chance. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- What I've learnt in the past few years here is that these people rarely seem as consistent and patient as Kurt was with his prima facie opposing. I suspect this !vote, like many before it, will die out soon enough. Just don't feed him. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a legitimate, though inaccurate, reason to oppose. If Dougs believes we have too many admins (and he will not be alone in this) then the opportunity is for discussion as to why he believes this. In passing, I've generally felt that it's allways non-admins who seem to think we have too many administrators. Now this is, of course, interesting. It may be an element of self-preservation ("don't de-sysop me - we need more admins") or it may just be that admins look at the backlogs and struggle to agree that we have a surplus of people wielding the tools.... There is a difference, of course, between people with the tools and people using them but that's another thread. Pedro : Chat 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's a nonsense reason to oppose (not to mind being downright wrong) and I am sure the bureaucrats will give such !votes the appropriate weight. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's certainly an assertion for which statistics that can be easily found contradict. However, we've agreed on the open nature of the forum at RFA, about the freedom of comment that accompanies it; so, so be it. As Stifle says, we have the 'crats for a reason and they're wise enough to give DougsTech's remarks the weighting they require. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If supports based on the opinion that there "aren't enough administrators" are counted, why should this not be counted? Not everyone will agree, but it's a legit position to take. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Is every opinion that you disagree with IMatthew to be discounted in this way? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Point is an abusive of a process. Making the same vote based on a philosophical view cannot be a point. Perhaps it is SOAP, but only so if they have it on their profile too. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We can all agreeI think the !vote is POINTy and not constructive. I don't think there's any need to indent it, though; the crats are (I hope) intelligent people and will be able to see that these comments don't count for much. (I just noticed Anonymous Dissident saying the same thing above, too.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)- No, we can't all agree with that. And for the love of headcheese, can people stop using "POINT" and linking to WP:POINT, when in fact no disruption is taking place. It's the most overused/wrongly used shortcut on Wikipedia. I have two-thirds a mind to go RfD that bitch. Smiles! Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, stricken and changed "all agree"...my fault for not having read the whole discussion before commenting. Anyway, I still think it's pointy (sorry, can't think of another way to put it)—he's not voting on whether so-and-so would make a good admin, but whether there should be admins at all...and specific people's RfAs aren't really the place to be voting on that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, don't get me wrong. It may be that's he's trying to make or prove a point. However, there is a difference between "making a point" and "making a POINT" (as some people would say). --Ali'i 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. And another non-POINT point: newbie opposers are the least likely people on Wikipedia to get love, and the people whose absence would make the whole thing collapse in rubble the fastest (assuming they hang around and get smarter and more dedicated to the process). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, he is not voting on "whether there should be admins at all". If you read what he actually said, you'll see that his position is that there are too many admins, something I happen to agree with. The opposite of "too many" is not "none". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, voting on "whether there should be more admins". Better? Now feel free to talk about the substance of something rather than looking for things to nitpick over. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, don't get me wrong. It may be that's he's trying to make or prove a point. However, there is a difference between "making a point" and "making a POINT" (as some people would say). --Ali'i 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, stricken and changed "all agree"...my fault for not having read the whole discussion before commenting. Anyway, I still think it's pointy (sorry, can't think of another way to put it)—he's not voting on whether so-and-so would make a good admin, but whether there should be admins at all...and specific people's RfAs aren't really the place to be voting on that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, we can't all agree with that. And for the love of headcheese, can people stop using "POINT" and linking to WP:POINT, when in fact no disruption is taking place. It's the most overused/wrongly used shortcut on Wikipedia. I have two-thirds a mind to go RfD that bitch. Smiles! Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem is less about the specifics of this vote (it's not a popular opinion, but it's far from completely delusional); and more about making blanket votes across all active RfAs pushing the same point - while it isn't quite the classic "WP:POINT", it is bordering on being disruptive to get attention for your view. An opinion like "We have too many administrators" the more specific thing that DougsTech seems to be getting at "We should remove old administrators before voting in new ones" is something that should be probably raised on a policy level (whether it's here, or at the village pump, or via an RFC) rather than by making specific votes on RfAs. For better or worse, an RfA kind of needs to be an assessment of an individual candidate's suitability, and I don't think it's very helpful to oppose based on a policy point that particular candidate simply cannot change. ~ mazca t|c 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I was tring to say, only you've worded it better. !votes like this are votes for or against a policy, not for or against a candidate.
- I remember during the Arbcom elections there was someone opposing every single candidate with a rationale like "Arbcom is a farce and needs to be gotten rid of." Does anyone remember if a consensus was reached about that person's voting? It might be relevant here as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of the other non-RFA edits concern me, such as issuing a 4im vandalism warning for an edit that really doesn't look like much of vandalism, let alone the need for a 4im warning. MuZemike 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- DougsTech got blocked 72 hours once in August 8, 2008 by User:Hersfold for "repeated abuse of scripts and circumvention of preventative action". I'm not sure what constitutes as "abuse of scripts" but issuing 4im looks like it's along the same line (except this one is abuse of templates). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The bureaucrats aren't stupid, and when Doug is the only user opposing a certain editor, or even if he isn't, they won't take his comments into consideration, considering all of its rebuttals. If you're still concerned, perhaps the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard is a better place to discuss it than here. Jd027talk 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that only works on the assumption that the comments made by him are invalid. Commenting at RfA isn't like a private members bill; you don't need to get a certain number of "per" votes for your comment to be considered valid. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the bureaucrats weight comments appropriately, the key word being appropriately, and that even though he can oppose on any merry grounds he likes, in practice, his comments aren't going to make or break anyone's RfA. Jd027talk 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. People that oppose my vote do not seem to really be opposing what I am saying, but rather how I am saying it. Remember, it is not your job to decide consensus (unless you are a bureaucrat.) --DougsTech (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, for the record, I oppose both the way you're carrying out your vote, and your reasoning behind it, but it's still your choice to make that vote. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Dougs I am "opposing" what you are saying, not the way you are saying it. Perhaps you can bring this conversation back on track by demonstrating exactly why there are "too many administrators". Evidence would give more weight to your comments. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Too many admins. You as an admin should know how to find this. You should also read what I have typed above and in various places. DougsTech (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- No Dougs. You should back up your comments with evidence not vague "look above" (I read above - there's nothing demonstrating your reasoning at all ) or "look in other places" remarks if you want people to take your comments seriously. I can only assume that as you can't be bothered to give the community the benefit of your wisdom as to why there are too many admins it's because you don't actually have any evidence. Pedro : Chat 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Wow, Doug, that's helpful. "Why are there too many admins?" "Because there are too many." rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000." DougsTech (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- And all the lesser courts suddenly disappear? Cheers. I'mperator 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Supreme court justices compare, very very roughly to something like ArbCom, or maybe Jimbo. Not admins. Poor analogy. --GedUK 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, saw that this morning on your talk Dougs, but I dismissed it out of hand as not relevant. Nice assumption of good faith by the way. What on earth has a "supreme court justice" got to do with Wikipedia? Many editors invited you to expand on your rationale, yet instead have you have acted like a petulant child. Shame. A lot of editors have sympathy with your point of view, that there are too many admins - yet you've managed to undermine your own argument not support it. Pedro : Chat 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Dougs I am "opposing" what you are saying, not the way you are saying it. Perhaps you can bring this conversation back on track by demonstrating exactly why there are "too many administrators". Evidence would give more weight to your comments. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, for the record, I oppose both the way you're carrying out your vote, and your reasoning behind it, but it's still your choice to make that vote. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. People that oppose my vote do not seem to really be opposing what I am saying, but rather how I am saying it. Remember, it is not your job to decide consensus (unless you are a bureaucrat.) --DougsTech (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the bureaucrats weight comments appropriately, the key word being appropriately, and that even though he can oppose on any merry grounds he likes, in practice, his comments aren't going to make or break anyone's RfA. Jd027talk 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as an admin who merely reviews the requests and rarely actually votes, I honestly don't care about DougsTech's votes, and I don't think others really should argue it there. The problem is the attempts to argue about that on the requests page, where it is clearly irrelevant there. DougsTech, could you try to force the issue outside of the requests page? I know it's not your responsibility to stop others from posting there but I think it would be more productive for everyone that way. Simply add "and go to my talk page (or this page or wherever) if people want to argue it" or something. I feel bad for the people requesting adminship when their RFA go off into tangents like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and is it really any less POINTy than someone who says "oppose because doesn't meet standards in my user space"? Those sometimes are equally impersonal (1 FA, 3 GAs, 3000 edits, etc.) and is that really checking qualfications? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps all of these kinds of discussions could be brought to an end if it were possible to state categorically what the accepted standard for becoming an administrator actually is. Right now it seems to be little more than "I've made lots of friends, I haven't upset anyone, I've served my time at AfD, I've made sure that my last 1,000 edits were done manually, and it's three months since my last RfA." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dougs, the guys do at least have an argument (and it would be up to ArbCom, not any of us, whether it's a good argument) that if you oppose every single candidate and say "too many admins", that that's worth a ban from RFA. The argument would probably go: the CIVILITY policy says you'll get in trouble if you tell every RFA candidate "I hate you, and no I don't have to have a reason, I just hate you". Well, I don't know if denying someone a mop does actual harm, but it does more harm than calling them bad names, so if you'd get RFA-banned for one, why wouldn't you get RFA-banned for the other? I don't know if that would fly, but maybe you see now why people are a little uncomfortable with the idea that "there's nothing they can do about it" ... there actually might be, depending on how you explain yourself and whether it's consistent and how long it goes on. And guys ... RFA-newbies are just as confused by RFA as WP-newbies are confused by WP. Please don't bite; he's probably not here to destroy us all. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus: What you're suggesting is pretty much impossible :) Majorly talk 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Impossible, maybe, Unworkable, likely, Controversial certainly. But I agree mostly with Malleus' comment - however this seems to be for another thread.... Pedro : Chat 23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I realise that. It was just, y'know, a dream. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the thread a couple of times and still can't see why DougsTech's !votes are a problem. People are welcome to oppose or support for whatever reason they like, provided they don't engage in personal attacks, introduce obvious falsehoods or similar. An !vote with limited rationale, or one that appears to be replicated across many RfA's without reference to the particular candidate, might' be given less weight by the closing bureaucrat compared to a specific and well-documented one. A broad-brush !vote with limited attached detail is also unlikely to sway many others, so will probably have little effect on the overall RfA outcome. But there's no reason why either of these reasons should stop someone making such a !vote. "Oppose, too many admins" is the same as "Support per nom" - its someone's opinion, they're entitled to it, it will be given appropriate weight in deciding the outcome. For what its worth I don't agree with DougsTech, but his posts are neither "point-y" nor unreasonable as a personal view. Euryalus (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- And per Danks55's comment above, I'd argue "Oppose because I hate you" is a personal attack, while "oppose because the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" is a general point of view and not a criticism of any current admin. Euryalus (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- No-one is really saying Dougs can't make these comments - he is more than entitled to - but if he wants them to have any actual effect he would do well to justify his statements with some research and proof. Until then he may as well state "Oppose - because the sky is not polkadot". This is the issue this thread (used to be) concerned with. Pedro : Chat 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- And per Danks55's comment above, I'd argue "Oppose because I hate you" is a personal attack, while "oppose because the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" is a general point of view and not a criticism of any current admin. Euryalus (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the thread a couple of times and still can't see why DougsTech's !votes are a problem. People are welcome to oppose or support for whatever reason they like, provided they don't engage in personal attacks, introduce obvious falsehoods or similar. An !vote with limited rationale, or one that appears to be replicated across many RfA's without reference to the particular candidate, might' be given less weight by the closing bureaucrat compared to a specific and well-documented one. A broad-brush !vote with limited attached detail is also unlikely to sway many others, so will probably have little effect on the overall RfA outcome. But there's no reason why either of these reasons should stop someone making such a !vote. "Oppose, too many admins" is the same as "Support per nom" - its someone's opinion, they're entitled to it, it will be given appropriate weight in deciding the outcome. For what its worth I don't agree with DougsTech, but his posts are neither "point-y" nor unreasonable as a personal view. Euryalus (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- And, as an aside, if Dougs' reasoning is indeed that "the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" (which does seem to be a very accurate summary by Euryalus), then I propose that we block all account registrations on the basis that with ever more editors we get more and more diverse and contradictory views. Pedro : Chat 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus: What you're suggesting is pretty much impossible :) Majorly talk 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
One week ago today, I got on at around 15:00 UTC. There were twenty-two outstanding requests on WP:AIV, and all but three were blatantly obvious, needing almost no thought before implementing a block. It is not uncommon for six or seven of these likewise obvious reports to pile up, and CAT:CSD routinely reaches 150+ pages. Yes, we definitely have too many admins... </sarcasm> J.delanoygabsadds 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- So they were easily dealt with, no big deal. Where were the other 1,500 or so administrators while you were toiling away? What's the advantage in having another one who isn't there either? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with J.Delanoy. The problems of occasional inconsistent decisions caused by two admins responding to the one issue, are less than the problems caused by not enough people to respond to outstanding tasks. There are many mechanisms for people to seek a second opinion on specific admin actions, especially if they are inconsistent with the commnon approach. By contrast the only mechanism to deal with too few admins to respond to vandals and nonsense pages, is more admins. But thats just my view, others are welcome to theirs. Euryalus (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- A slightly off-topic response to Malleus Fatuorum - a totally amateur analysis of admin activity suggests almost everyone who becomes an admin is pretty active in the months immediately after their RfA, after which there is natural attrition. Some return solely to daily editing, others specialise in one particular admin role, many simply stop editing Wikipedia or reduce their involvement over time. This is exactly the same, and for exactly the same reasons, as other editors. Hardly anyone who was an editor in 2003 is here today as sprightly and busy as they were back then. So surely new admins are needed to replace those that move on, just as new editors are needed to keep the overall encyclopedia growing? Where were the 1500 other admins when J.Delanoy logged on the other day? Doing something else, like the millions of other people who have edited Wikipedia at some point in time but aren't logged in at this moment. Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- We don't have 1,500 admins; we have 400–800 active admins, depending on what you consider "active". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with J.Delanoy. The problems of occasional inconsistent decisions caused by two admins responding to the one issue, are less than the problems caused by not enough people to respond to outstanding tasks. There are many mechanisms for people to seek a second opinion on specific admin actions, especially if they are inconsistent with the commnon approach. By contrast the only mechanism to deal with too few admins to respond to vandals and nonsense pages, is more admins. But thats just my view, others are welcome to theirs. Euryalus (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- How many admin are needed for AIV? How many instead hang out at IRC or ANI instead of doing anything major? Adding more admin wont fix the problem. Culling the over population now and letting people know that if they don't use their tools in needed areas and instead waste away causing drama that they will be desysopped. Don't feed the already obese system. Starve it until it corrects itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you prepared to name the overpopulation? bibliomaniac15 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- We could start here. As jdelanoy stated, there is a need at AIV and yet you are busy making responses in a random forum. You were granted the tools because the community had a need and trusted you to use them properly. If you were doing so, as with most admin here, they wouldn't have time to be chit chatting. A backlog? Yet where do we find all of the free time to hold such discussions? Come on. If you want to claim there isn't a glut don't sit around like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Um, J. Delanoy was giving an example about the past. AIV only has two entries right now, there's not a backlog. And bibliomaniac is doing a lot more right now than just commenting on this thread. I think you're just trolling. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there is no backlog now, then jdelanoy's point fails. If there is one, then my critique of the administrators here justifies that their responding shows that administrators are not doing their job. Either way, it only proves that we don't need more admin. It is nice to be right regardless of what is true or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is nice to watch you say such ridiculous things so I can wait for someone else to come call you out. I'm gonna go have ice cream. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Ottava, but not all admins must work at AIV and other backlogs every single minute of free time that they have on the wiki. Maybe they're just popping in, like Biblio might have been doing above. Xclamation point 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've never used IRC and haven't posted on AN/I for months, plus I regularly help out at AIV. So I'm glad I'll survive your obesity cull. I think you're confusing admins with paid employees - no one, not admins, not editors, not wikignomes is compelled to do anything here. People contribute however and as often as they feel like. Over time even the most prolific editor will slacken off, perhaps cease edting altogether. the same with admins, which is why new ones are routinely needed to replace the others. I also this thread has moved away from DougsTech's !votes and on to other topics, so I'll leave it here. Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Simply put, if you don't want to do the job for free, resign. If you are spending your time not working in areas that are backlogged but instead hanging out at places like this, then you aren't using your admin authority. Once the glut leaves, then we can start bringing in new people. To do otherwise will only make it seem like having adminship without cleaning up backlogs is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Great. It is acceptable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- So, in summary your argument is that we need more administrators who don't do any administrative work. Doesn't that strike you as even a little bit illogical? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I never said anywhere in this thread whether I think we need more or less administrators. I would have thought such a good nitpicker as yourself would have noticed that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not make personal attacks. Try to address the argument, not the editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wait. who said we were arguing? I was just voting on some RfAs ;) --DougsTech (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- !voting. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there is no backlog now, then then Ottava's critique of the administrators here that administrators are not doing their job fails. If there is one, jdelanoy's point is vindicated. Either way, it only proves that we need more admins. Sorry, couldn't resist. Everyone, get back to work already. :) - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- !voting. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wait. who said we were arguing? I was just voting on some RfAs ;) --DougsTech (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not make personal attacks. Try to address the argument, not the editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I never said anywhere in this thread whether I think we need more or less administrators. I would have thought such a good nitpicker as yourself would have noticed that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- So, in summary your argument is that we need more administrators who don't do any administrative work. Doesn't that strike you as even a little bit illogical? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Great. It is acceptable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Simply put, if you don't want to do the job for free, resign. If you are spending your time not working in areas that are backlogged but instead hanging out at places like this, then you aren't using your admin authority. Once the glut leaves, then we can start bringing in new people. To do otherwise will only make it seem like having adminship without cleaning up backlogs is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've never used IRC and haven't posted on AN/I for months, plus I regularly help out at AIV. So I'm glad I'll survive your obesity cull. I think you're confusing admins with paid employees - no one, not admins, not editors, not wikignomes is compelled to do anything here. People contribute however and as often as they feel like. Over time even the most prolific editor will slacken off, perhaps cease edting altogether. the same with admins, which is why new ones are routinely needed to replace the others. I also this thread has moved away from DougsTech's !votes and on to other topics, so I'll leave it here. Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Ottava, but not all admins must work at AIV and other backlogs every single minute of free time that they have on the wiki. Maybe they're just popping in, like Biblio might have been doing above. Xclamation point 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava, when Wikipedia starts paying admins a salary, then and only then can people complain about "not doing their job." This is, last time I checked, a volunteer project. Volunteer projects are dependent upon people volunteering their time, and people will do so where and how they want. Speaking of which, you are a content builder, what are you doing here and not working on an FAC? There are a lot more garbage articles out there that should be FA's than there are items on any backlog! Volunteers are needed in ALL facets of the community. And how ever, where ever somebody contributes is up to them. An admin who only uses his tools sporatically is still serving a purpose on a volunteer project.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is nice to watch you say such ridiculous things so I can wait for someone else to come call you out. I'm gonna go have ice cream. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there is no backlog now, then jdelanoy's point fails. If there is one, then my critique of the administrators here justifies that their responding shows that administrators are not doing their job. Either way, it only proves that we don't need more admin. It is nice to be right regardless of what is true or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Um, J. Delanoy was giving an example about the past. AIV only has two entries right now, there's not a backlog. And bibliomaniac is doing a lot more right now than just commenting on this thread. I think you're just trolling. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- We could start here. As jdelanoy stated, there is a need at AIV and yet you are busy making responses in a random forum. You were granted the tools because the community had a need and trusted you to use them properly. If you were doing so, as with most admin here, they wouldn't have time to be chit chatting. A backlog? Yet where do we find all of the free time to hold such discussions? Come on. If you want to claim there isn't a glut don't sit around like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you prepared to name the overpopulation? bibliomaniac15 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me like saying "we shouldn't have more police officers because there's enough of them already." Wikipedia is a growing community, much like your average city, and as such, promotes "crime" in the form of vandalism, which may or may not escalate in the future. Also, there are some administrators too busy with their own life to patrol actively, thus limiting the effectiveness of having 1000+ administrators. As others have said before me, everyone is entitled to their own vote, but I think that the votes should be based on the user's ability, not on something the user has no choice in. All else I can say is, I hope that he doesn't want to become an administrator in the future, in case someone counts this against him.--Iner22 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Is all this relevant to RFA?
- This whole discussion makes me sick. The point of noting that Wikipedia editors and admins aren't paid isn't to suggest that people should suck it up or leave--it is the exact opposite. We rely on free labor, so we should build a community around the premise that what causes free labor to leave should be discouraged. Votes like the one above are reasonable...within limits. It's a perfectly reasonable point of view to say that there are too many admins on wikipedia. That could be debated by reasonable people. It is also reasonable to say that because there are too many admins, one more either isn't necessary or will be a net negative. That can be debated by reasonable people. It becomes unreasonable when it is applied indiscriminately to RfA after RfA--while I can be convinced that we shouldn't be promoting marginal candidates due to some alleged admin surplus, that isn't a reason to refuse to promote an excellent admin candidate. It is also isn't necessary to invoke a reason like that to refuse to promote a sub-marginal candidate. Application of that vote to every single RfA (not saying that dougstech is doing that yet, just posing some limit) sours the process and forces good people out. Prima facia opposes over recall pledges and cooldown blocks make the environment at RfA worse than it already is. We should strive to ignore those votes if possible, admonish those who persist in making them and if recalcitrance places us in extremis, we should be willing to escalate matters. Getting into a discussion over whether or nor there are enough administrators as a result of the vote is more than pointless--it is needlessly destructive. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, and let's throw in the forumshopping angle too, with a twist. People who have been around have seen lots of forum-shopping and know what it is, but maybe haven't made the connection to WT:RFA. At ArbCom, people talk about bad admin behavior all the time, and they do hold many of the arguments that many of you are making in high regard ... for instance, it does make a big difference whether an admin spends their time improving the project or whether the admin spends all day chatting and not getting things done. The problem with bringing this up at WT:RFA is that it's impossible to know (both in theory and in practice) who's going to turn out to be a super-productive admin and who's a month away from leaving. Since it's a problem we can't solve at RFA, it's forum-shopping to bring all that anxiety here and dump it on us ... take it somewhere where it will do some good, people. The "twist" is ... maybe people are onto something, after all. We talk a lot about recall, and recall roughly speaking has to mean one of two things: triggering a reconfirmation RfA, or triggering a trip to ArbCom. Kingturtle and some others feel strongly that reconfirmation RfAs won't work at all. So maybe people who are saying "admins ought to be more productive, and I think that has something to do with RFA" are right after all ... maybe in limited cases for limited times, we should be setting up criteria so that if the admin doesn't perform, it triggers a trip to ArbCom? Is that what people were thinking, and how would that work out? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Followup ... after getting feedback ... hot damn, I think we're converging on a solution. Back soon. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You know what makes me sick? The fact that a few meazly oppose !votes actually led to a big, long RfA talk discussion, when that time could have been better put to use for something more constructive - and dare I say, more interesting. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is just a suggestion to allow candidates to make statements on the 4th day of an RFA that ArbCom will probably consider enforceable; I know there's a lot to read because people are going to argue about unintended consequences, and we have to have these arguments, but there's no need to keep up with the arguments because no one really has a crystal ball, and we'll find out on the 4th days of RFAs whether this is working or not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's really no point in sitting around here discussing this !vote that's not going to make or break anyone's RfA, but if it's really that much of a concern, here's an easy solution: someone go around to each RfA and post a support containing the comment "Not enough administrators." Jd027 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to say this: are you out of your minds? These votes should be removed and the user blocked for pointmaking! Post haste! To say we have too many admins is either a) a bad faith attack on administratorship or b) a concern that does not belong here. Why is this even under discusion?--Ipatrol (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, the lack of administrators (or lack of a lack) is not something for talk:RfA? Where would you suggest we take it, then? Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that the 'crat shouldn't take such a !vote into account if it is the deciding one. I don't know what Doug is up to, but I think it's violating WP:POINT. We're not trying to create an exclusive Patrician class. We could use all the help we can get from qualified candidates. This blanket rejection of all candidates and when asked for an explanation and getting this is nonconstructive. Perhaps Jd027's proposal to cancel out any of Doug's "too many administrators" opposes with "not enough administrators" supports would work, but then that may take away from a legitimate reasoned support vote (though a support vote doesn't need a reason as an oppose SHOULD have) Valley2city‽ 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- When someone added a support to your RfA without a reason, you didn't object to it, did you? The policy does not state that anyone must give a reason to oppose. The policy also states that ANY user is free to express his opinion. I think people may be angry that I am opposing their friend's RfAs, and making a ton of noise about it. When actually, it is well within policy. DougsTech (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because it is much more acceptable to have a support without reason than an oppose without reason. "it is generally regarded as poor form not to explain the rationale behind the opposition as it does not give an administrator nominee useful feedback" -WP:GRFA. You may be within your rights to oppose the way you do, but do you think anyone is currently taking your !vote seriously? There seems to be near unanimous opposition to what your doing as you can probably see from everyone's comments Valley2city‽ 03:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- When you support, you assert that you agree with the nomination; as such, support is the default position. When you oppose, you are expected to provide a comprehensive and thorough rationale. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- When someone added a support to your RfA without a reason, you didn't object to it, did you? The policy does not state that anyone must give a reason to oppose. The policy also states that ANY user is free to express his opinion. I think people may be angry that I am opposing their friend's RfAs, and making a ton of noise about it. When actually, it is well within policy. DougsTech (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- This whole discussion reminds me of our old friend Kurt. There is no need to indent DougsTech's !vote. I trust the closing bureaucrat to take account of DougsTech's !vote appropriately. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- He does this for the drama. It is a loop-hole in the system, and he is exploiting it. I can see that Dougs is intelligent. He knows that no Crat will ever pay attention to his negative "vote" because of the carte blanche disapproval of anyone becoming an admin. Therefore a reasonable and prudent person could only surmise it is solely for his own amusement. However, it has now become a me against the world fight for him so the only solution (save him !voting negative on every RfA from now until Kingdom Come) is a policy change which will never happen. The whole situation is sickening. That's my opinion.--It's me...Sallicio! 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your comments appear to be inconsistent hyperbole. If you're so confident that bureaucrats will ignore DougsTech vote then what harm is done? What makes it "sickening" in your eyes? That DougsTech doesn't agree with your point of view? That's not sickening, it's intolerant. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies for not being clearer... I meant the fact that we have this loooonnnnng discussion over something trivial is sickening (despite that I am still feeding in to it). Just curious, though; what's inconsistent about my statement? And there doesn't seem to be any unrealistic and extravagant exaggeration to make my point as a hyperbole would suggest. And as far as the weight that the Crats will give to his negative-as-a-policy-statement !vote, it seems that my opinion and that of the community seems to be on point. My logic is fairly clear.--It's me...Sallicio! 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- He does this for the drama. It is a loop-hole in the system, and he is exploiting it. I can see that Dougs is intelligent. He knows that no Crat will ever pay attention to his negative "vote" because of the carte blanche disapproval of anyone becoming an admin. Therefore a reasonable and prudent person could only surmise it is solely for his own amusement. However, it has now become a me against the world fight for him so the only solution (save him !voting negative on every RfA from now until Kingdom Come) is a policy change which will never happen. The whole situation is sickening. That's my opinion.--It's me...Sallicio! 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I note that a closing bureaucrat, Bibliomaniac15 has weighed in on the issue in closing an RFA yesterday. See: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smith609.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC) -- Source diff from the RFA: [1]"As a result I carefully examined the oppose and neutral !votes. Disturbingly, several users saw it fit to oppose because of the "lack of a need for the tools." This should not be so; an oppose of this sort is so vague as to offer no constructive criticism to the candidate, nor does it indicate a serious concern in the user's ability or conduct. Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course."
- I applaud, bibliomaniac for making that decision, meaningless !votes should be treated as such.--Giants27 T/C 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course he threw them out, did anyone here expect him to take them into account when making the decision? He is an admin himself, so of course he doesn't care for my vote. As I have said in the past, admins stick together. But that will not stop me from opposing them, we are all invited to express our opinion by the RfA.DougsTech (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought your whole problem with there being too many admins is that they work at cross purposes, contradict each other and deliver inconsistent results. Now you're saying they just back each other up all the time. You can't have it both ways, Doug. Reyk YO! 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- He threw it out because it isn't a valid !vote. Surely if the rule is "admins promote other people, because they are all working in a little cabalesque club" they'd promote everyone when they could reasonably justify it. Your logic is faulty; "admins stick together" would be a fine theory, yes, but at the time Biblio made his decision the candidate wasn't an admin. It would be like saying "oh, well of course X is going to help Y become a member of the Alpine Club; they're both Alpine Club members you see, they always stick together". Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) DougsTech, I threw out your vote because it had nothing to do with the actual conduct or ability of the user. You have not managed to show why the users in question would be bad admins in the multiple RFAs I have closed in which you have blanket opposed. Quite frankly, that's disrespectful to the people who have submitted themselves for fair consideration by the community. I also disagree heavily with your oppose in that one, you have contradicted yourself as Reyk pointed out, and two, Category:Administrative backlog. From someone who does have the ability to judge your oppose and judge consensus, let me make it clear that your opinion will be discounted until you find a better, individualized reason to oppose. bibliomaniac15 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- He threw it out because it isn't a valid !vote. Surely if the rule is "admins promote other people, because they are all working in a little cabalesque club" they'd promote everyone when they could reasonably justify it. Your logic is faulty; "admins stick together" would be a fine theory, yes, but at the time Biblio made his decision the candidate wasn't an admin. It would be like saying "oh, well of course X is going to help Y become a member of the Alpine Club; they're both Alpine Club members you see, they always stick together". Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought your whole problem with there being too many admins is that they work at cross purposes, contradict each other and deliver inconsistent results. Now you're saying they just back each other up all the time. You can't have it both ways, Doug. Reyk YO! 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course he threw them out, did anyone here expect him to take them into account when making the decision? He is an admin himself, so of course he doesn't care for my vote. As I have said in the past, admins stick together. But that will not stop me from opposing them, we are all invited to express our opinion by the RfA.DougsTech (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I applaud, bibliomaniac for making that decision, meaningless !votes should be treated as such.--Giants27 T/C 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The RfA record to date for DougsTech shows zero supports and all opposes (including the unparsed one in the link). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Majorly, if my votes are to be removed, then you need to find some "nonsense" support votes to remove. Each oppose has an explanation of the users opinion...most support do not. I don't mind if a bureaucrat does not agree with me, I don't expect him to. He is an admin, and he is adding another admin to be on his side. What about this, I will oppose using this explination "Oppose per too many administrators, this user could only add to the chaos that takes place by the admins. Remove some admins before new ones are added" That seems good enough, even though my current oppose is fine.DougsTech (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The part of your argument that I question is this: if admins are trying to be some sort of power-wielding cabal, wouldn't we want to actually have fewer of us? That way we could keep the power concentrated in a very tight-knit group. The fewer there were of us, the more power we could each individually wield; therefore, you could support by the same theory, that the power needs to be distributed into more hands for the sake of checks and balances. A "when everyone's an admin, nobody is" of sorts. Useight (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, your "argument" is totally nonsensical, and has no place whatsoever on RFA. Majorly talk 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Majorly, if my votes are to be removed, then you need to find some "nonsense" support votes to remove. Each oppose has an explanation of the users opinion...most support do not. I don't mind if a bureaucrat does not agree with me, I don't expect him to. He is an admin, and he is adding another admin to be on his side. What about this, I will oppose using this explination "Oppose per too many administrators, this user could only add to the chaos that takes place by the admins. Remove some admins before new ones are added" That seems good enough, even though my current oppose is fine.DougsTech (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here you didn't provide an explanation at all. These admins get mad when someone opposes and give a reason that they don't agree with, but don't say anything to those who support with a nonsense or no reason at all. DougsTech (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Typically, supports without explanations are considered to be a shorthand of "Support. I agree with the nomination." I'm not a big fan of them either, but they're a lot better than opposes that don't include a reason. That's why I always include a candidate-specific explanation (if you'd like to look, they're all here), and everyone is suggesting you do the same. Useight (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm surprised no-one's thought of WP:DNFT. --Philcha (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with WP:DNFT is that it assumes the troll can do no actual harm if you ignore him; unless all the crats who are closing RFAs sign on to the idea that DougsTech's vote doesn't count with the current rationale, Dougstech can sink your RFA. And even if the crats did sign on, DougTech could twiddle the rationale until they did buy it, without having any change of heart. I understand that this is a tough issue; maybe it will get simpler if we agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere ... if someone's rationale was always "Running for RFA is a sign of power-hunger, so I oppose", then a topic-ban from RFA would be appropriate, probably. So ... where do we draw the line, and which side of that line is DougsTech on? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- We draw the line at someone giving a bullshit !vote with zero evidence to back it up other than "I just think so". Clearly, he's an opinion of one against at least a dozen dissenters above (and that's just who wandered into this argument). He's past the line; I don't know where Wikipedia RfA decided that "anything goes". This is a clearly inappropriate !vote by someone who is clearly ignorant about how Wikipedia actually works. Like Dan said, his argument can tank an RfA - I've seen as ridiculous shit happen many times before. Someone will misquote a candidate - or take something totally out of context - and call it "uncivil". Then ten other people who don't bother to research the candidate at all (kind of like DougTech) jump on that bandwagon, citing, "oppose per X. I don't like uncivil people." Enough. Enough. We need to remove the bullshit from Wikipedia before it irrevocably tips the project into the abyss of any other barely credible knowledge site. Will we let reason rule the day, or allow misguided and ignorant editors to cause the disruption that is clear here? Tan | 39 02:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with WP:DNFT is that it assumes the troll can do no actual harm if you ignore him; unless all the crats who are closing RFAs sign on to the idea that DougsTech's vote doesn't count with the current rationale, Dougstech can sink your RFA. And even if the crats did sign on, DougTech could twiddle the rationale until they did buy it, without having any change of heart. I understand that this is a tough issue; maybe it will get simpler if we agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere ... if someone's rationale was always "Running for RFA is a sign of power-hunger, so I oppose", then a topic-ban from RFA would be appropriate, probably. So ... where do we draw the line, and which side of that line is DougsTech on? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm surprised no-one's thought of WP:DNFT. --Philcha (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Totally arbitrary break
- What surprises me is all of the sound and fury generated by one editor's oppose vote based on a belief that there are too many administators. Surely everyone's entitled to their opinion, even those people you don't agree with? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- So, then Malleus, I can oppose because an editor is Black? Gay? Straight? Left Wing? American? Actually that's a good reason. People are entitled to their opinion but certain opinions are not acceptable. I have no doubt you will throw back some clever words at me, but, frankly I don't care mate. Some people [who?] think that God Hates America beacuse homosexuals fight in their armed forces (to pick an example). Some people [who?] think that child pronography is acceptable as nudity should not be something to be ashamed of.
Malleus, you really need to wise up, get of the idealism horse, and learn that the right to epxress an opinion is not actually as cast in stone as you think. Certain opinions are not welcome - whether the context be Wikipedia or real life. And the opinoin of Dougs Tech, grounded as it is in fantasy, hatred of authority or whatever (but not grounded in fact) comes under the blanket "not an acceptable opinion" rule for me.Pedro : Chat 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)- Well, so far as I'm concerned you're entitled to oppose on whatever grounds you like, and that includes sexual orientation, political tendencies, or nationality. I likely wouldn't agree with you if you did, but neither would I try to suppress your opinion, or your right to express it. You may call that idealism if you wish, but I call it respect for the views of others. Racist arguments, for instance, need to be dealt with openly, honestly, and rationally, not by suppression.
- So, then Malleus, I can oppose because an editor is Black? Gay? Straight? Left Wing? American? Actually that's a good reason. People are entitled to their opinion but certain opinions are not acceptable. I have no doubt you will throw back some clever words at me, but, frankly I don't care mate. Some people [who?] think that God Hates America beacuse homosexuals fight in their armed forces (to pick an example). Some people [who?] think that child pronography is acceptable as nudity should not be something to be ashamed of.
- What surprises me is all of the sound and fury generated by one editor's oppose vote based on a belief that there are too many administators. Surely everyone's entitled to their opinion, even those people you don't agree with? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- However, what's being discussed here is nothing like as significant as racism; it's just one editor's opinion that there are too many administrators, and to conflate that with child pornography really does take the biscuit. Anyway, who appointed you, Pedro, as the judge and jury of which opinions are acceptable and which aren't? You may think of me as a hopeless idealist, but I have to say that I now think of you as a rather unappealing fascist. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I admit that many sticks held together will not break as easily as a few on their own. But I still find your argument that "everyone's entitled to their opinion" laughable. I thought you knew Malleus that we are not, in fact, entitled to express an opinion here. Shame you're getting flamed here and at Wikipedia Review isn't it? Perhaps not calling people fascists would be a start? Perhaps stopping demoaning the "children at RFA" whilst acting like a petulant 5 year old would also help? Any how, as the sub header of this thread indicates, this really has nothing to do with RFA. Pedro : Chat 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- What an extraordinary outburst. BTW, what does "demoaning" mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, so you've come down to typos as an argument - classy - didn't I see the same thing from you on WR when you were baiting Majorly over there recently? Pedro : Chat 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- You've been close to meltdown for some time now Pedro, as others have noted. Time for you to take a break and regain some perspective? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ready when you are. Pedro : Chat 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- You've been close to meltdown for some time now Pedro, as others have noted. Time for you to take a break and regain some perspective? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, so you've come down to typos as an argument - classy - didn't I see the same thing from you on WR when you were baiting Majorly over there recently? Pedro : Chat 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- What an extraordinary outburst. BTW, what does "demoaning" mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I admit that many sticks held together will not break as easily as a few on their own. But I still find your argument that "everyone's entitled to their opinion" laughable. I thought you knew Malleus that we are not, in fact, entitled to express an opinion here. Shame you're getting flamed here and at Wikipedia Review isn't it? Perhaps not calling people fascists would be a start? Perhaps stopping demoaning the "children at RFA" whilst acting like a petulant 5 year old would also help? Any how, as the sub header of this thread indicates, this really has nothing to do with RFA. Pedro : Chat 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- However, what's being discussed here is nothing like as significant as racism; it's just one editor's opinion that there are too many administrators, and to conflate that with child pornography really does take the biscuit. Anyway, who appointed you, Pedro, as the judge and jury of which opinions are acceptable and which aren't? You may think of me as a hopeless idealist, but I have to say that I now think of you as a rather unappealing fascist. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
← I think it would be best if you removed my name from that list, because I am of the opinion that for the last six months or so you've been acting like a complete dick. I don't think you've realised that yet though, which is why I'd recommend a break. In any event I have no faith in the recall process, and not much more in you. Please feel free to have the last word; I've said all that I intend to say on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is all of the above discussion really relevant to RfA? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Malleus, you have my last word. [2] Even if you think recall is bust, I don't. If I've been acting like a dick then best I take a break. Pedro : Chat 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- What's the point of that? You can just ask for it back again whenever your temper improves. Deeply unimpressive. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- For gods sake Malleus. Just step away for once. Synergy 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thats one less. More admins should do the same. I wonder how long before he wants it back. Either way, I think he should go through a new RfA to get it back. This is definitely a step in the right direction. --DougsTech (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, one less person to delete articles that are pure personal attacks, causing hurt, taunting, classroom bullying etc. at 08:00 tomorrow. Good news all round I guess.....</sarcasm> Pedro : Chat 22:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, why has no one done anything about this blatantly obvious troll? Which real editor starts off their wikilife playing on huggle? Majorly talk 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- DougsTech, I suggest you rethink that comment. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- It follows my opinion of their being too many admins. He seems obviously confrontational, and instead of using any valid policy, he is arguing over another editors opinion. Admins should remain neutral in discussions concerning admins. Instead they jump in and back each other up. Sadly, the only way to stop this kind of behavior is by limiting the number of admins on the system. --DougsTech (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Could you point to an example of Pedro being confrontational or "arguing over another editor's opinion"? –Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)To be fair, I could probably find loads :) Mallues is right that I've been on the edge for months now. I think the points here are 1) this is well off topic 2) Dougs' "too many admins" line is mantra that he has totally failed to back up with proof (despite multiple requests) Pedro : Chat 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Could you point to an example of Pedro being confrontational or "arguing over another editor's opinion"? –Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- It follows my opinion of their being too many admins. He seems obviously confrontational, and instead of using any valid policy, he is arguing over another editors opinion. Admins should remain neutral in discussions concerning admins. Instead they jump in and back each other up. Sadly, the only way to stop this kind of behavior is by limiting the number of admins on the system. --DougsTech (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, one less person to delete articles that are pure personal attacks, causing hurt, taunting, classroom bullying etc. at 08:00 tomorrow. Good news all round I guess.....</sarcasm> Pedro : Chat 22:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thats one less. More admins should do the same. I wonder how long before he wants it back. Either way, I think he should go through a new RfA to get it back. This is definitely a step in the right direction. --DougsTech (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- For gods sake Malleus. Just step away for once. Synergy 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- What's the point of that? You can just ask for it back again whenever your temper improves. Deeply unimpressive. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Malleus, you have my last word. [2] Even if you think recall is bust, I don't. If I've been acting like a dick then best I take a break. Pedro : Chat 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Again I will copy and paste this to you, Pedro. Please read it and try to comprehend. This will be the THIRD time i have explained the reasoning behind my !votes. You can continue to say that I am voting without explanation, and you will still be totally wrong. "Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000." --DougsTech (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- As you've said yourself, this is the third time you've talked about your reason. Unfortunately for that, other users have already commented on the false analogy with the judges as well as the apparent contradiction between admins sticking up for each other and admins contradicting each other. Besides, the number of justices in the supreme court is rather arbitrary. Seven would work just fine, as well as eleven. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- That argument has already been dismantled. If you want to make a comparison to the supreme court your best choice would be comparing arbcom to it. But how many state, federal district or appellate judges are there in the US for the population of 300 mil? Nableezy (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Again I will copy and paste this to you, Pedro. Please read it and try to comprehend. This will be the THIRD time i have explained the reasoning behind my !votes. You can continue to say that I am voting without explanation, and you will still be totally wrong. "Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000." --DougsTech (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Participating in this discussion. Wow this is getting old. People need to move on. I cant tell weather its good or bad that my few opposing votes have created such a huge discussion. Certainly hope more people oppose on the same grouns of the number of admins being too high. --DougsTech (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see Pedro being "argumentative" or "confrontational" in this thread: I mainly see him disagreeing with you. I should also note that while you continue to cast your oppose votes with your current rationale, discussions regarding said votes and rationale will continue both here and on your talk page; simply stating "this is getting old" and "People need to move on" won't end these discussions. Acalamari 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- So admins are not allowed to express opinions any more? That isn't how it works. Any admin is entitled to voice his view in situations like this one. If they were to become involved and then use their tools, that would be a different situation. Please stop twisting things to suit your opinion (or one of your opinions, anyway; I forget if you have managed to reconcile the hypocrisy in your statements here and the oppose votes that actually started things off). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- What is the point of this conversation, first it starts with a terrific admin stepping down, then it ends with a (to avoid breaking WP:NPA, I'm making this a ENTER WORD HERE space), calling him "argumentative" and "confrontational", nice job DougsTech, everyone takes issure with your stupid !vote and you have to realize, hey maybe I should stop !voting that way and make individual votes, but I guess not.--Giants27 T/C 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
←Someone was just weighing in on this in an irc channel, and it occurred to me that DougsTech either has a good-faith position, which is possible, or else he's a very, very clever troll, because he's managed to position himself very, very close to the dividing line for what would constitute bannable behavior ... close enough that there's guaranteed to be a lot of shouting from both directions (I got an earful in irc). In either case, the solution is to argue intelligently about where to draw the topic-ban line in general, and then figure out which side of it Dougs is on. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- My $0.02. I think most of us agree that DougsTech's opposes are unfair. However, we've gotten to the point where we all sound like a bunch of broken records. This has been discussed for weeks, and I honestly don't see what good further discussion will do. User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA applies, in my opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am inclined to disagree. I mean, I don't think heaping abuse for the situation is warranted, but on the other hand, I think that there is correctly a level of presupposed premises involved in an RFA. One of them is that, by having RFA, we are saying we are open to more administrators. A vote that denies the premises of RFA is not one that I would expect a bureaucrat to take seriously. He's welcome to his opinion. But on the other hand, by positioning himself actively outside of the consensus view on the subject, he gives up a fair share of his claim to be contributing to the consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that argument stacks up. Companies have personnel departments. They wouldn't have them unless they wanted people to apply for jobs. Wikipedia has RfA. It wouldn't have it unless it wanted people to apply for adminship. You attribute too much intelligence to the self-serving machine. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I must disagree, as well. RfA is to determine if we can trust an individual candidate with the tools. Unrelated discussion, such as whether or not we need more sysops, is irrelevant in my opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am inclined to disagree. I mean, I don't think heaping abuse for the situation is warranted, but on the other hand, I think that there is correctly a level of presupposed premises involved in an RFA. One of them is that, by having RFA, we are saying we are open to more administrators. A vote that denies the premises of RFA is not one that I would expect a bureaucrat to take seriously. He's welcome to his opinion. But on the other hand, by positioning himself actively outside of the consensus view on the subject, he gives up a fair share of his claim to be contributing to the consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
An honest question
An honest question if I may for DougsTech: Isn't it possible that administrators back each other up not because they are cabalistic, but because they trust each other to do the right thing? Or that they have actually balanced the rights and the wrongs of another person's [administrator's] actions and not found them wanting? There are obviously many things on Wikipedia that are not done with controversy, but when someone generally acts sensibly, they are !promoted to administratorship. Is it too much to trust that they will continue to act sensibly, even after promoting? Sure, feel free to treat them with distrust to ensure that they don't turn to evil-doing, but if, for all intents and purposes, they have not not evil-doing, then you should not say that they have.
When you say that you see 2 admins who behave differently with one user, why is it that you do not approach the one's actions whom you disapprove of? You think it worthless to say: "hey, was this really deserved?"? Do you actually follow through with the words that you've left here; the words that say you cannot find anything worthy of salvaging in people who, for-the-most-part, work to better the encyclopedia? I struggle to comprehend someone having such a willing disbelief in the human good... --Izno (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps a few "incivilty" blocks would get your head thinking in the right way? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that this has been brought up in the past. I was unaware of this until now. After reading User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA and the related documents, consensus seems to be that all users are free to voice their opinion, and it is up to the bureaucrat to decide consensus. I have stated my position many times. I am through discussing it, this is a complete waste of time. I am going back to contributing to the community that I intended for, and suggest others do the same instead of arguing over my !vote. If you dont like my !vote, counter it with an opposing !vote and state your opinion. --DougsTech (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you thought I was seeking re-explanation or argumentation, then you were wrong. It is saddening to me, that is all, and was seeking further explanation (which is not the same as copy-pasting nor the same as explaining your position in another way). You are free of course to discontinue discussion, but that would only leave a bad taste in my mouth. /shrug --Izno (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that this has been brought up in the past. I was unaware of this until now. After reading User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA and the related documents, consensus seems to be that all users are free to voice their opinion, and it is up to the bureaucrat to decide consensus. I have stated my position many times. I am through discussing it, this is a complete waste of time. I am going back to contributing to the community that I intended for, and suggest others do the same instead of arguing over my !vote. If you dont like my !vote, counter it with an opposing !vote and state your opinion. --DougsTech (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion
An idea for all... If you think DougsTech's opinion is unreasonable, why not ignore it? By constantly discussing it, you only guarantee that you're going to see more and more of it here on this talk page. This discussion really isn't proving productive at all. I think we really just need to leave it up to the bureaucrats how much weight this argument will get (since, for better or for worse, that's what we select them to do). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree entirely. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
DougsTech admins aren't like judges. Admins are users who can ban block and protect. The more we have the faster work gets done. In case you didn't notice Supreme court judges cost a lot of money and there isn't a terrific shortage of them simply because only a tiny fraction of cases go that far. How does having more admins harm the project? It can only benefit it. BTW supressing someone's opinion makes you look bad, much better and fairer to discredit his opinion completely in public ;-). Anyway DougsTech please respond to this, I think we all want to know the answer.--Pattont/c 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. people try not to jump in and start calling his opinion dumb I'm trying to start a reasoned debate here ;-).--Pattont/c 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Haven't we discussed this long enough? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Something curious
I pointed this out already, but thought it worth bringing up again. What kind of editor starts off their wikilife playing on Huggle? DougsTech has started a massive 0 articles in his time here, and his most edited article, Ohio, has 10 edits from him. People, why the hell are we putting up with this obvious troll? At least Kurt didn't oppose every single RFA. Blanket opposing every RFA needs to be stopped, and soon. Majorly talk 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, often, new editors have no idea how the rules work and thus, don't know of the existence of tools like huggle. Often, through exploration, they come upon things like that. I am doubtful that he is his how account. Marlith (Talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- He just gets worse and worse. Now he's opposing users for being here less than a year.--Pattont/c 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- So? There's people who oppose for having less than 5000 edits. Is that not equally ridiculous? Where would you like to draw the line? Only at opposes that you personally agree with? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- That would be preferable. Yes. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- But, using that logic, that would also mean that every RfA would succeed, as different people could find something that they don't agree with on every opposition, rendering it useless. While there are some reasons to oppose that are ridiculous, these people sincerely believe that this is a problem that the nominee has to correct. Wikipedia is a community, and everyone's vote counts, unless there is a very good reason not to accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iner22 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want a support of a ban, just take this matter to AN/I, I doubt there will many objections. He doesn't contribute at all to articles, and it seems like a recreated troll only sent to disrupt RFA. I agree with Majorly, Kmwebber was a pest but he at least contributed to articles. I'll support a ban there. Secret account 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- But, using that logic, that would also mean that every RfA would succeed, as different people could find something that they don't agree with on every opposition, rendering it useless. While there are some reasons to oppose that are ridiculous, these people sincerely believe that this is a problem that the nominee has to correct. Wikipedia is a community, and everyone's vote counts, unless there is a very good reason not to accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iner22 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
He's not even trying to do anything about there being too many admins
He's been asked many times, here and on his talk page, why he thinks there are too many admins and how many does he think is sufficient, and every single time he has ignored the questioner, or else told them he is entitled to his opinion and there's nothign we can do about it. If he really thinks there are too many admins shouldn't he at least try to discuss it/get rid of a lot of them? At least kurt participated in discussions concerning AfD and genuinly tried to act constructively.--Pattont/c 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- "try to discuss it/get rid of a lot of them"? In what means exactly would he go about that? GARDEN 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ninjas. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Village pump discussion? Start a proposal to have a limited number of admins?--Pattont/c 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be very fruitful.. GARDEN 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- He could at least try responding to questions people have instead of repeating (angrily) that he answered them before somewhere else, even though he did not. Just about the only question he has answered is why he thinks there are too many admins, and the only rationale he can come up with is a horrible analogy to the US Supreme Court. Timmeh! 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. Awfully ignorant and arrogant is how he's coming off at the moment. Unless he can explain himself more fully than a cryptic backlink then I see no choice but to prevent him disrupting RfA further. GARDEN 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whereas chaining himself to the railings is proving to be highly effective. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, he is, in my opinion, being irritatingly stubborn. But if his sole goal is to create drama and disrupt procedure then he has very much succeeded. GARDEN 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- He could at least try responding to questions people have instead of repeating (angrily) that he answered them before somewhere else, even though he did not. Just about the only question he has answered is why he thinks there are too many admins, and the only rationale he can come up with is a horrible analogy to the US Supreme Court. Timmeh! 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be very fruitful.. GARDEN 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- This really is the crux of the matter. This person does not seem interested in engaging in debate on the subject but would instead rather engage in mindless repetition of an action he knows to be ineffective and disruptive. There is nothing stopping Doug from going to WP:VP or WT:RfA or any of a dozen other places and making cogent arguments to pursued people. Instead he posts to RfAs in a pattern that a 23 line bot script could mimic. This is simply attention getting. The idea that Doug is not being allowed to disagree is utter nonsense, he just should not be going to an RfA and trolling it. I don't use the word "trolling" lightly, but at this point I find it hard to believe Doug does not know his actions are disruptive, yet he chooses to act in a way that he knows will cause drama. That is the definition of trolling. There is absolutely nothing stopping Doug from promoting his idea without being disruptive. Chillum 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- If we give him an Oscar do you think he'll stop? :) I agree 100% with you here. GARDEN 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm starting to agree. At first I simply thought he was doing some low-grade attention-seeking for his niche viewpoint. Then I started to wonder if he was being actively disruptive to get attention for his niche viewpoint. With the repeated evidence that he's not willing to take his proposal further than repeated boilerplate RfA votes, I'm thinking he's just being disruptive for the sake of it - trolling indeed. If you were to pick an opinion with near-100% opposition just to rile people up, there are few better choices than this one. ~ mazca t|c 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- If we give him an Oscar do you think he'll stop? :) I agree 100% with you here. GARDEN 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- This really is the crux of the matter. This person does not seem interested in engaging in debate on the subject but would instead rather engage in mindless repetition of an action he knows to be ineffective and disruptive. There is nothing stopping Doug from going to WP:VP or WT:RfA or any of a dozen other places and making cogent arguments to pursued people. Instead he posts to RfAs in a pattern that a 23 line bot script could mimic. This is simply attention getting. The idea that Doug is not being allowed to disagree is utter nonsense, he just should not be going to an RfA and trolling it. I don't use the word "trolling" lightly, but at this point I find it hard to believe Doug does not know his actions are disruptive, yet he chooses to act in a way that he knows will cause drama. That is the definition of trolling. There is absolutely nothing stopping Doug from promoting his idea without being disruptive. Chillum 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000."
---That has already been posted 3 times in 3 different places. If you have LOOKED, you would have found it. Dont try to make it look like I am not explaining myself, when CLEARLY I AM. You need to learn to LOOK for answers before asking the same question. Now, before you ask another question, and complain to others that I am not answering your every inquiry, you need to make sure that the answer is not already there. --DougsTech (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC) And here is another that I found "I am also very tired of seeing admins disagree, and the project suffer. There are admins (Ryulong...and someone else..?...idk) who have been found to be abusing their power and CLEAR consensus was to de-sysop, yet nothing happened. The other admins (his friends?) always step in and defend when it is clear he is wrong. Admins who abuse their power just seem to go to their friends to back them up. Even when the community clearly disagrees with an admin action, the admins are always right there with each other. It's community vs. admins and admins ALWAYS win, because the can revert, delete, block and all that. You can't argue with an admin civilly, usually because he will use the tools to revert you or block you...and ofcourse if he doesn't, his friends will. I am really tired of arguing this, people who support don't give anywhere near this much feedback." --DougsTech (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies if this has nothing to do with this part of the discussion or if this has been brought up before but has anyone looked at this, according to that he has opposed 22 RFAs, and 3 couldn't be found (most likely went neutral).--Giants27 T/C 21:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Simply put, we have enough admins because some admins are bad admins? I have yet to see an admin, and yes I know of Ryulong, who could not have a reasoned, civil and constructive discussion. An admin cannot pass RfA without having some degree of clue, even if they are a bit over confident in their own judgement. Also you haven't answered as to why you don't raise this as a discussion, either here or someplace else. Why don't you? It is ususally more effective than spammign RfA...--Pattont/c 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A bold suggestion
Anyone who is not convinced they can change Dougtech's mind, stop talking. Anyone who is convinced, take it up with him on his talk page. Also, no more edit warring over his votes, please? If you don't like them, argue against them or vote the other way. If you think they're invalid, leave a polite comment under his vote, and ask the Bureaucrat to carefully consider. Less drama, please. --Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Everything I post to his talk page is removed. What do you suggest I do? Majorly talk 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm striking part of my statement as excessively snippy on my part. And my honest answer? Ask the closing bureaucrat to consider disregarding the vote as invalid, and walk away. If he's removing comments, he's apparently not wishing to listen to you. Although I seem to recall us having a process for this kind of thing, you may consider availing yourself of that.--Tznkai (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- When someone is unwilling to communicate then the option of going to his talk page is rendered moot. A RFC on this users conduct will likely be more productive. As for reverting his "vote" as trolling, I stand by that. I revert inappropriate behavior all the time, as any good Wikipedian should do. Chillum 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- And if I find your comment here "inappropriate?" Be careful with that rationale, it causes a lot of trouble. Bottom line: its the bureaucrats call at the end of the day, and edit warring is always a bad idea.--Tznkai (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. You have no right to strike someone else's comments, no matter how foolish you may perceive them to be. The b'crats are a smart bunch, leave it in their hands. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I also agree that striking out another users comments is wrong, however, I do not think that this type of vote should be counted because it doesn't actually provide feedback into the Editor who is up for nomination. The whole idea of the discuss section is for other editors to come to an agreement on the positives and negatives of an RfA candidate, and to suggest ways a candidate can improve, if not successful (and even if they are). Comments such as "To many administrators" just bungles the system and doesn't help anyone. –Nathan Laing 12:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. You have no right to strike someone else's comments, no matter how foolish you may perceive them to be. The b'crats are a smart bunch, leave it in their hands. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- And if I find your comment here "inappropriate?" Be careful with that rationale, it causes a lot of trouble. Bottom line: its the bureaucrats call at the end of the day, and edit warring is always a bad idea.--Tznkai (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- When someone is unwilling to communicate then the option of going to his talk page is rendered moot. A RFC on this users conduct will likely be more productive. As for reverting his "vote" as trolling, I stand by that. I revert inappropriate behavior all the time, as any good Wikipedian should do. Chillum 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
View of a recent victim of DougTechs vote
I am astonished by the length and ferocity of this discussion on something I considered almost completely insignificant. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and can !vote in an RfA on any basis they choose, however ludicrous or illogical it seems to others. You can !vote against candidates who eat blue stilton if you like. Of course, if everyone does this you will get the admins you deserve. As a candidate I did not find DougTechs !vote troubling. I was much more troubled by lengthy, agenda laden questions which took much effort to answer. DougTechs asks no questions and requires no response, and is providing a service in preventing anyone passing with an arrogance building 100%. All admins should be reminded now and again that they are here to serve the community, not to rule it, and an early reminder is good, imo. Besides, DougTechs is right, there are too many admins. Sadly there are also too many vandals, trolls, POV pushers, spammers and hoaxers. No other site on the internet is so tolerant as Wikipedia that it requires a thousand admins to police it[citation needed]. Maybe if the problems were brought under control, the number of admins could also.
Please, put this one to bed. SpinningSpark 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- a recent victim of DougTechs vote? Are you kidding? --Caspian blue 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's like saying we have too many police because we have too many criminals. We clearly need the extra police if we have too many criminals. Also Wikipedia is the largest site on the internet, no other website has more than about 2,000 pages, we have over 10 million on our English language version alone. Comparing websites to cities we're much much bigger than Mexico city, which has a HUGE police department.--Pattont/c 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you think you need more police because there are more criminals than before, perhaps another view is in order. Rather than address the symptom, address the cause. If we need a thousand admins to police this place, why? If we come up with better ways to handle administrative type tasks, we won't need as many administrators. Every single one of you has this amazing thing in front of you that is very capable of doing amazing things with the right programming. Repetitive tasks performed by humans are a waste of human productivity. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly right. To paraphrase Tony Blair, wikipedia needs to be tough on the causes of crime, by doing some of the obvious things that have been on the backburner for far too long, like rationalising its treatment of IP editors, flagged revisions, semi-protection of BLPs, and so on. Not just recruiting more and more policemen. Let's not forget either that policemen commit crimes just as criminals do, it's just that policemen are harder to catch and bring to justice. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If anyone has a better way of being an admin I would love to read that essay. I would gladly do the work of 5 admins if there was some instruction page on how to accomplish this task. Most admin tasks that can be automated already are, it is the need for human decision making that requires humans to go through the backlogs. Or did by programing an "amazing thing" did you mean my brain? Chillum 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it would be an interesting discussion to analyze all types of admin functions, see how they are generated as being admin functions, and see what possible automated solutions might be available. I think that discussion is for another thread though --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If anyone has a better way of being an admin I would love to read that essay. I would gladly do the work of 5 admins if there was some instruction page on how to accomplish this task. Most admin tasks that can be automated already are, it is the need for human decision making that requires humans to go through the backlogs. Or did by programing an "amazing thing" did you mean my brain? Chillum 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As an Irish American, I take my role as a cop here very seriously, while still recognizing that Paddy Wagon is a derogatory term aimed at my people. Abstract observations aside, two things would make this all a lot more easy to deal with. First, just block DougsTech for disruption. Second, bring flagged revisions online. Item #1 would just make this page a lot easier to follow. Item #2 would free up 75% of the admin corps to do other things... or would that be "free up 75% more time for 100% of the admin corps"? Math isn't really my thing. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
- Refusal to "get the point"
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is accepted when it is not.--Pattont/c 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- You mean like the consensus to leave his votes as-is and move along with writing an encyclopedia, and people continuing to berate him over it are being disruptive? I see now. --Ali'i 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there ever was such a consensus. I saw a lack of consensus for a topic ban, but that is not the same thing as a consensus that the behavior is acceptable. I do see a general agreement that the edits are not appropriate. It would be a lot less of a problem without so many people enabling the trolling. Chillum 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was wondering if this user should be blocked on the grounds that there are too many editors currently, and that many of them disagree with one another. Does this seem reasonable to everyone? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Candidate suggestions
I know that we already have a lot of RfA's up ATM, but I thought I'd suggest adding more fuel to the fire; we're seeing excellent candidates recently (i.e. Law, Neurolysis (who recently withdrew), Closedmouth, SpinningSpark, etc.), so I'd like to suggest a few.
- Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Majorly (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
A Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(Struck per this. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))- Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thoughts? I'll notify each user of the discussion. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Have you even bothered to research them? Checked their block logs, asked if they want the bit? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm, I would suggest a slightly more thorough background check first. Relatively few editors pass RfA six months after indef blocks for sockpuppetry, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) What Shappy said. If you did the most basic research, you'd see that two of those users have some of the longest block logs of any user on Wikipedia. – iridescent 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever, I've seen people with longer block logs run. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) What Shappy said. If you did the most basic research, you'd see that two of those users have some of the longest block logs of any user on Wikipedia. – iridescent 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Why was I missed off that list? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because you are already an admin in everyone's heart and mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- If we're talking about the same user, he's had three blocks for sockpuppetry, all for socking in AfDs, and the last was exactly six months and
four22 days ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- If we're talking about the same user, he's had three blocks for sockpuppetry, all for socking in AfDs, and the last was exactly six months and
- Oh yep, you're right I was talking about Neutralhomer, and I'll assume you're talking about A Nobody.--Giants27 T/C 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- A Nobody wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry (unless if you count April 2007, some two years ago...), but he was blocked for an inappropriate username (as User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0, but that was fixed about a month later. He got blocked by mistake back in February, but aside from that the username issue was his last block. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yep, you're right I was talking about Neutralhomer, and I'll assume you're talking about A Nobody.--Giants27 T/C 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're looking at the wrong block log. (admittedly I also counted the months wrongly; now corrected.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the nomination for adminship, but with my previous blocks I doubt that anyone would ever consider me for an adminship. If you want to go through the paces, that is fine. But with my block log, I kinda doubt it will be anything but negative. But thanks for considering me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 21:12
- Au contraire! Rootology (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) an admin, and he used to be banned; and that was a rare ArbCom indef ban. NH, you got banned for less than what Root was banned for, so I'm pretty sure you'll pass RfA someday. :) --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW...
Here's why I suggested each user.
- I suggested Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of his prolific content work. At this time of writing, CB (if I may call him that for short) has some 10 DYK's, 5 FL's, 2 FA's, 1 A-Class article, and a nice healthy 38 GA's (one of which I reviewed myself); see User:Cyclonebiskit/Articles for more information. Even if he won't be regularly active in classic admin areas, such as WP:AFD, WP:UAA, WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, etc, I still feel like CB could use the tools to aid him in writing content when they see fit. I've seen Hurricanehink (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) use the tools for the same reason.
- Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Pedro pretty much summed it up, NH is insightful, honest, and clear. His attitude – a former hell – is now IMO perfect for adminship. He's all-around helpful around the wiki, and for that I have fairly recently given him his own day.
- Majorly (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) is an all-around helpful user, long-term experience, checkuser at simple-wiki and a 'crat at Meta.
- A Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an all-around help who is extremely insightful and displays excellent judgment despite his rocky past. I gave him his own day once, FWIW.
- User-multi error: "Cyclonenim's" is not a valid project or language code (help). adminship has already been brought up to him by other users, so why not by me?
--Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- As commented above, you really should have discussed this with these users before posting it here. However, if there are any of them that you think would make a good admin and are willing to run, then go ahead and nominate them. You don't need to get anyone's permission here first. Robofish (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- CB definitely wants the mop, he has a userbox on his userpage saying so. I'll do him first; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit should be up momentarily. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Offline for a few hours and I'm confronted with this! To be quite honest, I'm not sure what's holding me back, but I'm still making certain mistakes here and there and last month my temper flared up in a civility issue (diffs available if you so please). Even though it turned out that my point of view was that correct one, I still didn't deal with it in the best manner possible, and therefore I'm not sure if I'm suited just yet. If someone could help settle those issues in my mind, I'd be more than happy to run again. —Cyclonenim | Chat 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I call dibs on Majorly. Synergy 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Majorly is the user out of the above list that really strikes me as a good administrator. I know it's unlikely to happen, but nonetheless he's my top choice from that list. —Cyclonenim | Chat 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Right. I just want to see him back in the role he's good at. I think his break is over. Synergy 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the three posts directly above mine. I also think that Cyclonebiskit sounds like a good choice, and Cyclonenim himself is someone who's RfA I've been looking forward to again. Acalamari 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Acalamari. :) Dlohcierekim 23:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- @ Acalamari; I'm glad you think that CB sounds like a good choice, because he has now been nominated for adminship. Now all we have to do is await his acceptance. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Majorly was a former admin, you know. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know, but I still feel he'd make a good admin at this moment in time. —Cyclonenim | Chat 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whether he'd make a good admin or not he'd be exceeding unlikely to get through an RfA right now. RfA has very little to do with choosing good administrators in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus...I find myself agreeing with you more and more each day. Synergy 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Me too actually. There isn't a chance in hell I'd pass RFA. Not that I particularly want to pass RFA - I wouldn't mind being an admin again though. It would be utterly impossible though, consider all the terrible things I've done, and what a disgraceful person I am. I mean, I've only slaved away on this project for nearly 3 years solid, day after day after day, creating and improving hundreds of articles, discussing and improving policies, working on things from RC patrol to GA reviews. Let's face it, someone like that would make a terrible admin. To be honest though I'm actually enjoying working on articles - something which many of the RFA crowd should try doing some time. I prefer that any day to slaving away deleting crap pages, blocking idiots who vandalise, and discussing stupid policies. It's an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 16:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Most excellent. Well said. Synergy 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Here, here. —Cyclonenim | Chat 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since the mechanism for RFA is deemed to not be broken, but the mood has changed such that the process isn't producing admins fast enough to replace our losses, let alone build up numbers to the normal ratio for a wikipedia; Perhaps the time has come to reduce the threshold for success to a more attainable 50% plus or minus 5% for crats discretion? ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we should reduce the pass mark, but instead encourage more users who we think are fit to be administrators to run through the process. Most people who run and who are suitable do pass. It's only the controversial users such as Majorly, Ottava etc. who (unfortunately) won't. —Cyclonenim | Chat 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to think of any recent unsuccessful candidates who scored over 50% who I would really have thought a nett negative if they'd had the mop. I wonder if anyone with longer memories of RFA is aware of anyone scoring in the 50% - 75% range who subsequently went rogue or otherwise proved untrustworthy? I wouldn't want to continue with this line of thought if there was reason to think that we need RFA to be such a tough test. ϢereSpielChequers 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I should point out there's a factor that you don't seem to be considering: adminship itself. There might be users who would only show clear problems, go rogue after they've got adminship for whatever reasons (bullying "lesser" users, et al.) Just for consideration that what they do after RfA isn't exactly representative. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, fair point, thats partly because I think a pure AB test would be hard to arrange. But I'd be interested in a comparison of admins who failed with 50-75% on their first RFA but subsequently succeeded, v those who either succeeded first time or whose unsuccessful RFAs were below 50%. Another way to test the validity of the process would be to chart the RFA scores of admins who have subsequently had to be desysoped against typical RFA success scores, if RFA is predictive of whether candidates would make good or bad admins I would expect to see a negative correlation between pass margin and compulsory desysops; Though I doubt we have the sample size to get very good confidence levels. This can't be the first time we've discussed reviewing recruitment procedures in light of results, does anyone remember the previous times this has been done at RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I should point out there's a factor that you don't seem to be considering: adminship itself. There might be users who would only show clear problems, go rogue after they've got adminship for whatever reasons (bullying "lesser" users, et al.) Just for consideration that what they do after RfA isn't exactly representative. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to think of any recent unsuccessful candidates who scored over 50% who I would really have thought a nett negative if they'd had the mop. I wonder if anyone with longer memories of RFA is aware of anyone scoring in the 50% - 75% range who subsequently went rogue or otherwise proved untrustworthy? I wouldn't want to continue with this line of thought if there was reason to think that we need RFA to be such a tough test. ϢereSpielChequers 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we should reduce the pass mark, but instead encourage more users who we think are fit to be administrators to run through the process. Most people who run and who are suitable do pass. It's only the controversial users such as Majorly, Ottava etc. who (unfortunately) won't. —Cyclonenim | Chat 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since the mechanism for RFA is deemed to not be broken, but the mood has changed such that the process isn't producing admins fast enough to replace our losses, let alone build up numbers to the normal ratio for a wikipedia; Perhaps the time has come to reduce the threshold for success to a more attainable 50% plus or minus 5% for crats discretion? ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Me too actually. There isn't a chance in hell I'd pass RFA. Not that I particularly want to pass RFA - I wouldn't mind being an admin again though. It would be utterly impossible though, consider all the terrible things I've done, and what a disgraceful person I am. I mean, I've only slaved away on this project for nearly 3 years solid, day after day after day, creating and improving hundreds of articles, discussing and improving policies, working on things from RC patrol to GA reviews. Let's face it, someone like that would make a terrible admin. To be honest though I'm actually enjoying working on articles - something which many of the RFA crowd should try doing some time. I prefer that any day to slaving away deleting crap pages, blocking idiots who vandalise, and discussing stupid policies. It's an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 16:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus...I find myself agreeing with you more and more each day. Synergy 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whether he'd make a good admin or not he'd be exceeding unlikely to get through an RfA right now. RfA has very little to do with choosing good administrators in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know, but I still feel he'd make a good admin at this moment in time. —Cyclonenim | Chat 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Majorly was a former admin, you know. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- @ Acalamari; I'm glad you think that CB sounds like a good choice, because he has now been nominated for adminship. Now all we have to do is await his acceptance. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Right. I just want to see him back in the role he's good at. I think his break is over. Synergy 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
What happened to that list?
Of users with tons of contributions/old timers that weren't admins? Go by that for long-standing prospects. rootology (C)(T) 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The list, Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts, was marked historical because of this MFD discussion. Graham87 08:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Editnotice after closures?
Is there anyway we can add Editnotices to RfA's once they are closed, to hopefully avoid votes being added after the request closes. I've noticed it happening a lot lately. iMatthew : Chat 20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know on some projects, RfAs are indefinitely full-protected after closure. Perhaps we should do that here? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
!Vote tallies
Has anyone ever thought of making a bot that updates these tallies? It seems a huge waste of editors' time to be updating the !vote tallies for every RFA every time someone !votes. Timmeh! 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- This has been proposed several times in the past, and the general consensus (at least the way I see it) is that updating them manually is just as effective. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- They should just be done away with, since I thought it was supposed to be a discussion, and have nothing to do with numbers. But... --Ali'i 14:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody's oppose vote on Foxy Loxy's RFA
I am slightly disturbed by this oppose by A Nobody on Foxy Loxy's RFA. In it, A Nobody appears to at first concede that the candidate makes acceptable judgements at AFD more often than not, which is standard fare for A Nobody, before citing that the candidate was a poor judge of character, and offering Foxy Loxy's Support !vote on Kww's RFA as evidence of this. A Nobody goes on to say that the candidate is "not persuaded by overwhelmingly convincing arguments". Perhaps unsurprisingly, A Nobody has also opposed on Kww's RFA.
Now don't get me wrong, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Kww, and I suppose that someone being a serially poor judge of character might be a legitimate reason to Oppose someone. In this case though, the oppose seems to simply be based on Foxy Loxy offering an opinion in an RFA that A Nobody happens to deal with. Seeing as at time of writing almost two out of every three people to comment on Kww's RFA have expressed a "Support" opinion, I hardly think that "overwhelmingly convincing arguments" can be shown to have been made. It appears to be more of a tit-for-tat opposition rather than serious concern over Foxy Loxy's ability to do the job. I asked A Nobody for clarification on his opinion on the RFA, fearing that I may have been simply misunderstanding something innocent, to which he replied that the user had "demonstrated poor judgment that could influence having a potentially disastrous admin by not being convinced by overwhelming evidence".
I know that in all probability this Oppose will be glossed over or not considered by the closing bureaucrats, and Foxy Loxy's support range is high enough that this one Oppose vote is likely not going to make any difference. But I feel that if we open the gates to these sort of comments at RFA, the already sometimes combative atmosphere could well degenerate even further. I also note that I am not the only one to have called A Nobody out on this topic in the RFA, but I felt it best to bring it here to avoid derailing that particular RFA and generate some discussion over whether this is considered unacceptable more generally.
Full disclosure: I have had my disagreements with A Nobody before, and he was one of the two people to oppose my own RFA this year.
Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC).
- ................ um....... why not just disagree with him and state it on the RfA like everyone else? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- "I felt it best to bring it here to avoid derailing that particular RFA". Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC).
- I'm tending to think that A Nobody's comment regarding the !vote are a bit over the top. Except in extreme cases, I do not believe that an editor !voting on an issue should be held against him or should be an issue. By the by, that includes Kww's !vote against Casliber when he was an ArbCom candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is overdue; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have reexamined the candidate's edit history and will WP:AGF with the candidate's support in the other RfA as I am if not persuaded that the candidate has more positives than negative. As such, I have switched to neutral pending how the other nine opposes are addressed. It's a holiday after all, and I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt. So, Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- ... yes, but what about the other 364 days of the year? I'd like to hold this open to allow Kww the chance to comment when his RfA closes later today, and then see if we should adopt Jack's suggestion to procede to a RfC concerning A Nobody. I'd have some comments in that RfC, but will withhold pending Kww's contribution, if he sees fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- My god, is WT:RFA's only function to be a three-ring drama circus? Let the closing 'crat take it into account, complain on the RfA if you must but this constant whining about opposes really gets old. They are opinions—last time I checked, everyone was allowed one, poorly informed as they could be. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's part of a disturbing trend. I thought, when Kurt Weber was banned (primarily, if not only, for his opposition at RfA) that we might see more concerted effort to bar controversial opinions here, and it seems we are. DougsTech, A Nobody, Friday (ageism) etc. There are structural problems with RfA: the tendency for huge amounts of questions turning the request into an examination, the fact that actual discussion is discouraged, and the general problem that lack of any common criteria makes the process about popularity more than anything else, etc. These unpopular opinions should be treated as the ripple they are. When they are brought here, whatever the intention of the initial poster, censorship and banning are where the discussions seem to lead. The best response is to just ignore them if you disagree and move on. Avruch T 15:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- My god, is WT:RFA's only function to be a three-ring drama circus? Let the closing 'crat take it into account, complain on the RfA if you must but this constant whining about opposes really gets old. They are opinions—last time I checked, everyone was allowed one, poorly informed as they could be. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- ... yes, but what about the other 364 days of the year? I'd like to hold this open to allow Kww the chance to comment when his RfA closes later today, and then see if we should adopt Jack's suggestion to procede to a RfC concerning A Nobody. I'd have some comments in that RfC, but will withhold pending Kww's contribution, if he sees fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) IMO, A Nobody usually makes very pertinent points in his !votes, both when he opposes as well as when he supports. I don't always agree with his conclusions but I always read his opinion and am disappointed that we seek to comment on one !vote that was perhaps not kosher or just not well explained. Regardless of the quality of his !vote rationale, I remain convinced that picking on oppose voters is detrimental to the RfA process because it scares away oppose !voters and leaves only crudmugeonly editors opposing an RfA and we lose valuable information in the process. An image of a squalling pink thing in a large puddle of soapy water on the sidewalk leaps to mind. Let people !vote anyway they want and, unless they are impolite, stop worrying about what the !vote says. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- If an editor votes for a very bad reason, it will fail to convince others to vote the same way. If it does convince them, then it wasn't such a bad reason after all. If an oppose reason is bad enough, it may even generate some support for the candidate. I will say that I have responded in such a way to one or two of A Nobody's opposes--voted neutral or support to make clear I do not share his opinions. Badgering someone about how he votes is like beating up on voters coming out of the polls who make it clear they've voted against your guy. It's every bit as much intimidation as beating up on them ahead of the election. To bring a RfC based on any polite RfC vote is interfering with the RfC process -- and thus disruptive. DGG (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
My RFA is closed now, so no one can accuse me of making statements here in an effort to sway the result. First, mine went 76:49:9. That means that neither opposing nor supporting me for adminship is an obvious sign of bad judgment. Even so, A Nobody is allowed to believe that it is, and, if that was the only thing he had done in connection with this, I'd agree wholeheartedly with just letting it lie. The real problem is that it is misbehaviour from my RFA spilling over into Foxy Loxy's. Every one is allowed to oppose me, and there are some legitimate reasons to do so, primarily concerns over whether my perspective on inclusionism will have an undue effect on my judgment. A Nobody, however, went well beyond the normal behaviour of simply opposing, and went to the point of grandstanding. Hell, he used my forbearance in commenting here as evidence against me. First he opposes, then mischaracterizes my block log (a block reversed as "my error" by the blocking admin can scarcely be described as being blocked for edit warring). He then added a legitimate, albeit strange link to his argument. He then demands a pledge, asks me if I've stopped beating my wife, badgers too many times to create links for, revamps his arguments again. Then, in order to get a new spot to argue against me, he claims to be "stunned" by one of my support votes. This claim is hard to take seriously, given that A Nobody has obviously been reading every support vote, and it took 5 days for him to be stunned.
People should feel free to oppose at RFAs, to oppose for any reason that convinces them, and should feel free to explain those reasons to others. DGG, for example, opposed my RFA, and made several edits in support of his opposition, and several other edits questioning other editors' reasons. From all appearances he did so in good faith, trying to make his point accepted and understood by others, and did so within the bounds of my RFA. There's a style, and a structure, and a timing to A Nobody's opposition that deserves discussion: from the above description at my RFA, from spilling over into Foxy Loxy's, to mentioning his opposition to an ongoing RFA at ANI. It's not a matter of just having his !vote use questionable logic.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- So now that your RfA closed as unsuccessful and as my oppose was agreed with by multiple editors (if it was really baseless, it would not have persuaded anyone), you go after me here as what revenge? I really hoped you would reflect on the RfA's failure and realize, hey, maybe if you were more conciliatory and understanding with your opposition you would not have received such determined opposes. I have changed stances in several RfAs. I have argued to support candidates in a subsequent RfA after opposing them in an earlier one. If you hope to suceed a third time, I strongly urge you reconcile with those who opposed you rather than retaliate against them and perpetuate the tensions, because I for one am whole-heartedly welcome to reconsidering my thoughts on you should you take the proactive path and I'm sure many others will look favorably on such an approach as well. Don't prove me right about holding grudges. Be the big man here and show me and everyone else that you would rather agree to disagree or maybe even destroy enemies by making them your friends as Abraham Lincoln once said. I'm always receptive to good faith and I believe many others would be as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm curious about the fact that A Nobody's updating the tally on Kww's nomination followed an oppose in almost every instance (I think it is 18 our of 19). Given the fact that Kww's candidacy attracted about 60 percent support, this seems statistically unlikely. Not sure how this advantaged A Nobody's militant oppositon of Kww, but it is interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting how, because you updated the tally after many of the supports: [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. So, someone who supported him and seems to take issue with the main opposer was quick to update after many supports. Perhaps its statistically unlikely because you beat me and everyone else for that matter to the punch with updating the tally following the new supports. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm curious about the fact that A Nobody's updating the tally on Kww's nomination followed an oppose in almost every instance (I think it is 18 our of 19). Given the fact that Kww's candidacy attracted about 60 percent support, this seems statistically unlikely. Not sure how this advantaged A Nobody's militant oppositon of Kww, but it is interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I updated after opposes, as well [7], [8] and even after a neutral [9]. I merely updated when I saw it wasn't up to date, and the majority are probably supports because Kww got majority support. Why would you only update after an oppose? I can't figure out what the advantage is, and yet you did it. Very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because every single other time somebody else updated first. One editor actually updated by discounting an oppose (DougTech's) from the tally. You'd think that would be a bigger concern. And in any event, I didn't update after every oppose because I think there's an advantage (and after all as you say above, I literally didn't update after "every" oppose), because as you ask, what would that be? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I was just struck that you seemed to always update after an oppose, and thought it odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, at worst it was subconscious, because it's not something I thought about. Anyway, though, I do hope that the results will persuade the candidate to take a different approach with the opposers, because even with as adamant as I was there, if I see a much more proactive and understanding approach when dealing with those of opposing wikiphilosophies, I would gladly reeevaluate my opinions of him as I have in the past when I either changed stance during an RfA or decided to support someone I had opposed in a previous RfA. My oppose focused on a grudge-like combative attitude. The way forward is to reach out proactively so that I and others can say that he learned from the RfA and in fact wants to move forward. I am absolutely receptive to that. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still an amazing coincidence, akin to having a coin land heads a couple of dozen times in a row. I'm afraid I disagree iwth you; Kww has nothing to apologize for. Judging from what I have seen crawl out from the woodwork during his RfA, he is to be applauded for his self-restraint, if that is typical of what he has to deal with on a daily basis in his work. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not really as I did upate the support and neutral numbers in [10] (I increased the support number by 3 versus the oppose only by 1, so not sure what I could possibly be suggesting there), [11], [12], [13], and [14]. If you're assuming some kind of bad faith, you'd think I wouldn't have bothered to also increase the supports and neutrals ever, let alone multiple times. Anyway, take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still an amazing coincidence, akin to having a coin land heads a couple of dozen times in a row. I'm afraid I disagree iwth you; Kww has nothing to apologize for. Judging from what I have seen crawl out from the woodwork during his RfA, he is to be applauded for his self-restraint, if that is typical of what he has to deal with on a daily basis in his work. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, at worst it was subconscious, because it's not something I thought about. Anyway, though, I do hope that the results will persuade the candidate to take a different approach with the opposers, because even with as adamant as I was there, if I see a much more proactive and understanding approach when dealing with those of opposing wikiphilosophies, I would gladly reeevaluate my opinions of him as I have in the past when I either changed stance during an RfA or decided to support someone I had opposed in a previous RfA. My oppose focused on a grudge-like combative attitude. The way forward is to reach out proactively so that I and others can say that he learned from the RfA and in fact wants to move forward. I am absolutely receptive to that. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I was just struck that you seemed to always update after an oppose, and thought it odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because every single other time somebody else updated first. One editor actually updated by discounting an oppose (DougTech's) from the tally. You'd think that would be a bigger concern. And in any event, I didn't update after every oppose because I think there's an advantage (and after all as you say above, I literally didn't update after "every" oppose), because as you ask, what would that be? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think discussion here will prove very fruitful. I implore folks to just use the dispute resolutions chain. We are unlikely to come up with some satisfactory (to all parties) outcome here at WT:RFA. Protonk (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Law's RfA
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Law#Put on hold?. Apparently Law will be incommunicato for a few days so I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to put the RfA on hold somehow; some more input would be appreciated. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd do it but I think this is something the crats should decide as the ones caring for RFA questions. I have posted a request for crat feedback at their noticeboard. Regards SoWhy 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to contact their mailing list, as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, nevermind; Done by Rlevse. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary Page
This page is really bogus, there is no satisfaction to ramble about useless ideology that basically leads nowhere. South Bay (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone is entitled to an opinion. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather see extraneous opinions on this page for the regulars, than have that stuff on the RfA itself. --StaniStani 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- You know I think I'll stop posting to this page. Who cares what DougsTech does here? He has some solid anti vandal work. One of my articles just got promoted to featured status, and I realise now how easy it is to write FAs, so I'm gonna go and write some more. Sorry for any hassle I may have caused anybody (A Nobody, DougsTech).--Pattont/c 13:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
A page is as useful as what is written on it. Oh wait... --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The "usefulness" of subtopics discussed here has varied widely. Going through the old archives, it seems our forefathers were generally better able to stay on topic. Useight (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Forefathers? o_0 Some of us must be going senile then... bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 04:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
vote count issue
The automated report for vote count in the Orlady RfA, now open, shows #5 Oppose as being by Rumbletree, when it is by me, Doncram, instead. Don't know if that matters. More seriously, the vote count of Supports includes voter #2, who cancelled his/her vote and converted to "abstain" instead. This appears to throw off the vote total for supporters in the RfA itself and in the automated report. Could this be fixed, please? doncram (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "automated report", but I have removed the paragraph breaks in your initial comment (oppose 5) and Garden's original comment (support 2) looks to be correctly struck. I've also updated the vote tally manually, so that it is now consistent with that of SoxBot (talk · contribs) transcluded at the top of this page. Kosher? Skomorokh 09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I assume that Doncram is talking about this, but it appears to be correctly discounting Garden's vote, and counting Doncram's at the moment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC).
My RfA
A number of people, even a few who had opposed, felt I withdrew too soon. My reason for withdrawing was because I did not want a successful RfA (in the event it did succeed) where a number of editors in the community opposed my candidacy. Basically, I didn't want to succeed from a discretionary range. After multiple conversations, I have decided to reconsider. I understand that this is unusual, but I'd like to ask that it be reopened and let it run its course (with the time amended of course). If this is objectionable in any way, shape or form than no harm done and it can remain closed. If it is acceptable by the community, I'd like to ask that an independant editor or crat reopen please. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thank you. Synergy 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there needs to be anything irrevocable about withdrawing. (I personally feel it would be the worst sort of process wonkery to insist that a debate or decision-making process should not be allowed to run its normal course.) The only difficulty I can see is figuring out the new closing date. I hope there won't be any unnecessary drama (or any smart-alec comments about necessary drama). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done , if anyone objects feel free to revert.--Giants27 T/C 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- @SheffieldSteel To be fair, I had asked Lara to reopen it. I felt asking an independent editor might be unusual, since what if they !vote later? She opposed me, and I thought that might be acceptable. She has told me she would rather a crat do it. This sounds fine too. Synergy 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my honest opinion, this is a bad call. You did indeed withdraw prematurely, which reflects poorly on you to begin with, as well as your ability to take constructive criticism; however, to re-open it now shows poorly for your judgment, especially since you had already stated that you would not run again. The fact that you were persuaded otherwise so quickly is troubling, and smacks of even more IRC caballery, which was already a problem. You also posted here, then wasted almost no time asking for it to be re-opened instead of waiting for comments here, as you supposedly desired. Your reasons for withdrawing in the first place, as stated above, are also troubling and don't exactly speak well for your decision. No one's passed RFA unanimously in months, if memory serves, and given how hostile an environment it is, it's pretty unreasonable to withdraw just because you don't want any opposes. GlassCobra 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- IRC caballery? I'm not sure what the problem here really is. I was prompted to just reopen it, so I asked Lara if she wouldn't mind doing me the favor. There was no harm done in asking her, as I wasn't trying to sway. I noted my bad call to withdraw, so we will have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day, I was the only one effected by my actions. If others were effected, I'll apologize right now. Synergy 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- "IRC caballery?" Well, where did these "multiple conversations" take place? Not on wiki, that's for sure. I get a worse and worse feeling about all this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it matter where a conversation took place, so long as it is accurately depicted on wiki? Who is to say I did not have a phone conversation with another editor, or used yahoo im, or aim, or even skype? None of this matters. Just because something is not on wiki, does not mean it has an ominous feel to it, and there is caballery. You guys get way too paranoid over this IRC issue, where a number of well known, and respected members of the community go to have decent to lame conversation. You do realize these venues existed prior to wikipedia, correct? Synergy 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, these "multiple conversations" haven't been "depicted" at all. You merely stated "After multiple conversations, I have decided to reconsider." Again, as I commented on your RFA, the problem is the lack of transparency. I'm quite aware that these venues existed before Wikipedia. That has nothing to do with it. However, I'm especially concerned (and I know I'm not the only one) about admins or potential admins who rely on such conversations off wiki, all the more so when those conversations influence decisions and actions on wiki. I'm not arguing that there is anything sinister about this. Just that is is opaque, and for that reason problematic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Considering the apparent vehemence in your statement that you weren't going to run again, I was personally very surprised to see you change your mind and re-open the RfA. I would be very much interested in seeing the conversation that persuaded you, an option which has been removed. GlassCobra 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Right. I meant another RfA, which would be Synergy 3, or RfA 5 for me. I think 5 would be too many, and not something I wish to look forward to. Reopening after 3 hours is not running another RfA altogether. So I'll have to disagree. As to the conversation, I can only say that I believe Lara, Ryan, Peter, Rjd, and a few others had said it was a bad idea to withdraw so early. And since I respect their opinions, along with others in pm, I decided to request that it be reopened. The only thing that was discussed, was why I chose to withdraw and that they disagreed with it. So basically I would point you to Iri's comments on my talk. Respected admins disagreed, so I asked for it to be reverted (basically how an admin should act). Synergy 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it matter where a conversation took place, so long as it is accurately depicted on wiki? Who is to say I did not have a phone conversation with another editor, or used yahoo im, or aim, or even skype? None of this matters. Just because something is not on wiki, does not mean it has an ominous feel to it, and there is caballery. You guys get way too paranoid over this IRC issue, where a number of well known, and respected members of the community go to have decent to lame conversation. You do realize these venues existed prior to wikipedia, correct? Synergy 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- "IRC caballery?" Well, where did these "multiple conversations" take place? Not on wiki, that's for sure. I get a worse and worse feeling about all this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- IRC caballery? I'm not sure what the problem here really is. I was prompted to just reopen it, so I asked Lara if she wouldn't mind doing me the favor. There was no harm done in asking her, as I wasn't trying to sway. I noted my bad call to withdraw, so we will have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day, I was the only one effected by my actions. If others were effected, I'll apologize right now. Synergy 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whether the withdrawal was premature or not—I think it displays integrity to withdraw when there is significant opposition, regardless of the percentage—I agree with GlassCobra. All that will happen now is that your (Synergy's) judgement will be called into question. Which you probably don't need. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that GlassCobra is also a member of the IRC channels, so any "IRC Caballery" would see to be pointless, as there are plenty of people with differing views. I, as a former member of the IRC channels, have not noticed anything untowards from Synergy before I left. My experience with Synergy was not the best and, if I was going strictly off of personal opinion (especially in regards to heated conversations that happened between us on IRC), I would have opposed him. However, I did not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I frequent only a few other channels that Synergy does, most of them official WP channels. Further, he and I have very little contact and speak to very few of the same people. "IRC caballery" doesn't mean "all IRC is bad," and one IRCer is not necessarily like another. GlassCobra 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Time amendment?
I was a little surprised to see that when Synergy's withdrawn RFA was reopened, the time was amended. I can understand the reasoning, I suppose, and in this case it didn't make much difference--it's just a matter of three hours. But on the other hand, it doesn't seem an obvious decision; in other cases, it may lead to what would be in effect a significant lengthening of the RFA process. Is there precedent on this? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- In the past, requests on hold have resumed with an ending time adjusted to give the standard length of time for participation - i.e., requests are presumed to be open for the full 7 day period unless withdrawn or closed otherwise. Avruch T 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call 3 hours significant... I've seen RfA's closed 3 hours early and 3 hours late. I don't think the time adjustment was necessary, but I don't think it was unnecessary. 3 hours is a judgement call on the 'crats part.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I too wondered about this (but figured what the heck). I assume that RfAs are usually put on hold by a bureaucrat (at least one was recently) and then it makes sense to adjust the time accordingly. However, this was a withdrawn and un-withdrawn RfA. Of course, that brings another RfA that was withdrawn and resubmitted (and is re-re-going on now!). I guess we'll have to wait for the 'couple of days' break to figure out how to handle that. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
inappropriate canvassing
This whole thread has gotten out of line and in some places crossed the line of civility. The RfA in question has now been closed thus I see no further need to keep this thread open here at RfA. If you feel that you need to continue to discuss this, please take it to WP:ANI or another more appropriate venue.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for adminship
i ask as a request to be given the ability of adminship and wikipedia articles will only be the ones that apply to the rules of what wikipedia is not. Thank you for your time. BF153 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- ....Someone should go have a quiet chat with this chap Fritzpoll (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Doing so now. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad to see the reassuring "resolved" icon; I always knew there had to be an alternative to all this bureaucracy and drama. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Doing so now. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured Articles and RfAs
I have just concluded a study of the success of Featured Article authors at RfA since September 2008, available here. The shocking conclusion of my research is that FAs really aren't very highly valued by the community after all. Only 20.2% of successful candidates over the period had contributed to one or more FA, while 51.6% of FA contributors were unsuccessful. Not quite sure what this means, but it's rather interesting so I thought I'd throw it out there. Cool3 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to see how many editors with and without a FA had prolific work in typical admin areas. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- As well as project space (admin) vs. FA alone. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Great idea, thanks for doing the research! At a glance it looks like candidates who had written FAs are about a third more likely to succeed than those who had not, but it would be interesting to see if that advantage disappears once WP:NOTNOW and joke candidacies are filtered out. It's crossed my mind that FA writers whose experience in traditional admin areas was slight, such as Karanacs (talk · contribs), Moni3 (talk · contribs) and jbmurray (talk · contribs), have turned out rather well, while other FA contributors of a combative nature have perhaps rightly crashed and burned at RfA, which if accurate underscores the importance of judging candidates primarily on character rather than experience. Skomorokh 19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- "while other FA contributors of a combative nature have perhaps rightly crashed and burned at RfA" *cough* Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I had 19 FAs promoted in September alone...? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- That would be pretty amazing... The numbers there reflect the total number of FAs from that editor in their whole time editing. I believe that 19 is the correct figure for you, but if I miscounted please forgive me. Cool3 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, that makes more sense. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- That would be pretty amazing... The numbers there reflect the total number of FAs from that editor in their whole time editing. I believe that 19 is the correct figure for you, but if I miscounted please forgive me. Cool3 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good research, and sorry if this sounds a little off-hand or short, but what, exactly, has writing high quality content got to do with the three best known sysop "abilities" - deleting, blocking and protecting (let alone the lesser known bits like assigning rollback or editing the interface)? I know there's been a long standing argument that you need to be a superlative writer to understand what content should or should not meet the speedy criteria but I've never bought into that. If memory serves doesn't EVula (one of our most efficent 'crats) have exactly zero DYK's, GA's and FA's? I've got exactly 3 DYK's yet had one deletion of nearly 9,000 ever gone to DRV. I'm not knocking article writers - it is after all both the point of WP and the fun, as I explained only today on my talk, but I really struggle to see how an FA indicates "can use block button" for example. Pedro : Chat 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It can't, but as I pointed out below, it shows teamwork and dispute handling (particularly in a BLP FA). GARDEN 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was counted as a failed FA contributor? :) I didn't even bother to mention any of my content work while running (would that have affected things?). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I forgot to note - the above list doesn't count FAs that were saved or that the individual was not directly nom'd. For example, I saved an FA (making 3) and participated in quite a few others (but wont take credit). Some of the people with FA do very little in FA areas, so the raw number may be a little out of proportion. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cool3: Your source on feature article authored links to something completely different. Unless authoring now equals posting at WP:FAC. The numbers are unbelievably low (any vandal fighter caring to look at the main page will easily log one FA edited per day). NVO (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The Flip Side
ok, we now know how many candidates had FA's when they became an admin. How many admins have been involved in writing an FA AFTER becoming an admin?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the number of FAs represents the total the editor has (number at the time they went to RFA + number since then). So there are really two pieces of data that you want. Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, to be clear about the data I presented, it accounts for the total number of FAs that the editor has written as of right now (it would have been much harder to count how many they had at the time, whereas this was pretty simple). Cool3 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- After I became an admin, I wrote three more FAs, three more GAs, and two more DYKs after I was made an admin as opposed to one FA, one GA, and two DYKs before. Quite frankly, using the tools is a voluntary choice. I am my own master, and I am certainly not obligated to use my tools at all. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still at zero for FAs before and after. However having tools doesn't and shouldn't distract from article writing if you're dedicated enough (unlike me it seems..) GARDEN 20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I back doored my way into my second FA... I was the second most active editor on the article, but it was largely pushed through by the most active one. But I have written a LOT more articles/DYK's after becoming an admin than before.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I had no GAs, DYKs or FAs before adminship, and mostly an anti-vandal RC patroller experience. I got my first DYK credit ~1 week after I was promoted when "concerns" were raised that I didn't do enough article work (even though I clearly did, simply it wasn't enough for some...) Majorly talk 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have a snide comment that I want to make... but decorum prevents me ;-)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I had no GAs, DYKs or FAs before adminship, and mostly an anti-vandal RC patroller experience. I got my first DYK credit ~1 week after I was promoted when "concerns" were raised that I didn't do enough article work (even though I clearly did, simply it wasn't enough for some...) Majorly talk 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I really wish people would realize how irrelevant this is. There are many different jobs to be done at Wikipedia. Getting articles up to FA quality is obviously a useful job, but it's just one of many. Adminship is about getting a few extra buttons to do certain jobs.. and none of those jobs involve things like FAs. You don't need extra buttons for that. RFA should focus on the candidate's anticipated competence at the new jobs that those extra buttons allow. I can think of at least one great article writer who would be a terrible admin, and I strongly suspect there are many more. When you're looking to hire a janitor at NASA, you don't ask the candidates if they can fly a space shuttle, right? There are different jobs in the world, with different required skill sets. This should be obvious to anyone, yet we see this persistent failure to recognize this when it comes to RFAs. Friday (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure some bloke with a blue signature said something very similar in the above section :) Pedro : Chat 20:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think you hit the nail absolutely on the head there. I particularly like the analogy :) But I do believe that writing an FA shows that you can work with others to produce some kind of end product, as many if not all articles will encounter disputes from time to time. This applies however for all articles, especially BLPs. GARDEN 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ecx2)I agree with most of your sentiment, but I also think it imperative that we have a pool of admins who are very, very familiar with content policies. One (not always accurate) way of measuring this is by participation in improving articles (FA/GA). I've seen too many admins who don't have a strong grasp of content policies wade into a content dispute and start using their buttons; they would be much more effective, and some of our disputes might end a little faster, if the admins were intimately familiar with the content policies and better able to dismiss the noise and figure out the crux of the problem. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- While I would agree that FAs, specifically, don't really have much to do with admin tasks, I do think it's important that an admin candidate have significant experience in article writing and contributing content to the encyclopedia. Having an FA or two under ones belt is certainly one way to do that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that FAs/GAs aren't everything, but Wikipedia's administrators should have at least some experience with articles. After all, we're trying to build an encyclopedia here. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think 99% of candidates do have experience with articles. Just some people demand an unreasonable amount. Some people have jobs, lives, families, friends etc and simply don't have the time to spend messing about on the computer all day long, others perhaps do. As long as the user has shown a willingness to improve articles, no matter how large or small, it's the willingness that counts for me. Majorly talk 22:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. When I say experience with articles, I mean anything from reverting vandalism to writing featured topics. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think 99% of candidates do have experience with articles. Just some people demand an unreasonable amount. Some people have jobs, lives, families, friends etc and simply don't have the time to spend messing about on the computer all day long, others perhaps do. As long as the user has shown a willingness to improve articles, no matter how large or small, it's the willingness that counts for me. Majorly talk 22:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have written 2 GAs I believe, and never a FA, but I think there's only a certain few who have the skills to write a FA. A GA is difficult enough - a FA generally requires actual brilliant prose writing skills, which a lot of people simply don't have. To be honest though, FA, GA, whatever is simply a badge stuck onto the article to say it is endorsed either by a) one person or b) a bunch of people who showed up at the FAC. It doesn't tell us an awful lot. Many FAs are not even GA worthy by today's standards. I don't think it is at all worrying that 20% of successful candidates have an FA to their credit. You can get a brilliant article writer who would make a poor admin, and vice versa. FA work absolutely does not = good admin. Of course, when a brilliant FA writer does = good admin, and they fail an RFA, then we might have problems. Majorly talk 21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have neither written an FA, nor ever attempted to shepherd any article I have written beyond the early stages of development. I have, however, spent a great deal of time as an admin trying to repair articles that were once GA status by knocking about nationalist editors. There are different ways to bring an article to FA/GA. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the research a bit, and come to another interesting conclusion (that goes along with some of what is being said here). When RfAs closed per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW are removed from the data set, the average success rate for candidates is 45.9% versus 48.4% for editors who have written an FA. In other words, there is essentially no difference in RfA outcomes based on whether or not a reasonably qualified candidate has written an FA (good news for the FAs are irrelevant crowd I suppose). Cool3 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thankfully, the formerly popular "at least one FA required to pass" maxim has been retired. While it's interesting to see the exact statistics, I think I echo most of the sentiments above when I say that a great deal of article writing isn't and shouldn't be required to become an admin. The collaborative effort required in writing and promoting an FA is a good indicator that the prospective candidate has the team skills and temperament necessary for the job, but the FA is not necessary in and of itself. GlassCobra 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree fully. For example in saving dozens of articles from speedy deletion every week by turning rubbish text into valid stubs and maybe adding 1-2 sources, I think I do a fair share of article work but yet that would not be mentioned in an RFA. Even more, I think a regular FA creator might delete those kind of articles more often than I will because they have a higher standard than people who have no article writing skills have. So I too am glad we stopped using that as a reasoning. SoWhy 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Er, Mailer diablo used the 1FA criteria back in mid-2006, and only a handful used it. Most of the FAs that passed back then would be speedy failed at GA today, so in reality, anyone who narrowly fails a GA now would have passed 1FA if their article was transported back in time. In those days, most FA reviews were done in 2 minutes with a one-line support. I know one arbitrator who voted in about 50 FACs in three hours back in the old days. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"How many admins have been involved in writing an FA AFTER becoming an admin?" Well I had 0 FA/GA and only 1FL 15 DYKs when I became an admin and I didn't even use proper refs in those days, just an inline raw URL link or a list of books at the bottom....I became an admin mainly so I could nuke lots of rubbish but felt I was stuck in a rat run (about 8000 deletes in 6 months and still WP was full of junk) and gave up on it.... Writing an FA does show attention to detail though, which can't be demonstrated by doing lots of 1-minute things like speedy deletion etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Man haven't things changed! I believe that only a fortunate few can produce top notch Featured Articles. I'd even struggle to write a GA! But then again I'm not an admin and it would be a long time before I became one. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Although if a candidate has a FA to their credit it would obviously be a good indication that the candidate understands how to construct an article and work with other editors. From my own experiences is takes at least 5-6 months before you even half understand the rules and regulations here. Or maybe I'm just a very slow learner ;) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at it this way
YellowMonkey makes a good point above when he mentions how he tried to delete all the junk in WP but after six months found that WP was still full of junk. The fact is, admin work never ends and, as currently structured, will probably always be nothing much more than helping maintain the status quo. In other words, if you spend most of your time doing admin work, you won't see much progress in spite of all your efforts. At the end of the day there will still be about the same number of editors socking, vandalizing, violating the rules, bullying each other, pushing POV, and playing power games. Therefore, it may be hard to measure the progress that you made.
If you take some time, and it does take some serious time, to write a few FAs, however, you will see progress. The FA you help write will be among the best, if not the best, article on that particular topic on the entire English Internet. Thus, when you look back at the time you've sunk into Wikipedia, you'll be able to see that you left something of quality behind, which did measurably improve the project and helped enrich everyone who read your FA. Cla68 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not against producing high-quality content, in fact I'd rather edit and I don't want to be an admin. However the problems Cla68 mentions (socking, vandalizing, etc.) will only get worse if no-one wields the mop. Socks, vandals and peristent bullies should be blocked earlier and for longer, so that others can get on with working on articles. --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest balancing your time doing both. I'm not an admin, but if I were, I'd probably spend 10-20% of my time doing admin chores and the rest editing. Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I completely concur with Philcha. I don't believe I have the temperment for admin work, but I'm extremely grateful for those that do. Dlabtot (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Re Cla68's comment about spending 10-20% of your wikitime on admin stuff. I wish we had enough admins for that to be possible. The problem is that when I log on I usually look first at the CSD backlogs and in particular attack pages for deletion, and I'm sure other admins have other backlogs that they focus on. My fear is that our ongoing lack of admins on the English Wikipedia will lead to a divide between admins who do little but admin work and the rest of the community, as the fewer of us there are the greater the proportion of our Wikitime will be spent on admin work ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- "... lack of admins on the English Wikipedia will lead to a divide ..." appears already to be happening, showing up in e.g. the declining rates of RfA and declining success rate there. One of the reason for my proposal to be harder on nuisances is the hope that admins will eventually have more time to be and mix with normal editors. --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Flawed premise
Unless I'm missing something, the whole premise here is flawed. Featured Article nominations != Featured Article contributions. Just because editors don't want to plaster their user pages with Boy Scout badges doesn't mean that they don't work on improving articles to high standards. Conversely, there is nothing whatsoever about getting successful FA/DYK noms which better qualifies one to be an admin, as admirably demonstrated by Ecoleetage (who nearly coasted through his last RfA on the basis of his DYK contributions despite being a provably disastrous candidate). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily a perfect match, but especially recently with steps taken to thwart drive-by noms, those who nominate actually did the work (you can also have multiple nominees, so it's not like the one person is taking all credit.) Personally I include FA work in my criteria, not DYK; I've found plenty of people who do DYK that have issues elsewhere (there's a couple diligent DYK chaps up right now with less than stellar percentages). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the premise is flawed. The failures at RFA don't IMHO show that the community doesn't value FA writing. If you look at the oppose sections for candidates who have FAs to their credit, the opposes tend to be for other things but acknowledge that the candidates has done FAs. Whilst if you look at successful candidates who haven't done an FA or GA you sometimes see quite brusque opposes purely for lack of article writing. RFA is a strange process with odd dynamics and fashions that change with the collective mood of the participants, my view is that not having a GA or FA may be less of a bar to adminship than it was a few months back, and perhaps we are now seeing candidates succeed who would not have last Autumn. Conversely it may be that all the uncontentious candidates with FAs to their name are already admins or not currently interested in running. Apart from the small sample size rendering this research statistically not yet sound, I think that monitoring this over a longer period of time might see a different pattern emerge (try subdividing those stats into 2008 v 2009 for a truly vivid contrast). ϢereSpielChequers 14:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with this sub-thread that the conclusions drawn from the data are not fully based on causation. Chillum 14:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
When my RFA started I was told that it was unacceptable canvassing to even mention it on my own talk page. Edison (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposed discussion on the canvassing issue
In light of the recent discussion concerning inappropriate canvassing, and the apparent lack of clear conventions as to what degree of advertisement of an RfA is permissible or desirable, I think a Request for Comment on the issue might be helpful. I'm posting this to get an idea of what questions need to be asked, but a short list might include:
- Is it appropriate for the candidate to advertise their RfA
- ... on their own userpage or user talkpage?
- ... on the talkpage of a WikiProject or other Wikipedia collaboration they participate in?
- ... in their signature?
- ... on an off-wiki forum dedicated to Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia Review, Planet Wikimedia or Wikipedia IRC channels?
- ... on an off-wiki forum not specifically Wikipedia-related, such as a personal blog or internet forum?
- Should advertisements always be neutrally phrased?
- Do the same norms apply to the candidate advertising their RfA and a third party doing so?
- To what extent is it desirable for the RfA to be judged by editors familiar with the candidate rather than a largely-unfamiliar body of editors such as RfA regulars?
I'm thinking that if editors find this to be a good idea, we could have the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship, and update the guide with a section according to the outcome. The goal would be for candidates to be reasonably sure of the appropriateness of what they are doing, to attract the right kind of participants in RfAs, and to avoid contentious opposes and unnecessary drama.
What do you all think? Please give your comments about the proposed RfC and suggestions for issues to be discussed here (but save your opinions on canvassing for the discussion itself). Mahalo, Skomorokh 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that the answers to the "where" questions have already been established as 1) yes, 2) no, 3) torpedo-worthy no, 4) likewise and 5) likewise. For the next, I think it's generally understood with 1) that anything other than "please voice your opinion" is considered pretty blatant canvassing, and that 2) and 3) are essentially unenforceable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion surrounding Orlady's RfA above indicate to me that the conventions for canvassing are not clearly established, though if I'm wrong then we should go right ahead and write up the established conventions, no RfC necessary. Enforceability is quite simple, I think: if an editor feels the candidate or someone closely connected with them has inappropriately canvassed, it will factor into their decision to support or oppose the candidacy. I imagine that going against clearly stated guidelines to sway an RfA in your favour would be quite damaging to your prospects. Skomorokh 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thumperward what? Milhist has been putting notices about member RFAs on the talk page for years. It's certainly widely accepted.--Pattont/c 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Review will attempt to tank certain RfAs regardless of what happens here. So, I think asking what is appropriate canvassing is a moot point. Instead, we should discuss what the appropriate -reaction- to canvassing is. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, good old Wikipedia Review where we have people who implore you to read "their blog - if you dare" (I dared to Eric [look at me treading on a landmine] - apt title for the domain because it really is shit) and some bloke called Kato with his endless "read my round up" crap. Attention seeking twats. If someone finally had the bollocks to shift the domain to "wikipediafailcausewehateyou.org" I might have some time for it - at least it would be honest. That project has lost its (admitedly good) aim of reviewing Wikipedia in a harsh light; instead it has become a bunch of attention seeking wanabees whose sole interest is trying to get everyone else to look at their posts. I'm not against all WR editors (Malleus, Lara, One, LessHeard, Lar, Sommey etc. provide quality input) but the disenfranchised lot over there really need to understand that most people on this small blue speck don't care</rant> Pedro : Chat 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you chaps wouldn't mind pursuing this digression elsewhere before this derails into everyone's favourite topic, I'd be much obliged. Skomorokh 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, good old Wikipedia Review where we have people who implore you to read "their blog - if you dare" (I dared to Eric [look at me treading on a landmine] - apt title for the domain because it really is shit) and some bloke called Kato with his endless "read my round up" crap. Attention seeking twats. If someone finally had the bollocks to shift the domain to "wikipediafailcausewehateyou.org" I might have some time for it - at least it would be honest. That project has lost its (admitedly good) aim of reviewing Wikipedia in a harsh light; instead it has become a bunch of attention seeking wanabees whose sole interest is trying to get everyone else to look at their posts. I'm not against all WR editors (Malleus, Lara, One, LessHeard, Lar, Sommey etc. provide quality input) but the disenfranchised lot over there really need to understand that most people on this small blue speck don't care</rant> Pedro : Chat 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think that there are divergent views on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate wrt the posting of notices. Skomorokh's suggestion of an RfC is a good idea. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - there are too many different questions here for one simple answer (I don't see the problem with posting notices about RFAs on WikiProjects, for example), and if there is a 'consensus view', I'm not sure what it is. An RFC would be a good idea to find out exactly what people actually think about 'canvassing'. Robofish (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that it will result in any changes, but it may result in a nice little drama for those so inclined to participate in such things. I can't see how you would begin to police such things, even if it were capable of effecting a change. But hey, if it gives us a chance to take a shot back at WR - why not. ;) — Ched : ? 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do think that notifying a WP is and has been acceptable. I believe the argument brought forward is that the people of the project would have most interacted with the applicant. Either way this will bring out good and bad points about the applicant. Not to mention that there are enough people who have project pages watchlisted even if they are not participants. Agathoclea (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that it will result in any changes, but it may result in a nice little drama for those so inclined to participate in such things. I can't see how you would begin to police such things, even if it were capable of effecting a change. But hey, if it gives us a chance to take a shot back at WR - why not. ;) — Ched : ? 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with posting on WikiProjects is that it gives editors who are affiliated with WikiProjects an unfair advantage; editors who don't get such advertising are going to have a significantly harder time attracting support, relying primarily on being seen in the wild and on favuorable impressions from the RfA regulars. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There are two current bits of advice that we should consider and in my view not penalise candidates for following even if you'd like the guidelines changed.
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#User notification
- "Canvassing for support (asking other editors to vote in your favor) is strongly discouraged. In order to get editors to notice your RfA, you are free to put a {{RfX-notice|a}} on your userpage. Such declarations are most definitely allowed."
- In my view this leaves grey areas such as putting a neutral note on your talk page or a project page, and to be fair to candidates we should expand this advice to clarify which are or are not OK (I think it would be bizarre to expect candidates not to have discussions about their RFA on their talkpage). Also advertising by the nominee or others is not mentioned - only the candidate is advised not to canvass.
- "Canvassing for support (asking other editors to vote in your favor) is strongly discouraged. In order to get editors to notice your RfA, you are free to put a {{RfX-notice|a}} on your userpage. Such declarations are most definitely allowed."
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see
- "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal. Canvassing is often looked down upon."
- I appreciate that Wikipedia is an adhocracy rather than a bureaucracy, and a key criteria for adminship is to have picked up on the unwritten rules and de facto interpretation of the written ones. However I think that these two sections could be brought more into sinc, and I think that whatever advice we have on canvassing for or against RFA candidates should be broadened to all, not just the candidate. NB I'm sure I've seen advice somewhere for unsuccessful candidates to wait a suitable time and then seek input from their opposers, but I couldn't find it in this morning's trawl. ϢereSpielChequers 11:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal. Canvassing is often looked down upon."
Our whole canvassing policy is a farce. I'm sorry, but I joked with Ottava above about how the standard way to "canvass" is to goto a friends talk page and start a new conversation with a lable, "About UserX's RfA?" or "RE: your Vote at UserX's RfA." People routinely canvass for their friends by making "innocent" postings on "friends pages." People routinely use IRC as a means for canvassing---usually, it is benign, but occassionally it is blatant. People routinely use Wikipedia Review or other blogs to campaign for canddiates. It happens and to bury our heads in the sand pretending it doesn't happen is a farce.. If a person is active at a wikiproject, why don't we post a note there (along with a message that such a note was posted at the RfA) similar to what they do at AfD. If the person garners supports from friends, then that indicates a person who is civil and knows how to work well with others. If it garners opposes, who better would know that they wikiproject they claim to work on? I would even support having a link in one's signature! Just like the best way to get people to comment on an editor review is via a signature, a link to your RfA in a signature would make sure that people who like and dislike you would know about your rfa. I sometimes wonder how often people run while secretly hoping that userY doesn't find out because if UserY finds out they will sink my RfA. Without the "canvassing" we have a small enclave of users who routinely !vote at rfa's and somewhat set the criteria for adminship. Is this cabal, which I am part of, so afraid of losing it's power that they can't stomache the thought of getting input from users who actually, gasp, know the candidate best?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Meta discussion
I think it is time to discuss what an admin actually is. Is an admin supposed to be someone popular? Someone vetted by the elite and chosen? Someone who merely jumps through hoops? Or simply someone who can use the tools effectively? By allowing canvassing, we would be saying that it is a popularity contest, and those who have the most friends/enemies would win/lose. However, isn't that what RfA already is now? Perhaps its because of all the backchannel canvassing. Few are surprised when people who never participate at RfA and have little contact with it suddenly appear to vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or maybe many users who don't participate on every RfA decide to chime in when they see a name they recognize. Kingturtle (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am an admin. That said, my abilities were not known to the wider voting community when I ran for election the first time, so I got out on the Wikiroad and kissed some babies to earn the vote of my fellow Wikipedian, and when I ran for election again, won. It is an election, dressed up as a conversation, but regardless of what you think or want RfA to be, it will never be anything other than a popularity contest. Make no mistake about that. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now, if it is going to stay as a popularity contest, wouldn't it be best to advertise it in the same way ArbCom elections were advertised? That way, everyone gets a chance to see it going on? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- A good idea, if you ask me. I think that the vast majority of people who ever encounter any kind of authority on Wikipedia encounter someone who is simply an admin, rather than a member of arbcom. I bet the casual user has no idea arbcom even exists, so it only reasons that the admin selection process should be as open and widely advertised as possible. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now, if it is going to stay as a popularity contest, wouldn't it be best to advertise it in the same way ArbCom elections were advertised? That way, everyone gets a chance to see it going on? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I keep a pretty constant eye on it, but rarely vote, because I'm aware that there are a subset of editors that will oppose anyone I support, and support anyone I oppose.—Kww(talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reverse psychology, maybe?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- One further thought. I remember that some years back I was in an edit war over at Micronation and Empire of Atlantium, and wanted to find someone in a position of authority to help settle the dispute. It was far harder to do this than I think we often allow ourselves to admit, as anyone who posts here, or on any admin board, or IRC or WR is a considerably more sophisticated user of Wikipedia than the average bloke who is just trying to make a one off change to the article on their company or home town. The casual user is completely unaware of the existence of admins, or the hierarchy into which we fit. Just making our existence, and how to find us more generally known would be a net positive. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
CSD tagging
Looking at recent RFAs I suspect that errors in CSD tagging are currently competing with incivility and low edit count as ways to sink an RFA. Whilst I'm happy that the first and third of those are currently such high priorities for the RFA crowd, I would hate for this to result in wannabee admins avoiding new page patrol. I admit that I don't always drop a note on the taggers talk page when I decline a speedy or delete a speedy under a different code than it was tagged with for; but I hereby promise to put more effort into that. I'd also suggest that if anyone reading this page happens to be a new page patroller who might just possibly be thinking of submitting an RFA in the future, keep an eye on the pages you tag and if they are declined or deleted under a different tag talk to the admin involved. If you look at your contributions, pages you've tagged but have not been deleted will still be there; if you set the namespace box in your contributions screen to user talk you'll see all the user pages you've templated after tagging their articles for deletion. Those templates should remind you what you tagged the article as, and have a redlink for the deleted article, click on that to see who deleted it and under what code or codes. Also please remember that when new page patrolling you don't just have the choice between CSD tag or mark as patrolled; There are lots of other things you can do such as categorising, typo fixing and prodding. ϢereSpielChequers 17:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I always view it as someone understanding how to recognize when something looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that it is a duck, even if they don't clearly know what kind of duck it is. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)