→Four at once!: pointless crap from Fox |
→Four at once!: getting on with it |
||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
:<sigh> then lets all waltz off the clif following the blind.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
:<sigh> then lets all waltz off the clif following the blind.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
: This is one of the [[WP:LAME|lamest edit wars ever]]. The final tally is unimportant. This could all have been avoided had everyone realized that RFA is not the best place at Wikipedia to impress others with your quick wit, sarcasm, and sense of the absurd. And yes, that's a setup line for whoever wants to make the snappy reply. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
: This is one of the [[WP:LAME|lamest edit wars ever]]. The final tally is unimportant. This could all have been avoided had everyone realized that RFA is not the best place at Wikipedia to impress others with your quick wit, sarcasm, and sense of the absurd. And yes, that's a setup line for whoever wants to make the snappy reply. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Four at once! == |
|||
We have four RFAs up! All at the same time! Each with reasonable chances of successful outcomes! The wiki may not be in flames and coming to an end! ZOMG! Wowser!!! *@!#$!!! ~thud~.--[[User:Chaser|Chaser]] ([[User talk:Chaser|talk]]) 19:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Hurray![[User:Dlohcierekim| <big><font color="#00ff00"> Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#bb00bb">cierekim''' </font></big>]] 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Be quiet yous, RFA is broken. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 19:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Obviously we aren't being hard enough on potential candidates... time to go oppose some people for frivilous reasons!---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* Sorry to rain on the parade but do we ''really'' need a thread every time there are a lot of/no RfAs up? It's getting tedious... [[User talk:Fox|<font style="color:#000000;"> '''''f o x''''' </font>]] 21:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Tedious, maybe; however I can't recall the bit in the hidden manual that forces you to read the thread Fox, or indeed even have this page on your watchlist. If you don't like it just ignore it.....or just remove the whole section per [[WP:BOLD]] if it bothers you that much. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 21:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: Sigh. [[User talk:Fox|<font style="color:#161616;"> '''''f o x''''' </font>]] 21:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::<breaks out umbrella> ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Installing Japanese character sets|?]]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|投稿]]</font> · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Some us need to express our feelings about RFA from time to time. [[User:Dlohcierekim| <big><font color="#00ff00"> Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#bb00bb">cierekim''' </font></big>]] 21:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, I tried to archive this three times and got edit conflicted so stuff it. Since it clearly bothers Fox so much perhaps he can get on with it, rather than bitching and making sad little "sigh" comments. The irony of Fox moaning about pointless threads, and then adding pointless little comments does not go unmissed. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 21:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:CSD#G10]] and Negative, unsourced BLP == |
== [[WP:CSD#G10]] and Negative, unsourced BLP == |
Revision as of 21:39, 15 April 2010
|
Current time: 22:42:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page
Something to compare us to
I have no desire to kindle more it's broken/it's not broken fanfare (taxes are calling) but for those who may not have seen it (myself as of a few moments ago) m:Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Wikipedias is actually pretty interesting. I think it provides a framework for our position in terms of other projects, whether good/acceptable/bad. I'll note that the ratios listed are made counting all sysops, not just active. The conversions are trivial. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa, why does :es have 134 b-crats? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- They seem to have effectively merged admins and bureaucrats over there:
- Actualmente casi todos los bibliotecarios activos de Wikipedia en español, son también burócratas.
- Which translates as Actually almost all the active administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia are bureaucrats as well. —Soap— 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Don't see why that isn't done here. After all, has there ever been an abuse of bureaucrat tools? We get problems with admins (at least, allegations) on a daily basis. Aiken ♫ 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Back in 2005, I think User:Ed Poor renamed someone he was in a dispute with as an abuse of crat tools, other than that, I don't know of any actual abuse that has ever occurred. MBisanz talk 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- 5 years ago, by somebody who isn't even an admin anymore? I think that tells us a lot. Aiken ♫ 00:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Back in 2005, I think User:Ed Poor renamed someone he was in a dispute with as an abuse of crat tools, other than that, I don't know of any actual abuse that has ever occurred. MBisanz talk 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Don't see why that isn't done here. After all, has there ever been an abuse of bureaucrat tools? We get problems with admins (at least, allegations) on a daily basis. Aiken ♫ 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- They seem to have effectively merged admins and bureaucrats over there:
I think the specialization is a natural evolution of any organization, especially one that is growing rapidly. A startup company often starts with a very few people (founder(s)?) and as it grows, departments are formed. In the early going, the same person may perform many duties, including accounting, advertising, hiring, facilities, and..oh yeah, whatever it is that actually brings in the money. As a company becomes more prosperous, it will branch out as and how it can. Why should we think of Wikipedia any differently? Frank | talk 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Please put up me self-nomination
Page isn't opening up for me. Thanks.ResignBen16 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't be offended by this, you simply don't have the experience to be an admin right now, potential candidates need to have several thousand edits in many various aspects of wikipedia, which you simply don't have right now. My advice is to simply carrying on editing as you are for the time being--Jac16888Talk 09:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is another discussion just like this one here, you're just too early to become an admin. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- You would have to first create a nomination page as described at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. But the request wouldn't have a chance now so I recommend to not create the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- 'Applicant' since blocked. RashersTierney (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This is doomed to fail... in addition, it looks like a sockpuppet/SPA is "supporting" him. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It can only fail if it gets transcluded. –xenotalk 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like meatpuppetry. The supports are from a sockpuppet of Ismartyparty. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Striking of votes
First of all thanks to everyone for the support. Now to business. I don't think striking of !votes in an RfA because of their rationales is really acceptable. Surely it is up to the closing crat to decide what is ignored. I know in my RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Polargeo 2 it was just a neutral but it may have been a genuine attempt to register as neutral albeit with a jokey rationale. It should not be up to users other than the closing crat to judge this, no matter who they are, or it could set a very bad precedent. I am all for the joker to be heckled for their stupidity :) but unless they withdraw their !vote it should stand for judgement of the closing crat. Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. f o x 11:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- My official opinion as a bureaucrat is that I agree with you; it was a bad idea for the vote to be struck, but it also isn't really a big deal since I suspect Newyorkbrad is definitely sensible enough to not start striking support/oppose votes. --Deskana (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Deskana is wise beyond his years. —Dark 11:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- My official opinion as a bureaucrat is that I agree with you; it was a bad idea for the vote to be struck, but it also isn't really a big deal since I suspect Newyorkbrad is definitely sensible enough to not start striking support/oppose votes. --Deskana (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have to support New York Brad on principle here, even though clearly the actual comment was harmless. In the general case neutral comments can be grouped with oppose in that they both tend to be critical and can swing the votes of others. Humour and criticism dont mix well except maybe in small groups when everyone knows each other well. Direct criticism, even if forcefully put, at least allows the chance of an effective response. But as the saying goes, no man can refute a sneer. So Id be glad if folk continue striking all mocking or frivolous neutral and oppose votes. To be effective this should be done consistently with no exceptions for comments that will obviously have no influence. The ritual heart of the encyclopaedia is not the place for mocking and scoffing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see neither mocking nor scoffing. It is a parody, and quite an effective one at that. I agree it's not completely appropriate but it's obvious it's a joke and I know from experience that no bureaucrat would treat it seriously so I don't really see the need to strike it. This has been our long standing practise. --Deskana (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- We all agree the individual comment was harmless & good humoured. More generally, our long standing practices seem to be delivering adverse quantitative and qualitative results, such as our declining active admin corps and the increased personal hostility evident in many RfAs. Respect to NYB for taking a small step in addressing this! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't see how Newyorkbrad striking a "harmless and good humoured" comment will combat the "increased personal hostility evident in many RfAs". That doesn't follow logically to me. --Deskana (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Although I respect Newyorkbrad's position. The harsh treatment of voters is almost as bad as the harsh treatment of candidates and adds to the perception of an elitist forum for anyone considering running. If we wish RfA to be a more friendly and welcoming place then we should all strive to make it so and this includes reducing any unnecessary hounding of voters. In the context of my own RfA this neutral vote was something that made me smile. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- We all agree the individual comment was harmless & good humoured. More generally, our long standing practices seem to be delivering adverse quantitative and qualitative results, such as our declining active admin corps and the increased personal hostility evident in many RfAs. Respect to NYB for taking a small step in addressing this! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see neither mocking nor scoffing. It is a parody, and quite an effective one at that. I agree it's not completely appropriate but it's obvious it's a joke and I know from experience that no bureaucrat would treat it seriously so I don't really see the need to strike it. This has been our long standing practise. --Deskana (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- If people want to strike my neutral votes they're free to do so, but it's interesting to note that if I had supported with the exact same rationale (or no rationale at all) my vote would stand (and carry more weight than a neutral). Gurch (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal - RFA candidates should be strongly recommended to OPT-IN
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The new toolserver privacy policies mean that some RFA candidates (including one today) may end up running without letting users see their per-month counts and their top articles edited. Without starting a big debate on whether or not these are critical items for evaluation of a candidate, can I propose that we recommend that a potential candidate add a WP or meta optin to allow whatever preferred edit counter to do it's full review.
The example warning message from X!'s tools is: User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:__UserName__/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:__UserName__/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis. Perhaps this can be included in the instructions page. If no objections I can do it myself, or feel free to jump in (signing off soon). 7 13:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I created a mockup of suggested changes to the Instructions page here - feel free to edit it directly or make comments here. 7 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
- I would suggest making it simple suchlike Special:Mypage/EditCounterOptIn.js or meta:Special:Mypage/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js. Maybe even a preload so all they have to do is click "save page". –xenotalk 13:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't it "OptIn", not "OpIn"? - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I say go ahead. Clearly not mandatory, but I find it helpful when beginning to review a candidate (and doing namespace tool + wikichecker is more work); they've been used on every RfA so we might as well continue. That being said, I can also (if this persists as opt-in) see this as a desired trait in a candidate, in a similar vein to having email enabled. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Concur - I opted in the other day, its a simple process and the graphs certainly make evaluating a candidate much easier.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed that it should be encouraged, although I don't like strict requirements. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think this could be useful, but I'd like to see it accompanied with something along the lines of "at the end of your RFA feel free to opt out again by tagging meta:User:__UserName__/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.jsas
{{db-author}}{{delete}} and blanking the month info from your RFA talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think this could be useful, but I'd like to see it accompanied with something along the lines of "at the end of your RFA feel free to opt out again by tagging meta:User:__UserName__/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.jsas
- Agreed that it should be encouraged, although I don't like strict requirements. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree - I'd feel better inclined towards a candidate who opts in, though I'd also support the suggestion of reminding a candidate they can opt out again once RfA is done. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The only issue I have with making this an 'official' suggestion is that, historically speaking, what is a de jure recommendation/optional at RfA tends to become a de facto requirement. Take the so-called optional questions; while they are, and remain to this day, optional as the instructions state they still provide ample grounds for opposition. A candidate who declines to answer a majority of the "optional questions" is going to have a very difficult time passing an RfA successfully. If this becomes an "official recommendation" it will only be a matter of time before we see "Oppose, candidate has not opted in to the edit counter". If we are going to require candidates to opt-in then let us call it what it is, a requirement, rather than pretend it is a recommendation that will nevertheless be required for any candidate who wants to pass. Shereth 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shereth - that's a fair point about recommendations creeping their way into becoming de facto requirements, but I'm not sure how to fix the issue. Do you feel that this suggestion should not be mentioned to a potential candidate at all, or do you feel we should go the route of making it official policy? Optional seems more sensible to me, and I suspect that most people are simply unaware that their edit stats (while public data) now need an additional bit to be flipped to allow aggregation. Other than clearly stating that some reviewers may find it beneficial to be able to see such data, and that the candidate is free to turn it off at any time I can't think of any gentler way to put it. 7 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I say we just be honest with them - no need to be gentle about it. If we are going to invent a "suggestion" knowing it will evolve into a pseudo-requirement, then let's put it to the candidate as simply and honestly as possible : "While anyone can be a candidate for adminship, successful candidates are expected to opt-in to the edit counting system in order to facilitate a more thorough review of the candidate's contributions. Candidates who choose not to opt-in, at least for the duration of their nomination, are not likely to be successful." Something to that effect - say it like it is, not sugarcoated. Shereth 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose so the standard we're wanting to create is that invasion of your privacy must be permitted if we're to trust you? The justification being it's important to see how many edits a month you made and which are your most frequently edited articles? How in the heck does that help evaluate a candidate? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is an invasion to you is transparency to another [me]. These edit counters have been used at RFA for… a long time (and this particular formulation at least a year). While that alone does not make them okay to use or not use, it does show that most haven't cared about them in general, or that they've put up with it as just another thing at RFA. And, as Boing! points out, it need only be suggested for a period of seven days. And it would be optional. Etc. The figures the edit counters put out are a quick way to judge the candidate; to get an initial grasp on what he or she does on the wiki.
That said, I think "strongly recommended" should be a straight up "optional", as the questions are. If that. --Izno 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)- If it's not an invasion, then why is there an opt-in in the first place? If you can't get a grasp on a candidate without counting edits, you're never going to get a grasp on the candidate. This creeps me out. It's like the people say "Why should you use the 5th amendment? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!". When is opt-in for IP address revealing going to happen? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's opt-in because it violates the Toolserver Privacy policy [2]. "Invasion" is a subjective concept. This same data could easily be harvested with Special:Contributions, X! just made it a (heck of a) lot easier. –xenotalk 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well then I'm sure nobody will have a problem with people doing the same work without the toolserver in the middle of it, right? So just dial up contributions &limit=X for whoever you want to generate data on, then post away here. I'm sure nobody will feel their privacy has been invaded. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- They're the ones asking to be admins. If they want the job, but don't want to opt in, how about they manually aggregate the data and post it on the talk page?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- They're not the ones asking for the edit counting as some means of be able to better evaluate a candidate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just the count. It's also the most edited pages; which can be useful to see how the user conducts themselves on their pet projects and the like. The monthly data also shows activity levels and such. –xenotalk 19:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- So again, create the means to do so without the toolserver in the way. All those idiots in the EU going on about privacy are off their rocker. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just the count. It's also the most edited pages; which can be useful to see how the user conducts themselves on their pet projects and the like. The monthly data also shows activity levels and such. –xenotalk 19:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- They're not the ones asking for the edit counting as some means of be able to better evaluate a candidate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- They're the ones asking to be admins. If they want the job, but don't want to opt in, how about they manually aggregate the data and post it on the talk page?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well then I'm sure nobody will have a problem with people doing the same work without the toolserver in the middle of it, right? So just dial up contributions &limit=X for whoever you want to generate data on, then post away here. I'm sure nobody will feel their privacy has been invaded. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's opt-in because it violates the Toolserver Privacy policy [2]. "Invasion" is a subjective concept. This same data could easily be harvested with Special:Contributions, X! just made it a (heck of a) lot easier. –xenotalk 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- If it's not an invasion, then why is there an opt-in in the first place? If you can't get a grasp on a candidate without counting edits, you're never going to get a grasp on the candidate. This creeps me out. It's like the people say "Why should you use the 5th amendment? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!". When is opt-in for IP address revealing going to happen? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is an invasion to you is transparency to another [me]. These edit counters have been used at RFA for… a long time (and this particular formulation at least a year). While that alone does not make them okay to use or not use, it does show that most haven't cared about them in general, or that they've put up with it as just another thing at RFA. And, as Boing! points out, it need only be suggested for a period of seven days. And it would be optional. Etc. The figures the edit counters put out are a quick way to judge the candidate; to get an initial grasp on what he or she does on the wiki.
Wait, you have to opt-in to this now? Is data aggregation really such a sensitive topic, or are we going to ban viewing of other users' Special:Contributions pages as well? Gurch (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You need to opt into the pretty pictures and graphs and the "most-edited" and such. Basic data (such as number of edits in sum) can still be obtained without an opt-in. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- (re Gurch) This is due to a German law and the fact that the toolserver is owned by Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. –xenotalk 19:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK I guess that explains why it is done. That seems like an odd law though... if I were German, would I be breaking the law if I sat down with the contributions list and a pen and paper and made a graph myself, or are you only not allowed to do it on the internet? Gurch (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well maybe if you started doing it en masse =). See User_talk:X!#Edit-Counter for more. –xenotalk 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK I guess that explains why it is done. That seems like an odd law though... if I were German, would I be breaking the law if I sat down with the contributions list and a pen and paper and made a graph myself, or are you only not allowed to do it on the internet? Gurch (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You don't know how this information can be used to evaluate a candidate? It is key. It allows you to quickly see what areas they have/have not worked. Gives you a quick way to get an overview of the candidate and figure out where they have spent the most time. Gives you a way to identify which articles/subjects they care the most about---so that you can then look at those edits.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- <<EC>>Concur, per Boing and Mike Cline This is a Wiki. Viewing stats of a user's editing are not an invasion of privacy. I believe in the openness of the project. I would have a hard time trusting someone not willing to opt in. Dlohcierekim 19:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Tools like that edit counter (with its complete information) are important for reviewing an editor's contribution history. Will Beback talk 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -
J.Delanoy has offered to host a clone of the tool on his university account, eliminating the need for an opt-in. Once his university gets back from break, he and I are going to get the new, free, slower (urgh) tool uploaded and modified to his server. (X! · talk) · @889 · 20:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) - Support. I don't think we could "require it" but I do think we can "strongly recommend" it... and guess what, I don't care if it turns into defacto requirement. If you are too concerned with privacy to be open with the community about your edits, I have no problem with somebody opposing. What are you trying to hide? You can always opt out after the RfA.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have it all that well documented, but I have a Windows application called uContribs that uses the live en:wiki API and can be as intrusive as it wants to be, since it uses publically available information. Adding month counters to it would be a snap (and monthly edits are useful for looking at overall activity and non-activity patterns). If anyone wants to volunteer to run uContribs for every RFA candidate (and run Windows, which is slightly more onerous), let me know. An example is here, which data I'm not aware any rule or policy prevents me from generating and sharing. Franamax (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Boing! said Zebedee. I agree that users after the RfA should be allowed to opt out of X!'s counter. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support since it is not mandatory, the wording strongly recommends makes sense. This kind of information is very useful to get a quick overall picture of how active a person is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support Editors coming to RfA really shouldn't have much to hide so I can't see much harm in recommeding that they opt-in. As pointed out above, there would be nothing to stop users opting out again after the conclusion of the RfA. BigDom 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support. If anyone has a genuine reason for not opting in, which is quite conceivable, they are welcome to say so in their RfA. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Yet one more reason for people to avoid running for adminship, in an era of seemingly ever declining requests. Brilliant! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hammersoft - I don't think anyone is ignoring your comments about privacy - I think the points have been about the fact that this is all public data already, and that the tools may help people more quickly evaluate whether the user is a steady user over a long period of time, or a user who created an account a long time ago but who recently started using automated tools and quickly racked up the majority of their edits in the last few months. Given enough time each of us could sort through all the pages of the users contribs and see the same details (and then some). The laws in Germany have changed, so we can either adapt to them if we find the edit stats useful or we can decide to ignore this aspect of a candidates history. 7 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 06:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. People can take this into account if they want to already. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. You mean that everyone knows about this change already? 7 08:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not having the guideline tells you more about the candidate, in my view. If they choose not to provide the information, or do not know about it, it is useful information. FWIW, here's mine. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting, your profile is a good example of the sort of profile that shows sufficient breadth of edits but is very likely to tip people to oppose an RfA due to few edits since 2006. I disagree about the expecting people to know. Wikipedia is a big complex place and we should be welcoming in giving full advice to candidates who rarely or never take part in the RfA process. Polargeo (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't taken into account the server lag though ;-) Seriously though, I agree it's important that people should know this stuff about admin candidates. But if a candidate can't even find out what an RFA is all about, how are they going to handle being an admin? And your feedback could help me if I am nominated for RFA again - thanks for this :-). PS Congratulations. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting, your profile is a good example of the sort of profile that shows sufficient breadth of edits but is very likely to tip people to oppose an RfA due to few edits since 2006. I disagree about the expecting people to know. Wikipedia is a big complex place and we should be welcoming in giving full advice to candidates who rarely or never take part in the RfA process. Polargeo (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not having the guideline tells you more about the candidate, in my view. If they choose not to provide the information, or do not know about it, it is useful information. FWIW, here's mine. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. You mean that everyone knows about this change already? 7 08:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support - it's not a requirement, it's a strong recommendation. I can't see a downside. f o x 12:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- But absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence ;-) Traditionally, we have let the editors of the time decide what they want from their Admins. Any suggestions have been of the sort this is what editors have been looking for in the past. We don't know what the flavour of the month will be in six months or a year. Now, we are potentially decreeing what future editors should be looking for - it is prescriptive rather than descriptive. This is a subtle but important difference. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're losing me a little, mate. But I maintain that if future RfA !voters do not wish to look at this data (hell, I don't) then they are well within their rights to completely ignore what is given to them. You go to a buffet, you don't have to take any salad. f o x 14:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The question is not whether they should include this information, or whether people should read it, but whether we should tell them to include it. It's just more clutter in the instructions. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're losing me a little, mate. But I maintain that if future RfA !voters do not wish to look at this data (hell, I don't) then they are well within their rights to completely ignore what is given to them. You go to a buffet, you don't have to take any salad. f o x 14:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- But absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence ;-) Traditionally, we have let the editors of the time decide what they want from their Admins. Any suggestions have been of the sort this is what editors have been looking for in the past. We don't know what the flavour of the month will be in six months or a year. Now, we are potentially decreeing what future editors should be looking for - it is prescriptive rather than descriptive. This is a subtle but important difference. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support The latest "opt-in" requirement for this tool is clearly ridiculous; none of it is privacy violating, because everything everyone does on Wikipedia is public. X!'s tool just makes it quicker. Any person can copy and paste someone's contribs into a spreadsheet and create graphs out of it. Despite the claims, nothing about your editing is private. The only thing that remains private is your IP address and your browser/agent details, and they aren't even available except to checkusers. One final point: we expect (no wait, demand) our admins to be open and honest about what they do, and their editing and history should be open for all to scrutinize. Aiken ♫ 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about the privacy, which is why I don't bother using a pseudonym. On the question here, there are dozens of things you may want in an admin, but these are not all listed. I am in favour of a minimal list. Let the editors of the day decide what they want. If an admin can't work out what people are after from looking at other RFAs, they're probably not going to make a good admin. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Mock up and comments on it
I created a mockup of suggested changes to the Instructions page here - feel free to edit it directly or make comments here. 7 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
- Looks good. Nice job. Dlohcierekim 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Very nice. I don't see this as a problem. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would still like to see the language more direct. This kind of language is very noncommittal, almost as if it were an afterthought. I guess I am just really not looking forward to seeing people opposed over an instruction that tells them to "consider" doing something, something I expect would happen. I guess I just don't see the need to dance around the subject; if we want candidates to opt-in, we should just say so rather than asking them to maybe, possibly, kindly consider doing it. Shereth 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- That can already happen. RfA questions are optional, but I wouldn't have much hope these days for a prospective admin who refused to answer any of the questions people posed to them. -- Atama頭 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which is precisely the point I made previously, and precisely what I would hope to avoid again. We whould be explicit that this is an expectation and not a mere suggestion. Shereth 21:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tweaked it more to emphasize your point. Please take a look. 7 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've tweaked it slightly to make it clear that they may also blank the report on the RFA talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 06:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looking good. I read the first version last night and liked it, but was pondering whether it should be more explicit about opting out after RfA - and this morning I see WereSpielChequers has tweaked it appropriately. But as Shereth suggests, perhaps strengthen it a bit as it's inevitable some people will expect RfA candidates to opt in? -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tweaked it more to emphasize that it is "expected" per comments above 7 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(←) Thanks to everyone for their comments, and thanks to WSC and Bebblebrox for making changes. I think things have calmed down a bit so if there are no other complaints within the next 12 hours or so I'll implement the changes. 7 09:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Nepali Wikipedia
Hi. I am a user of Nepali Wikipedia [[3]] and I have a lot of contributions to the Nepali Wikipedi but my native language is Bhojpuri en:Bhojpuri language so I want to contribute on Bhojpuri Wikipedia [[4]] but the process of the Bhojpuri Wikipedia is very slow. I didn't find any administrator and any regular user there and the main page of Bhojpuri Wikipedia is still not translated in Bhojpuri Language so I want to expand and devlop Bhojpuri Wikipedia means I want to be an administrator on Bhojpuri Wikipedia. Thank you -- (Nepaboy (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC).
- You might try posting a message on the local wiki asking to become an admin. Wait a week, and if there are no objections, request admin rights at Meta. Here is not really the place to ask though. Aiken ♫ 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I've page protected the wrong version of this (seriously, it's the wrong version) due to edit warring after closure. Feel free to revert, unprotect or whatever is deemed necessary, but I never saw anything like this before. 19:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
- Yes it is the wrong version. Someone needs to actually read the posts and then put the vote back where the voter intended it. Can people please buy a clue here?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- As I commented at User talk:Cimon Avaro#Moving of joke support vote, it was pretty silly for the closing bureaucrat to move the obvious-joke-oppose support into the oppose column proper. Polargeo wasn't too bothered by it, but I can understand why Atmoz may have an issue with his support being moved into the oppose column: it makes it look like he frivolously opposes candidates. The !vote was originally a support, he confirmed it as such, and should stay in the support section, and the tally amended. –xenotalk 19:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I actually commented on the "joke oppose" at the time. Dlohcierekim 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is clear that the bureaucrat was in the wrong here. However my own issue was Atmoz undoing the bureaucrat without so much as an edit summary. Bureaucrats are similar to arbitrators when it comes to RFA pages - their edits are final. I'm sure a polite word on the talk page would not have hurt, but instead we have threats of being "add[ed] to [Atmoz's] list of stupid people on Wikipedia". Aiken ♫ 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I made a revert in this but I have no interest in anything other than the preservation of the discussion as it was when it was archived (especially since it doesn't affect the result). Surely disputes or questions over the actions of the closing 'crat belong on his talk page and/or WP:BN but people shouldn't take it upon themselves to revert the 'crat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- <sigh> then lets all waltz off the clif following the blind.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is one of the lamest edit wars ever. The final tally is unimportant. This could all have been avoided had everyone realized that RFA is not the best place at Wikipedia to impress others with your quick wit, sarcasm, and sense of the absurd. And yes, that's a setup line for whoever wants to make the snappy reply. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD#G10 and Negative, unsourced BLP
I'm updating my standards page. When I first started, G10 and BLP weren't as important as they are now. I'm updating my On RfA page and would like some input as to how the community sees these matters at RFA and as to what sort of advice to offer on my On RFA page. Thanks Dlohcierekim 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't your page based on your own thoughts? That being said, I don't know how important G10 is - as long as you're not creating them there's not much to go on (incorrect taggings aside). BLPs are a pretty big deal, although really only if it seems relevant (i.e. I wouldn't expect to see intense BLP questions unless the candidate has activity there, in AfDs, etc.). Edits appearing to violate the policy would necessarily be considered in a very serious manner for any user, especially if that editor were to get the block and protect buttons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- When I offer advice on what to work on, I prefer to have some basis in what the community thinks. I'm more inclined to honor a WP:CSD#G10 than some, less so than others. It's all in how you interpret the policy. And I don't feel it's fair to oppose based on my views when other reasonable editors might disagree with my interpretation. With most WP:CSD, "err on the side of caution is the rule." With BLP's and G10's, it seems more important to delete first and ask questions later. I've seen editor apply the G10 when it was not clearly a page that "served only to disparage", etc. I've seen opposes at RFA based on this, and what to clarify my understanding on the community's view. Dlohcierekim 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there are a few misconceptions of G10. They are:
- It only applies to living persons. It applies to any attack on the subject of an article, be it a living person, a dead person, a company, a product or a frog. Obviously we care most of all about BLP attacks, but attacks on anything are concerning.
- It only applies to unsourced material. It is quite possible to have a sourced attack page. A G10 here might be questionable in the circumstances, but it is possible.
- It does not apply to merely factual statements. So-called factual statements can constitute an attack. All depends on the context.
As for the "serve only to disparage" test, that has to be applied with common sense. If the attack element of an article can't sensibly be extricated from the article as a whole, G10 should apply. However this can be difficult in practice and I wouldn't oppose an RfA candidate over a legitimate difference of opinion on what constitutes "serves only to disparage". Overall, G10 and G12 are probably the most important criteria. These criteria evidence a need to axe the article as soon as possible for the project's benefit and the protection of third parties. I'm reluctant to support (although that's not a blanket position) candidates who can't see a G10 issue when it arises. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)