Tryptofish (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
:::::The remedy is currently passing (not passed). –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
:::::The remedy is currently passing (not passed). –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
Please see my comments on the proposed decision. I have voted against the proposed desysopping in this case, but I cannot agree that in principle, the Arbitration Committee cannot or should not ever desysop an adminstrator for misconduct that did not involve the misuse of administrator tools. And in fact, if one thinks about the matter for a few minutes, no one should really take that position, at least given the absence of any other mechanism for involuntary desysopping. To take an admittedly extreme case to make the point, if an administrator commits blatant vandalism on a hundred articles, we are going to revoke his or her adminship, even if the vandalism is committed using nothing more advanced than the "edit" button. So it is not a matter of the Committee's not having authority or reason to desysop for misconduct "as an editor," but a matter of line-drawing and degree. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
Please see my comments on the proposed decision. I have voted against the proposed desysopping in this case, but I cannot agree that in principle, the Arbitration Committee cannot or should not ever desysop an adminstrator for misconduct that did not involve the misuse of administrator tools. And in fact, if one thinks about the matter for a few minutes, no one should really take that position, at least given the absence of any other mechanism for involuntary desysopping. To take an admittedly extreme case to make the point, if an administrator commits blatant vandalism on a hundred articles, we are going to revoke his or her adminship, even if the vandalism is committed using nothing more advanced than the "edit" button. So it is not a matter of the Committee's not having authority or reason to desysop for misconduct "as an editor," but a matter of line-drawing and degree. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I agree with all of that. In a way, I think the five arbitrators, including you, who voted against the proposal got it "right" in terms of where the lines have been drawn in the past, and the six arbitrators who voted for it got it "right" in terms of where the community is now. It doesn't mean that ArbCom is going to de-admin every time, now. But it does mean that admins, and RfA participants, should realize that the possibility is on the table. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:18, 8 September 2011
|
2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011 Most recentTemplate:ArchivelineTemplate:Archiveline |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Current time: 19:31:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Changes to policy
Could we please make a few simple changes:
- Reiterate WP:NPA: negative statements must be supported by evidence, otherwise they will be removed by any bureacrat (or administrator). Any removal of content should allow the voter to re-vote properly, if at all possible.
- Reiterate WP:CIVIL: all comments, especially criticism should be civil and focus on the editing rather than the editor.
- Change support and oppose to less confrontational terms, such as approve or not yet. RfA is not meant to be a struggle so let's not use conflict-laden language. Language has a strong effect on cognition and mood. Jehochman Talk 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with points one and two, but I don't think the current support and oppose terms are the cause for distress amongst RfA candidates. I think their concerns are more with incivility and borderline personal attacks, as you stated in points one and two. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Let me add on to this thought here real quick. If an RfA candidate fails, they may say, "I failed because I was offended by people in the oppose section." If we did change the words to "Sure/Approve" and "Not Yet", it wouldn't change the rude oppose (or in this case "not yet") comments the candidate would get, and as a result, the candidate would be equally as offended by the editor's !vote as they would if the words were "support" and "oppose". I agree that the power of language does cause a lot of problems (especially when you're on the Internet and can't judge the tone of a person because you can't hear their voice), but I don't see how it causes problems in this case. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 13:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's all one, and everything contributes to the atmosphere. I think changing the language can help and I thinks its a good idea. George Orwell knew the power of language. "Sure/Approve" and "Not Yet" are great. RxS (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- My thoughts:
- Re #1-2 I agree with both points.
- Re #3: Well, it can't hurt, that much is true. But on the other hand, if "Support"/"Oppose" causes such consternation for an editor, I suspect they may not be admin material. I think the tone of the actual responses, no matter what they are prefaced with ("Not yet"/"Heck no!"/"Oppose"/"Sorry, try later"/"Whatever) is the core issue in that respect - and #1-#2, if monitored by a 'crat, resolves the true part of that issue. An admin will have a lot worse to deal with than "Oppose" on an RfA. Heck, as much as it makes for a hostile environment, how they deal with nasty opposes is actually a telling thing as to how they will deal with being an admin (ie: get pissed off and do something rash, or stay calm in the face of confrontation while using the tools responsibly).
- My thoughts:
- It's all one, and everything contributes to the atmosphere. I think changing the language can help and I thinks its a good idea. George Orwell knew the power of language. "Sure/Approve" and "Not Yet" are great. RxS (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only two cups of coffee today... so I might be a wee bit off base, but those are my thoughts of the moment. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone with no room to talk (according to 22 people and Steven Zhang), #1 and #2 are the big elephants. One particular extended discussion I took umbrage to yesterday was User:Malleus Fatuorum's, which devolved into insults and a flamewar. The discussion was moved to the talkpage (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jéské Couriano 2#pile-on/creationism/whatever it's off topic discussion), but its tone was overall inappropriate for an RfA, and two other editors called him out on it, only for him to dismiss them out-of-hand. It's nice to have civility police, but who polices the civility police? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 06:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only two cups of coffee today... so I might be a wee bit off base, but those are my thoughts of the moment. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your point #1 is old -- however, it emphasizes diffs too much in my opinion. Opposes without diffs have far less negative effect on the way the RfA will run, and so candidates should be happy when opposers don't include diffs that other people can take out of context even more and base their opinions on. (I think RfA voting should go like this: remember own interactions with user, check user page and talk page, look at user's contributions, then vote support if the users looks like they'll become a good admin, oppose if it is clear they won't be a good admin, and do nothing if the situation isn't clear. A major problem at RfA is people influencing each other's votes through comments and questions, and not enough people independently vetting a candidate on their own strengths and merits, based on the individual voter's admin criteria, not based on what other people say). —Kusma (t·c) 13:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- For point #1, I would just end it after the word "evidence", for the reasons stated by others above. For point #3, part of the issue is some who oppose may honestly believe "not ever", so any workable change must not put words in participants' mouths. How about: Promote and Not promote? That takes it away from being personal and focuses on the actual decision, while also being neutral as to the reasons why. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- That wouldn't exactly work, Tryptofish. Based on what you said, they could turn that into "Never promote". The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, promote suggests that administrators are in a hierarchy above regular editors, when in fact they have been given a mop to facilitate maintenance. Perhaps Mop and Don't Mop (semi serious). Monty845 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Or Demote, come to think of it? Yes, you both make good points. But I would insist that any new language, if made mandatory as opposed to used ad-hoc as I earlier recommended, must not put words into the !voters' mouths. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you think about it, it's hard to avoid putting words into people's mouths. No matter what, if they're wanting to oppose you and if they're wanting to get their point across by being a bit rude, even if you're not trying to give them something to work with, it will most likely happen unintentionally. Nothing is going to stop them if they've got their mind set to opposing rudely like that. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 00:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Or Demote, come to think of it? Yes, you both make good points. But I would insist that any new language, if made mandatory as opposed to used ad-hoc as I earlier recommended, must not put words into the !voters' mouths. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, promote suggests that administrators are in a hierarchy above regular editors, when in fact they have been given a mop to facilitate maintenance. Perhaps Mop and Don't Mop (semi serious). Monty845 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- That wouldn't exactly work, Tryptofish. Based on what you said, they could turn that into "Never promote". The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Mop and Don't Mop are all well and good, but even if now/not yet or similar is used, there are some whose RfAs will garner never !votes. And I for one would be hard-pressed to censure that - quite frankly, there are those who should not ever be given any semblance of "power" over other editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- The idea that it would be advantageous to change "Support" to "Promote", for instance, is yet another example of the rottenness at the heart of Wikipedia. In what sense is it a "promotion"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only in the sense that I was wrong when I said it, as has already been pointed out and agreed to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- The idea that it would be advantageous to change "Support" to "Promote", for instance, is yet another example of the rottenness at the heart of Wikipedia. In what sense is it a "promotion"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the original post, I have a few questions. On point 1, 'Crats are busy people and few and far between, it can take half a day before one closes an RfA (something they have a weeks notice on), I don't believe they would be available to remove items. So who would do it? If it was a free for all it would lead to accusations of gaming the system, similarly if it was just admins but with added cabal. I know, how about a new role - a clerk, if you will? That only leads to the problem of "what constitutes negative" - is any oppose without evidence uncivil? What if the evidence is unavailable, or intangible?
- On point 2, focus on editing rather than the editor? Much of my vote is on temperment, I will look at 2-300 talk page interactions to see if I can get a general feel for what sort of temperment the editor has. Assuming that there's nothing so egregious as worth bringing up, but a general feel of "does not engage in discussions as well as I'd hoped for an administrator" are you saying that my vote would be invalid? RfA is one of the very few areas that should focus on the editor as a whole - as it is trying to predict how they would behave in the future
- Finally point 3, people have brought up good comments, adminship should not be a promotion, mop seems almost facetious, not now leads to problems with not ever. However, I think that a new term for oppose would do wonders long term (even though it's just a surface change, it is a psychological one). Even agree and disagree would be an improvement, though I'm not sure it's enough of an improvement to warrant doing.WormTT · (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Policy changes
You may be interested to learn that a recently created active project to bring about reforms of the very kind you are discussing is located at WP:RFA2011. It's a highly structured area and any positive suggestions and support are most welcome in the appropriate sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- But it's going nowhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the opinion Malleus. I'd agree it's going nowhere fast, but in my opinion progress is being made and changes (small at first) will happen at least in part due to it. Around Wikipedia, change is resisted - and the larger the change, the more resistance there is. WormTT · (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- The trainwreck of pages at WP:RFA2011 must have been set up by someone who was mentored by the regulars at DYK. No wonder it's going nowhere fast. As to the proposal here, I disagree entirely; negative comments should be supported by evidence to the same extent that positive are (they're not). RFA would work if it were like FAC, where the burden is to affirm that criteria are met, and the problem at RFA is pile-on supports without examination of candidates. Same ole, same ole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ryan, we are lucky to have SandyGeorgia willing to comment. Let them speak unabridged, and presume good faith intentions. Sandy would be a great ally in moving this stuff forward, My76Strat (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- The reason RFA is not like FAC is that they are two totally different scenarios. FAC is like asking, "Is the diamond ring polished and refined enough to sell?" This question is an affirmation request, so it will yield answers such as "Yes, and this is why." RFA is more like asking, "Can we trust this man/woman to mop the floor and wash the windows without making off with the rings?" This question is a de-affirmation request, so commenters will reply with answers such as "No, and this is why." Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ryan, we are lucky to have SandyGeorgia willing to comment. Let them speak unabridged, and presume good faith intentions. Sandy would be a great ally in moving this stuff forward, My76Strat (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, in my view the most concerning problem with RfA is that it is producing genuinely silly rejections, and the only practical way to fix it is to lower the threshold for consensus. James500 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand how you come to that view, but I disagree. Firstly I would argue that silly rejections are rare, but the number of candidates successful or otherwise is far below replacement levels or what would be healthy for the community. RFA has become something that well qualified and experienced members of the community are loathe to subject themselves to, and that is a problem both in terms of daytoday running of the community and of community health. Three years ago the most active dozen or so vandalfighters were all admins, their current equivalents are mostly not, as the number of active admins declines problems such as this will grow until the community is forced to take action. Personally I would like to see RFA reformed before it gets to the point where an uninvolved steward has to dole out adminship to the most active vandalfighters. The movement has procedures in place to deal with the situation where an individual wiki has insufficient admins to operate, I think it would be embarrassing if they had to apply those here.
- The emphasis on edit count, statistical analysis and the question section has in my personal opinion left RFA less likely to screen out genuinely problematic candidates than it used to be. There are candidates whose RFAs I have derailed after dozens of votes had been cast, that leads me to believe that there are relatively few voters like myself who actually trawl through a candidates edits before voting. Lowering the threshold would let in very few extra candidates, and by definition only candidates who a large minority of the community perceived as not ready for adminship. I somewhat agree with Sandy Georgia in that FAC would be a good model to base a reformed RFA process on. The first key change would be to agree at least some of the criteria for adminship - it is a farce that individual RFAs frequently degenerate into arguments not as to whether the candidate meets a criteria but whether something should be part of the criteria. At FAC if someone comes up with an erroneous objection such as "too many redlinks" it is much easier to deal with them. Agreeing an adminship criteria or at least a partial one will not be easy as the community is divided on certain issues, but if we can agree it then a lot of potential candidates will be able to look at it and get a pretty good idea as to whether or not they are ready to run. Dropping the voting element of per nom supports would certainly make RFAs shorter, but I suspect would be a step too far for the community. I like the current compromise whereby a support is only a third the value of an oppose but a supporter who simply agrees with the nomination can in effect add their name to it, but an opposer has to give a reason for their objection. Of course once one oppose has been written up others can agree with that oppose, but in my experience the least satisfying RFAs are usually those where the oppose is an unsupported borderline attack rather than a diff supported argument. Supports that don't disclose what the supporter has checked do no harm to the process, if something major emerges during the RFA then a lot of them will be reversed and it does give newcomers to FA an easy entry route. ϢereSpielChequers 09:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't entirely agree. I think that humans have quite a knack for remembering community members who they feel have violated community norms in the past (a human "feature" which probably causes half the drama on various noticeboards), so even without looking at a block log, somebody with a track record of problematic behaviour is likely to be remembered by somebody round here. (There's one previous miscreant-candidate who I fully expect will turn up here again with a different username, and even without really thinking about it I look through each RfA to see if it's them...) Of course, sometimes humans generalise about entire outgroups or fixate on a poor measure of contribution quality, but when that kind of thinking influences RfA !votes, it doesn't go unnoticed.
- So, if a "bad" candidate sneaks through, I think it's more likely to be because previous problematic behaviour has gone undetected - in other words, something like copyvio rather than AN/I drama. However, I'm not convinced that many candidates have got through who shouldn't. bobrayner (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well very few candidates of any sort are getting through RFA at the moment. The rolling total for the last three months has dropped into single figures for only the second time since March 2003. I hope that there are relatively few bad ones that have snuck through recently, the acid test will be at some point in the future to look through desysopping trends in 2011/12/13. I accept your point that if someone has gained a reputation at AN/I then that will probably be remembered when they come to RFA, My concern is more at the sort of candidate whose edits indicate that they would be unsuitable wielders of the tools, especially the block and deletion tools, sometimes you need to trawl through people's edits to spot that. My fear is that the increased emphasis on the Q&A section and the stats has left insufficient eyes on the candidate's edits. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have to disagree - it's put too much emphasis on specific data points that, in and of themselves, are irrespective of the total behavior a candidate has shown throughout his Wikipedia career. As it did in my case, an incident or two of unmitigated stress will cause people to reject everything else that the candidate has done. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the analysis of the extensive data gathered from several hundred RfAs has sufficiently demonstrated that in general the right candidates pass, while the community excercises caution in the few instances where 'established' users fail, or fail to be re-sysoped. There is no 'bar' or standard set of criteria; apart from a very small corps of regular voters who are mainly experienced and mature and whose criteria are also very different, the bar is set anew for every single RfA. There is a couple of individuals who rarely have anything nice to say at RfA, but their oppose votes appear to be directed against the concept of adminship rather than directed at the candidates themselves. The current system would work if it were not for the superficial pile-ons, vengeance, personal attacks, and incivility that are allowed with impunity. Fix the voters, and the shortage of candidates will fix itself. This we know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Interjection: The data shows no such thing. If you wanted to prove that the right candidates were respectively passing and being rejected, you would have to collect data on desysopping etc, and you would have to show that there was a statistically significant correlation between the "standard" set at RfA and the incidence of admin tool abuse, and what that relationship was. You have not done that. James500 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- The ludicrous pile-ons I see are usually in the support section, which you seem to have studiously ignored Kudpung in your quest to have everyone be nicer to each other. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was no pile-on support for NYMets2000 after your !vote of support. I guess that came to mind because you did mention ludicrous. My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- That RfA was indeed ludicrous, and demonstrates very clearly one of RfA's fundamental problems; it attracts the wrong kind of people. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It would greatly help if people would give up their crusade against the idea of power-tripping admins and perhaps work within the standards we'd like them to. Indeed there are some people who aren't really admin material, but there's a way to communicate that without being a complete fucking douchebag or a general dick. For me, I'm not so much worried about civility (I don't give a fuck about swearing; it's just words) as I am worried about keeping the comments at least constructive, and not gleeful grave-dancing and blatant attacks on a candidate (will provide examples if necessary). I don't think the number of unqualified candidates who pass will materially increase if we start asking for a modicum of tact, but the number of qualified candidates will almost certainly increase; that's what we're looking for. I don't think people here disagree in our goals as much as they seem to think. And yes, that RfA was very badly considered. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- What would help even more would be if you could bring yourself to wake up and smell the coffee. The reality is quite plain for anyone with eyes to see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Believe me, I understand your point of view, and I happen to disagree with it. It would seem a substantial percentage of the community does as well. Consider that it may not be everyone else who's wrong on this; I've had to do the same with our CSD. Do tell me what harm my idea of simply asking people to tone it down a bit will do, not so much for my purpose (as I already know where you're coming from) as my wanting to actually see you articulate your position instead of resorting to veiled shots at me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience many if not most people who support will reconsider if something emerges that they hadn't previously noticed. I've torpedoed a few RFAs in my time, and I hope I've never been incivil in an RFA. My experience has been that a civil, clear, diff supported oppose for valid reasons can sink an RFA even if it was heading for success. I don't think that rants, abuse and opposes that aren't evidenced are as damaging to the candidate of that particular RFA. They besmirch the project and deter good candidates from running. But I don't think they particularly damage the candidate they are slung against. I think of RFA as a venue where mud sticks to the hands of the thrower, in that I remember some vitriolic rants and their authors, but not necessarily who their intended victims were. So my suspicion is that if some of the opposse were to change tactics, tone down the vitriol and make sure they evidenced their opposes, we would see some candidates fail because despite keeping their noses clean in the run up to their RFA there was a clear and problematic pattern beforehand. But hopefully a more collegial atmosphere at RFA would attract more candidates, and especially adult candidates who I suspect are more likely to be deterred by the hazing ceremony aspects of RFA than younger editors are. ϢereSpielChequers 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Believe me, I understand your point of view, and I happen to disagree with it. It would seem a substantial percentage of the community does as well. Consider that it may not be everyone else who's wrong on this; I've had to do the same with our CSD. Do tell me what harm my idea of simply asking people to tone it down a bit will do, not so much for my purpose (as I already know where you're coming from) as my wanting to actually see you articulate your position instead of resorting to veiled shots at me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- What would help even more would be if you could bring yourself to wake up and smell the coffee. The reality is quite plain for anyone with eyes to see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It would greatly help if people would give up their crusade against the idea of power-tripping admins and perhaps work within the standards we'd like them to. Indeed there are some people who aren't really admin material, but there's a way to communicate that without being a complete fucking douchebag or a general dick. For me, I'm not so much worried about civility (I don't give a fuck about swearing; it's just words) as I am worried about keeping the comments at least constructive, and not gleeful grave-dancing and blatant attacks on a candidate (will provide examples if necessary). I don't think the number of unqualified candidates who pass will materially increase if we start asking for a modicum of tact, but the number of qualified candidates will almost certainly increase; that's what we're looking for. I don't think people here disagree in our goals as much as they seem to think. And yes, that RfA was very badly considered. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- That RfA was indeed ludicrous, and demonstrates very clearly one of RfA's fundamental problems; it attracts the wrong kind of people. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was no pile-on support for NYMets2000 after your !vote of support. I guess that came to mind because you did mention ludicrous. My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the analysis of the extensive data gathered from several hundred RfAs has sufficiently demonstrated that in general the right candidates pass, while the community excercises caution in the few instances where 'established' users fail, or fail to be re-sysoped. There is no 'bar' or standard set of criteria; apart from a very small corps of regular voters who are mainly experienced and mature and whose criteria are also very different, the bar is set anew for every single RfA. There is a couple of individuals who rarely have anything nice to say at RfA, but their oppose votes appear to be directed against the concept of adminship rather than directed at the candidates themselves. The current system would work if it were not for the superficial pile-ons, vengeance, personal attacks, and incivility that are allowed with impunity. Fix the voters, and the shortage of candidates will fix itself. This we know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have to disagree - it's put too much emphasis on specific data points that, in and of themselves, are irrespective of the total behavior a candidate has shown throughout his Wikipedia career. As it did in my case, an incident or two of unmitigated stress will cause people to reject everything else that the candidate has done. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well very few candidates of any sort are getting through RFA at the moment. The rolling total for the last three months has dropped into single figures for only the second time since March 2003. I hope that there are relatively few bad ones that have snuck through recently, the acid test will be at some point in the future to look through desysopping trends in 2011/12/13. I accept your point that if someone has gained a reputation at AN/I then that will probably be remembered when they come to RFA, My concern is more at the sort of candidate whose edits indicate that they would be unsuitable wielders of the tools, especially the block and deletion tools, sometimes you need to trawl through people's edits to spot that. My fear is that the increased emphasis on the Q&A section and the stats has left insufficient eyes on the candidate's edits. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with #1 and #2, but #3 doesn't seem necessary. If anything, it could be Approve and Disapprove, but Not Yet can't stand for all the possible oppose reasons. — Kudu ~I/O~ 22:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Off-topic. 28bytes (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"Over-zealous contributions to RfAs concerning younger editors"Malleus commented that RfAs "attracts the wrong kind of people". IMHO, recent RfAs have attracted bus-loads of "editors" denying that candidates have committed close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyright violations (or that candidates may lack competence in article writing). Soon I shall face an RfC/U, whose draft charges include "over-zealous contributions to RfAs concerning younger editors". Sandy and Malleus, consider yourselves warned! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
|
"Wow" is all I have to say
I've closed the below thread. With respect to Mr. Keeper, who is only the latest person to start one of these (I may have started one myself a while back), the monthly compliant threads generate a lot of heat, rehash the same arguments, and generally serve no purpose but to create tension and sour relations. That's not the intent, of course, but it's what happens every single time, and it's what has happened this time.
There are subpages with different reform proposals floating around, if you believe there is a problem and want to work on fixing it, find one of those. If you don't believe there is a problem, don't. Either way though, please, please, please stop these pointless monthly fights.
On behalf of pretty much everyone who watchlists this page and hasn't commented below, Sven Manguard Wha? 08:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Ok. So. At one point, me - Mr. Keeper, was in the "top 10" for most edits to this talkpage for Rfa. I semi-retired from this entire website nearly 2 years ago. I still edit - although mostly as an IP, which by the way is far more rewarding (but I digress), and I rarely log in other than to chat about baseball on my talkpage (thanks Jimbo for the free userspace...). Anywho, to get to the point, this talkpage is as ridiculous, if not moreso, than when I left it in 2008/9. Good grief, doesn't anyone have anything better to do than complain about how broken RfA is? RfA is broken, yada yada. Feel free to discuss if you must. I very likely won't be checking in again anytime soon. But seriously people. Life comma get one. Keeper | 76 02:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I believe RFA's golden age ended in 2008.--178.167.234.60 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- The RFA process will inevitably be the subject of most threads, since this is the RFA TALKPAGE. Seriously, just coming here to complain about how much people complain seemed like a good way to spend a part of that life you are talking about? End pointless topic.--Atlan (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Yes. I keep seeing the same phrases over and over: Unimaginable nightmare. Hell week. Ritual humiliation. <<<an insulting part of my comment redacted>>> Honestly, if you can't face criticism, ignore the irrelevant stuff and address the valid points of the criticism in a calm and civil way, you should grow up. That's how it works in real life and that's how it should work also here. People's opinions are not always packed in a rose gift box, and if you can't stay on top of things, the RfA is not for you. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is a fine balance to be struck between pointing out that RFA is broken whilst suggesting how to fix it, and exaggerating how broken it is and thereby risk deterring some candidates who would actually have an easy time at RFA. With only one successful RFA in the last month and only 39 so far this year, there can be no real dispute that RFA as a process is broken in that it is producing insufficient admins to replace those we lose through desysops and retirements. But it isn't so broken that no one can get through. I wouldn't recommend RFA to someone who edits in their own name, but if you use a pseudonym and are as overqualified as some of the recent successful candidates there is little risk in stepping forward. ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Vejvančický: If you can't face criticism without sniping back with a rash of sarcasm and insults then you should try harder to respond in a calm and civil way. Is that how you respond to criticism in real life?
- Only now I face your criticism, my previous comment was of general nature. I can't help myself, but I consider comparing the RfA to hell or to an "unimaginable nightmare" as laughable. I'm sorry if you (or anyone) feel insulted by my comparison, I did not realize how grossly offensive my comment could be. Now redacted :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- @no one in particular, I hear the phrase RFA is broken a lot, for years. So often that it's become a truism with no effort to back it up. When it is backed up it's usually claimed that it's a hard process to go through and that good editors are unwilling to do it. But as I asked on Jimbo's page where it came up last week, where are these editors? RFA is a hard process mostly because editors who aren't ready have a hard time of it. Editors who are ready sail through. The thing that needs work is filtering the nominees better. RxS (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- RxS, since starting request an RfA nomination, I've had 5 editors approach me and I have approached a 6th. Whilst I would rather not mention names, there is certainly a portion of the community who would consider becoming an administrator, but certainly have a fear of the process. WormTT · (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is a strange assumption there that the hellish nightmarishness of an RfA lies entirely in nominating yourself (?). How can a number of people going out of their way to enter into an RfA be proof of them fearing of the process? Jebus989✰ 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- For my part, the assumption was anecdotal. I was unwilling to put myself forward, even when I did, I was expecting to be borderline. I sailed through (pretty much), and I probably would have 3 months earlier. I have heard the same thing from other editors. There is no more of a nightmare if you nominate yourself, but if you have someone who nominates you, you at least know that you're thinking along the right lines. It is relevant that none of the people who have approached me have a previous RfA. WormTT · (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's a fair reply. So (potentially) instead of a paralysing fear of !voter brutality, those candidates were just unsure that they were ready for an RfA, and they wanted reassurance. That brings up a separate issue of unnecessarily high standards (which I entirely agree is an issue and needs addressing) Jebus989✰ 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- For my part, the assumption was anecdotal. I was unwilling to put myself forward, even when I did, I was expecting to be borderline. I sailed through (pretty much), and I probably would have 3 months earlier. I have heard the same thing from other editors. There is no more of a nightmare if you nominate yourself, but if you have someone who nominates you, you at least know that you're thinking along the right lines. It is relevant that none of the people who have approached me have a previous RfA. WormTT · (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is a strange assumption there that the hellish nightmarishness of an RfA lies entirely in nominating yourself (?). How can a number of people going out of their way to enter into an RfA be proof of them fearing of the process? Jebus989✰ 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Vejvančický, Im not aware of any half successful non-military real life org which would tolerate a selection process as overly critical as RfA. Too much criticism demotivates and hurts confidence; it's a pointless squandering of our most valuable resource. In the orgs Ive worked at (mainly Siemens, Whitehall, O2 and Credit Suisse) execs who lead and select teams are trained in the importance of softening criticism and ensuring its always constructive. Its good to give and receive about 5x as much praise as criticism. And not just offhand comments like "incredible work", but detailed specific praise so folk know you've given them real attention.
- I agree. Unfortunately, the majority of people here aren't trained in constructive criticism. Wikipedia's position is incomparable to any of the subjects mentioned in your comment. Here, anyone can comment almost everywhere. The openness and consensus-based culture has immense benefits, but it also has some considerable disadvantages, which is visible not only here at RfA. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the art of constructive criticism would be a good subject for an essay? :-) But you're right we cant force folk to be nicer, though reforms like Jehochman suggested sound worthwhile, also reducing the passing threshold to something reasonable like 50%. Not only would that be a good way to replenish the ranks, it would make it harder for a small group of opposers to add insult to injury by coupling their criticism with what could feel like a formal rejection from the community. Alas sceptics always seem to come out of the woodwork to block substantial reforms, so unless the new task force pull off a miracle we'll likely have to wait for Jimbo. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Unfortunately, the majority of people here aren't trained in constructive criticism. Wikipedia's position is incomparable to any of the subjects mentioned in your comment. Here, anyone can comment almost everywhere. The openness and consensus-based culture has immense benefits, but it also has some considerable disadvantages, which is visible not only here at RfA. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- RxS, since starting request an RfA nomination, I've had 5 editors approach me and I have approached a 6th. Whilst I would rather not mention names, there is certainly a portion of the community who would consider becoming an administrator, but certainly have a fear of the process. WormTT · (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if my respected colleague WSC is saying this, but I strongly disagree with the idea excessive criticism ought only harm those who edit in their real names. If you're on Wikipedia enough to have a realistic shot at RfA then a fair bit of your persona is invested in your account even if its anon. Its not just real name users who sometimes retire after being savaged at RfA. DGAF is a healthy attitude but most cant help being social creature who care what others say.
- @RxS I also challenge the view that editors who are ready sail through - some do, many dont. If RfA really was good at sifting the ready from the unready, then borderline passes ought to show a higher incidence of de-syspoping and I understand this isn't the case. One also has to question a process that rejects such obviously competent, thoughtful and well balanced editors as SMarshall or RichardCavel. Btw, in the orgs I mentioned sysops are often selected without even a tenth of the scrutiny we subject candidates to, and this includes for senior rolls where mistakes can disrupt multi billion dollar revenue streams and essential services to millions of customers. Jimbo ought to know this as he used to work in an investment bank too. Roll on the day when he reforms RfA by force majeure! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- But in those companies people can be fired at will. And it's not like they'd hire some bum off the street to make million dollar decisions. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in the UK, firing people here is not as easy as in the US. In Europe it is often more difficult. Probably rather more difficult than getting Arbcom to desysop an admin. That doesn't mean you make recruitment unpleasant, if anything the reverse. Afterall incivil opposes rarely scupper RFAs, they just deter good candidates.
- I wouldn't argue that there are no implications for pseudonymous editors, merely that they are generally less serious than for people who edit in their own name. I'm aware that we sometimes lose good editors because of their reception at RFA. I first noticed this over a year ago whilst trawling RFAs from several months earlier looking for people who might now be ready for a second run. I hope that as a nominator I can prevent that by only nominating people who are sufficiently overqualified to easily pass, and by not nominating those who edit in their own name. It would be great if we could improve RFA to the point where one could commend it to all qualified editors, but I for one wouldn't do that now.
- I don't know how the military handles these things, but no organisation I'm involved in real life has this harsh or public a recruitment process. As an organisation we have problems with retention of editors and in particular we are no longer as good as we once were at welcoming editors into that amorphous community of the active wikipedians. I am pretty sure that RFA is part of that problem. ϢereSpielChequers 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Totally agree WSC. @Hot Stop – the other point Id make is the really harmful actions – promoting libellous or grossly misleading information, harassing valuable editors, etc - can already be performed , and countered , by the "bum on the street". As bad deletions are easy to reverse maybe our over caution stems from fear of bad blocks? I understand some mature editors despise the thought of some kid with only a fraction of their experience and expertise being able to block them. Perhaps something like making it routine to erase bad blocks from the log would help allay those concerns? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- But in those companies people can be fired at will. And it's not like they'd hire some bum off the street to make million dollar decisions. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- @RxS I also challenge the view that editors who are ready sail through - some do, many dont. If RfA really was good at sifting the ready from the unready, then borderline passes ought to show a higher incidence of de-syspoping and I understand this isn't the case. One also has to question a process that rejects such obviously competent, thoughtful and well balanced editors as SMarshall or RichardCavel. Btw, in the orgs I mentioned sysops are often selected without even a tenth of the scrutiny we subject candidates to, and this includes for senior rolls where mistakes can disrupt multi billion dollar revenue streams and essential services to millions of customers. Jimbo ought to know this as he used to work in an investment bank too. Roll on the day when he reforms RfA by force majeure! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Did anyone actually read the inital post before they turned this thread into the typical WT:RFA circle jerk?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Swarm likes this (I promise never to use that template again) Swarm u | t 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Look, folks, we can discuss this on or off topic forever. But the point is, this is an encyclopedia. It needs to be maintained in good order and, whether Rfa is broken or not (for the record, I think it's not) this maintenance appears to happen. Anything else is surely secondary. So let us not discuss whether RfA is broken or not, let us look at whether the encyclopedia is broken or not. Is it? Because that is really all that matters. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the pedia is broken, on most counts I think it is better than last year and much better than the year before. But I consider that we've proven RFA to be broken. At peak we had 1021 active admins, today we have 746 unless we fix or replace RFA then I predict that within 12 months it will drop below 700. In 2008 we appointed 201 admins, in 2009 121, in 2010 75. This year it is heading for about 50. This is the talkpage for RFA, it is the logical page to point out that we have a problem with RFA and encourage people to fix it. The evidence is that RFA is broken. I think it is time for people to accept the evidence and start trying to solve the problem, or check the evidence for themselves and try to pick holes in it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well said. No, Wikipedia isn't broken, and yes, we are doing fine, but how long will that last? A continuously growing encyclopedia needs a continuously growing number of admins, and what's happening is the opposite. Our number of active admins is decreasing and the number of newly appointed admins is stagnating. Sure we're fine at the moment, but how long can the encyclopedia be maintained with this trend going on? The as the number of admins declines, so to will that level of maintenance Wikipedia currently recieves. As that happens, who knows what the consequences will be. Now, I'm not implying that RfA is the source of all problems or that fixing it will permanently "fix Wikipedia", but it can't be implied that RfA's brokenness doesn't effect Wikipedia in the grand scheme. Swarm u | t 01:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the pedia is broken, on most counts I think it is better than last year and much better than the year before. But I consider that we've proven RFA to be broken. At peak we had 1021 active admins, today we have 746 unless we fix or replace RFA then I predict that within 12 months it will drop below 700. In 2008 we appointed 201 admins, in 2009 121, in 2010 75. This year it is heading for about 50. This is the talkpage for RFA, it is the logical page to point out that we have a problem with RFA and encourage people to fix it. The evidence is that RFA is broken. I think it is time for people to accept the evidence and start trying to solve the problem, or check the evidence for themselves and try to pick holes in it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I lurk on this page and I disagree with WereSpielChequers' opinion regarding RfA. I do not believe that RfA is broken. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it okay to vote against an RfA on principle (rather than the qualities of the candidate)
- 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.
- Discussion is closed, as the question has been answered to the satisfaction of the OP. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever voted in an RfA, but is it acceptable to vote against an RfA if the candidate refuses to be open to recall? --Surturz (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- In answer to your second question, of course it is acceptable. Your first question isn't relevant though because refusing to be open to recall is a quality of the candidate. Opposing an RFA based on some principle, e.g. "We have too many admins", is absolutely not okay. AD 11:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- What happens if an admin makes commitments in their RfA application and they aren't honoured? e.g. if an admin agrees to be open to recall in their RfA, but then refuses to resign if a subsequent recall process is successful? Is that grounds for RfC/U on the basis that they lied on their job application? --Surturz (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- You could try an RfC/U, but this would probably be viewed as a waste of time (or retaliation in some cases), unless the administrator's behavior was sufficiently egregious to warrant an RfC. Do you know of any case where an administrator has failed to honor a pledge of accepting recall? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- What happens if an admin makes commitments in their RfA application and they aren't honoured? e.g. if an admin agrees to be open to recall in their RfA, but then refuses to resign if a subsequent recall process is successful? Is that grounds for RfC/U on the basis that they lied on their job application? --Surturz (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- These questions are hypothetical, I am not thinking of any particular existing admin. I am however, thinking of voting in future RfAs and asking that candidates agree to term limits akin to the USA's 22nd Amendment (resign after 4 years and submit to another RfA, then resign permanently after 8 years). In the unlikely situation that any candidate agrees to the term limit, I was wondering what recourse there would be if they reneged. My feeling is that an RfC/U would be appropriate, though that RfC/U could of course legitimise the reneging. (ie. agreeing to recall/term limit then reneging is not automatic grounds for desysopping, but enough to trigger an RfC/U inviting the admin in question to explain why they have reneged). --Surturz (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, by my reading, it looks like every request in which an administrator recall process has happened, the fair result happened. In one case, a majority supported a sitting administrator. It seems to me that the administrators pledging themselves to recall have so far honored that pledge, 100%. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- All but one, anyway. That one rewrote their recall criteria, took a long wikibreak, and came back a better admin. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to name names, but more than one admin has dishonored their pledge when faced with a recall. Though I think the case you are alluding to was the most clearcut. I used to oppose RFAs based on recall promises - on the grounds that it was ad captandum vulgus and unenforceable. I viewed it as not a !vote on principle but rather an evaluation of the candidate's judgement. I stopped because a) several recalls were successful, b) I got tired of getting bitched at for expressing an unpopular opinion, and c) I just don't care anymore except for the most egregious candidacies, which tend to fail RFA anyway. Skinwalker (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ad captandum vulgus---maybe you mispelled Andy Capp? "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard!" (H. L. Mencken: A Little Book in C major (1916) ; later published in A Mencken Crestomathy (1949) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- All but one, anyway. That one rewrote their recall criteria, took a long wikibreak, and came back a better admin. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, by my reading, it looks like every request in which an administrator recall process has happened, the fair result happened. In one case, a majority supported a sitting administrator. It seems to me that the administrators pledging themselves to recall have so far honored that pledge, 100%. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- These questions are hypothetical, I am not thinking of any particular existing admin. I am however, thinking of voting in future RfAs and asking that candidates agree to term limits akin to the USA's 22nd Amendment (resign after 4 years and submit to another RfA, then resign permanently after 8 years). In the unlikely situation that any candidate agrees to the term limit, I was wondering what recourse there would be if they reneged. My feeling is that an RfC/U would be appropriate, though that RfC/U could of course legitimise the reneging. (ie. agreeing to recall/term limit then reneging is not automatic grounds for desysopping, but enough to trigger an RfC/U inviting the admin in question to explain why they have reneged). --Surturz (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It's perfectly OK to oppose an RFA candidate for any reason or no reason, just like it's OK to support an RFA candidate for any reason or no reason. However, the closing 'crats tend to discount certain oppose rationales, particularly when those rationales have little or nothing to do with the candidates themselves (e.g. "too many admins"). Townlake (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty much this, with the caveat that those that oppose RFAs for overly superficial reasons, or lack of any, should go that they're going in ready for plenty of criticism at the move. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I could add that if one person participating in an RfA decides to oppose a candidate for not agreeing to recall, term limits, or anything else, no one else participating in the RfA is obliged to agree with that one person. (By the way, I can remember one administrator recall process that could reasonably be viewed as having malfunctioned pretty significantly.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- At RFA one votes on principle or comments based on personal opinion. It really is not complicated. If RFA is a vote, then vote accordingly. If it is a consensus gathering discussion offer your opinion. Just hope that in the latter case WJB, Avi or EVula (and a couple more at best) close the discussion - or your input will be pointless. Can we close this thread ?Pedro : Chat 23:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
No, let's be clear: this is disruptive
At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ks0stm, Surturz has now decided to take the above advice and apply it rather drastically. I think we need to be clear about this: opposing based on something like this with zero basis in policy is being disruptive. I don't know what point is being made here (presumably, that term limits need to be introduced) but that is a discussion for itself, and people should not be opposed because they refuse to commit to something an editor thinks should be policy but isn't. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's not disruptive. He's entitled to his view and his vote, and we should not attempt to silence him, wrong though he may be. 28bytes (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- If he's wrong, why do we allow this kind of thing? AD 10:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the notion that this is disruptive. The editor opposed because they did not agree with the candidate's view on something pertinent to the role of administrators. One can disagree, but to say doing so is disruptive is almost an insult to a good-faith, competent editor. wctaiwan (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, this is disruptive. Opposes should not be made based on disagreements, but whether the candidate will make a competent admin. People can cry "free speech" and nonsense about being entitled to an opinion, but it's disruptive. We all know it's wrong, so why do we put up with it? Yet another reason why RFA is broken. There are certain places to soapbox policies and individual ones are not the place. Of course if Surturz can demonstrate how the candidate will not make a good admin because they don't agree with term limits, I'll be happy to join him and oppose. But right now, it's a "principle" oppose, rather than one based on the candidate as it should. And that's why it's disruptive. AD 10:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe the point raised is disruptive, but rather illegitimate. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- The particular vote in question isn't disruptive or illegitimate at all. It's a perfectly valid case of someone voting on the basis of answers received to questions, and to imply otherwise is to violate the WP:AGF policy. If I were to vote "Oppose" purely to make a POINT for this discussion, that probably would be disruptive, since it's nothing to do with the candidate or its stated positions, but that's not what's happening here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- The vote itself is a violation of AGF because it assumes the candidate will be a bad admin with no evidence whatsoever. AD 10:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all. Having an Emergency Stop handle in railway carriages isn't to imply that the train will need to be stopped, it's there just in case. Same with this. Anyone is perfectly free to vote on that basis. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly it is because of the lack of evidence otherwise. We should assume a candidate is competent unless proven otherwise. Right now it's an oppose "just in case you go crazy with the mop". AD 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline, not a policy. "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- To advise a user it is acceptable to do something[1] and then accuse the user of being disruptive when they do it[2] appears disruptive to me.--ClubOranjeT 11:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just because it is acceptable currently does not mean I agree with it in the slightest, nor does it make it anywhere near the right thing to do. AD 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- 1. It's impossible for my !vote to be disruptive, the closing 'crat can simply ignore it. I am not disrupting any of you, you can ignore my vote too. 2. I am comfortable voting to grant admin status to this candidate for a period of 4 years. I am not however comfortable voting to grant admin status to this candidate for forty or more years, which is what is being asked of me. If the candidate wants my !vote, he can agree to a term limit. I suspect he doesn't need it. --Surturz (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)1 is wholly untrue - an easy example of a disruptive vote would be a personal attack. In this case, your vote appears to be that a candidate does not agree to something that the rest of the community also does not agree to - I wouldn't call that disruptive, but it doesn't do you any favours. You were told above that if a candidate doesn't meet your requirements - say, because they don't subscribe to the transparency of recall, that you could vote based on that, but a vote based on say "too many admins" would not be acceptable. Well, your vote is based on "admins do not have term limits", not based on this candidates abilty. You've worded it so it's borderline about the candidate - but you are making a WP:POINT. WormTT · (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have not made a personal attack. Even if I had, that would be a violation of WP:NPA, not WP:POINT. WP:POINT requires disruption - damaging articles, spamming edits, etc. I believe your example misrepresents WP:POINT --Surturz (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- To be clear, I did not intend to accuse you of making a personal attack - I was refuting the idea that "it's impossible for a vote to be disruptive". If you define "disruption" as "interruption of normal work or practice", it's clear that this vote has caused a fallout - and by that defnition, yes, I think that you are disrupting this candidate's RfA to make a WP:POINT. WormTT · (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have not made a personal attack. Even if I had, that would be a violation of WP:NPA, not WP:POINT. WP:POINT requires disruption - damaging articles, spamming edits, etc. I believe your example misrepresents WP:POINT --Surturz (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)1 is wholly untrue - an easy example of a disruptive vote would be a personal attack. In this case, your vote appears to be that a candidate does not agree to something that the rest of the community also does not agree to - I wouldn't call that disruptive, but it doesn't do you any favours. You were told above that if a candidate doesn't meet your requirements - say, because they don't subscribe to the transparency of recall, that you could vote based on that, but a vote based on say "too many admins" would not be acceptable. Well, your vote is based on "admins do not have term limits", not based on this candidates abilty. You've worded it so it's borderline about the candidate - but you are making a WP:POINT. WormTT · (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- 1. It's impossible for my !vote to be disruptive, the closing 'crat can simply ignore it. I am not disrupting any of you, you can ignore my vote too. 2. I am comfortable voting to grant admin status to this candidate for a period of 4 years. I am not however comfortable voting to grant admin status to this candidate for forty or more years, which is what is being asked of me. If the candidate wants my !vote, he can agree to a term limit. I suspect he doesn't need it. --Surturz (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just because it is acceptable currently does not mean I agree with it in the slightest, nor does it make it anywhere near the right thing to do. AD 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the !vote itself as disruptive, but I do see it as an attempt by Surturz to force a policy change after the standard procedures failed to go his way--Jac16888 Talk 11:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm… I also opposed this candidate on a matter of principle. I suppose this is disruptive and just being pointy also. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not in the slightest, yours is a completely different objection altogether (and completely legitimate and relevant to the candidate). Not at all disruptive, unlike the first oppose. AD 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your oppose is based on something the candidate has done while editing (or not done), as is the oppose after yours. That's a very different kettle of fish from Surturz's oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Whether he has other reasons to make the !vote is not relevant, since there is no evidence for that and AGF goes both ways. For example, I do not support anyone who is not using edit summaries more than 90% of the time but that does not mean I do it to force a policy change that requires edit summaries for everyone. You don't have to use them and I don't have to support you - everyone has their choice. The same applies here. The community has time and time again accepted that people may be opposed for not being willing to meet the standards a !voter has set for a candidate - such as content contributions, talk page involvement, agreeing to be open to recall etc - even if you think those standards are utterly and completely wrong. I don't agree with Surturz's !vote for example, I think it's complete nonsense to require an admin to be willing to step down after a certain period of time but my disagreeing with him does not make his !vote disruptive. It's not disruptive as long as those !voters apply their standards based on the candidates actual actions and comments - e.g. it's not disruptive to oppose someone who openly states that they do not meet a certain standard - instead of !voting a certain way no matter of the candidate. It would be the best course of action if we just let Surturz !vote as he likes (as long as he does it about the candidate in question) and let the crats, who are tasked with closing the RFA, sort out whether that !vote is relevant or not. Remember people, RFA is a discussion and if no one agrees with someone's !vote, then the !vote will not (significantly) influence consensus. Regards SoWhy 12:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- People equating "disruption" with "doesn't agree with the majority" are a far bigger danger to the health of the project than someone who opposes based on an unpopular personal opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- ^ QFT--Cube lurker (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last time, that someone chooses to oppose a candidate because they wont (or did) commit to a recall or term limit. I don't think lengthy discussion on it is a good use of anyone's time. –xenotalk 14:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wise words, can we close this? I agree we should eliminate POV based reasoning (and for that matter, no reasoning) from RfA (among a ton of other stuff), but there is nothing disruptive with the !vote and arguing so endlessly is indeed disruptive. !Votes that are idiotic/POV based/Ignore policy/Are personal vedettas/irresponsible/whatever are allowed - and because they are allowed is one of the reasons we need reform. --Cerejota (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Close of original thread
Just a last note... I was a little blindsided by the level of opprobrium against my vote. I think the editor that closed the original thread did me a disservice because the tone was mildly encouraging. I clearly explained what I intended to do and nobody said that I would cop a lot of flak over it. I feel a bit tricked, to be perfectly frank. --Surturz (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just let it go. The thread gave some, imho correct, advice, someone else objected nevertheless when you acted upon it, we had another discussion, you feel tricked. Now there is nothing productive left that might come from re-opening this can of worms again. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
My fear
Is that there is a reasonable chance that we will not see significant reform to RfA, despite the best efforts of a large number of contributors.
I therefore ask – as vaguely as I can so as not to be opposed for proposing a specific too hastily – whether the community might now or in future seriously consider setting a date for the end of the current system? —WFC— 15:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a sensible suggestion. We have a number of suggested RfA changes, ranging from slight tweaks, to complete overhauls, to parallel processes. Your fear may well become a reality but picking a date to end a fully-functional process is not the answer Jebus989✰ 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Right now you may be correct, hence my decision to include the phrase "or in future". —WFC— 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ah I must have missed that. Well then, certainly at some stage in the future we will begin to most seriously consider the possibility of discussing the commencement of deliberations regarding a potential endpoint. I trust that your fears are quelled Jebus989✰ 17:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Optimists think that we are not yet in the phase of degeneration.
- Right now you may be correct, hence my decision to include the phrase "or in future". —WFC— 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- However, it is safe to say that the present system will end when the sun expands in a billion years. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- We are making progress with the RFC on allowing Bureaucrats to dessysop, and under what circumstances. This will make losing the mop easier, and so make it less risky to select new people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah Keifer needs to browse WP:RFA2011 which seems to have more momentum every day... CHange is slow, but it will happen - there is simply no justification for the current system that as of today is nearly unique in the large Wikimedia projects as not having recall and tenure requirements, and allowing free-for-all RfA funfests. Hell, Wikiversity has a two step process. It seems to me the problems with change have more to do with inertia than unwillingness, and bickering over the details rather than moving forward boldly... --Cerejota (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- By nature, Wikipedia is about as bold as a bowl of muesli. I don't mean that as a criticism of the project as a whole, but it's certainly a weakness in this instance. —WFC— 18:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah Keifer needs to browse WP:RFA2011 which seems to have more momentum every day... CHange is slow, but it will happen - there is simply no justification for the current system that as of today is nearly unique in the large Wikimedia projects as not having recall and tenure requirements, and allowing free-for-all RfA funfests. Hell, Wikiversity has a two step process. It seems to me the problems with change have more to do with inertia than unwillingness, and bickering over the details rather than moving forward boldly... --Cerejota (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
New standard for de-admining
Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Cirt desysopped. It appears that ArbCom has decided that administrators now can be de-sysopped for conduct other than actual misuse of administrator tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you feel that proposed decision reflects a material change from the current policy outlined at Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct (perm) ? –xenotalk 19:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (this probably belongs at Wikipedia talk:Administrators)
- (edit conflict) Admins are expected to uphold a high standard of conduct and if they constantly fail this standard to a point when it becomes disruptive, then the sanction can include removal of adminship. But that's not a new standard or anything. ArbCom remedies are for specific cases and bound to be based on the user in question. Also, and I think that's the most important point, ArbCom didn't even decide to desysop Cirt! At this time the remedy is still in voting and by the current numbers, it will fail because a support of 2 is required (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Implementation notes). I thus fail to see what you are trying to tell us with this comment. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a point of order, that implementation table needs updating. See the majority table at the top of the proposed decision. –xenotalk 19:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Where I'm coming from in making this comment is WP:CDARFC. To SoWhy, I could easily be confused about this, but I think that Xeno is right and the proposal passed. To Xeno, no, I don't think it represents a change in our policy on administrator conduct. I think it represents a change in how the DR process deals with the criteria for removing administrator powers. In other words, we have long had a policy that administrators should conduct themselves in a professional manner. We just didn't hold them to it when it comes to revoking tenure. The attitude has been: if there is no misuse of the tools, we don't de-admin. During the CDA debate, I was told, over and over again, that we would have mobs with pitchforks if admins could be removed without evidence of misuse of tools. I do understand that ArbCom is not a courtroom and stare decisis doesn't apply, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time on the English Wikipedia that an administrator has been removed when there was zero evidence of misuse of tools, but there was, in effect, a judgment that community trust was lost. In that sense, this is Wiki-historic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a point of order, that implementation table needs updating. See the majority table at the top of the proposed decision. –xenotalk 19:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Admins are expected to uphold a high standard of conduct and if they constantly fail this standard to a point when it becomes disruptive, then the sanction can include removal of adminship. But that's not a new standard or anything. ArbCom remedies are for specific cases and bound to be based on the user in question. Also, and I think that's the most important point, ArbCom didn't even decide to desysop Cirt! At this time the remedy is still in voting and by the current numbers, it will fail because a support of 2 is required (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Implementation notes). I thus fail to see what you are trying to tell us with this comment. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see my comments on the proposed decision. I have voted against the proposed desysopping in this case, but I cannot agree that in principle, the Arbitration Committee cannot or should not ever desysop an adminstrator for misconduct that did not involve the misuse of administrator tools. And in fact, if one thinks about the matter for a few minutes, no one should really take that position, at least given the absence of any other mechanism for involuntary desysopping. To take an admittedly extreme case to make the point, if an administrator commits blatant vandalism on a hundred articles, we are going to revoke his or her adminship, even if the vandalism is committed using nothing more advanced than the "edit" button. So it is not a matter of the Committee's not having authority or reason to desysop for misconduct "as an editor," but a matter of line-drawing and degree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with all of that. In a way, I think the five arbitrators, including you, who voted against the proposal got it "right" in terms of where the lines have been drawn in the past, and the six arbitrators who voted for it got it "right" in terms of where the community is now. It doesn't mean that ArbCom is going to de-admin every time, now. But it does mean that admins, and RfA participants, should realize that the possibility is on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)