m →IPs don't belong here: more specific |
Fylbecatulous (talk | contribs) →IPs don't belong here: add support with comment |
||
Line 274: | Line 274: | ||
*'''Strong oppose''' We don't allow IPs to support/oppose at RFAs due to obvious sock/meat-puppetry and vote-stacking concerns. But why would we reject potentially constructive input or evidence about a candidate, just because the person providing it doesn't have a wikipedia account?! Also keep in mind that IP-editors are certainly affected by who we choose as admins, and if a candidate systematically mistreats IP-editors, we would want to know that at an RFA. Other participants at an RFA can use the input when deciding whether to support or oppose, as they see fit. And outright trolling (like in the current RFA) is most easily dealt with on an RFA page that is typically watched by dozens of experienced users,, admins, and bureaucrats who can revert, block, or protect (ideally for very short periods) if necessary. Also second what Floq said. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Strong oppose''' We don't allow IPs to support/oppose at RFAs due to obvious sock/meat-puppetry and vote-stacking concerns. But why would we reject potentially constructive input or evidence about a candidate, just because the person providing it doesn't have a wikipedia account?! Also keep in mind that IP-editors are certainly affected by who we choose as admins, and if a candidate systematically mistreats IP-editors, we would want to know that at an RFA. Other participants at an RFA can use the input when deciding whether to support or oppose, as they see fit. And outright trolling (like in the current RFA) is most easily dealt with on an RFA page that is typically watched by dozens of experienced users,, admins, and bureaucrats who can revert, block, or protect (ideally for very short periods) if necessary. Also second what Floq said. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong oppose'''. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes in its remit the ability to comment on RfAs. We (generally) do nothing preemptive to stop IPs vandalizing articles so why should this be different? [[User:Philg88|<span style="color:#3a23e2; font-weight:bold; text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;"> Philg88 </span>]]<sup>♦[[User_talk:Philg88|talk]]</sup> 16:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Strong oppose'''. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes in its remit the ability to comment on RfAs. We (generally) do nothing preemptive to stop IPs vandalizing articles so why should this be different? [[User:Philg88|<span style="color:#3a23e2; font-weight:bold; text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;"> Philg88 </span>]]<sup>♦[[User_talk:Philg88|talk]]</sup> 16:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''': Electing an administrator is a privilege far greater than just making edits. I think any editor who wishes to even comment in the process should register. It is not like having to provide documents to cross a border or registering to vote. [[User:Fylbecatulous|<b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b>]] [[User talk:Fylbecatulous|<b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b>]] 16:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:47, 7 June 2015
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
Current time: 22:50:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Some kind of reminderbot or mass messaging for RFAs in progress?
I have missed a couple of RFA's lately that I would have liked to have commented on. My fault, because I sometimes take it off my watchlist. Would it be possible, (or useful) to create a reminderbot for those interested in RFA voting who may be missing a run, or to put it up as a general banner on the mainpage, or as a mass messaging subject for those interested who may miss a run? It may increase participation as a side effect, which would probably be good. Colleagues wishing to be reminded could sign up to a bot for instance. I certainly would. Regards, Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- You could put {{User:TParis/RfX_Report}} on your userpage or talk page. –xenotalk 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! A classic case of looking but not seeing. The RfA status table is everywhere. Trout at will. Irondome (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Have the ethical implications of watchlisting RfAs ever been debated? - Pointillist (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Can you expand on that extremely interesting point? What do you see as the negative and positive ethical implications of watchlisting RfAs? Irondome (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I presume you mean watchlisting an RfA that does not yet exist. I don't see how that is an ethical problem. If you interact with someone here and it becomes painfully obvious they are ill suited to becoming an administrator, it would be a good thing to watchlist their RfA so that when it comes up you can voice your opinion. Contrastingly, if you find someone to be particularly well suited to being an administrator, you can do the opposite. I see no issue with this. Tangentially; I would like to see a feature where you could record notes for yourself, not publicly viewable, indicating why you watchlisted something. I have over 1700 things on my watchlist, and much of it I do not remember why. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I was wondering whether there is any existing discussion or essay that might help me organize my thoughts about watchlisting. Hammersoft's editor-specific approach is one scenario to consider. More broadly, is it desirable that editors who enjoy the dramah of RfA get automatically notified whenever one starts, even if they have no prior connection with the candidate? And then there is the question whether watchlisting is in general a good thing. I used to clear my entire watchlist at least once a year to avoid feeling that I "own" my prior edits (unfortunately I contribute so little nowadays that's almost irrelevant). Are long-standing editors who permanently watchlist articles a significant bar to motivating new editors, or are they the only thing standing between us and chaos? Without watchlisting, Wikipedia would probably have very different models for onboarding new editors and preventing vandalism. Has this been debated anywhere? - Pointillist (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- To the general point of RfAs; no notification system is needed. The WP:RFA mainpage can be watchlisted, as it changes (almost) only when there is a new nomination. That counts as a notification system so long as you check your watchlist periodically. As to the other points, this drifts off topic from RfA so I'll comment only briefly; Wikipedia editorship in general is in decline and has been for some time now. There are many pages (an administrator can tell you how many) that are not watched at all, and likely a much larger swath that are notionally watched but in practice not watched (dormant accounts). Within this context, any watching seems positive. The model of dependency on editors who know a subject and are watching has and is failing. I see things change in recent changes, and it doesn't look like vandalism at first pass. I'd have to research to find out if it is wrong information or not, or if the edit is fixing wrong information. If I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, that could take some time. Many times, I just don't bother; takes too long. I think the quantity of subtle vandalism is going up, and the ability to fight it is going down. As editorship declines, the quality of the project declines. Ok, I'm rambling too much :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the lack of watchers is probably a bigger issue than ownership issues. The key problem is that without sufficient participants in a discussion to establish consensus, a disagreement between editors cannot get resolved. Accordingly, there is a disincentive to follow guidelines and not edit war, because the page remains stuck with the content of whoever edited it last. There is also a disincentive to edit less popular articles (which are precisely those that need more help), since disagreements on them cannot get easily resolved. isaacl (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. This is a reality that the Foundation refuses to address. It's been a problem for quite some time now, and one that continues to get worse. The Foundation just sticks their collective heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away. For several years now they've hoped that someday real soon now editorship will go back up. It's idiocy, but that's what they do. They need to develop content management models that do not depend upon even static editorship (much less increasing editorship, which will never happen), but do work within a declining editorship environment. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- To the general point of RfAs; no notification system is needed. The WP:RFA mainpage can be watchlisted, as it changes (almost) only when there is a new nomination. That counts as a notification system so long as you check your watchlist periodically. As to the other points, this drifts off topic from RfA so I'll comment only briefly; Wikipedia editorship in general is in decline and has been for some time now. There are many pages (an administrator can tell you how many) that are not watched at all, and likely a much larger swath that are notionally watched but in practice not watched (dormant accounts). Within this context, any watching seems positive. The model of dependency on editors who know a subject and are watching has and is failing. I see things change in recent changes, and it doesn't look like vandalism at first pass. I'd have to research to find out if it is wrong information or not, or if the edit is fixing wrong information. If I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, that could take some time. Many times, I just don't bother; takes too long. I think the quantity of subtle vandalism is going up, and the ability to fight it is going down. As editorship declines, the quality of the project declines. Ok, I'm rambling too much :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Those are all excellent points. Looking back at the early history of Wikipedia the idea that "anyone can edit" didn't actually necessitate contributor anonymity—that was a gamble that there'd be sufficient good-faith volunteers to fix vandalism and reverse ill-informed edits. Over the years, that reservoir of goodwill has been depleted. Imagine watchlists don't exist in Wikipedia 2.0, or they exist but few editors use them, what other mechanisms might be feasible? - Pointillist (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- A development branch of Wikipedia (what we currently edit), a branch to incubate articles towards release, and a release branch. The release branch would not be editable by anyone. The development branch would be editable by anyone. The incubation branch would be editable only by very long established editors, and there role would be limited to fixing known errors prior to release. Allow feedback mechanisms on release branch so the general public can place requests for updates, note changes that need to be made, etc. The longer we wait to do something vaguely akin to this, the more damage the project incurs from declining editorship, the more difficult it will be to get to a stable release. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's a fascinating suggestion. Have you canvassed it elsewhere? - Pointillist (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. Please feel free to do so. Though, I strongly expect such an idea will get shot down before it ever comes anywhere near flight. The people in authority here are very, very reluctant to change anything. I sometimes think I could show them the wheel and note what a great invention it is, and they would criticize it as difficult to implement, too costly, not well suited to modern needs, etc. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually a similar schemes/ideas were already discussed and partially declined and in particular the WMF didn't seem to like it that much. See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions including variations of it which probably was the most comprehensive effort so far.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I like Hammersoft's wheel analogy but the fly in the ointment is the WMF, not the volunteer commubity. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I was wondering whether there is any existing discussion or essay that might help me organize my thoughts about watchlisting. Hammersoft's editor-specific approach is one scenario to consider. More broadly, is it desirable that editors who enjoy the dramah of RfA get automatically notified whenever one starts, even if they have no prior connection with the candidate? And then there is the question whether watchlisting is in general a good thing. I used to clear my entire watchlist at least once a year to avoid feeling that I "own" my prior edits (unfortunately I contribute so little nowadays that's almost irrelevant). Are long-standing editors who permanently watchlist articles a significant bar to motivating new editors, or are they the only thing standing between us and chaos? Without watchlisting, Wikipedia would probably have very different models for onboarding new editors and preventing vandalism. Has this been debated anywhere? - Pointillist (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Have the ethical implications of watchlisting RfAs ever been debated? - Pointillist (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! A classic case of looking but not seeing. The RfA status table is everywhere. Trout at will. Irondome (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Clear as mud
Hey--maybe one of you kind souls can fix poor old Ritchie333's nomination. Some red flag came up saying "Please substitute the parser function immediately" but I don't know what that means, and there was no "subst" with brackets around to remove. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I may have fixed it but I'm not sure. Please check whether I did it correctly--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I do wish someone would take a look at the instructions that appear when you are about to transclude an RfA nomination to the page. In my case, I read an instruction as saying "first transclude, then change the date to a week from today" - and the result was that my RfA transcluded with a label saying that closure was imminent, since I hadn't changed the date. Now it sounds as if something weird happened with Ritchie's transclusion also. I don't even know where a person can look to find those instructions - they appear when you are in the act of transcluding. But if somebody techie enough to find them could take a look at them, I think it would be a good idea. This is a more widespread problem than you might think. While I was learning how to wield the mop, I found that a lot of instructions - for example at New Admin School - were outdated. I actually corrected a couple of them myself, even though I was the greenest admin on the block. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Based on your description, you are describing the instructions found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate yourself ("Once you have submitted the RfA, go to the top of the page and edit the end date to reflect 7 days AFTER the day you submitted it, by following the directions in the header source code."). QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds like the instructions. I believe they are mistaken. Shouldn't they say before submitting the RfA? I know that I followed those instructions and wound up listed on the RfA page as "closure imminent ". One of my nominators immediately fixed it but I felt silly. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I feel like those
directions in the header source code
should be somewhere other than the header source code as well, so that people know what to do beforehand without having to dig it out. ansh666 21:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)- Please read my description of the problems I had with this process. The instructions have been improved a bit since then, but if the understanding of how to set up timing mechanisms is something that editors should know, shouldn't there be WP:Timers or maybe a section in Wikipedia:Transclusion explaining it? Also, after reading the warning about dire consequences of making any errors at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, a testing page for practising the transclusion of an RfA without the stress of expected perfection on the first try would be helpful. After all, it's not necessary to be an admin onself to nominate someone.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've not tried this myself but it sounds like a process that could use some clerking to help keep it straight. Would the clerks have to be admins too? If not, the position might be a good one for aspiring admins who could use it to demonstrate competence in managing such complexity. Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that transcluding the nomination is supposed to be a kind of demonstration that the prospective nominee knows what they are doing, so there doesn't appear to be a role for a clerk in the process. (Generally the nominee is expected to transclude the nomination themselves; Anne was unusually nice in doing it for her nominee.) The paragraph Anne linked to above says "The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination. A number of RfA contributors look askance at nominees who do not follow the instructions properly. Administrators are expected to read and follow policies. The inability to do this here is a bad sign. If something is unclear, then ask the person who nominated you, put a message on the discussion page of WP:RFA, or ask a user who has nominated someone else. Avoid mistakes rather than making them and then fixing them." That has an ironic ring to it, because the nomination process does NOT have "clear instructions", per the problems described here by numerous competent admins. I really think someone needs to look at those instructions and fix them. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what position you are referring to. Do you mean the test page? If so, it would just be a spot where people could try transcluding blank RfAs and then deleting them again. The only management might be a bot that regularly reset the page to a default state in case it was left in disarray by the testers. Or do you mean someone who transcludes RfAs for others? About demonstrating competence: In my opinion, it is more important that admins be sensible and familiar with policies than that they be technical experts. An admin with little technical knowledge who knows enough to avoid areas out of his/her skill level or ask for help when appropriate, and is good at (for example) closing discussions based on policy and resolving disputes, is going to be just as beneficial to the encyclopedia as a technical wizard.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Count me in the list of technically competent people who thought the instructions were unnecessarily convoluted. It seems to be a case of plain old bad design; I don't see a way to follow the instructions as written and not generate the big red error. The instructions say to transclude first and then start the timer, and you can't do both at once, so you'll have a giant YOU JUST SCREWED EVERYTHING UP AND EVERYONE IS LAUGHING AT HOW DUMB YOU ARE staring at you until you make the second edit. Which, of course, you couldn't have previewed or figured out in advance unless you closely inspected Template:RfA. Getting this right on the first try is about as relevant to routine admin tasks as a physics exam is to a baseball game. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what position you are referring to. Do you mean the test page? If so, it would just be a spot where people could try transcluding blank RfAs and then deleting them again. The only management might be a bot that regularly reset the page to a default state in case it was left in disarray by the testers. Or do you mean someone who transcludes RfAs for others? About demonstrating competence: In my opinion, it is more important that admins be sensible and familiar with policies than that they be technical experts. An admin with little technical knowledge who knows enough to avoid areas out of his/her skill level or ask for help when appropriate, and is good at (for example) closing discussions based on policy and resolving disputes, is going to be just as beneficial to the encyclopedia as a technical wizard.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that transcluding the nomination is supposed to be a kind of demonstration that the prospective nominee knows what they are doing, so there doesn't appear to be a role for a clerk in the process. (Generally the nominee is expected to transclude the nomination themselves; Anne was unusually nice in doing it for her nominee.) The paragraph Anne linked to above says "The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination. A number of RfA contributors look askance at nominees who do not follow the instructions properly. Administrators are expected to read and follow policies. The inability to do this here is a bad sign. If something is unclear, then ask the person who nominated you, put a message on the discussion page of WP:RFA, or ask a user who has nominated someone else. Avoid mistakes rather than making them and then fixing them." That has an ironic ring to it, because the nomination process does NOT have "clear instructions", per the problems described here by numerous competent admins. I really think someone needs to look at those instructions and fix them. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've not tried this myself but it sounds like a process that could use some clerking to help keep it straight. Would the clerks have to be admins too? If not, the position might be a good one for aspiring admins who could use it to demonstrate competence in managing such complexity. Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please read my description of the problems I had with this process. The instructions have been improved a bit since then, but if the understanding of how to set up timing mechanisms is something that editors should know, shouldn't there be WP:Timers or maybe a section in Wikipedia:Transclusion explaining it? Also, after reading the warning about dire consequences of making any errors at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, a testing page for practising the transclusion of an RfA without the stress of expected perfection on the first try would be helpful. After all, it's not necessary to be an admin onself to nominate someone.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I feel like those
- Yes, that sounds like the instructions. I believe they are mistaken. Shouldn't they say before submitting the RfA? I know that I followed those instructions and wound up listed on the RfA page as "closure imminent ". One of my nominators immediately fixed it but I felt silly. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Based on your description, you are describing the instructions found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate yourself ("Once you have submitted the RfA, go to the top of the page and edit the end date to reflect 7 days AFTER the day you submitted it, by following the directions in the header source code."). QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I do wish someone would take a look at the instructions that appear when you are about to transclude an RfA nomination to the page. In my case, I read an instruction as saying "first transclude, then change the date to a week from today" - and the result was that my RfA transcluded with a label saying that closure was imminent, since I hadn't changed the date. Now it sounds as if something weird happened with Ritchie's transclusion also. I don't even know where a person can look to find those instructions - they appear when you are in the act of transcluding. But if somebody techie enough to find them could take a look at them, I think it would be a good idea. This is a more widespread problem than you might think. While I was learning how to wield the mop, I found that a lot of instructions - for example at New Admin School - were outdated. I actually corrected a couple of them myself, even though I was the greenest admin on the block. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's an old cliche, but "me too". I'd always got the impression that RfA transclusions were insanely complex affairs and akin to a puzzle to test somebody's admin abilities. In actual fact, they're the same as creating an AfD or DYK nomination by hand, but with a small additional time-dependent template substitution thrown in. I'm sure I could have done it, but as everyone else has said, I did not want to run the risk of ballsing it up and taking 3-4 edits (all with a summary of "fix" or "fix again" or "this should work") because I thought there would be a peanut gallery pouncing on it, saying "Oppose - can't even transclude his own RfA properly. Not fit for purpose". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings on this: the complexity of transcluding an RfA may be helping to prevent trolls and other clearly unsuitable candidates from wasting our (and their) time - although some still manage it, while I lean towards the opinion that transclusion, particularly of templates, is such an everyday routine process for admins that they should know how to do it (anyone tried to manually start or close an AfD, just for example?). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I remember the days when there were no scripts for starting and closing AfDs, it were all fields round here, you could leave your front door open, and you could buy fish and chips for the whole family and still have change from £5. To be honest though, it wasn't difficult, just tedious. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I remember the days when the fish&chip van used to come onto our estate and I could get a portion of chips for a tanner: "Six o' chips please!" There weren't so many chippies and take-aways in those days, just as I'm sure the number of AfDs to close has increased dramatically. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, editors tranclude templates and other page elements all the time. However, the RfA tranclusion is more complicated because of the clock-setting aspect, which I have never had to use before or since, and seems to have tripped up a lot of people who went on to become competent admins. There is no explanation of this tricky bit WP:Transclusion, and a candidate or nominator will likely think they are ready for the transclusion if they understand that page. It's like a trick question on an exam so that no one will get a perfect grade. Also, Kudpung, you seem to be saying that in order to save the nuisance of dealing with truly unsuitable candidates, we should prevent candidates whose strength is in people-related areas from applying. But we need more admins willing to close discussions and resolve disputes.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I also find tone of that whole cited section above somewhat irritating. It probably turns potential candidates (included well suited ones) away rather than attracting him. As long as we have more than enough admins that might not matter in practice that much and just be a minor irritation but if we're ever in need fr admins that is certainly not helping.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Anne, No one, but absolutely no one on en.Wiki is more acutely aware of the problems surrounding adminship and its RfA than I am. I'm in my 5th year of looking for solutions and if the complex transclusion is keeping away trolls and idiots it's doing an excellent job. Problem is too many of those simpletons are aparently very capable indeed of transluding their crap RfAs. Thus, IMHO, anyone with the minimum intelligence to be an admin and all it entails, should not find it difficult to transclude thair own RfA. However, because it's a kind of sport to take people's comments out of context, I will hasten to add that I wouldn't dream of opposing a candidate just because their nominator or someobe else transcluded the RfA. At the moment there are more important issues at stake such as closing down AfC once and for all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- What kind of trolls is supposed to keep away? I mean is or was their any issue with actual troll rfas? Was the page swamped with pseudo rfas of people who didn't be admins or who were clearly unsuited?--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Kmhkmh, check out some RfAs and you'll soon see, although many of them get deleted as nonsense before the voting starts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Where do i find them? The only thing I've looked at is Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological) which doesn't look that bad.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I get the idea, but I'm not really sold on this argument. Relative to the time wasted by trolls and clueless newbies creating no-hoper articles, the occasional no-hoper RfA is a drop in the bucket. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Where do i find them? The only thing I've looked at is Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological) which doesn't look that bad.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Kmhkmh, check out some RfAs and you'll soon see, although many of them get deleted as nonsense before the voting starts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with saying that is that the process of transclusion itself, which is often what keeps away inexperienced editors, is not what we're talking about here. It's the timer clock thingy (I don't know how it works either, given my obvious lack of having transcluded an RfA), which to my knowledge is not used anywhere on this project other than here at RfA. I don't see how it's helpful in any way to bury it that deep. The people who aren't serious or experienced enough aren't typically going to read or comprehend the instructions anyways. ansh666 10:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- What kind of trolls is supposed to keep away? I mean is or was their any issue with actual troll rfas? Was the page swamped with pseudo rfas of people who didn't be admins or who were clearly unsuited?--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, editors tranclude templates and other page elements all the time. However, the RfA tranclusion is more complicated because of the clock-setting aspect, which I have never had to use before or since, and seems to have tripped up a lot of people who went on to become competent admins. There is no explanation of this tricky bit WP:Transclusion, and a candidate or nominator will likely think they are ready for the transclusion if they understand that page. It's like a trick question on an exam so that no one will get a perfect grade. Also, Kudpung, you seem to be saying that in order to save the nuisance of dealing with truly unsuitable candidates, we should prevent candidates whose strength is in people-related areas from applying. But we need more admins willing to close discussions and resolve disputes.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
All in all, I found my RfA to be a far better experience than I had ever assumed it would be when you cross compare it against the examples in Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Perhaps it's because the community has decided that opposition needs well found and reasoned arguments, perhaps it's because everyone else had higher expectations of my abilities than I do, perhaps it's because I ignored all vote comments (all of which, from all sides, were fair comment) .... or perhaps it's a mix of all of these and more. Whatever the case, I can only say from recent events that it seems that RfA is less of a big deal than it once might have been. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- It was because you were a top quality candidate, simple as. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, the real question there is, what took you so long? ;) Really - if you take out Sarek and me as oddball cases, all the recent successful candidates were obviously qualified ages before they actually ran. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the text of {{RfA/warn}} to make it slightly less scary, but this whole thing is set up to use a template that uses a template that uses a template that uses a template, and it's too far down the rabbit hole for me to do any more. I think it's {{substchecktop}} that makes it SCREAM AT YOU IN BIG RED LETTERS. But I'm not sure, and I think that template is used in more places than RFA, so I'm not going to screw with it.
In an attempt to automate this, with intricate template switches for every conceivable mistake, we've guaranteed that people are going to make those mistakes; it's an order of magnitude harder than if people just copied the format from an old RFA. I'm not going to get drawn into a long bikeshed conversation at WT:RFA - that way lies madness - but if you want my advice, delete about 95% of the templates used in this process, have more clearly formatted in-line comments, and make it more manual. It would be easier, quicker, and cleaner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:Kudpung, I'm all for keeping trolls and idiots away from RfA, as I'm sure we all are. What we are discussing here is a much simpler issue: a flaw in the transclusion process or its instructions, such that the initial attempt at transclusion does not display properly because it shows the wrong time. That flaw tripped me up; it or a similar flaw caused problems for Ritchie and Anne and probably others. We all got mopped anyhow, it wasn't a fatal flaw, but it shouldn't be there. All I'm asking for is instructions that, when followed, produce a clean transclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but anyone who was seemingly deserving of running for RFA, in my experience, hasn't had the difficulty of transcluding their RFA against them. I'm by no means an expert at templates and transclusion, but I'm fairly competent. On both of our RFAs, other editors lent a helping hand fixing a few little things here and there without any consequence to the process. The only times I've seem a lack of technical knowledge held against a candidate has been when they seemingly lacked experience and the RFA was only one of many examples. Mkdwtalk 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- The occasional no-hoper RfA is not a 'drop in the bucket' and I still contend that the complexity of RfA transclusion has the useful side effect of keeping the trolls at bay. However, at the end of the day it's a technical problem, rather than a policy issue that needs a grand debate, so the obvious solution is for someone with the time on their hands and the competence to sit down and completely rescript the whole RfA transclusion process. So instead of us all talking about it and getting nowhere (which is a common ailment of WP management), just someone please just do it or find someone who can. And then we can move on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but anyone who was seemingly deserving of running for RFA, in my experience, hasn't had the difficulty of transcluding their RFA against them. I'm by no means an expert at templates and transclusion, but I'm fairly competent. On both of our RFAs, other editors lent a helping hand fixing a few little things here and there without any consequence to the process. The only times I've seem a lack of technical knowledge held against a candidate has been when they seemingly lacked experience and the RFA was only one of many examples. Mkdwtalk 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking about something like this: (should open in edit window, so you can see the inline comments). Obviously could use some tweaking, but the general idea is get away from complicated nested templates and pre-formatted front matter (and resulting complicated instructions), and just let people fill in the blanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I just transcluded my own admin nomination yesterday and yes, the instructions were unclear enough that I had to go back to past nominations and look at diffs. It's not that complex, but it's really something you want to get perfect the first time, lest people start questioning how carefully you edit. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this, Neil. So here's another recent candidate - fully qualified to be an admin and coasting to an easy confirmation - who says the instructions were unclear. What is it going to take to get this fixed? I suggest that Floquenbeam should boldly implement his new instructions, since no one else has seemed to want to tackle it. Seriously, we have identified a real problem here, confirmed by many people; let's not just let the discussion expire and the problem continue indefinitely. If something isn't done, I will be tempted to replace the instructions I quoted above - "The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination" - with "The transclusion process is fucked up, so don't feel bad if you get it wrong the first time." --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have some comments regarding the tone of the proposed changes; before any changes are made, if there are no objections, I'd like to make a copy-editing pass. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Rfap and Template:Rfaf TfD
There's a proposal to merge Template:Rfap with Template:Rfaf, which might interest readers of this page. Alakzi (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard thread
A long discussion relevant to RfA is winding down now at WP:AN#On the brink of collapse. I offered to help with one job here, but I didn't get any response there, and if I put any energy at all into fixing the problem, then I'll probably have to give up my job as a serial closer. My thinking is: when someone says "I'd be an admin if only ...", people sometimes discount that, for various reasons. But if we survey the people who actually did become admins and ask them why they chose not to run, say, three months sooner than they did, it becomes harder to discount their feedback ... we did, after all, promote them, so if we weren't taking advantage of their services sooner, that might give some insight into why otherwise qualified people aren't running. Btw, we're now less than a week from the end of the month, so we know that as of June 1, only 5 first-time admins will have been promoted this year. That puts us on track to promote 12 for the year. Everyone knows that, for a variety of reasons, most admins aren't still grinding out a lot of admin work years after their initial promotion, so that figure of 12 represents some much smaller number of projected long-term heavy-duty admins that Wikipedia might pick up as a result of this year's promotions ... say, 3 or 4, max. Clearly there's something going on that's very different from the way things worked in our first decade, and I hope someone will generate some useful data, figure out what's going on, and file an RfC that deals with whatever the actual problems are. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would run, however it is highly unlikely that I would pass considering my first two attempts were complete failures. Plus, I'm nowhere near as active as some would like, although I never saw how inactivity correlated with poor admin decisions. I think, though I don't have any statistics for it, that wikipedia is not as popular as it was 4/5 years ago. That, and how RfA has a reputation for being brutal, stopping potential applicants. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- One big problem that I personally have encountered is that there are several non-admins that I believe are suitable for adminship and would offer to nominate, but I won't, as I don't want to see them get destroyed at RfA and leave, which would deprive us of their very useful service. So the problem isn't just with potential candidates not wanting to run, but potential nominators not wanting to nominate for the fear that the nominee will get their shit wrecked. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I believe this kind of argument is wearing rather thin nowadays. Whether we at WP:RFA2011 actually launched any formal proposals for change or not it certainly sent the right message to those who were determined to disrupt RfA and/or turn it into a drama fest; we're also more active now at telling the trolls where to go with their votes. I think it's more a case that some would-be nominators are afraid of losing face if their nominee fails to get the mop. However, with very few exceptions RfA does what it says on the tin.
- It's also interesting to note - something that WereSpielChequers might not yet have noticed - that participation in discussions here at WT:RfA has dropped in direct proportions year on year to the drop in promotions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Kudpung here, I'm just not seeing this broken soul destroying process that RfA keeps being referred to anymore. Sure it has a few issues here and there but when was the last time you say a drama filled RfA where a candidate who was good enough didn't receive the tools? Of the RfAs this year candidates have either received the tools or obviously not been qualified, of the two users who had debated RfAs one is still editing as strongly as before their RfA and though the other has dipped that's more likely because they're a student. I think the time of horrific RfAs has passed and I would encourage you to nominate a user if you think they would make good use of the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also should we be weary of those who want the mop? I don't know how Admin nomination process works, but those seeking power of the mop, might not always be the ones who are best in utilizing it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is no Admin nomination process. What there is, is completely informal. It's assumed that those who nominate a candidate will have done their homework. Most candidates with a strong nomination from a respected user will pass, though there have been a few surprising exceptions. Those who are seeking power of the mop are generally self-noms and they soon get caught out by the community, although that does not mean to say by any means that all self noms have a dubious agenda. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- If someone was seriously "seeking the power" they would get most of the boxes checked and then find a respected user to give them that strong nomination. Anyone with sufficient competence and self discipline to pull it off would probably end up making a good admin anyway. Monty845 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is no Admin nomination process. What there is, is completely informal. It's assumed that those who nominate a candidate will have done their homework. Most candidates with a strong nomination from a respected user will pass, though there have been a few surprising exceptions. Those who are seeking power of the mop are generally self-noms and they soon get caught out by the community, although that does not mean to say by any means that all self noms have a dubious agenda. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also should we be weary of those who want the mop? I don't know how Admin nomination process works, but those seeking power of the mop, might not always be the ones who are best in utilizing it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Kudpung here, I'm just not seeing this broken soul destroying process that RfA keeps being referred to anymore. Sure it has a few issues here and there but when was the last time you say a drama filled RfA where a candidate who was good enough didn't receive the tools? Of the RfAs this year candidates have either received the tools or obviously not been qualified, of the two users who had debated RfAs one is still editing as strongly as before their RfA and though the other has dipped that's more likely because they're a student. I think the time of horrific RfAs has passed and I would encourage you to nominate a user if you think they would make good use of the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's also interesting to note - something that WereSpielChequers might not yet have noticed - that participation in discussions here at WT:RfA has dropped in direct proportions year on year to the drop in promotions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
What is your strategy to learn about RfA candidates previously unknown to you?
The majority of new RfA candidates are unknown to me prior to their candidacy. I don't know how typical that is but my editing largely revolves around the technical maintaince and upkeep of the project rather that the content curation which may explain why. I'm curious how other editors, admins in particular, go about forming an educated opinion about the candidate and roughly how much time you typically are willing to invest in such a situation. I have my own way, I can mention later. If other people have wondered about this too, it might be worthwhile to craft a page with guidance about how to efficiently form a good opinion on candidates. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well I would look at the logs of the user to see if they have tried out and have some familiarity with features like uploading, moving, patrolling. Next I would look at deleted content to see successful nominations for deletion. However I would come down heavily on deletion nominations, that get deleted and then make a comeback. (bluelinked in deleted list). This should also show if the user uploads copyright violations. Also I may look at the last few hundred contributions to see if they are automated or significant. If automated, may as well divide the contribution number by 10, especially if they are from huggle. I expect to see at least one article created. Also the talk page for the user is important, to see what people complain about and also history to see if the user is hiding stuff. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Blue links in a list of deleted items may be redirects. But otherwise, you describe the routine proceedings to check the "track record" quite well, Graeme. One should also mention the AfD stats (there is a link in the RfA tool box) which is something that's viewed by many !voters, and causes at times controversy as to how evaluate them.
- I'm a bit surprised that if an editor flags an article for CSD on the basis of, for example, being a blatant copyvio or an attack page, and then it later gets recreated as a legitimate article, that you'd hold it against them. Similarly, what about articles that are deleted for WP:TOOSOON, but later get created when significant coverage exists? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Generally speaking if a user is totally unknown to me I ignore the RFA and don't comment. If I've seen them around and/or interacted with them I base my !vote largely on my knowledge of them and their answers to the questions. I do try to look at a selection of random diffs from their edit history, but I don't dig too deeply. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Like you, I usually !vote only if I know the person, or if the vote count is in the "yellow" range. If the outcome is obvious I usually don't pile on unless I have previous experience with them. In the cases where I do decide to !vote, I look for a clean block log and a goodly number of contributions (I would hesitate to support anyone under 10,000). I like to see significant content creation, although I will make exceptions if the person has focused on a particular Wikipedia function and intends to work mainly in that area. I look for helpful AfD contributions, or helpful work in whatever they have identified as their specialty. I look at their answers to questions and people's comments at the RfA, particularly to see if the opposes seem valid. I look for evidence that they have a calm and civil demeanor, that is important to me. If I have a pre-inclination, it is to support. We need admins, and they don't have to be perfect. Oh, and I do take into account who the nominators are; if they are nominated by highly respected admins who have a reputation for vetting their nominees thoroughly, that inclines me toward "support". --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jason Quinn, I would not favor drawing up a "guidance page" for how to judge candidates. IMO one of the strengths of the system is that different people evaluate the candidate in different ways. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- With exception of Wikibreaks and the rare times when I might have missed one that was closed early or I wasn't near an Internet connection for over 7 days, I have systematically voted on every RfA over the past 5 years. My criteria are known to be among the most stringent but they are flexible and on that page I already say a lot on what I think about RfA voting in general (It was the basis for my launching of the WP:RFA2011 project). Depending on who the candidate is and who the nominator(s) are, I spend between 20 minutes and one day researching for my vote.
- Like MelanieN, I do not feel it would be useful or even appropriate to draw up a guide on how to judge candidates. If it were, I would have written it but all I wrote was WP:Advice for RfA voters which is intended to address voter behaviour, particularly of new users.
- A fairly complete list of the criteria of regular RfA voters is linked at the bottom of WP:Advice for RfA candidates. I think it's good that we all have different criteria, but the RfA process is marred by the high number of votes that come from one-off or drive-by participants, especially the fan/vengeance voters, obvious trolls, and those who just don't have a clue what adminship and RfA is all about. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I go back and read their interactions with other editors, especially newer ones that don't understand policy well. That generally tells me everything I need to know about their understanding of policy and their manner of dealing with people, the latter being more important because the former is more easily learned. Chuy1530 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Question
When did this become OK? I have redacted it. I didn't know that it is appropriate for someone with the mop to make a negative statement of myself for making a non-support statement. When did this become appropriate?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Since when is saying that a statement says a lot about a person a negative statement? It did say a lot about you, the redaction even more. Chillum 06:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is an argument against the editor, and not the edit, which based on the image on Spartaz's userpage is not on the high order on "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement". My point is the subject of the AfD by their edit count does a great deal of defending certain articles, but doesn't do a great deal of defending other articles (even if they occasionally do so (just not nearly as often)). To say this is why I am neutral, but not opposed, is my opinion.
- I do not see why every oppose or neutral opinion must be challenged. It would not be appropriate, or it appears not to be the norm, for there to be a strong force of editors attempting to rebut even a few support opinions, then why must there be a strong effort to go after those editors with neutral or oppose opinions.
- Perhaps it would be better than no rebut attempt occur at all. And let the opinions stand on their own. Unless the idea is make editors think they have made a poor judgement, or that they should not be attempting to contribute to the project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I've seen rebuttals for both opposers and supporters. It largely depends whether you fall into the minority of public opinion or not. Additionally, I've seen plenty of editors change their position based upon the subsequent discussion. Further, when "challenges" are made, a lot of people including myself, follow those discussions and in some cases reformulate their position on the candidate. When the community is asked to review an editors body of work to determine if there is a consensus of trust, especially for editors with years of editing history, then not everything can be captured or properly portrayed. Since candidates are largely discouraged from "clarifying" situations that have caused editors to oppose, and the very process of consensus usually requires consensus, then I think there needs to be a mechanism in place. Mkdwtalk 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The "neutral" comment at the RfA was challenged because it expressed a terrible idea: that an editor cannot be assumed trustworthy of the admin tools merely based on their set of favorite articles to edit. This by itself shows very poor judgment but, worse still, the comment obviously had a political bias and was even suggestive of bigotry. It was so confoundedly bad —and violates the free, open, and neutral spirit of Wikipedia so egregiously—that that Abecedare assumed it must have just been poorly worded and therefore offered a gesture of good faith by asking for clarification. Another editor, MastCell, merely took the meaning of the comment at face value and responded by saying the comment "says a lot about RightCowLeftCoast" while seconded the call for clarification. This in no way qualifies as a personal attack under any reasonable definition. Taking such offense that RightCowLeftCoast redacted it from the record shows these things: very thin skin, and unusual quickness to censure others' views and therefore more poor judgment. And since it was confirmed that the quality of the edits were not being questioned ("the edits are fine"), it turns out that MastCell was right. By the way, RightCowLeftCoast, I looked into the edits by the candidate at Talk:Barack Obama. They fall somewhere around #50 in rank by number of edits on that page and a large number of the edits (only 86) are just reversions of vandalism; so whatever implied accusation you were making with "heavily involved" is tenuous too. I am a little bit stunned that you feel like you were being personally attacked after making your comment. You are way off base here and I think you should reflect on it. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jason said it better than I could have, so I'll simply endorse his post. For the record, RightCowLeftCoast removed my comment—which was obviously not a "personal attack"—in violation of the relevant policy. He didn't bother to notify me of the removal, nor of his decision to discuss my fitness for adminship here, which likewise breaches site etiquette and basic common courtesy. (I became aware of this discussion when Jason linked my username above). I don't want to belabor the point any further, since it's a distraction from NeilN's RfA, but this is very poor behavior and shows poor judgement on multiple levels. MastCell Talk 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry if MastCell is of the opinion that this is a personal attack, but it is as much a question about their statement as their statement was a question about my statement. Apparently I cannot withhold support of someone at an RfA based on the statements above.
- By heavily involved it is due to the fact that the editor who is the subject of the RfA had a large number (based on their edit counts, and not the counts of the page total) of talk page edits on those particular pages.
- I sincerely hope that "free, open, and neutral" also means tolerating opinions that a specific editor may not agree with; yet my reasoning for not opposing, and not supporting was called out, and my reasoning questioned. I can be neutral about potential admins while not being opposed to them, unless we're saying that neutral is no longer a valid opinion to hold; if it is, then this needs to be stated clearly.
- I am accused of bigotry by Jason Quinn. How am I bigoted if I am neutral, but not opposed. It is a tolerant view IMHO. When did support/acceptance=non-bigotry? Are we all suppose to only think a certain way, or remain silent if our opinions do not agree with the majority. If it is, that does not make it "free, open, and neutral".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jason said it better than I could have, so I'll simply endorse his post. For the record, RightCowLeftCoast removed my comment—which was obviously not a "personal attack"—in violation of the relevant policy. He didn't bother to notify me of the removal, nor of his decision to discuss my fitness for adminship here, which likewise breaches site etiquette and basic common courtesy. (I became aware of this discussion when Jason linked my username above). I don't want to belabor the point any further, since it's a distraction from NeilN's RfA, but this is very poor behavior and shows poor judgement on multiple levels. MastCell Talk 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The "neutral" comment at the RfA was challenged because it expressed a terrible idea: that an editor cannot be assumed trustworthy of the admin tools merely based on their set of favorite articles to edit. This by itself shows very poor judgment but, worse still, the comment obviously had a political bias and was even suggestive of bigotry. It was so confoundedly bad —and violates the free, open, and neutral spirit of Wikipedia so egregiously—that that Abecedare assumed it must have just been poorly worded and therefore offered a gesture of good faith by asking for clarification. Another editor, MastCell, merely took the meaning of the comment at face value and responded by saying the comment "says a lot about RightCowLeftCoast" while seconded the call for clarification. This in no way qualifies as a personal attack under any reasonable definition. Taking such offense that RightCowLeftCoast redacted it from the record shows these things: very thin skin, and unusual quickness to censure others' views and therefore more poor judgment. And since it was confirmed that the quality of the edits were not being questioned ("the edits are fine"), it turns out that MastCell was right. By the way, RightCowLeftCoast, I looked into the edits by the candidate at Talk:Barack Obama. They fall somewhere around #50 in rank by number of edits on that page and a large number of the edits (only 86) are just reversions of vandalism; so whatever implied accusation you were making with "heavily involved" is tenuous too. I am a little bit stunned that you feel like you were being personally attacked after making your comment. You are way off base here and I think you should reflect on it. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
RFCs
I'm pretty sure I want to get more involved. It's asking a lot of Wikipedians to let a closer get involved in any way at all, but it's worked for me before; please say something if you object. I'm going to do absolutely the minimum that seems to need doing, then sit back and see if anything happens. It seems to me the first two steps are gathering data that AFAIK we don't have: how many of the admins who returned from inactivity (i.e. made 30 edits over two months) over the last half year are helping with potential backlogs? And why do so few people run at RfA compared to previous years? (We've got lots of anecdotes, but as social scientists like to say, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" ... to get an answer that people are going to buy, we need to ask a lot of people and tally the answers.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Dank. Feel free to nudge me if I can be of any help. I'm currently on a bit of a nomination spree (or rather a nomination request spree) - and would happily help out with other adminship work. WormTT(talk) 11:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Dave! Consider yourself nudged. This is a diff of the list of active admins since Nov 30. (I'm using that date because the chart here is supposedly good up through November.) For some reason, the net number of active admins stopped dropping over the last six months ... so the question is how many of the admins in that diff who returned from inactivity have been having an impact over these six months on backlogs and potential backlogs. Some judgment calls are needed ... do you want to tackle this? - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll put something together, see if it's what you're after. WormTT(talk) 12:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Right, well after a quick look - I've got a bit of data which might be a starting point - I've displayed it to the right in a graph. Rather than looking at the active admins returning, I've looked at the whole admin group for the past 3 years. The number is how many logged administrator actions have been taken by the entire administrator corp each month for the past 3 years. It's remained fairly consistent throughout 2014, at about 75k per month. Yet, this year, it's picked up to over 100k per month. The massive outlier is an auto script for user-renaming, but otherwise actions have definitely picked up. WormTT(talk) 13:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- As new adminbots come online, I suspect we'll have all kinds of spurts of activity, but that's not where I'm going. The common thread in all the discussions about backlogs and potential backlogs is that there's no common thread: no two people agree in all cases what to do, who should do it, who's likely to do it, or when we can afford to let it slide. Per the part of WP:CONSENSUS that deals with policy, we need a stronger-than-usual consensus in any RfC to be able to do anything at all ... and that's never going to happen if we keep picking RfC questions that everyone disagrees on. This isn't a criticism ... depending on how the first RfC goes, I might be able to say in the closing statement that there's evidence that we've handled this whole mess better than people generally give the community credit for. OTOH, if we're looking at some simple math, there's a chance we can get broad consensus. Last November, we had the simple math ... we were gaining 22-ish admins a year, of which we could expect maybe 7 or fewer to stay focused for years on the critical admin workload, against the roughly 80 admins (net, whether they did admin work or not) who became inactive each year. No one has even suggested that those numbers are sustainable going forward. Over the last 6 months, two surprising things have happened: that 22 per year has dropped to a projected total of around 12, but the rate of net admin attrition (as measured by editing, not button-pushing) has dropped to zero. That might mean that formerly active admins have heard the call and they're coming back to help out in droves ... in which case, we're golden (for now) ... or it might mean they're coming back just to edit, in which case the problem that was significant in November is twice as bad now ... or something in between. If we don't have the answer to that question, then we don't know whether there's a problem to solve. If anyone wants to frame the question a different way, that would be great ... as long as you're framing it so that a broad cross-section of Wikipedians will immediately grasp that there is (or isn't) a long-term problem that does (or doesn't) need action of some sort. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Btw, my projection of 12 new admins for this year is for first-time admins ... we've also had 3 former admins pass RfA this year, more than usual. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- As new adminbots come online, I suspect we'll have all kinds of spurts of activity, but that's not where I'm going. The common thread in all the discussions about backlogs and potential backlogs is that there's no common thread: no two people agree in all cases what to do, who should do it, who's likely to do it, or when we can afford to let it slide. Per the part of WP:CONSENSUS that deals with policy, we need a stronger-than-usual consensus in any RfC to be able to do anything at all ... and that's never going to happen if we keep picking RfC questions that everyone disagrees on. This isn't a criticism ... depending on how the first RfC goes, I might be able to say in the closing statement that there's evidence that we've handled this whole mess better than people generally give the community credit for. OTOH, if we're looking at some simple math, there's a chance we can get broad consensus. Last November, we had the simple math ... we were gaining 22-ish admins a year, of which we could expect maybe 7 or fewer to stay focused for years on the critical admin workload, against the roughly 80 admins (net, whether they did admin work or not) who became inactive each year. No one has even suggested that those numbers are sustainable going forward. Over the last 6 months, two surprising things have happened: that 22 per year has dropped to a projected total of around 12, but the rate of net admin attrition (as measured by editing, not button-pushing) has dropped to zero. That might mean that formerly active admins have heard the call and they're coming back to help out in droves ... in which case, we're golden (for now) ... or it might mean they're coming back just to edit, in which case the problem that was significant in November is twice as bad now ... or something in between. If we don't have the answer to that question, then we don't know whether there's a problem to solve. If anyone wants to frame the question a different way, that would be great ... as long as you're framing it so that a broad cross-section of Wikipedians will immediately grasp that there is (or isn't) a long-term problem that does (or doesn't) need action of some sort. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Right, well after a quick look - I've got a bit of data which might be a starting point - I've displayed it to the right in a graph. Rather than looking at the active admins returning, I've looked at the whole admin group for the past 3 years. The number is how many logged administrator actions have been taken by the entire administrator corp each month for the past 3 years. It's remained fairly consistent throughout 2014, at about 75k per month. Yet, this year, it's picked up to over 100k per month. The massive outlier is an auto script for user-renaming, but otherwise actions have definitely picked up. WormTT(talk) 13:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll put something together, see if it's what you're after. WormTT(talk) 12:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Dave! Consider yourself nudged. This is a diff of the list of active admins since Nov 30. (I'm using that date because the chart here is supposedly good up through November.) For some reason, the net number of active admins stopped dropping over the last six months ... so the question is how many of the admins in that diff who returned from inactivity have been having an impact over these six months on backlogs and potential backlogs. Some judgment calls are needed ... do you want to tackle this? - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- In my case, I was of the view that the longer you spend on Wikipedia, the more disputes you will uncover, and inevitably build up a closet of skeletons just from forthrightly stating your views. Things didn't turn out as bad as I thought, but there are other candidates who I think would make fine admins but aren't interested in RfA because of concern over past enemies turning up and throwing spanners in the works. Plus, there's a group of people who are perceived as hating admins (I think it's more hating admins who don't contribute to content but block first and ask questions later myself), and nobody really wants to join that "hit list". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. So, multiple choice or free-form? Do we come up with a list of likely answers, including those, to present to the people we're asking, or just ask why they didn't run, and sort the answers into categories later? There are advantages both ways. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Dank, as I've mentioned before, I support your getting involved in guiding discussion, but if you do, I believe you should let someone else close the discussion. isaacl (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- If things look promising, we could easily get two more closers ... I'd like that, and it would be fine with me if they make the calls. I'm not going to push for any outcome. But I want to be talking with the closers while they're making the calls ... one reason is that I've read everything everyone has said on this subject for many years, and I think it's easy to slip up in a closing statement if you don't know what's going to push people's "buttons". So ... I want to be on the closing team. I'm happy to stop talking now if that's what it takes. This isn't my first rodeo, and I have a sense of how much rope I've got to operate with (in general, maybe not in this case) ... see for instance User:Dank/RFCs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The answer to the first question looks like it can probably be obtained by a straight analysis of data from Admin stats. But how will data be gathered to answer the second question (about why more experienced editors aren't submitting to RfA's, esp. compared to pre-2010)? --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- [inserted] The problem is that people haven't been running for adminship, maybe because of one of Ritchie's reasons above, or they didn't think they'd pass, or they didn't think they had the proper training and experience, or they were happier in whatever niche they had found on Wikipedia than they would be doing admin work (particularly if they had waited long enough that their RfA was likely to go smoothly). I don't have any preference on the polling method ... I just don't want us to waste time trying to solve a problem that turns out to be the wrong problem. All of those different reasons would call for different fixes, if it turns out a fix is needed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The first question posed here is probably simple enough to answer, but what do you do with that answer? The community has no meaningful leverage when it comes to the activities of people who aren't participating in it. Might as well think of returning from inactivity as an essentially exogenous process and focus on matters that can actually be changed by community action. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- If it turns out the admins who have come back from a period of inactivity (who are equal in number to those going inactive, since November) represent something new, if there's an unexpected surge of interest by old-timers in helping out in the problem areas, then that does undercut my argument to some extent. (There are other good arguments of course for being supportive of people who might want to help with the workload, but I have to stay silent on all of that.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (until I have an actual RfC to close :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Reading back over all this ... I've said everything I wanted to say, now. Unless there's an emergency, or I said something unclear or stupid, I'll sit back for a while. Isaac is right, and by tradition, I should say as little as possible. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, just one more thing. I'm not trying to stop the discussion of other problems, or saying that declining admin numbers is the only thing I want to look at. I'm saying that we'll never get the necessary broad support unless we tackle the big questions one at a time, starting with the ones that are going to be the most persuasive for a broad cross-section of Wikipedians who don't usually think about this stuff (and may not want to think about it). The problem with talking about adminship is, and always has been, that everyone wants to talk about something different, and that's a self-defeating strategy. See for instance the recent discussions (linked here) on unbundling some of the admin userrights, and vigorous discussions currently at WP:AN and WP:VPI. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Structure
|
---|
Problem
Cause
Possible Solution
|
Some thoughts on what Fauzan put above: Under "Cause", 1.2 is absolutely not a problem than I have ever seen (it may have been an issue years ago, but it's not one now). "Causes 2.1 & 2.2" are how the process is supposed to work, IMO – I've been editing heavily for two years, and I'm still learning plenty, so I really don't see how the vast majority of editors with under one year of experience and under 10,000 edits can possibly be well-versed enough in policies to be a good Admin. I haven't seen much evidence of "Cause 2.3" being an issue, though certainly within about the last year there seem to have been a number of spectacular Admin flameouts before ArbCom, etc., so it is something to keep in mind. I do worry some about Causes 3.1 & 3.2 – I think if you're an experienced candidate (see: NeilN), they won't be an issue; but if you're on the "greener" end of things, that's when RfA's seem to turn into a cudgel to make candidates feel bad about their contributions to the project... And I think "Cause 4.1" is perceived as an issue, but I have seen no evidence (yet) that it actually is an issue that's affecting the RfA's that I've looked over. On your "Possible Solutions" end, I think I would only support "1.1" right now, and I think that actually has to come from the Admin class itself. All the other proposed solutions I fear would make things worse. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what IJBall said. The only "problem" identified that I think is a real problem is 1.1, too few successful RFAs. By far the best solution for that is for more of us to make it our personal business to identify people who would be good admins and encourage them to run. Of the listed "causes": RfA OUGHT to be difficult to pass for relative newcomers. As for "people who have been here as long as the average successful candidate" and "veteran editors", RfA is difficult only if they have a checkered past or an unsuitable temperament. In my observation, "old enemies" and "past mistakes" (if they are minor) do not stand in the way of an otherwise qualified editor. And I agree with IJBall that there really isn't a big problem with trolls and vandals at RfA. That's thanks in part to people like Kudpung and others who have worked for years to clean up the process. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Cause #1.2 (Structure) is an extremely accurate description of the main reason why RfA is sometimes not a pleasant place, as anyone who has followed the ills of RfA over many years will be perfectly aware. The fact that it is sometimes not a pleasant place is the reason why the majority of users of the right caliblre are not interested in running for adminship. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Is it really accurate of recent RfA's though? I gather it was a much bigger factor in the past... But when was the last time that Cause #1.2 was actually a factor in a candidate going down at an RfA (or even having a relatively rough go of it)?... I'm genuinely curious as to when this was a problem, and roughly when it started being not as much of a problem anymore. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: You've said this a few times in these threads and I went looking for the data underlying this conclusion but haven't been able to find it. I was obviously not here for the WP:RFA2011 project, but a poke through those pages turns up data on the properties of candidates, and on voters in the aggregate, but I don't see any stats on the "trolls and drive-bys" issue (something like, number of annual RfA votes per voter? correlation between number of infrequent voters and unsuccessful candidacies?) that might be compared to current data. Did I miss it or did that conclusion come from something else? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis:, @IJBall:, I've said these things many, many times, and not only here on WT:RfA but also in other talk pages and discussed at length over meet ups and at several Wikimanias. Without writing a TL;DR post or an op-ed for Signpost, it would not be practical for me summarise here my and others' many years of research, opinions objective and subjective, and conclusions for those who are late to the party. Don't get me wrong - every new opinion and suggestion is valuable and I accord it utmost attention as I'm sure Dank, Worm That Turned, and WereSpielChequers do too, but the only way to get up to date is to literally take a few hours to read all that was reported and discussed at WP:RFA2011 and read every major RfA of all the ones that both passed and failed over the last 5 years. I don't now if there is anyone who has joined Wikipedia or WT:RfA since is prepared to invest that much time, because as I've said already, even talk in this forum has dwindled at the same rate as the number of RfAs; I don't know exactly what that stat reveals but I'm sure it's significant.
- Cause #1.2 might not have greatly swayed the final outcome of many RfA, and as I have stated many times too, RfA usually does what it says on the tin even if it is a week of hell or a walk in the psrk (we get many more of those now, and 100+ supports is a regular occurrence rather than somthing to jump up and down about, but Cause #1.2 is certainly a major contributing factor to the predicament we are in today.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
A thought experiment
Yesterday, I thought of an interesting thought experiment, and I'm curious to see how others would answer the question. Let's imagine that before signing up, a new user spends a great deal of time carefully reading every policy and guideline and familiarizes himself with the overall culture here. We'll also imagine that this user is very good at writing. So, when this person signs up, he jumps right in. Now, suppose that this user is able to bring an article to FA status with fifty edits, and he does this for ten articles. So, after about 500 edits, the user has ten FAs to his credit. He also nominates 100 articles for CSD (a total of 200 edits, due to talk page notifications, !votes in 150 AfDs, requests ten page protections at RFPP, makes 50 reports to UAA, and 50 reports to AIV. He does all this with a good accuracy rate. Now, adding a bit of space for a few miscellaneous edits, this totals to about 1000 edits. If he makes five edits per day, he could do all this in roughly 6.5 months. Now, let's suppose that this user runs for RfA. Would he pass or fail? After all, he only has 1000 edits and just over six months of experience. But, on the other hand, he has almost all the other qualifications that we expect from candidates, and perhaps even more so. --Biblioworm 15:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- That, to me, sounds like a model candidate Biblioworm, but unfortunately, devoid of reality. Today's rules are that whilst it is desirable to have a candidate who knows a thing or two about how to author a featured article, sadly, it is not essential. What is essential, it seems, is knowing how to appease the Jimbo sycophants among us who couldn't give a toss about article creation and who care more about how to be lovely to other editors. Once they have been seen to do that, they are then given the tools and then continue to ignore article writing, choosing instead to loiter around ANI ready to console whinging editors who complain about incivility during a content dispute. Having wrapped the complainant up in cotton wool, they then turn up at the featured article writer's talk page, eager to administer their first block. The result is that they then gain the necessary criteria to enter the Administrator's mess and guffaw with their fellow newbies over a glass of whiskey. Now obviously, they doesn't apply to every admin, but if you adopt that path, you're certainly onto a winner. CassiantoTalk 15:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Of course I know that such a candidate is unrealistic. That is why this section's title is "A thought experiment". The purpose was to see if a well-rounded good candidate with a low edit count (because of focus) would be judged based on their merits or a quick spot-check of "experience" and edit count. --Biblioworm 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- No need to be so patronising, I'm well aware of what the section is called. I was just pointing out that sadly that sort of candidate doesn't seem to exist. CassiantoTalk 15:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I know we're supposed to AGF, but I'm sure many of us would be suspicious of a "new user" who demonstrates an uncanny ability not only to edit but to write articles and get them to FA, request page protection, report to UAA and AIV, tag for deletion, and comment at AFD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can only think of a handful of editors who tick those boxes. Old-school admins such as Wehwalt, Chris and Casliber spring to mind immediately, and of course, now we have the newly elected Ritchie333, who I think will be very good. CassiantoTalk 16:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Very true. The user would probably fail just for being competent. I've always wondered why we greet constructive, capable newbies with suspicion, SPIs, and checkusers rather than trying to retain them. Of course, such a candidate as I mentioned is unrealistic fantasy, and would likely never happen (not even most experienced user do all that). As I mentioned in a comment above, it was intended to be a metaphor for a focused, well-rounded candidate who manages to be productive with relatively few edits. This could, for instance, apply to those candidates who improve articles with large, sweeping edits rather than small ones in rapid succession, as some prefer to do. --Biblioworm 16:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- If such a user was to exist and they were able to turn around a featured article in only 50 edits, my only question would be to ask if they had been here before and were in fact a banned user. I don't think a fish out of water could get to grips with policy and writing within 50 edits. CassiantoTalk 16:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Very true. The user would probably fail just for being competent. I've always wondered why we greet constructive, capable newbies with suspicion, SPIs, and checkusers rather than trying to retain them. Of course, such a candidate as I mentioned is unrealistic fantasy, and would likely never happen (not even most experienced user do all that). As I mentioned in a comment above, it was intended to be a metaphor for a focused, well-rounded candidate who manages to be productive with relatively few edits. This could, for instance, apply to those candidates who improve articles with large, sweeping edits rather than small ones in rapid succession, as some prefer to do. --Biblioworm 16:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can only think of a handful of editors who tick those boxes. Old-school admins such as Wehwalt, Chris and Casliber spring to mind immediately, and of course, now we have the newly elected Ritchie333, who I think will be very good. CassiantoTalk 16:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I know we're supposed to AGF, but I'm sure many of us would be suspicious of a "new user" who demonstrates an uncanny ability not only to edit but to write articles and get them to FA, request page protection, report to UAA and AIV, tag for deletion, and comment at AFD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- No need to be so patronising, I'm well aware of what the section is called. I was just pointing out that sadly that sort of candidate doesn't seem to exist. CassiantoTalk 15:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Of course I know that such a candidate is unrealistic. That is why this section's title is "A thought experiment". The purpose was to see if a well-rounded good candidate with a low edit count (because of focus) would be judged based on their merits or a quick spot-check of "experience" and edit count. --Biblioworm 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think I agree with Melanie – if a candidate magically appeared with only 1,000 edits, but exactly 1,000 of the "right" edits, I'd be very suspicious and thinking to myself "block evading troll"... While this is an interesting thought experiment, I don't think it reflects anything close to what really does happen. Even someone "savvy" in the ways of the internet isn't going to immediately show up at Wikipedia knowing exactly what needs to be done (and how to become an Admin!!). That's why I think, in reality, 10,000 edits is the more realistic benchmark before considering anyone to be an Admin (it'll take 10,000 edits before people even know how to do GA, FA, AfD, etc.) – and, on my end, I'm starting to think it's really more like 20,000+ edits before you're really "there"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. I only have 7.5k edits and already have two GAs (short, admittedly, but a GA is a GA) and seven DYKs, with one currently pending. I've also extensively participated in (and understand) various administrative aspects of the site. I'm currently researching for certain articles I want to work on, with the intention of ultimately becoming much more content-focused. So, I disagree that thousands upon thousands of edits are required to be a good, clueful editor. --Biblioworm 16:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think my point is that, even with 7,500 edits, you probably don't know all the subtleties and vagaries of the policies and guidelines. I know I don't – I am still coming across stuff either, 1) I thought I knew, but didn't know (or didn't know in enough detail), or, 2) just plumb didn't know!! There's no way somebody with just 1,000 edits, even "1,000 of the right edits", is going to know "all the right stuff" either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if any user really knows all the minutest details of policy. That's an unrealistic expectation of a candidate. --Biblioworm 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, somewhere between "well versed" and "very well versed" in policies and guidelines, then. Sure, it's unrealistic to expect someone to know all of them. But an Admin needs more than a superficial or cursory knowledge of them, and I don't think you can possibly get to the required knowledge level until you've been poking around here for a while (i.e. a year or more, and probably more)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are more than 50 official policies and a couple hundred guidelines (not including WP:WikiProject advice pages that may be treated more or less like guidelines). I don't think that any human has ever read them all. Apart from the basics of the core policies, what admins and other good editors actually need is (a) to know how to find out what the "rules" are, and (b) a willingness to do so. It's more important to "know that you don't know" the policies and guidelines in detail than to know the ever-changing pages themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, somewhere between "well versed" and "very well versed" in policies and guidelines, then. Sure, it's unrealistic to expect someone to know all of them. But an Admin needs more than a superficial or cursory knowledge of them, and I don't think you can possibly get to the required knowledge level until you've been poking around here for a while (i.e. a year or more, and probably more)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if any user really knows all the minutest details of policy. That's an unrealistic expectation of a candidate. --Biblioworm 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think my point is that, even with 7,500 edits, you probably don't know all the subtleties and vagaries of the policies and guidelines. I know I don't – I am still coming across stuff either, 1) I thought I knew, but didn't know (or didn't know in enough detail), or, 2) just plumb didn't know!! There's no way somebody with just 1,000 edits, even "1,000 of the right edits", is going to know "all the right stuff" either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. I only have 7.5k edits and already have two GAs (short, admittedly, but a GA is a GA) and seven DYKs, with one currently pending. I've also extensively participated in (and understand) various administrative aspects of the site. I'm currently researching for certain articles I want to work on, with the intention of ultimately becoming much more content-focused. So, I disagree that thousands upon thousands of edits are required to be a good, clueful editor. --Biblioworm 16:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think I agree with Melanie – if a candidate magically appeared with only 1,000 edits, but exactly 1,000 of the "right" edits, I'd be very suspicious and thinking to myself "block evading troll"... While this is an interesting thought experiment, I don't think it reflects anything close to what really does happen. Even someone "savvy" in the ways of the internet isn't going to immediately show up at Wikipedia knowing exactly what needs to be done (and how to become an Admin!!). That's why I think, in reality, 10,000 edits is the more realistic benchmark before considering anyone to be an Admin (it'll take 10,000 edits before people even know how to do GA, FA, AfD, etc.) – and, on my end, I'm starting to think it's really more like 20,000+ edits before you're really "there"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW article creation and content expansion are not the only criteria for becoming an admin. Many of those who vote in RFAs also expect participation by a candidate in AFDs, CFDs etc. Some also like to see involvement in RFCs. While none of these is an absolute necessity it is difficult to show that one has an overall understanding of how Wikipedia works if one has only created articles. MarnetteD|Talk 17:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, 1000 edits is pushing it. (Does this person never, ever make a typo? Or 'waste' an edit on a dumb post like this one?) But I'm pretty sure that back in
the mists of ancient history2006, people with six months and 2000-2500 edits and a content-heavy record were passing RfAs without a problem, and most of us turned out fine. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that a) users who passed RfA in a time of higher 'standards' turned out to be systematically better admins, or b) learning the policies, guidelines, and common practices that actually matter has gotten any harder. - If I were going to put anything in the 'causes' section in the above thread, it'd be that the apparent standards for new admins have unnecessarily inflated beyond the available volunteer time of otherwise capable candidates. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the flip side of that is: just because this is a "volunteer" project is no reason to lower standards. But it's a fair point – ultimately, the people who will be the best candidates for Admins are those who have... more than the profile of just a garden-variety "volunteer". Which may end up being a problem for a "volunteer" project... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Its a tough question, but if the entire community can't find anything wrong with the editor, including at the almost certain to be filed SPI, I would support. I have only once opposed an editor requesting a permission for being too good at policy for their edit count, and that was for edit filter manager; that editor has since passed RFA, and I would have supported them if I hadn't missed it. The previous editing question was a major source of opposes, though they had many many more edits than suggested in the hypothetical. Monty845 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the flip side of that is: just because this is a "volunteer" project is no reason to lower standards. But it's a fair point – ultimately, the people who will be the best candidates for Admins are those who have... more than the profile of just a garden-variety "volunteer". Which may end up being a problem for a "volunteer" project... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Two words: hat collecting. ansh666 21:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just a thought: if anyone were really good enough to achieve 10 FAs in 500 edits, why the heck would they want to mess around with a mop? The best content writers are the kings and queens here. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to those who step up to look after reverting vandals, spotting and dealing with copyvio, shutting down edit wars, deleting garage band articles, smoothing out squabbles and all that, but none of that is really the big deal with Wikipedia. The big deal is that there are fine articles that people find on the top page of a Google search, or can jump into from the Kindle reader on an iPad, and learn stuff. They had to get written. So I think the big question in this thought experiment is: do we give too much recognition to adminship as a status, and not enough to a great track record in content? (By the way, many of those fine articles never get nominated for GA/FA. That they get written is what matters.) --Stfg (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think hat collecting is the pretty obvious motivation of such a track record, or at least an unhealthy ambition to become an admin. I'm always extremely suspicious of new(ish) users who start making an undeniably prominent participation in meta areas. Often they start quietly at the VP, then go through ANI and then Arbcom (as an uninvolved editor) then end up commenting here at WT:RfA. It generally takes RFA reform-obsessed users like me and a tiny handful of others who regularly frequent those area (or at least watch them) over many years, to recognise these trends. I'm still a firm believer that people who are genuine admin material are the ones who came (at least at first) to add content and/or create new articles rather than to police the project from the very beginning of their Wiki careers.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
IPs don't belong here
Part of correcting the RfA process is to keep it as a matter relegated to the Wikipedia community and not open to the general public. IPs fall into the latter category...if they want to become members of our community then they need an account. Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people as an essay states that IPs may not participate in RfA at all but under the heading Expressing opinions on the main RfA page, it states "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA..." <== That needs to be removed. IPs are not Wikipedians because they have chosen to edit but not join our community. I have no problem with IPs editing and commenting in article space and other places on the Wiki but participation in RfA needs to be confined as a benefit to those who have actually joined our community. That would go a long way towards preventing the disruption in this process. IPs commenting here are generally IP socks, indeffed/banned editors or possibly legitimate editors avoiding scrutiny.
I would like to see the main RfA page amended to exclude IPs and "new" editors. Thoughts?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is a recent discussion on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 232#IPs: This is getting ridiculous.--kelapstick(bainuu) 13:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I could support being quick with semi-protection at RFA when we get IP disruption, but we should accept constructive IP comments, and not preemptively protect or ban them from the whole process. While we shouldn't make RFA a hazing process, at the same time, future admins are very likely to be targeted by abusive IP editors based on their admin work, and so it seems odd to be overly protective during the RFA process. Monty845 13:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support IP ban at RFA's - per proposer BH, who makes a compelling case. Jusdafax 13:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I could support limiting IPs to commenting only and not !voting - however closing 'crats should be able to disregard any IP/'new' editor who they feel are !voting with poor intentions. GiantSnowman 14:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- For clarity, IPs already cannot !vote. I'm looking to curtail disruption. In the three most recent RfAs which passed as well as the one that ends soon, the majority of IPs were disruptive (several still being blocked). In the thread that kelapstick links to above, JamesBWatson brought up excellent concerns about new accounts. I'm glad that I also mentioned above that "new" editors should be excluded as well. I believe that semi-protection should become standard to prevent new users as well as IPs from participating. Our protection policy disallows preemptive protection for article space and certain other areas but does not exclude preemptive protection from others such as the main page, user pages of deceased Wikipedians etc. Those are full-protected but I'm thinking that semi-protection would be good for the candidate's RfA page. Let IPs and new users comment on the candidate's RfA talk page if they have something constructive to say...and then semi-prot that if it becomes too disruptive there.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- For clarity, IPs already cannot !vote. I'm looking to curtail disruption. In the three most recent RfAs which passed as well as the one that ends soon, the majority of IPs were disruptive (several still being blocked). In the thread that kelapstick links to above, JamesBWatson brought up excellent concerns about new accounts. I'm glad that I also mentioned above that "new" editors should be excluded as well. I believe that semi-protection should become standard to prevent new users as well as IPs from participating. Our protection policy disallows preemptive protection for article space and certain other areas but does not exclude preemptive protection from others such as the main page, user pages of deceased Wikipedians etc. Those are full-protected but I'm thinking that semi-protection would be good for the candidate's RfA page. Let IPs and new users comment on the candidate's RfA talk page if they have something constructive to say...and then semi-prot that if it becomes too disruptive there.
- Support I don't think IPs should participate in any way at RfA. An RfA is a way for the community to decide who they trust with the tools. Someone who has deliberately chosen not to be a member of the community should not participate IMO. I believe enwiki is the only wikipedia that allows IPs to have any role at all in the RfA process. And what do we get with this laissez-faire policy? At a recent RfA, that of User:Ritchie333, there were three separate questions from IPs, and it turned out that all three of them were from the banned "Best known for IP," a longtime enemy of Ritchie's. But... having expressed my opinion, I should note that this same topic was discussed only last month. The proposal was at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 234#IP participation at RfA. It was closed as unsuccessful but was quickly followed by Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 234#IP participation at RfA: observation. So even though I think
RfAsIPs should be excluded from any participation at RfA, and enough other people agree that the topic keeps coming up, I have to concede that this proposal does not have consensus at present and should probably be dropped. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)- "So even though I think RfAs should be excluded from any participation at RfA"...you mean IPs? :)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)- Thanks. Hadn't had my coffee yet. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I should add: I agree with Berean's suggestion that the ban should also apply to brand new (non-auto-confirmed) accounts. That's a new idea, and it's a valuable contribution to the discussion. Anyone who registers a new account and immediately goes straight to the RfA pages is not a new user. They are likely a sock, or an IP evading the IP ban. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hadn't had my coffee yet. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- "So even though I think RfAs should be excluded from any participation at RfA"...you mean IPs? :)
- Support I have mixed feelings about IPs. Allowing somebody to edit an article without a stumbling block of registration to fix minor typos and things, that's fine. If you want to take part in the admin side of things, you should register. It's not hard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- In order to properly achieve consensus on this, please ensure to advertise this discussion. Since many editors have long taken this page off their watchlist, the discussion should (at least) carry an RFC tag and be listed on CENT and at one of the pumps in order for any result to be considered legitimate. –xenotalk 15:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support per proposer's rationale, and cogent observations by MelanieN. RfA is a discussion among members of the Wikipedia community, and if one wants to participate in RfA discussions, one should take the small step of joining that community. It is a very small step, and might even encourage a few fence-sitters to register. Moreover, when one is a registered user, that user's account comes with a public history that allows us to include the perspectives, biases and past actions associated with that account when we consider how much weight to attribute to that user's opinions expressed at RfA. Bottom line: as I've said many times before, membership has its privileges, and participating in RfA discussions should be one of them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Question – Would the ban of IPs just cover the "main" page of an RfA (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN)? Or would it include the Talk page (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/NeilN) as well?... I can definitely support the former. If it includes the latter as well, I'll need to think about it some more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is the latter as well. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think so, kelapstick. Berean's proposal clearly says, "I would like to see the main RfA page amended to exclude IPs and "new" editors." IMO there's no reason to ban anyone from the talk page, and I don't see that as part of the proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are correct, I misread what IJBall wrote. No it would not be extended to talk pages.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think so, kelapstick. Berean's proposal clearly says, "I would like to see the main RfA page amended to exclude IPs and "new" editors." IMO there's no reason to ban anyone from the talk page, and I don't see that as part of the proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is the latter as well. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as long as this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Otherwise don't let IPs do anything, require that every post be from a registered account. GregJackP Boomer! 16:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, because I am automatically against anything that is justified by the tribalistic meme "not (a) Wikipedian(s)". I'd hazard a guess that there are a half dozen IP editors who have contributed to this encyclpedia more than any of you. I don't understand their refusal to create an account, but saying they're "not Wikipedians", with no objections from the peanut gallery, makes me kind of not want to be one either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose We don't allow IPs to support/oppose at RFAs due to obvious sock/meat-puppetry and vote-stacking concerns. But why would we reject potentially constructive input or evidence about a candidate, just because the person providing it doesn't have a wikipedia account?! Also keep in mind that IP-editors are certainly affected by who we choose as admins, and if a candidate systematically mistreats IP-editors, we would want to know that at an RFA. Other participants at an RFA can use the input when deciding whether to support or oppose, as they see fit. And outright trolling (like in the current RFA) is most easily dealt with on an RFA page that is typically watched by dozens of experienced users,, admins, and bureaucrats who can revert, block, or protect (ideally for very short periods) if necessary. Also second what Floq said. Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes in its remit the ability to comment on RfAs. We (generally) do nothing preemptive to stop IPs vandalizing articles so why should this be different? Philg88 ♦talk 16:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support: Electing an administrator is a privilege far greater than just making edits. I think any editor who wishes to even comment in the process should register. It is not like having to provide documents to cross a border or registering to vote. Fylbecatulous talk 16:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)