Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of past discussion. For current discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship.

Contents

User page

do you mean a developed "user page" or a developed "talk page"? i've never seen an object based on an underdeveloped user page, and i would never dream of objecting on those grounds.(Understandable, given my user page!) Borisblue 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I thought user page. I do look at a user's user page, and I do like to see something that is neat and organized. I think user's pages evolve over time, and I think there are things you can see in a user's page that has been involved for a longer time. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have seen an objection based on the lack of a user page. I don't recall there ever being an objection to a poorly developed userpage. --Durin 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd noticed it somewhere, in someone's criteria. However, I don't recall it being used as the basis for a vote. The Land 09:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyedits

Did a run through of the article. Changes include:

  • RFA -> RfA. I think that looks prettier and is within normal usage on the wiki.
  • "Concensus" to "Consensus". That's how Wikipedia:Consensus spells it at least.
  • re-worded some uses of "you" to be more general, specifically in contexts of negative possibilities that will not apply to all candidates, so I tried to make it less personal, i.e. "A dildo, not your dildo".

Kudos to those who wrote this, I think it is well needed.

Cheers, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been very pleased with the developments on the article. With respect to RFA vs. RfA; I find myself regularly typing RfA. I used RFA here to match "GRFA". But, I agree that RfA is the accepted abbreviation. Keep working on this everybody! It's coming along nicely. --Durin 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement removed

I removed this statement made by Klonimus: "In practice that means that editor's involved certain area's have a very low chance of sucessful adminship. Particularly contentious areas include the Arab-Israeli conflict, and any political conflict involving muslims as an aggrieved party."

I'm particularly concerned that such a statement will dissuade strong, conscientious editors who want to be an admin some day from participating on contentious articles on Wikipedia. I think this is precisely the opposite outcome from what we would like to see. Further, even if we are to include such a statement in this guide, I think it needs to be substantiated with evidence to support such a trend.--Durin 16:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to propose an example: my nomination of Thames: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thames. He works almost exlusively on controversial political philosophy articles, yet he passed his RFA easily. His only objections were because of his unwillingness to do sysop chores. If you are civil, you can placate even the most rabid POV-warrior. Borisblue 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I noted in the guide that participation in conflicts could actually help an RfA, if the nominee's behavior during the conflict was exemplary. --Durin 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's too darn long!

As per Durin's maxim, this thing is never going to be read. I think we need a concise version or something. Borisblue 17:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • See? I told all of you so :) The scope of this document is a very worthy scope. However, for a person considering accepting a nomination or nominating themselves...wow. I just can't imagine it being read for that purpose. --Durin 17:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If they arent willing to read something this long, then they probably arent suited. Basicly I'd like to see a document that avoids what happened in Anonyme's case, where a contentious editor didn't expect quite as much opposition as came up. Klonimus 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Personally, I was interested in adminship within about two weeks of signing up for an account, but it didn't take me long to figure out that I was going to have a to wait a good long while before that would happen. However, prior to nominating myself, I spent several months lurking on RfA, watching nominations and the Talk page, and reading the Admin's reading list on occasion to better understand the role. If this guide had existed during that time, I would have studied it closely. Granted, I can't speak for every RfA candidate, but I think those who will be good administrators will carefully examine this. That being said, I do think we should strive as much as we can to trim down excess verbage, and it might even be worth trying to write a condensed guide, I'm not sure. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Continued improvement of the guide

Everybody; I'm very pleased with the continued improvement of the guide. Already within 24 hours we've had a bunch of edits by eight different contributors. Fantastic! I think we've really brought out a good project that's been needed for quite some time, and the interest in contributing to the article seems to confirm that. Keep it up! I'd like to see this worked on for a few more days at least before we integrate it as a link on WP:RFA. There's still more material that needs to be added. Yes, I know, that makes it longer :) But, as the Guide to RfA it's not just for nominees anymore. <Dory>"Just keep editing, just keep editing..."</Dory> --Durin 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Email requirement

Very useful page taking shape here.

What about the "requirement" that you accept e-mail? Should that get listed in here? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Nichalp keeps raising it, and as a result has raised the community's awareness of that criterion. I agree, it should be added. I'll add it now. --Durin 15:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Are we going to add in everything one person (and while I don't watch RFA very closely, I think it's only one) raises for every nomination for a few weeks running? Netoholic opposed nearly every candidate for a similar amount of time a few months back, on the basis that he couldn't trust borderline cases when there was no process to remove adminship; if he were doing that now, would it get plopped here, too? I think this would be better off staying on the standards page, where it's already listed in Nichalp's section. (Yes, yes, Netoholic's criteria wasn't one that the individual candidates could address, but you get my point.) —Cryptic (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • That's something I've been ruminating over too, Cryptic. I fear instruction creap is going to cause this guide to become bloated. It's probably best to trim the list to things which at least a few frequent RfA contributors find important qualities for a nominee and monitor the list over time. The standards page I think has a fundamental flaw; it doesn't keep up with RfA culture as it evolves over time, and can lead potential nominees to think those are the current acceptable standards. The real standards, for better or worse, keep evolving. RfA contributors who review the standards page will not modify the standards by X user for obvious reasons. Plus, the standards page is not summarized in any way; it's just a list of individual views. The person reading it is left on their own to summarize the overall situation; and that summary would be lacking because it is not up to date.--Durin 14:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I've rearranged that section so that edit summaries and email address seem to have less weight than other factors (and, now I think of it, will trim out user pages too...). I also took the comments about starting inapporpriate AfDs and moved them to the Intransigence section. The Land 15:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

On qualities as an editor

One extract: Some editors have left Wikipedia as a consequence of an RfA that has gone poorly. This should not be a consequence, as this process does not judge an editor's value to Wikipedia. Like it or not, to some extent it is just this. True, I don't recall votes saying something like "Oppose, crummy editor", but I do often see variations on Extreeem supercalifragialisticexpialadocious support! Putativeadmin is a great editor!" -- Hoary 06:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • In some sense, this guide should be a reflection of what RfA is supposed to be. From my view, too many people confuse the merits of an editor with the merits of a potential admin. The two have little in common. I think the guide can help to bring home that point. Thought? --Durin 15:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that will confuse things more. It would be more helpful as a guide to what (fortunately or unfortunately) actually does (or may) happen, and what the nominee should and shouldn't do to anticipate, avoid, or react to this. (Indeed, it announces: This is only a guide to current practice on WP:RFA, not policy.) So for example: The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's popularity or strength as an editor. Fine: this expressly says that the process is not intended as X, and not that it is not X. However: I still object to This should not be a consequence, as this process does not judge an editor's value to Wikipedia. Let's look at one recent successful nomination, which kicked off with: Tomf688 has been with us for over a year and has over 9,000 edits to his credit. He has made many quality contributions to articles about political figures and events and more recently to articles involving hurricanes and related areas. A strong proponent of Neutral point of view and Civility it is my pleasure to nominate this fine contributor. (Sorry for stripping links here and elsewhere.) Note how he's primarily nominated for his edits. (Conceivably, only nominated for them: the wording makes it possible that the NPoV and civility are his own, and are not related to others' infractions of them.) It's only when we get to the 12th support vote that we read of vandal-fighting, and most of the support votes either praise his editing or give no reasoning at all. He gets a single and, uh, somewhat predictable oppose vote. The sole neutral vote politely suggests that however good an editor he may be, he lacks sufficient experience in just those areas that this guide tends to claim are all-important. Although that vote/comment came six days before the end of the RfA, nobody saw fit to argue with it -- it's as if they thought it was unimportant. (NB (i) I have no opinion on this user and do not intend to say he's not worthy of being an admin; (ii) all my comments are those of something of an outsider: I've never been in the hot seat myself.) -- Hoary 02:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comments Hoary, all of them. Discussion within and related to RfA over the last month have left me feeling that no concensus is ever going to be reached on how to improve RfA. There are some very strong opinions on a whole host of matters. I'm now fairly convinced that there needs to be some feedback mechanism to measure the RfA process. Failing feedback mechanisms (which are going to be very, very difficult to create), control structures are the next best reasonable means of conducting the RfA process in any semblance of order. Once this guide goes live, people will be using it as a reference point. I'm especially keen to see how the section on advice for RfA contributors evolves. Regardless of how we proceed on this guide, it will have an influence on the culture of RfA. If we use it simply to model current RfA behavior, it might serve only to confirm the current behavior as acceptable and normal. I think this would be a bad thing. There's a troubling trend developing. Since October 17, we've had 49 RfAs brought (not including Stevertigo's which was a very unusual case). Of those, 16 were withdrawn/closed early. That's roughly a third of all RfAs in that time period. Prior to this, the going rate was about 10%. Two weeks may be insufficient to provide a valid statistical basis that something is wrong, but it is at least troubling. If we use this guide as only a statement on what RfA is now, it might actually make things worse. Having some standards that contributors are expected to abide by would be a positive step in my opinion. --Durin 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There's something in what you say, Durin, but I think that the relevant howto/policy/whatever pages explain what people should be doing fairly well, and of course if if anyone thinks they don't then he's welcome to change them -- or at least to suggest changes on the relevant talk page. I really thought that this was to be a guide to what may well happen, and how to avoid the worst of it (or how to ride though it without getting too seasick), and perhaps even how to make it moderately pleasant (which I suspect it usually is). I don't think that a pretence that the process is other than it is is helpful for this. But I take your point that it's not good to do anything that encourages more silliness. Then how about just skipping anything about how people are or aren't nominated or voted for on the strength of their edits? I do like the miniguide, to which my main addition would be: "Look at what happened for some recent successes, and also choose among some of these failures". (I might phrase it more invitingly/politely: I'm just a bit sleepy now.) -- Hoary 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

New General advice for RfA contributors section

I've filled out the General advice for RfA contributors section. Probably needs improvement. There's some replication of earlier material. Not sure that needs to be resolved per se though. --Durin 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Can anyone point out when a vote of Extreme Mega Ultra Lesbian Support has resulted in 'consternation'? The Land 10:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ed Poor (current admin, former bureaucrat) modifed a number of votes on my RfA [1] that had a number of similar votes. Also, it's been mentioned before on RfA talk. --Durin 14:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Not sure that 'consternation' isn't a step too far though. (Also is there a case that powerful expressions of support are a good thing - counterbalancing the powerful negativity?) The Land 14:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Doubtful. Votes are votes, be they support or zOMG! HE'S NOT AN ADMIN ALREADY! HOW CAN ANYONE VOTE OPPOSE?!?!?!! ULTRA SUPER MAJOR MEGA MASSIVE UBER LESBIAN TRAPPED IN MALE BODY SUPPORT (and Jimbo help us if votes get that ridiculous! :) --Durin 15:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Mmm. I take the point, but I think RfA candidates are as affected by the tone of comments as the actual votes. Isn't the point of this guide to stop people going home because someone's said "I will never vote for anyone who's too stupid to use edit summaries" or suchlike? The Land 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the point is to encourage decorum on RfA. We can't be accountable for nominee's reactions to their RfA. Harsh as this sounds, Wikipedia is not counseling service. We should strive to run RfA in as fair a manner as possible. If we make good faith efforts to do that (such as this guide), how a nominee responds to their RfA isn't something for which we should be held accountable. --Durin 15:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA Mini-Guide

I have started a Mini-Guide which basically replicate most of what is here in a very minimalist way. Please check it out and comment. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Good piece of work. I do think it needs to evolve some. I feel very strongly that it needs to be as concise as possible. I've made earlier comments about the likelihood of GRFA actually being read. The miniguide would help to fill what I think is a void in the process that GRFA will not fill. So, more development, but keep it concise, and only bring up major tripping points. Leave the substantial content and less major tripping points to GRFA. --Durin 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
What more do you think I should add or remove? It is a wiki, so you can do it yourself if you really wanted to, but I only got around to doing it for the nominees. Do you think that section needs more? Perhaps something like what was mentioned a few lines up? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll add some later. Head down in the trenches right now :) --Durin 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Developing consensus and all that

We now read: RfA is the means by which the Wikipedia community develops concensus on whether an editor should be given Administrator rights.... I believe that consensus is the more normal spelling. True, the voters don't decide, a bureaucrat decides. But as I understand it, the bureaucrat almost always follows a clear algorithm for what to do when there are certain patterns of votes: in effect, the voters decide. And look, rather than all this worthy but windy stuff about how the Wikipedia community develops consensus etc, can't this just be a straightforward guide to what to do and what not to do? (Policy is already explained elsewhere.) Increasingly, the Mini-Guide seems a more palatable alternative. -- Hoary 15:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The concensus spelling is my error. As for vote vs. consensus (just had to correct my typo of it again! :)), in case where the votes clear 80%, there is a clear algorithm. For the marginal cases, bureaucrats have a very difficult job and must discern consensus (and typo again!). They most definitely do decide, and there is no clear algorithm for the 70-80% cases. RfA policy isn't explained elsewhere in whole, and that is one of the reasons for this guide. The mini-guide is useful, in fact quite so. But, it's targeted audience is potential nominees only. That's a limited subset of RfA. --Durin 16:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about the limited scope of the mini-guide. I had only started it, and haven't finished it (it's a wiki, so will it ever really be finished? 8^) ). I have added the header for other conributors, but was too busy yesterday to really add anything substantive. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If I might suggest, let's limit the mini-guide strictly to advice for nominees. Else the scope of the mini-guide and GRFA are the same. Plus, the longer the mini-guide the less likely it will be read by a nominee. --Durin 17:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That's fine if that's the way people think we should go. I was just originally thinking it would be a guide with the same scope as the full guide, but much more concise and informal. Perhaps just include brief advice for nominees and brief advice for "voters". Exclude advice for nominators, and all that consensus stuff. I guess the question is, How long is too long? People are much more likely to read bullet points, I think, and that could allow for more stuff. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the goal of the mini-guide should be to get would-be nominees from accepting or making nominations of themselves before they are ready. Beyond that, I think the GRFA should be used. --Durin 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I am going to move it into the Wikipedia namespace. Now for a title... I'll get back to you all. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have listed a few possible titles at the sandbox now. What should the title be? I think I prefer Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship, but am not sure which would be best. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I think I prefer WP:MGRFA and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship. One thing though; if this guide is going to focus entirely on nominees, perhaps the title needs to reflect that in some short way. --Durin 20:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
"Some short way". Ha. Okay, how about Wikipedia:Nominees' miniguide to requests for adminship and WP:NMGRFA. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't say I had the answer :-) How about Wikipedia:Nominee guide to RfA and WP:NGRFA? --Durin 00:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I am a little wary of using NGRFA because it seems a little close to "nigger". I don't think we should be responsible for how people perceive things, but I'm just trying to look out for all angles. We don't want people trying to shout down this because of a perceived racial slur. Maybe I'm just looking to hard into it. Plus the offical title should probably be spelled out. Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship (nominee) and WP:MGRFA? --LV (Dark Mark) 14:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The guide makes enough mention of RfA contributors, and in my opinion WP:MRFA and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship work well. It would be worth stressing that contributors must Strictly observe Wikipedia:Civility. ...dave souza 02:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Explaining the obvious, etc.

Before my recent edit:

*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected out of hand based on that simple measure. Whether that is proper or not is beyond the scope of this guide. A nominee with less than 1,000 edits needs to accept that it is what happens. Being prepared to answer such concerns is in the best interest of the nominee. Nominations of editors below 1,000 edits have succeeded in the past. A potential nominee should not assume they should not accept a nomination if they have less than 1,000 edits. Rather, they should be prepared to respond on this point or better yet explain up front in their nomination acceptance why they think they would nevertheless make a good administrator. Those with more than 1,000, but well under 2,000, edits may face concerns but many such nominees have passed. [plus stuff about three months]

After my recent edit, the rather less wordy:

*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. [plus stuff about three months]

After a more recent edit (not by me!), a reintroduction of the <2000wd stuff:

*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. Editors with less than three months of active experience on Wikipedia can expect similar concerns. Those editors with more than 1,000, but well under 2,000, edits may face concerns but many such nominees have passed.

I'm asked (in edit summaries) to explain my edits on this discussion page. All right then: If people with fewer than X edits are less likely to succeed but yet may still succeed, isn't it pretty obvious that people with between X and 2X edits may have some trouble but are more likely to succeed? Nudge them to look at earlier RfAs and they'd then see for themselves various edit counts and results.

My new, improved version:

*Nominees with fewer than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many nominations have been rejected for this alone. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to explain why you nevertheless believe you're qualified. Better, explain this before you're asked. [plus stuff about three months]

Unless perhaps we accept that some among the potential administrator nominees are thick, and therefore need everything explained ever so gently and ploddingly. But wait: such people may not be able to digest such a monstrous quantity of text.

Short and simple does it. -- Hoary 15:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The reason for the inclusion of the commentary about 1000-2000 edits is based on a study I performed and is not capricious (I know you didn't say it was). Please see the results of the study. Indeed, 1-2k edits is an area of concern and needs to be expressed here in this guide. That's why I included it. Removal of it would lead admin nominees to think that once they clear 1,000 edits, they're far more certain to pass. The results of the study contradict this conclusion. I don't want admin nominees to have to clear 2,000 edits before they get a serious consideration, but that's the current pattern. It needs to be reflected here. --Durin 17:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
And, does the brevity really matter here? If we intend to move the mini-guide into the Wikipedia namespace, this can be, and should be, as detailed as possible. We should strive to be as helpful as possible and every angle should be looked at. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the message at the head of this section last night when I was perhaps rather too tired and grumpy; sorry if this shows. OK, keep the stuff about 2000 edits if you wish. However, it occurs to me that a better alternative -- and for a lot of numbers and percentages, not only this one -- would be a table: each row would be the issue ("Total number of edits", "Use of edit summaries", etc.), one column would be "Frequently used as a criterion for automatic disqualification" (or a better-phrased variant thereof), another would be "Satisfies virtually everybody" (or ditto). One could supplement these columns with another, "Quasi-official policy, as expressed in Wikipedia:Very authoritative article" (or ditto), if this seemed helpful. Even if a lot of the cells in the resulting table were "N/A" (for "not applicable") or even "?", that would save a lot of space. It wouldn't be necessary to explain the rationale for most of the rows (anybody thinking of becoming an admin or nominating another as admin should know about edit summaries, for example) or to pretend that there is a rationale for what are necessarily rather arbitrary cut-off points.

Yes, I keep harping on the need for brevity. LV says that this guide can be, and should be, as detailed as possible. We should strive to be as helpful as possible and every angle should be looked at. By all means look at every (non-trivial) angle and give every (non-trivial) detail, but one measure of helpfulness is digestibility, and a major factor in digestibility is brevity. Or that's what I believe, but I start to infer that I'm in a minority here. -- Hoary 00:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think everyone's goal is to have this be a valuable tool to RfAs, but we need to explain things to people. That is the point of having a miniguide. That way, people can get the info and if they have more questions, they can check with the full guide. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Diffs for "Other controversy"?

I've noticed demands for the mysterious Diffs, and eventually the instruction to right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location" to get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post. Is this something all potential Admins are expected to either know, or be capable of finding out themselves, or should such instructions be included in the Other controversy section? ...dave souza 19:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Can you show me the diffs showing the demands? Just kidding :) Seriously, I don't see all that many requests for it. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to provide some very simple directions on that point. --Durin 01:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's just say that some people were making a big issue of someone's inability to provide diffs in a recent high profile case. Sounds worthwhile to provide simple instructions, or a link to where they're found. For Mac OS X users it's ctrl-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy Link to Clipboard" to get a diff : presumably we should be platform agnostic ...dave souza 19:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)