Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 51

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.

Contents

Lets just call it a Janitorship

I think it would blow the foam off the mystique of adminship (and thereby reduce the vitriol that occasionally arises in adminship debates) if we change the name of the position from "Administrator" to "Janitor". BD2412 T 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How many janitors do you know that carry shotguns? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Or dynamite for that matter. :) --Durin 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
(Checks to see if the shortcut WP:RFJ is free...) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It comes with a price ;) --Durin 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If we do that, can we rename bureaucrats to Janitor's Closets? Cause we're providing mops :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Bureaucrats are the janitors of the janitors! :-) BD2412 T 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Then we can move all the sex out of #wikipedia and put it there. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. That would be about as effective as renaming it "Articles for Deletion". — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Why induce even more confusion? --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support renaming.

<snickers>

Kim Bruning 21:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can find a better name, something not as clearly identified with a real world occupation. Like "muckers" or "slimers" or "grimers" or "scummers" or "scrubbers". NoSeptember talk 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
What about "moperator"? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
How about we call ourselves the Plumbers? --maru (talk) contribs 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I say we call adminship "level 3". IPs and new users are level 1, regular users are level 2, Admins are level 3. ArbCom is level 4, We can call b'crats level 5. Everyone wants to level up, after all. --W.marsh 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes! :) I'm level 2.5. -ZeroTalk 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I dunno if 'crats should be above ArbCom. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Better make you sure you don't get hit by a nasty undead, could bring you back down (or would you prefer a Nintendo rather than a D&D reference?). JoshuaZ 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Makes it sound like Arbcom is a necessary step in a chain of promotion, but it's just a committee - one can become a 'crat with no Arbcom involvement, and vice versa. BD2412 T 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Somehow I think renaming would decrease the responsibility that admins feel, perhaps leading to recklessness. - Tangotango 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • responsible? us? (keep the current name!) Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Adminship/sysopness/janitorial engineeritude; whatever you want to call it does not completely describe the position. By implication, admins have been seen as higher/more credible/more important than other users. Similarly, Bureaucrat is even higher than that, but basically, it's even less of a "boost" unless the individual with the title separately, by his/her action, has the respect of the community. Let's look at what admin really is: it's a removal of certain restrictions on what an editor can do in the namespace--rollback button (made less important by scripts), article deletion/undeletion, article protection/unprotection. Everything else is assumed by custom, and is not mandatory. I would support removing bcrats for inactivity, but not admins. A more proper term would be "unrestricted editor," "senior editor," or "full editor." If we have to have a "sexy" term, than let's go all the way: "Fuehrer." -- Cecropia 18:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Based on your comment, a sysop is a "user with the regulator removed." NoSeptember talk 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite so. How about runamuck? -- Cecropia 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for "wild cannon". Kelly Martin (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Trustee? --Ligulem 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)--Ligulem 08:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Clerk"? Hiding talk 22:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • ALready taken. One substantial change that I may make if no one objects is the removal of the phrase "Administrator rights" on the guide for adminship with the replacement of "Administrator abilities" which sounds less inviting. JoshuaZ 22:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Better yet, how about, "Administrator responsibilities" - since the tools must be used wisely. BD2412 T 22:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
          • That crosses the line from better phrasing to outright manipulation/Orwellianism/Huxlixism what have you. To paraphrase Brave New World. "I'm so glad I'm an editor, and I don't have the responsibilties of an admin. A user is the best thing to be." Joking aside, that would be such an obvious word choice trick that everyone would assume you really meant abilties/rights/superpowers. JoshuaZ 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that "trustee" as in "prison trustee"? In that case newbies are "fish," regular editors "inmates," bureaucrats are "screws." Angela is a "warden" and Jimbo is "commissioner of corrections. If we adopt those reasonable terms, I'll put my name back up for bcrat tomorrow! -- Cecropia 23:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • On Wikpedia:Requests for screwing, no doubt. -Splashtalk 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Wherever, I'll support. Cecropia, are you going to do it? I'll create the page Splash references tomorrow if you will! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • lol. I was thinking along the lines of Trustee. But the "commissioner of corrections" for Jimbo isn't that bad :-). However, anybody who likes can call me "fish" for the rest of my wikilife if Cecropia puts his name back up for bcrat in turn. --Ligulem 07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Flattery will get you everywhere, but I don't see my name proposal being passed anytime soon, so I can't fantasize about polling my fellow screws to figure out which inmates get to be trustees. :D -- Cecropia 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rubbish remover... --Durin 16:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Kings and Queens of Blockville. Lord Bob 16:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Clean" (reader) "virgin user" (anon editor), "casual user" (account holder), "junkie" (admin), "pusher" (bureaucrat).-gadfium 05:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooh, ooh, progressive ranking! Shit disturber (vandal, etc.), shit smeller (reader), shit stomper (casual editor), shit shoveller (editor), shit cleaner (euphamism for "sanitation engineer", ie, admin), gives a shit (bureaucrat), gives and takes shit (steward), makes the shit (developer), King of Shit (Jimbo).
  • Custodian: 1) a person who has responsibility for or looks after something, such as a museum, financial assets, or a culture or tradition 2) a person employed to clean and maintain a building. That's always seemed like the best term to me. It actually describes what's done. We're not actually administrators at all. I think it's better than janitor though, because, while they are both more accurate than administrator, custodian communicates the importance of wikipedia in a way that, I think, "janitor" detracts from. - cohesiont 07:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very apt term. See also Custodian. --Ligulem 08:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Like it. BD2412 T 01:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice, I do too... -Mysekurity [m!] 01:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Bah. I remember in my grade schools it was the custodian that mopped up the vomit. :P — TheKMantalk 02:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes admins here get to "mop up vomit" ;) - cohesion 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What about "mop" or "broom"? -Mysekurity [m!] 01:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are more admins needed?

There doesn't seem to be any shortage. Whenever I've needed help from an admin, they've been available and responsive. Unless there's a reason to think we need more admins, why not simply close RfA for a while? 70.231.136.114 08:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Martin 08:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how more admins is supposed to help with that. That problem could be solved immediately by speedy-deleting any edits with copyright problems instead of reserving CSD A8 for revenue-producing sites, or getting rid of them automatically after 1 week with a PROD-like process. Getting permissions needs to be the responsibility of the contributing editor, not admins. If anything, more admins makes copyright problems worse, since admins can see deleted articles. If there's just a few admins performing needed maintenance tasks, that's one thing, but if there's an admin community that's expanding for its own sake like the regular user community, copyvios are still effectively published to anyone willing to jump through a few RfA hoops. There's something like 1000 admins on en right now, and websites with fewer than 1000 regular users routinely get hassled over copyvios. 70.231.136.114 09:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The user base is growing faster than the admin count. At one time, admins exceeded 0.1% of the user base, but the ratio (admin count) / (user count) is steadily shrinking. --Ancheta Wis 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The flood of garbage that flows into the Project as it grows is astounding. Just sit and watch Special:Newpages for a while and you shall see that there is a distinct shortage of administrators here. We have more than a million articles and a million users: vandalism needs to be reverted, pranksters/spammers/vandals need to be blocked, garbage needs to be deleted, policy needs to be maintained. The admin community does not expand for its own sake - people who choose to be admins go in with the full knowledge that they will be required to do dirty, thankless work that makes them the targets of wiki-abusers. Nobody just jumps into this shit for the fun of it, nor for the simple ability of being an admin, trust me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite. Some may scoff at it, but the crux of requesting admistrative tools lies with expanded matinence and clean-up duty. I for one see a great many backlogs that require clean-up and assistance in other areas that need more and more manpower as we continuosly recieve new editors.
Wikipedia is one of the most visted websites on the internet. A lovely google search will almost certainly bring a link to wikipedia and its almost certain various clean-up will follow. -ZeroTalk 09:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I was recently moved, by a glance at the rights and user rename logs, to seriously consider the view that we simply do not need more bureaucrats. However, we are not going to reach that place with respect to administrators for a long time, drastic changes to Wikipedia policy notwithstanding. Although there are currently 872 administrators, as with the situation with bureaucrats only a fraction of this number regularly perform sysop tasks; it has been said that the real work of maintaining WP day to day is shouldered by fewer than 150 or so people. However, in vivid contrast with the situation with bureaucrats, there is a massive backlog of sysop tasks. The major work that sysops do is cleaning up WP—cleaning up the vandalism, the copyright infringements, the unsuitable page creations. The other tasks—protecting pages and blocking malefactors—consume much less time. Since the clean-up tasks roughly increase in volume in concert with Wikipedia's own growth and popularity, we're probably going to have to keep adding to the number of sysops to keep pace, if only to maintain that critical fraction of people who actually carry out sysop tasks. If we define an adequate number of sysops as that number with which all sysop tasks are completed to satisfaction in the minimum amount of time (i.e., all vandalism is reverted more or less immediately, all copyright infringements are dealt with in the shortest possible time per Wikipedia:Copyrights and WP:CSD A8, I3, I4 and I5, and all unsuitable pages are likewise deleted in the minimum time per WP:DEL and WP:CSD) we are even now way behind the curve. Reducing the number of admins is figurative suicide. —Encephalon 10:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If most of the work is being done by 150 admins, then why are there 872? I think any who become inactive for more than a few months should be asked to retire their wheel bits, with reinstatement on request if they want to become active again. I just feel like the large number of admins causes decohesion and there should be fewer (look at the revert wars on the main page, which can only be edited by admins). Also, admins aren't needed to revert vandalism. I do it just fine as a non-admin. Sometimes I post at AIAV if a block is needed, and it's always responded to promptly. If the 150 busy admins are overloaded, then the number that needs to be higher is 150, not 872, and the current rfa process is ridiculous. Also, maybe improved technical tools could make some of the tasks easier. 70.231.136.114 13:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, Admins aren't the only ones who can engage in vandalism reversion, but we're the only ones who can block problematic usernames and IP's, and that is important. Sometimes the only way to stop a determined vandal is to simply block it from the source. Reversion takes time and energy away from editors who could be building the encyclopedia, so blocking is important. There's actually been quite a bit of discussion through the months about various RfA and Adminship reforms, such as a system for de-adminning that you suggest. For example, on Meta Wikipedia, Admins have to stand for affirmation once a year. I think part of the reason we don't have that here is to minimise the red tape and Bureacracy we have to deal with...we're doing good just to confirm as many good Admins as we can, and to deal with problematic Admins, without having to deal with re-confirmation. Yes, it would be nice to have cohesion within the Administrative community, but you have to remember that Wikipedia is huge. It's bigger than any one person, or even any group of people. I think for the most part though, the most active Administrators know most of the other active Administrators, so there is a fair amount of cohesion. Yes we disagree sometimes, but that's part of a Wiki. Hopefully we all remember the ideals of collaboration and communication, and all that fun stuff. I agree with you that the 150 number needs to be higher, but I don't think that taking Adminship away from those who don't often use their mop will help raise that number. Basically all we can do is to try and find as many people to be Admins as we can, and confirm as many qualified candidates as come through the RfA process. Generally, I think most Admins contribute most as Administrators when they are new Admins, and mellow out in their use of the mop as their time on Wiki increases, so confirming new Admins is not a bad thing. However it's good to have people with the mops running around, even if you're not actively doing Admin work, you might run across something that needs an Admin or you might get called in on a dispute, so it's helpful to have when you need it, and it's helpful to have those people around. Basically what it comes down to, anyone who is an Admin and is good at it, is an asset to Wikipedia. Even if they only use their mop five times a year, that's five helpful edits to Wikipedia that some other Admin didn't have to do, or might not have gotten done at all had they not done it. So I'm more than happy to confirm someone even if they won't be a super-active Admin, as long as they will use the tools correctly, they're welcome to them. We need as many good Administrators as we can get, and the only way for us to do that is keep chugging through RfA. By the way, why not sign up for an account? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 13:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Inactivity of admins is a relative thing. If there are 150 who do most of the work, there are a few hundred more who still do some admin work. Even if each of these do only 10% or 5% of what the typical top 150er does, when you multiply that by the hundreds of these semi-active admins, it still adds up to a significant contribution. We must remember that Wiki is volunteer work. Only about a quarter of the 872 admins are truly inactive, many of those were made admins years ago and have just moved on away from the project. Take a look at my admin stats page and you will see that we have basically doubled the number of admins every year, and have been adding them at a rate of one a day for quite a while now. We need to keep making new ones, and the current RfA process does that, the rate is really determined by the number of qualified people who apply for the job, eventually we will start spitting them out at a rate of 2 a day :-). NoSeptember talk 14:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Btw, we need a 1000 admin pool :-). What time and date will we promote admin number 1000, and who will it be? NoSeptember talk 14:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I see about 3 new admins/day for this past week, though maybe that's an unusual spurt. I see this Azatoth nonsense that led a bureaucrat to resign and the amount of campaigning by rfa candidates and the thanks for votes they send out and the congratulations/condolences they receive when the rfa closes, and it looks a little too much like a club membership. I have root on the server where I work, to make some config tasks easier; it never would have occurred to me or my co-workers to throw a party when I got it. The Azatoth thing was awful; nobody should want it that much, and if they do, it's a bad sign. Also, admins are promoted by bureaucrats instead of by a bot for the precise reason that bureaucrats are supposed to use some discretion, not be bound by hard limits on vote percentages, etc.; they should get some slack. Any particular nomination (especially marginal ones) getting through or not getting through on a particular try is no big deal, and the process is dysfunctional if it becomes a big deal. I'd almost prefer that bureaucrats privately roll 2D6 and add that number to the vote percentage, then promote if the total is higher than 85%, specifically to soften the vote percentage as a promotion criterion; but more likely, the process is just deeply broken at this point and admin selection should be done some other way, hopefully with an eye towards toning down the social culture of the nomination/rfa process.
To Evilphoenix: as for me getting an account, I have one--its user number is in the 10000's, which puts it in the oldest 2% on en, but I almost never logged in to edit (m:exopedianism) and paid no attention to these meta issues until recently because of some stupid edit wars. (I'm not logged in now because I happened to not be logged in when I first posted to this thread, and don't want to reveal the IP address for my account).
Anyway, I'm going on for too long, I better stop, I just wanted to get this off my chest. 70.231.136.114 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that any one person becoming an admin should not be a big deal. We become admins for the benefit of Wikipedia, not personal agrandizement. Those who are rejected for newness will become admins soon enough, waiting should not be a big deal to them. Those rejected for perceived incivility may never become admins. Trying to desysop inactive admins will just create more drama though, so it is best we just leave them be. Only desysop those who are actually harming Wikipedia, and let ArbCom decide who those few are. For the record, 12 admins have been promoted in the first 7 days of April. NoSeptember talk 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that's a good idea! My money's on User:Willy on Wheels, February 7, 2007.
More topic-wise, I find it hard to believe Wikipedia could ever have too many administrators with the current system. Most people demand thousands of edits and significant talk-space contribution along with the various standards of integrity and reliability, and in any community only a strikingly small percentage will have the time, persistance, or demeanour to become support-worthy candidates. One looks at the list of administrators and it is quite imposing, but as a fraction of the Wikipedia userbase, not counting the zillions of anonymous contributors and vandals, it's quite small and always will be. Adminship was originally conceived as "nothing special", but, for better or for worse, we've moved away from that and as a result we have what might be a higher-calibre admin force, but fewer of them. Lord Bob 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
All things change and end, including the involvement of individuals as administrators on the project. Having been here two years now, I've seen it again and again: good user, becomes admin, uses admin tools every day, does a lot of RC and Newpages patrol, then gradually fades away. Involvement of most people on this project, as is true in most internet communities, follows a kind of narrative curve of discovery, enthusiasm, peak, and then decline; we need a steady flow of new administrators to replace those who burn out or leave the project, or just get tired of troll-fighting. Troll-fighting makes us all tired and we always need a steady stream of new energetic recruits to join us. Antandrus (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Percentages on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jedi6

There is an issue on the Jedi6's RfA involving displaying the voting percentage of Jedi6's support votes. Is this allowed, or is it discouraged? I want to make sure there's no bitterness left on that RfA, which may impact some new votes or change previous ones. — Deckiller 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue flaring up? Do you mean showing the tally at the top? It's certainly very tight but no out of the ordinary concerns are being debated. Marskell 08:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Earlier in the nomination period there was a % listed at the top of the nomination. It has since been removed. I would strongly discourage this practice because it doesn't account for any voting irregularities (sock puppets, etc) that bureaucrats may determine. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
For the lazy ones... I am neutral on this, but currently it's not normal practice. Given the circumstances, I oppose this by now. Fetofs Hello! 13:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I see. Yes, I would discourage it to. Indeed, perhaps we shouldn't even list the tally?... Marskell

Mathbot and edit summary percentages

I'm concerned about the inflation in acceptable edit summary percentages. I therefore tentively suggest having math bot only display an exact percentage if it is under 75% and otherwsie just say that it is over 75% (possible some other percentage). JoshuaZ 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is crap ( no offense to the operator of Mathbot ) . Look at their last 100 contributions yourself. I can't believe we have such high standards for adminship. Soon enough only 3 people will be admins. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I will take offence however, as I think that is a poor way of making a point, especially coming from a bureaucrat. But to answer the broader question, I perfectly agree that one should not be too reliant on statistics on any kind. They have a place; it is not as if quality and quantity have nothing in common, but one should keep things in balance. Luckily, most Wikipedians understand that, and for those who don't, they may make silly votes whether they use statistics or other arguments for it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
(ec) Why? An exact number lets people judge for themselves, and to make a qualified opinion of the person after looking at the candidate holistically. Having Mathbot report a range implies that 75% is an "acceptable" percentage of edit summaries, when in fact, there is no widely-accepted standard and can vary from person to person. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! for the emphatic Thanks! ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I prefer having as much info as possible, especially since the days when we knew the editing style of everyone wishing to be an admin are long gone. Put the info out there and let people make up their own minds.--Alabamaboy 20:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm very happy that I got my adminship while one was still judged on one's qualitative merits rather than quantitative ones. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Same here. I've been here way too long :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The entire procedure at this point is ridiculous. I made a rough estimate of the inflation rate of max at time t of cited minimum edit count, and it looks like it is going up by about 100 a month (my data may be innacurate, many sampling, other problems) at which rate a user who starts now and edits for eternity at a 100 edits a month will never be able to become an admin. JoshuaZ 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoo... I found that I edit at about 100 per 3 days to a week when I'm really active (like this week) but on average I apparantly have 5.73/day (which counts the few times i went on month-long vacations to internet-disabled places) which places me at 100 edits per 17 1/2 days (ish). I have no clue why I went through the trouble of finding that out, but I am not a very active person compared to the people with 5x10^2000 edits. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what other people think, but I, for one, still base my vote on the candidate, not on statisitics. However, as I've pointed out many times before, numbers offer a more complete view of the candidate and allows voters to look at a holistic view. Statistics have always been part of analysis, and will inevitably be on RfA - for instance, if someone only has one edit, voters opposing on that basis (which will be practically everyone) are looking at a statistic. In a similar fashion, statistics can be a useful tool - or can be a destructive tool. It's up to the voters, but regardless of that fact, the statistics will still be "out there". Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I waited six months after becoming active before self-nomming myself on RfA simply out of fear of people's standards. Even then, I figured I might not make it because I had a comparatively low edit count, even for those times -- just barely over a thousand edits. Nowadays a guy like me would have no chance on RfA whatsoever -- far too often statistics are misused. IMO, if the user is not fit for adminship, you wouldn't need a statistic to oppose. Having said that, I recognise that statistics are just a necessary means for the community to function in selecting admins. I don't like it, but obviously other people do, so... Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Even though I've been working on Flcelloguy's Tool for a while now, and part of the tool analyzes edit summaries in depth, I personally don't even consider edit summary usage when looking at RfA candidates, per my RfA standards. There's no problem in having extra information, but there's a problem when users misuse it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone with rather high admin standards who does use this tool, I still vote support more than oppose. We have new admins join the ranks nearly every day. Jonathunder 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To allay some come concerns that my bot's info about edit summary usage is being used more than what it's worth, I replaced the actual percentage with a link to the tool where one can get it. By the way, I would be interested in moving it to the toolserver, at will be faster there, and not use the server of UCLA, my employer, but I've been waiting to get an account on the toolserver for more than a month and a half now, and no sign that it would come anytime soon. As they do in my country, whom should I bribe to get in? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The servers are based in Florida yes? So one doesn't have as much in direct bribery, but one has other options. These include finding the right person to have a very quick affair with, helping stuff ballot boxes, helping remove valid ballots, being a lobbyist and paying for the person to go to an excotic location for their "research" as to whether you should deserve an account. Also, just having a dinner or lunch meeting at a very expensive restaurant and paying for that. But no bribery, not in the US, they would never have bribery. Did I miss any other common behaviors that are definitely not bribery? JoshuaZ 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 :) what about the president NOT EVER meeting a particular disgraced lobbyist despite being photographed with him... definitely not bribery... Mikker (...) 09:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding something, but I'm really not sure the toolserver's health will be improved with further additions to it. There seems to be a perpetual replication lag these days. —Encephalon 10:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mathbot doesn't oppose people. People oppose people. Mathbot provides the info. People use the info however they wish. Me, I don't care if someone has 60% edit summaries or 100% edit summaries. I don't use it; however, an extremely low edit summary usage is usually indicative of a new user, but this can also be determined in other ways (edit counts, account age, quality of edits, and so on). It's just a tool to determine how ideal a candidate is. Some people use it, some people don't. Leave it in for the other people that use it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There's no reason why a candidate can't remove the graphs if they don't want them on the page since reverting mathbot isn't like reverting a regular user so there shouldn't be any issue with that but it's up to the candidate. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA edit count standards going up?

Average edit counts of RfAs over time
Average edit counts of RfAs over time

User:JoshuaZ mentioned above that he made a rough estimate that showed edit count standards at RfA are going up around 100 edits per month. There's a number of different ways in which we might determine the veracity of this assertion. One way is with the the chart I generated at right which shows the average edit count of successful RfAs and unsuccessful RfAs over time. It is interesting to note that there has been a considerable rise in the average edit counts of successful RfAs, but only a rather small rise in the same figure for unsuccessful RfAs. The approximate rise in edit count of successful candidates is about 171 edits per month. For unsuccessful, it's about 27. One possible conclusion of this is that it really isn't so much the standards that are going up as it is that the average successful candidate has a higher edit count, while the edit count rejection level has only slightly increased. Just some food for thought. --Durin 15:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thats a much better and systematic way of doing it than I did. Could you email me your data table for that? I'd be very interested in seeing it. By the way, what were the R values of these trends? Looking at your table it doesn't look like it is that strong a correlation. Also another thought as to why the rejection level is going up. We get a fair number of extremely unqualified self-noms who don't have any idea what is considered a minimaly reasonable edit count. Possibly new editors are becoming more quickly aware of the requirements to be an admin? JoshuaZ 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Um. I think it is a little tricky to draw that line with confidence, really. For example, I could draw another line that goes down for the period Aug-05 - end Dec-05. -Splashtalk 15:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but that would be arbitrarily restricting your sample size to 5 months ending 4 months ago, as opposed to 10 months ending now - less sound, no? I don't like Durin' possible conclusion, that standards are not shown here - since standards are published, you would have to assume that a decent number of potential admins do not apply, knowing that they fall short of those established standards. Stevage 16:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The bigger issue is that it includes the obvious pass and fails. We need to focus on the close calls only to see where the real line is (although edit counts is obviously not the key issue in most close calls either). NoSeptember talk 16:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Success rate of RfAs over time
Success rate of RfAs over time
You know, the amount of data being generated about RfAs can be put together to write a paper or two. To me, those curves look suspiciously like fading channel measurements...Anyway, I think there might be a very easy way to fix those "close calls" - why not institutionalize as standard practise, bureaucrats leaving a message on the candidate's talk page, simply asking what sort of circumstances they want to be promoted under? Do they want to wait a little longer for a clearer margin for promotion? Or, would they be willing to settle for something with more ambiguity and controversy? There is no reason why the candidate should not have any input into the circumstances of how they were promoted. The fact is, some users will take into account and value the social context in which they are perceived to be promoted - and for the users who care about it, there will be an inclination to decline, and simply wait for another time. If the candidate declines, the bureaucrat could even say something like, in X months, I'll come back and nominate you. The system does not have to be "cruel" to these candidates - it just needs to be adjusted slightly so that the problem is less pronounced, and possibly even fixed. If the candidate does not decline in a marginal case, then they will have to work on Wikipedia with those consequences - in this case, the bureaucrat does not have to carry the entire burden of the decision. Yes, this situation can be open to be "gamed" - there might be a canvassing of votes. This will probably be solved with some modifications to this idea. Without going into too much WikiPolitics and WikiHistory, this seems to be the most clear and straightforward way to rectify a problem that has been brewing chronically. Refinements? Comments? What do you think? Obviously needs some tweaking, but I have not seen this idea proposed anywhere yet...I do hope it would be useful to make new ideas. --HappyCamper 16:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
All candidates are certainly capable and welcome to withdraw their nomination at any time, right up to the second it's closed by a bureaucrat. If they are promoted, they may certainly withdraw their adminship at any time as well. I don't think we need to add another step to this. --Durin 17:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased that the graph spurred discussion on this point. I thought that it would, and feel this is good thing. Quite a number of people insist standards are going up, but base such conclusions on anecdotal data. The graph above shows some hard data, but the data may certainly be interpreted in a number of ways. I find one conclusion, other people find others. But, I'd much rather be having these discussions using hard data than nebulous assertions based on anecdotal data. I added another chart above which is relevant as well. This chart ends at a different date because it was created some time ago, but it's still pertinent to the discussion I think. --Durin 17:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That second graph looks like a much more substantial trend. I'd be very interested in what happens when one looks at both edit count numbers and percentage success as long term trends and be very interested in what the R values are for all three of the best fit lines. JoshuaZ 19:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to user the median. The mean will skew the stats upwards on weeks when there is a candidate like Naconkantari or CSCWEM because of all their rollback edits. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think User:HappyCamper's suggestion there is a very intersting one. Perhaps all RfA's that fit into the 70-80% accept category could enter some second level of voting... Robdurbar 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Massive backlog of admin tasks...

...such as resolving copyright problems. I think in addition to having more administrators look at those pages, it probably needs clearer guidelines on how to actually fix those problems. It is extremely difficult to do them, because sometimes it is rather contentious and ambiguous, and the whole issue surrounding jurisprudence and legality of resolving those things, well...it's like reaching into a beehive. I think we need help, but I'm not sure what that entails. --HappyCamper 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been thinking about proposing/starting a WikiProject to deal with keeping track of Administrative tasks, and what the status of various areas are....there might be a Template that could be put on a User's page for example that could give an updated status reports of how much of a backlog there is at CFD, AFD, MFD, CV, AIV, etc. Any thoughts on that? Does anyone know of any prior work on that that they could point me to? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I suspect an actual project would probably cause more work than it would help, but a template that we could base at WP:AN with the intent that it be placed on all admin user pages (at their discretion of course) sounds like a superb idea. Martin 16:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't know that the actual project would be that much work. Essentially the scope is: 1. Define what Administrative tasks are 2. Define where these tasks are accomplished 3. Define a metric for assessing the status of the given work area (what constitutes a backlog? a heavy backlog? Up to date?). 4. Analyze the work area to evaluate against the metric. 5. Publish that information.
Well ok maybe that is a fair amount, but maybe it isn't. I think it's doable though, with a few people contributing, to assess where Admin contribution is the most needed, and where Admin contribution is able to manage the work level. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
the template idea sounds great, i could definitely use something like that.--Alhutch 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me as well. --Durin 17:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the template idea as well. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The template is a good idea. I will state, though, that the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page is a pain in the butt to deal with and I state this as someone who loves working on copyright problems here. I spend most of my time looking for new articles with massive copyright problems because these can be speedily deleted. However, once the 48 hour time period is up and an article with a massive copyright problem is found, then you have to muck around with all the pain and anguish of dealing with this confusing and troublesome project page. Ouch. Ah well, such is life.--Alabamaboy 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: for my own personal use, I have compiled a page of admin links and templates and stuff at User:Alabamaboy/Grabbag to make my own admin work easier. But if someone could distill this info and more into a template, that'd be great.--Alabamaboy 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
For the most difficult tasks, we should have a list of a few true experts who can provide advice on tough cases. NoSeptember talk 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
On the 'backlog level template' idea I'd actually suggest very small individual templates in a standardized format for each task. These could then be displayed on the project page for the task, collected together into an 'all admin tasks' list, and/or put on a page individually for just the tasks the person works on. Actually, there is no reason not to do something like this for non-admin tasks as well. --CBDunkerson 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And to relate this to RfA, we should ask each candidate to pick one backlog area that they will commit to work on once they become an admin. While not enforcable, we could build up some teams of admins working in these areas. NoSeptember talk 17:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen, there's never a serious backlog on deletion pages (AfD's, CfD's, etc). After the 4 days (or whatever) goes by, within a day or so an admin comes along and closes the afd, and it doesn't take much admin time except for an occasional contentious one. AIV's have always been responded to quite fast. That leaves copyright problems and I think you guys are making more work out of those than there needs to be. I suggest an eventualist approach (m:eventualism), i.e. just use a PROD-like process to delete articles or edits with apparent copyright problems after a week or so without giving them much thought. Sooner or later, good edits will take their place. Don't have admins running around trying to get permissions for edits made by contributors. That's the contributors' responsibility, so at most, leave the contributor a note pointing them to WP:BRP and don't waste further time on it until a permission letter comes in. That should clear the backlog pretty fast. 70.231.136.114 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I put together a very bare bones framework for how this kind of 'centralized backlog tracking' might work at Wikipedia:Workboxes. Basically it is just green, yellow, and red boxes for each task which can then be grouped into 'admin tasks', 'user tasks', 'deletion tasks', 'my tasks', et cetera. What level of backlog constitutes each color would be determined and set on pages for each task. I tried to keep the boxes small and simple because there are alot of different tasks out there which users may want to track. If people like it this can be developed more fully... otherwise replace with something else. --CBDunkerson 22:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for more intelligent voting

Problem: We ask people to make sensible voting choices based on their complete history, looking for good editing, civil behaviour and proof of mediation capabilities. But no one has the time. So people vote on readily available metrics such as edit counts, edit summary usage etc, instead.

Problem: People who fail to follow the RfA procedure correctly get shot down in flames, and annoy everyone.

Problem: There is a strong preference against self-nominations.

Solution: As part of the RfA process, a candidate must find a nominator, ideally an admin, but certainly someone with significant experience here. This nominator is obliged to:

  • Provide a month-by-month summary of the candidates edit history (of the last, say, 10 months, and a quick summary of the rest, if any). This summary would look vaguely like:
    • Jan 2006: 100 edits in article space, mostly copyedits to Pokémon or related categories. No disputes, though this edit [1] was contentious. Mediated dispute here [2].
    • Feb 2006: Only contributions were to vote "Strong keep" on 30 Pokemon related articles.
  • Provide basic assistance with the RfA process to ensure that the candidate doesn't stuff up.

The nominator would not necessarily have to strongly believe in the candidate, but simply aim to provide a balanced and roughly neutral summary of the candidate to voters, so they can base their vote on something solid.

There should also be a place (formally or informally) where potential admins can find someone to nominate them. Comments please. Stevage 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like instruction creep and then some, sorry. Self-noms succeed all the time... we currently have a self-nom blowing away all previous records for support. The problem is that people who can't find a nominator, because no one really thinks they're a good candidate, make up a substantial portion of the self-noms... it's no wonder these people fail. --W.marsh 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with W.marsh. There doesn't appear to be a need to formalize the process to this degree at this point. the cream rises to the top. If a self-nom candidate is good enough, they will be approved, it's as simple as that. full disclosure: i self-nominated and got through 25-0.--Alhutch 16:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since June of 2005, self nominations have had a 29% less chance of success than non-self nominations (all RfAs for candidates with 750 or greater edits). Since January 1, 2006 that same rate is 33% less chance. In general, I don't think we should deny people the ability to self nominate, even if it does mean a less chance of success. I do very detailed nominations in part because few people do the extensive reviews necessary to truly determine if someone is ready to be an admin, and I don't want to nominate someone who isn't ready; that's bad for the project. It'd be nice if all nominators were as detailed in their reviews, but only a handful are. But, in my opinion we shouldn't stop people from nominating or self-nominating if they are less detailed. --Durin 17:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well like the above user say, I think part of why you're seeing a lower percentage of self-noms being accepted is the generally higher quality of sponsored candidates...Sponsors aren't generally likely to nominate a user with 300 edits, yet every now and again one will pop in and get quickly removed. Generally, if someone is sponsored, they've impressed someone enough to sponsor them (especially if the sponsor is a well established contributor to RfA), so they're generally pretty good whereas both good candidates and random schmucks can self-nom just as easily. Either way, the issue needs to be on the candidate, not how they were nominated. The reality however is that a nomination from a respected user will help you, probably more so than being a self-nom will hurt you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you have an interesting proposal, but the main problem I see with that is potential Instruction Creep. I agree that RfA voting is a difficult task...it's hard to give the time and energy needed to properly analyze a candidate to each and every nominee. For me, I only tend to vote on the more controversial ones (the yellow ones of DFBOt's summary), and I generally only vote after doing some research. For me this is a combination of quantitative analysis using various metrics, such as edit count, distribution of edits across namespaces, analysis of edit counts to articles, time on Wiki, etc. Then there's the qualitative side of looking through the candidates edit history, looking at what their contribution list looks like, looking at their User Page, their User Talk record, and what other voters have commented on about the candidate. Because I generally focus on controversial ones, I analyze why people support this candidate, and why people oppose. Do I find their reasons for opposing valid? It's not an easy process, I agree.
Your second point, Problem: People who fail to follow the RfA procedure correctly get shot down in flames, and annoy everyone. I think this is true, but I don't know that I would personally phrase it as a problem. I think you're talking about incorrectly formatted RfA applications and such things. To me, I'd agree with that. In my mind, a person needs to be familiar with and knowledgeable about Wikipedia to be an Administrator. I think the sign of a good Internet user is one who is willing to lurk in a forum before contributing to the forum, and to slowly build up their contribution levels. For example, I read Wikipedia for months before I signed up for an account and began editing. When I began to be aware of the Admin position, and became interested in becoming one, I researched the position and how one became an Admin. Obviously, this led me here. I lurked in RfA for months before I went through the process. For my own reasons, I wasn't comfortable voting heavily on RfA's, but I observed RfA's going through, I observed discussion here, and I occasionally made comments here. Thus, when it came time for me to go through the process, I knew what I was doing, made sure to correctly format my nomination, and I was promoted without opposition. To me, if a candidate incorrectly formats their RfA, if they add their RfA to the page without accepting it or answering questions, if they transclude their nomination to the RfA page with no edit summary, these are red flags that the candidate is unfamiliar with RfA procedure and basic Wikipedia culture, and is therefore not yet ready to be an Administrator. Whether that is in fact true or not, an incorrectly formatted RfA gives a very poor first impression. It's like sending out a resume with typos on it...no one will hire you, even if you're fantastically qualified, because you can't be bothered to spell check your own resume.
Your third point: Problem: There is a strong preference against self-nominations.. Is there? I think that's a complicated issue with lots of differing opinions. I nominated myself and passed unopposed. I had wanted to be nominated by someone else, but I also was opposed to the idea that I should ask someone...I wanted to be noticed for my own merits, and have someone offer to nominate me without solicitation on my part. However, had I sat around waiting to be nominated, it might have taken me much longer to become an Administrator, so I nominated myself, got promoted, and got busy making Administrative contributions. I think in the ideal world, candidates are nominated by Administrators, who approach the candidate unsolicited. Both nominations I have made so far were completely unsolicited on the part of the nominee, and I think that's a nice way for things to be. However that doesn't mean that I would reject out of hand someone who happened to approach me and ask me to consider nominating them. I think that's a nice ideal, but ultimately it's not practical...if worthy Admin candidates sit around waiting to be noticed, waiting to be nominated by someone else, well then they're spending time not as Admins that they could be spending contributing Administratively. I personally have no problems with self nominations, having been one myself, and I think a self-nom shows gutsiness and a willingness to get down to the business of being an Admin. If someone really prefers to be nominated, they can ask another editor they respect to consider nominating them. The worst they other person can do is say no, and even then they're still free to ask someone else or self-nom. I think though that ultimately, some people are biased for and against self nominations and sponsored nominations. I think the real issue needs to be "is this candidate ready to be an Admin?", not "did they nominate themselves?" or "do they have a popular sponsor?".
I also don't think it's good to restrict nominations to Admins. While I think that Admins are perhaps more suited to understand the role they play and what are good attributes in a candidate, we don't have a monopoly on that knowledge, and I don't think it's good to place further restrictions seperating Users from Admins. I think it's good if Users feel comfortable and able to nominate other Users for Adminship..to me, thats a positive sign that a given User is willing to commend another User for a position of greater responsibility. Personally, the first person that I wanted to nominate for Adminship was another editor, not myself, and I would have nominated her if someone hadn't beaten me to it before she'd reached my personal minimum standards (fortunately she passed nonetheless, but my reasons for wanting to wait to nominate her were in fact a defining issue of her RfA).
I disagree with your statement The nominator would not necessarily have to strongly believe in the candidate. When I make an RfA nomination, I only do so when I firmly believe a candidate is ready. I am not only putting their reputation and record up for consideration, but by attaching my name to the nomination, I am essentially saying "On my record as a good contributor to Wikipedia, I believe this other user would be a quality Administrator". I'm literally weighing in with my reputation to support another User. That is certainly not something I would ever give lightly, and I don't think that I am alone in that opinion. I believe an RfA nominator should completely believe in a candidate they nominate.
There should also be a place (formally or informally) where potential admins can find someone to nominate them. Comments please. That I have mixed feelings about. I don't think it would be a horrible thing to have candidates to are interested in Adminship speak up and ask for advice from older users. However I think personally the best thing to do if you want to be nominated is to just approach another editor you respect and ask them to consider you. If you pick someone known for making successful RfA nominations, so much the better. My personal preference for candidates is for me to approach them, but even through I keep an eye out that doesn't mean I would be averse to someone asking for my consideration.
Well, Ive said a lot here, but I hope my comments are helpful to you. I bet I'm totally getting an edit conflict on this. I was right. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Another modest proposal (from further up):
  1. Do away with RfA completely. Designate all admins older than ~3 months as "certifiers" (right now I think that means about 700 certifiers). Say that only certifiers can actually nominate new admins, though of course anyone can ask any certifier to nominate someone. Certifiers should only nominate after checking that the candidate meets some informal guidelines roughly like the current ones and deciding they support the candidate. Maybe another certifier should have to second the nomination. The nominator writes a statement in support of the candidate.
  2. Once a nomination is entered, 12 certifiers from the total pool get selected at random by the wiki software (this group doesn't include the original nominator unless by coincidence). The random selection is intended to prevent self-selected cliques from pushing people through as happens now. The 12 certifiers then hold an semi-formal arbcom-like process to decide on the nomination. As with arbcom, an oppose vote cancels a support vote. They discuss the nomination on an rfar-like page and maybe privately, review the nominee's edit history and ask the nominee questions on-wiki and/or on irc and invite public comment. With 730 certifiers and one new nomination per day (365/year), and 12 certifiers per nomination, each certifier should expect to sit on about 6 nomination panels per year. That allows them to examine nominees more closely than the current rfa scheme does, since regular rfa voters now look at basically every nominee, so they decide on lame bases like mathbot statistics. I'd hope that each certifier would spend at least an hour or so on each nomination they consider.
  3. If the vote is +4 to certify then the nominee is promoted. Otherwise there's a soft 6-month waiting period before permitting renomination.
  4. Certifiers can self-recuse or be recused when there's obvious conflicts of interest, or be deselected if they're unavailable for reasons unrelated to the candidate (e.g. they're on wikibreak or have outside commitments), but otherwise participation once selected by the software should be semi-mandatory (like jury duty). Again, this is intended to decrease self-selection effects.
  5. If desired, the certifier pool can be expanded somehow to include non-admins, but I'm not sure exactly how that should be done. It shouldn't be wide open.
70.231.136.114 16:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No more instruction creep, please. The system works just fine in the vast majority of cases, and people can always apply again, or otherwise, if they screwed up, they can be de-adminned. These proposals are just red tape with no guarantee of improving things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the occasional close call decision makes it appear that RfA is somehow broken. But I think that is not the case. A close vote means that the system is working, and that there is legitimate decision making going on. I say let the RfA system work. The value of properly nominated versus self-noms is already taken into account in people's votes, as are the other key issues that come up. Changes in standards will be determined by the voters and will evolve naturally over time. NoSeptember talk 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

More graphs

If people are interested, I created a page with the charts mentioned above and a few other charts relevant to RfA. The page is User:Durin/Admin charts. --Durin 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Amazing. Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 20:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. JoshuaZ 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Masssiveego's Votes

Any questions? --Masssiveego 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I will say this though - those who want to find what they want to seek will always find it. So, could I request something of you? It's just a little thing. If you have an inclination to oppose candidates, could you please accompany your oppose votes with other material which, say, highlights the strengths of the candidate? Not only would it be more palatable for the recipient, it would also come across as more constructive. In this way, your votes would come across as more meaningful, and less polarizing. Would this be okay with you? Is this something you could work towards? How do you feel about this suggestion? --HappyCamper 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, highlighting strengths would probably support the canidate and cancel out the effect of the oppose. Therefore I should

not give "compliments" about their strengths. I think bad admin canidates should clearly know without confusion they are opposed. --Masssiveego 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I recommend that you look back at RfAs you've opposed. Often, you may find some solid counterpoints that may negate your oppose. — Deckiller 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did this come up? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that if he brings up a point, and someone provides a good counterpoint, perhaps he should change his position to be fair. — Deckiller 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Unless the counterpoint is clearly canceling out the reason why I opposed the canidate as wrong or false, I generally prefer not to change my position on my votes. I have not seen anything that would change my vote at this time. Otherwise if the counterpoint is merely, my voting record, or "I don't trust your judgement", I treat both as an insult that is covered WP:personal attack. --Masssiveego 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that makes very good sense. Thanks for the response. — Deckiller 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you ask, here's a question: Do you think any or all of the candidates you have opposed that were promoted have made bad admins? Would you be willing to rethink your strategy if you reviewed those admins that you opposed and found some of them proved worthy? Dmcdevit·t 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely some should have never been made Admin in my opinion. I found none that I have opposed worthy yet. Masssiveego 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Oppose" votes should, but do not have to be, backed up by reason(s). I'm beginning to think that a plain "oppose", with no comment is best. Merecat 06:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a democracy close votes without a reason carry much less weight when it comes down to it, and to a certain extent same with support votes with no reasoning but if your okay with the fact that your refusal (both Merecat and Massivego) to write anything else in addition to oppose on your input degrades the impact that your votes have to the process and the fact that they do nothing to convince people to vote oppose (quite the opposite in many cases since some editors will vote support just to spite oppose voters which is a fairly immature and unhelpful response) while giving people a reason why you think the candidate is not suitable as an admin can and many times will help people get a full picture and very likely even vote oppose as well due to concerns about the candidate. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Masssiveego. Personally, I think people question your opposes when your reasoning seems rather minor, possibly trivial, or possibly incorrect (e.g., "no images", "inactivity with the Wikipedia community", username is "copyright infringement"). I think clarification of your reasoning can go a long way, and could help those involved in the RfA process to determine whether they want a candidate to be an admin. — TheKMantalk 02:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My reasons are definitently important, especially on the failiure to post images, in the light of the religious cartoon contraversy. Images are a large part of wikipedia. If the user in question requires clarification, they have the option to leave me a message asking so. Masssiveego 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please also see Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy Masssiveego 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Massiveego, please unless someone is for certain complaining about your voting on RFA or elsewhere, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Moe ε 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually there are many complaints about my voting, and this is the correct forum for dealing with these disputes/explainations. WP:point

was overruled for voting purposes with Boothy443. If there is a problem with my voting habits, reasons, or otherwise about the admin election system. This is the proper forum for discussing them. --Masssiveego 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC) WP:point is only for editing articles.

Well, Masssiveego, I think you probally should take a deeper look at some of your statements, some of your arguments really do seem a little odd.. Whilst I agree that you do have some valid reasons for your votes, taking a look at most of your history I'd say 85% of your votes are opposes and of those 85% the majority are "as above" etc. I really don't know how long you look into information, but from your comments on my rfa, mostly regarding my bot, I think you might want to spend just a little bit more time fact checking. For example you made a quote saying that I was being unfriendly regarding the bot, and the poster themselves took a second to reply and say that there was no hostility, he was simply reporting an error that was promptly corrected. I've also noted very very few non RfA related contribs, I don't want to sound offensive but are you sure you are really getting a perspective to vote without interacting with the user or the community at large, I think some more time on articles would really help put things into perspective. Perhaps a lot of voters don't look too deeply, I mostly vote based on talk page contribs and the overall friendliness of the user, perhaps talking to the user might help bring in another perspective that you didn't realize? I'm not trying to sound critical but a large number of editors have been questioning some of your votes, I'm just trying to suggest ways that might help you get a better perspective -- Tawker 01:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion above has been well noted. The main problem with the above RFA was haste. The only time I have any discussion is when the RFA

canidate is questioned. At which point the answers, if any, from these canidates shape my response. While some of answers do appear odd, typically it's because the wikipedia at large seems to have limited experiences from which a habit has already been formed from. The differences in cultural backgrounds may account for this "oddness". Just because it's in english, does not necessarily means it's in the english culture.

As for the bot let me use my translation of the message.

Re: Tawkerbot2

This is in response to your reply on my talk page to feedback I left on the bot's talk page.

As for the message left on editors' talk pages, my personal preference leans towards something more technical and less conversational. That lead to my "thanks for experimenting, now frig off" interpretation, because that's how I imagined an innocent aggrieved editor taking the comment when the revert was wrong. FWIW, I'd lean more towards something along the lines of:

Your recent edit of some article was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If you were experimenting, know that everyone really is welcome to contribute, but tests should be done in the sandbox.If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior.

Or something like that. At least that's my 2 cents' worth and how I read your talk page post.

"The bot is a great idea in theory. "

(There is a problem with the bot.)

"Thanks for all the work you've put into it. "

(civil)

But please be careful and very conservative in practice. (something may be wrong with it.)

If you get too ambitious you'll get in trouble, because there is no way that the bot will be ever be able to reliably distinguish between all types of vandalism from good faith edits.

(ambitious as in.. too much too soon.. therefore haste, haste is bad. Proof that haste is a continued problem.)

Randomly reverting legitimate edits is another form of vandalism, after all!

(the complaint about the bot)

Going for the obvious profanity, scatology, etc., will help a lot, but keep a close eye on it, and leave the rest to us mere mortals.

(the suggestion)

"--Kbh3rdtalk 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC) [edit]"

"A tawkerbot error"

"Hi Tawker. I just thought you should know about this revert. The IP address fixed it in the previous edit and your bot reverted it back. " (the problem with the bot)

"I figured that you should know so that hopefully you can prevent this from happening again. "

(warning)

"I left a message on User talk:80.7.14.231 (the user whose edit was reverted) explaining the misunderstanding. I overall like your bot and I've seen the good that it can do, however,"

(resolution)

"I am a little concerned that mistakes like this will bite newbies and scare them away from future contributions. However, as long as the mistake is caught and is explained to the user, especially if they are a new user, I don't have a problem with it. I am just worried that this won't always be the case. Anyway, thanks for looking into this."

(Probable damage from hastily releasee error prone bot. What kind of damage can this user do on newbies with admin powers added?)

--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What stuck out the most in my mind.

"You threatened to block me for one bad edit in 24 hours which is the truth ." (the complaint)

"You are not an administrator." (something is really wrong.)

"Get a better handle on warning templates WP:RCP." (The tone of the suggestions suggests to me irate.)

"--196.40.43.218 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)"

The way too quick on the draw that suggests a pattern of haste. Masssiveego 05:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin activity report for March, 2006

To throw some raw statistics into the discussion, here's a summary of the top administrative users in March 2006. A total of 55 admins were responsible for 50% of the administrative activity in March (where "top 50%" has been computed independently for each type of administrative activity). The table shows, for each admin in the top 50%, their total count and rank in each category of action. Entries in roman font are in the top 50%; entries in italic font are not in the top 50% for that action.

Admin delete restore block unblock protect unprotect rights renameuser
1 JesseW 5310 (1) 3 (74) 5 (243) 8 (38) 4 (89) 1 (93)
2 Curps 346 (51) 3497 (1) 180 (3) 45 (10) 3 (47)
3 Sherool 3597 (2) 1 (143)
4 Mushroom 2870 (3) 23 (9) 24 (104) 6 (52) 3 (112) 1 (93)
5 Freakofnurture 749 (23) 61 (5) 1537 (2) 320 (2) 125 (1) 10 (17)
6 Howcheng 2524 (4) 5 (43) 1 (354)
7 Mailer diablo 2096 (6) 7 (34) 38 (77) 3 (112)
8 CLW 2123 (5) 10 (26) 3 (276)
9 Mo0 2074 (7) 20 (10) 17 (132) 1 (150) 2 (142) 1 (93)
10 RexNL 846 (16) 844 (4) 7 (41) 29 (15) 6 (28)
11 Cohesion 1589 (8) 1 (143) 1 (183)
12 Naconkantari 746 (24) 7 (34) 547 (5) 24 (10) 26 (18) 6 (28)
13 Angr 1305 (9) 7 (34) 21 (118) 21 (26) 1 (93)
14 Shanel 757 (21) 12 (19) 491 (6) 76 (5) 9 (52) 2 (58)
15 Hall Monitor 63 (159) 1 (143) 1041 (3) 88 (4) 88 (3) 12 (12)
16 Harro5 1101 (11) 5 (43) 11 (176) 1 (150) 15 (33)
17 Vegaswikian 1115 (10) 2 (99)
18 DakotaKahn 915 (14) 4 (55) 187 (14) 2 (113) 4 (89)
19 Academic Challenger 960 (12) 1 (143) 12 (166) 6 (67) 1 (93)
20 Jeffrey O. Gustafson 790 (19) 16 (14) 116 (26) 12 (23) 36 (11) 6 (28)
21 Nv8200p 954 (13) 4 (55)
22 Meegs 913 (15) 1 (143) 18 (127)
23 InShaneee 797 (18) 3 (74) 91 (36) 4 (74) 10 (48) 2 (58)
24 Ixfd64 102 (123) 3 (74) 146 (19) 624 (1) 2 (142) 1 (93)
25 Ta bu shi da yu 817 (17) 2 (99) 1 (354) 2 (142)
26 SCEhardt 769 (20) 2 (99) 3 (276)
27 (aeropagitica) 754 (22) 1 (354) 1 (183)
28 Drini 465 (39) 3 (74) 227 (9) 5 (62) 3 (112) 4 (37)
29 Splash 395 (46) 24 (8) 43 (68) 6 (52) 25 (20) 206 (1)
30 RHaworth 587 (30) 90 (4) 1 (354) 6 (67)
31 Sjakkalle 262 (64) 241 (1) 97 (32) 9 (28)
32 Kingboyk 444 (42) 38 (6) 48 (56) 3 (86) 6 (67)
33 Jareth 459 (40) 36 (7) 22 (115) 3 (86)
34 BorgQueen 207 (78) 193 (13) 26 (9) 63 (4) 9 (20)
35 Antandrus 254 (67) 204 (10) 18 (15) 7 (60) 5 (33)
36 Guanaco 142 (102) 147 (2) 86 (40) 53 (6) 15 (33) 26 (7)
37 Nlu 63 (159) 20 (10) 204 (10) 18 (15) 57 (5) 50 (4)
38 Gator1 162 (98) 4 (55) 159 (17) 21 (13) 51 (7) 2 (58)
39 NSLE 218 (72) 6 (42) 90 (38) 17 (17) 26 (18) 7 (25)
40 Brian0918 67 (155) 10 (26) 238 (8) 7 (41) 30 (14) 4 (37)
41 Wayward 12 (298) 312 (7) 10 (25) 1 (183) 2 (58)
42 BD2412 177 (88) 129 (3) 18 (127) 1 (150) 5 (78) 5 (33)
43 Flcelloguy 77 (145) 2 (99) 14 (151) 1 (150) 113 (2) 82 (3)
44 Voice of All 50 (178) 2 (99) 91 (36) 4 (74) 48 (8) 21 (8)
45 Tony Sidaway 16 (270) 5 (43) 16 (138) 3 (86) 25 (20) 115 (2)
46 Jayjg 15 (278) 4 (55) 93 (34) 2 (113) 36 (11) 10 (17)
47 SlimVirgin 33 (206) 5 (43) 46 (60) 22 (12) 29 (15) 11 (14)
48 Dbenbenn 111 (119) 3 (74) 4 (89) 27 (6)
49 Katefan0 27 (227) 11 (22) 52 (53) 4 (74) 27 (17) 11 (14)
50 Gurubrahma 37 (202) 1 (143) 2 (312) 47 (9) 31 (5)
51 PFHLai 38 (199) 1 (143) 4 (262) 52 (6) 21 (8)
52 Raul654 8 (337) 43 (68) 9 (28) 36 (11) 8 (22) 1 (4) 9 (3)
53 Woohookitty 38 (199) 1 (143) 22 (115) 7 (41) 25 (20) 11 (14)
54 Nichalp 16 (270) 3 (74) 1 (354) 3 (3) 62 (1)
55 Cecropia 2 (441) 1 (354) 1 (150) 4 (89) 22 (1)
Total 71776 1551 17634 2314 2033 1031 35 97


138 admins were responsible for 75% of admin actions. 261 admins were responsible for 90% of admin actions. 468 admins were responsible for 99% of admin actions. 595 admins had at least one administrative action last month.

Raw data is available at [1], which I plan to update monthly (I should just automate it, cron is good for that). Kelly Martin (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..I'm not in there. Time to get crackin' :P By the way, I don't know if I'd consider rights and renameuser administrative actions, seeing as they're more like bureaucratic actions — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The complete rankings for all admin actions (but not bureaucrat/steward actions) can be found at User:Freakofnurture/Stats (discuss). Hope this helps. — Apr. 8, '06 [15:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Wow, how did I get in the top 20 for blocking? Must've been squidward and whatnot :) — Deckiller 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
These statistics are great, but note that they don't cover all administrator activities. Less quantifiable things such as responding to requests to edit protected pages, review blocks (at least those which don't result in an unblock), move a page over a redirect, enforcing ArbCom rulings which don't require use of the listed buttons, et cetera can only be done by administrators and represent valuable contributions but are not listed in these reports. --CBDunkerson 16:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of those things can be done by nonadministrators. A nonadmin can review requests to unblock or unprotect a page (just can't actually hit the button). Anybody can enforce an ArbCom ruling if the "shiny buttons" are not involved. The ability to move a page over a redirect is not an administrative ability; any registered user (not recently registered) can do this. It's moving a page over a non-redirect that is restricted to admins (and which is logged as a deletion followed by a move). The main ability of administrators that is not reflected in these reports is the ability to examine deleted edits; since that action is not logged there's no way to report on it. The notion that maintenance activities can only be done by administrators, while admittedly popular, is mistaken: admins have no special authority to do anything on wikipedia; they're just given access to extra buttons because they've (supposedly) demonstrated that we can trust them not to misuse them. Nonadministrators are free (and encouraged) to perform maintenance activities, to the extent that they can do so within the capabilities allocated to them by their access level, and for those items which require access to facilities not available to them, request others who do have them to complete the task. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hrrrm? How can anyone review unblock requests when only admins can actually perform an unblock? If everyone can enforce arbitration committee decisions why does WP:AER say that admins specifically are requested to do so? Do we really want to allow any user who feels like it to appoint themself as ArbCom 'cop'? Likewise, non-admins obviously can't edit protected pages when requested. I agree that there are alot of maintenance tasks which anyone can do, but these don't seem the type. --CBDunkerson 17:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
For instance, non-admins can remove the {{unblock}} from a user's page, or they can revert edits of banned users, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Can you provide stats of "admins who should never have been voted in"? Alphax τεχ 16:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How would you suggest that I define that category? Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As an administrator who uses the mop only occasionally, I must say I am impressed. We should institute an "admin of the month" or something. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


What this says to me is that the semi-active admins are doing a lot more than people sometimes think. Let me summarize activity levels:

  • the top 55 admins do 50% of actions
  • the next 83 admins do 25% of actions
  • the next 123 admins do 15% of actions
  • the next 207 admins do 9% of actions
  • the next 137 admins do 1% of actions

Even looking at the least active two categories, a lot of actions are being done there. And we must consider that those admins are likely doing actions that are not easy. You can rack up a lot of actions by doing RC patrol, CSD patrol, or new user patrol, but when someone does a page merge they do but a single delete and undelete that represents important yet slow going work. Same with blocking and unblocking users involved in non-obvious content disputes, not as quick and easy as a username block. I imagine that the actions done by the bottom two groups are more heavy with complicated actions than the easy ones. And the complicated ones are very important to running the encyclopedia. There are not so many inactive and semi-active admins as I thought when you consider that, and there is a good argument for promoting users heavily involved in content areas, not just the visible vandal fighters, because those are the ones that will often be doing the complicated admin tasks that are still important here. NoSeptember talk 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I mainly recall seeing the slow-but-important work being done by people who were doing lots of other tasks as well, not by people who specialise in complex page moves. However, the moral about relative utility of activity lists is a good one - how do we compare an admin who makes 995 uncontroversial blocks and 5 highly controversial ones with someone who makes 50 blocks? (BTW, I show up as a big fat zero in the figures, having been on wikibreak for the whole of March!) The Land 18:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they specialize in complex tasks, but they are just doing normal content editing most of the time and stumble across something that needs to be done with an admin action, as opposed to going on patrol looking to do blocks or deletes. NoSeptember talk 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the most active deleters are those that do the mundane image work. All of the top 5 deleters did work either deleting orphaned fair use images or unsourced/unlicensed images. By the way, is it possible to have an "all-time" list (not just monthly)? Something like List of Wikipedians by number of edits... perhaps a List of administrators by number of admin actions. The stats would certainly be interesting, and they might encourage admins to be a bit more active. :) Coffee 19:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I can go back to January of 2005 (admin actions were not logged in the same way prior to that and I don't have access to those logs via the toolserver). I also note that NoSeptember's analysis is not exactly correct, because I misstated the import of the statistics. How one defines "50% of admin activities" is kinda fuzzy. You can just linearily add up across each categories, but then deletions rule because there are far more of them (over half a million in the past 15 months) than anything else. My original report simply ignored this and computed the top 50% in each category and reported in the list (sorted by total sum of activities) for any admin who was in the top 50% of any category. This overstates the number of admins required to get "50% of the activities". I've modified my script to scale each activity by the total number of that activity over the selected time interval (which means the total scaled count of each activity totals to the same amount). This means that each unprotection counts a lot more than each deletion toward one's rank. Using this scoring approach, 50% of activity in March was accounted for by only 25 admins; over the past 15 months, by 34 admins. When I have more time this evening I will generate the 50% list for each month for which I have data and generate a nice little grid, which I will post somewhere. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not all that concerned about the exact percentages or numbers. My point was that even those admins that are doing from 1 to 10 actions a month are making a worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia especially when you consider that there are hundreds of these people. NoSeptember talk 20:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
These are interesting stats, Kelly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Those of us that love stats are going to have a field day now! Fascinating stuff. Thanks Kelly! ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, enough editcountitis

Editcountitis is completely out of hand. I'm seeing people opposing candidates for not editing at a sustained rate of over 600 edits per month. If people can make edits that quickly, it's because they're never undertaking anything difficult, or (if they really are making 600 high-quality edits) they're so obsessed with Wikipedia that they never do anything else, and may not have the necessary perspective ("it's okay, it's just Wikipedia") to step back from a conflict when one arises.

We need more admins who haven't been spending months on end tailoring their edits to the RfA mold. (As I see it, the mold is something like this: large numbers of edits per month, predominantly on AfD to get name recogition among the crowd that does both RfA and AfD, and on RC patrol to get easy quick edits, with enough article and talk edits to make people happy.) Having some admins who predominantly do AfD and RC patrol is fine, of course, but the state of RfA is making them thoroughly overrepresented. I want to see more admins who do cleanup, work on WikiProjects, and handle disputes: actions that are not reflected in a number.

For those who oppose due to a "low" editing rate, what are you hoping to accomplish? What desirable properties does an editor who makes 600 edits a month have over one who makes 150 or 200? And given the warning that "editcountitis can be fatal", what would you consider editcountitis? --rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider over 2000 editcountitis. After that, one gets diminishing returns- a person will show warning signs between 0 and 2000, but after 2000, they are vastly less likely to melt down as a regular editor. Rates have a similar argument. When you undertake large complex tasks like wholesale reorganizing and improving of a large category, it simply can't be done in a few spare minutes on the weekend. Plus, spending a lot of time editting stresses the editor, and letss us see whether they will "break", so to speak. --maru (talk) contribs 18:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your response. Over 2000 what? I'm using "editcountitis" to mean "putting an unreasonable emphasis on edit count in adminship decisions", and I'm assuming that those who do emphasize the edit count so much don't see it as unreasonable. I'm asking, how far would it have to go before you see it as unreasonable?
On a high edit count being a test that an admin won't "break", I'd say that it only shows they haven't broken yet. I think that by demanding high edit counts, you get admins with a much higher probability of burning out. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Naw. If we enforced really high edit rates, then perhaps. But this is like tempering metal- sure, if you tempered continually until it shattered, then there is no point, but if you temper once or twice, it comes out better. And besides, if they were going to burnout quickly, wouldn't they do so while attempting to attain that high edit count? --maru (talk) contribs 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, the answer was just that -- any standard over 2000 edits is unreasonable. I would put the threshold around that mark too. Fetofs Hello! 02:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I still can't tell if it's 2000 edits total (a reasonable standard to me, but I'd still support a good contributor with less) or 2000 a month (e-freaking-gad!) But I'll assume it's in total. That's fine. My beef is with the fact that people with, say, 3500 edits are getting opposed for making them too slowly. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Read my comment again, rspeer. I address total edits first, and then another sentence addresses rates. Any standard demanding more than 2000 edits total is pointless, but I'm not too sure what the rate for edits should be. At least an average of 5 a day, I would think, since just watchlist monitoring and occasional prose cleanups would give as much. --maru (talk) contribs 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that RfA is harming the community at times by forcing those who are predominantly editors into other tasks which they may not be interested or good in, just for the sake of getting through the RfA. Someone like Tyrenius (I am assuming that what he said about himself in the RfA was true) was rejected because - to be frank - he did not know the tricks. When someone is rejected for a reason like that he will probably go back and do the things that rspeer said (a few AfD votes, a few reverts, slice his edits thin), come back two months later and win easily. All that the RfA succeeded in doing would have been to decrease the quality of the contributions of a good editor, possibly permanently. I would love to see some study on the changes in editing patterns of people who are predominantly editors just before and after standing in an RfA. Tintin (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. Some of my first edits were complete articles. I remember working all evening on a page and only hit the "Save Page" button once. The first time I saw RfA and people were saying that candidates needed over a thousand edits, I was in awe. How could anyone possibly do that much work?! Recently, using AWB I racked up several hundred edits in a day doing some recategorization. So what are we looking for people who can make a minor change to an entire category or people who write articles? If we are going to accumulate statistics, we should look for things like how many paragraphs a person added (defined as text of some minimum length with two or more periods). -- Samuel Wantman 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
For me (see my question on Tawker's rfa) I like to see a consistent level of contributions. I'd be happier supporting someone with 300 edits a month for four months (for example) then one who has fluctuated so much like Tawker's, which is why I went neutral. Its not the overall level, its an indication that the contributor's current level work - the one we are judging them by - is one that they will be continuing at. Robdurbar 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that what I wrote in my abortive RfA was true. I have been putting a lot of work into building up a weak area of Wiki, namely contemporary UK art and am amazed at how little is being contributed to these articles, and how some important subjects have no entry at all. My RfA was primarily so that I could be more effective contributing to this area of Wiki with some of the facilities available to admins, such as rollback, moving articles where there is a redirect, blocking consistent vandals etc. I am constantly patrolling and rv vandals through my watchlist, and think this is a major problem on Wiki. I have to contact admins for assistance over some matters, and it seemed to me that it would ease the workload if I could do it myself,as well as saving my time.
I felt I had demonstrated a good standard of contribution, with material properly researched and referenced etc, and had also shown myself able to intervene helpfully in disputes, both activities acknowledged by others with whom I had interacted — see latest on my talk page. There is, as far as I can see, nothing in my history to indicate that I would use any admin rights in a harmful way. Surely that is the only problem that needs to be considered. The statistical yardstick for judging RfA can, as has been pointed out, be counterproductive to Wiki's prime purpose.
Tyrenius 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Editcountitis surely can go wrong. However, Tyrenius, Interiot's tool gives you 85 user talk edits. I would think that this number is too low to have a reasonable certainty that you as a user interacted enough with the community, and as such, can be trusted to not abuse the tools. Edit counts are a bad yardstick by which to judge people, but it may be a sign of how much the user has been around, however imperfect. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In the ideal world there is little need for user talk, if, for example, article edits are done with accurate, relevant information from NPOV and properly referenced. Articles are the only reason for Wiki's existence; everything else has come about in order to deal with the issues arising from them, but the ancillary activities have now become a purpose in themselves, and it is easy to forget the reason for their existence. The reliance on quantitative over qualitative assessment "penalises" editors who, for example, take care not to make edits which will lead to complex discussions, or who settle disputes quickly and cleanly. I find that people reveal themselves and their attitudes very quickly in Wiki, as in life, and that this is apparent in an editor's work in whatever field they have focused. Article edits are just as effective in judging an editor's disposition as user talk or other edits. The current mode encourages the "tricks" referred to by Tintin, and does not acknowledge properly those who maintain Wiki's primary focus on reliable encyclopaedic material. This is also a perception I have encountered with colleagues, who have been put off as a result from contributing.
Tyrenius 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll sign my name to any end to editcountitis proposal. Use of the Show preview button should keep edit counts down and would be a good indicator of care in editing but editcountitis rewards making a major edit and then following it up with a series of minor ones that obscure significant changes in watchlists. MLA 09:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can just chime in, I don't think that an absolute limit at 2000, or indeed any absolute limit is any good. As I say in my admin criterion subpage, Wikipedians are not Dungeons & Dragons characters who are suddenly imbued with twice the power and understanding when they reach 2000 edits (=experience points). I personally think that a person with an "average" amount of article writing, RC patrolling and a fairly conscientious use of "show preview" will have sufficient experience at 1500, but variations here are enormous. Hermione1980 stands as a shining example of a good sub-1000 edit candidate, while an editor who makes 500 substubs is not as experienced as one who has made 20 good articles with 100 edits. If you find yourself voting based on Interiot's tool, stop using it and go through the contributions list instead and check the diffs out. Are the contributions in policy and deletion discussions well-thought out, demonstrating understanding of Wikipedia's "behind the scenes" working? Are there good edits to the encyclopedia demonstrating understanding of Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia? That type of search says much more than neat graphs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with the top quote. 600 edits per month?? I think this is going out of hand. Maybe a few years from now, the opposing side will say I oppose because this user edits less than 500 times a week. Funnybunny 14:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawker's promotion

Tawker was promoted at around 78%, with the last... 9 hours of his nom affected by the server outage. I'm wondering why Linuxbeak chose not to follow Essjay in adding on a couple of days to Jedi6's RFA (also around the same mark), and chose to promote instead, taking into account the oppose votes. I'm glad the guy got admin, which is what he wanted, but I have to question the circumstances. NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 04:36 UTC (2006-04-10)

While extending it would have been nice, there likely would not have been enough oppose votes made in the short time to tip the scales. Additionally, there is no policy, or precedent (that I know of) for extending it. That said, I think extending Jedi's nom by a more than day and a half for a nine hour outage is completely innapropriate and potentially unfair, and should be reduced. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean Tawker? Either way, that would be unfair. Maybe extend it for nine hours, if you must? SushiGeek 05:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, this appears to have been moved (in part) to my talk page, just a link for people to see. -- Tawker 05:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I said Jedi6's, which has been extended almost two days. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
iirc, there is no formal policy for situations when the servers go down. So it goes down to the judgement of any bureaucrat who wants to process it first. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In most RfAs, the last few days add little to the indication of community consensus. An extention is not all that worthwhile, we have enough information to decide the issue. The closing of both the AzaToth and the Tawker RfAs seem quite fine by me. As long as the bureaucrat is acting in a transparent honest fashion (and they are), I'm fine with it. NoSeptember talk 05:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no issue with Tawker's promotion since it's up to the bureaucrat's discretion as to whether to extend or not in this case I think the right decision was made to not extend Tawker's nom. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution to sockpuppetry

I have a simple solution to virtually eliminating the sockpuppet problem. You can not participate in an RFA if your account was created on the same day as the RFA. Plain and simple! Comment, please. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd amend this to include people who's first edit is their vote as well.--Urthogie 14:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I would go one step further and say that you cannot participate in an RFA if your account was created within a week of the participation. Yes, I know that there may be someone who was previously not registered and has a legitimate beef with an editor and wants to create an account solely to comment, but I think someone should understand that if they choose not to create an account, this is just one of those things that they will not be able to do. -- DS1953 talk 14:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
(grr, edit conflict) I would generally like to see some mild suffrage requirements: you should not be able to vote, only comment, if your account is newer than a month and has less than 50 edits at the time the RfA starts. (Or some other arbitrary low numbers that make sure any reasonably good contributor can vote). Most other language Wikipedias seem to have such requirements for voting. Kusma (討論) 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone should be allowed to comment regardless of any requirements for voting.--Urthogie 14:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is an agreement that a suffrage to RFA is necessary, an alternative to implementing a new suffrage would be to use one that already exists. We could make it mandatory/automatic to semi-protect all RFA pages. This has the dual effect of blocking all anons from voting as well as fairly new users (though the four days is less than the above proposals), but has the disadvantage that these users can't make comments. For the disadvantage, I guess the users who fail suffrage are still free to comment in the RFA's talk page, and if it's valid (ie, not trolling, vandalism, etc.), someone else can move the comment onto the RFA page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There are rarely (if ever) useful comments from anonymous/very new users anyway, semi-protection is a good idea. Martin 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if sockpuppetry is such a big issue, and any suffrage rules could be hard to enforce (and semiprotection would be going too far I think). Would be simpler in my view to just keep the current practice, where people start a thread under a suspicious vote saying that the user is new, this is his second edit only, etc, and then allow the closing bureaucrat to think about what to do.

If, in the future, sockpuppetry becomes widespread, then maybe a rule would be necessary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm usually the first to suggest other solutions to a semi-protect (at least, with regards to folks wanting to protect Harry Potter-related articles), but in this case, semi-protection is actually a weaker suffrage than what is being proposed (or has been proposed in the past). With the current definition of "very new" being four days, this is an incredibly weak suffrage for RFA, but one that is easy to implement. On the other hand, this does go against the policies currently set out in WP:SEMI, so it might require a policy change, which is quit a problem to do. OTOH, it's true, sockpuppets and new users voting are usually not a problem: there's often at least one user "watching over" an RFA who can immediately point out these problematic voters. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The case of Jedi6 is relevant because there were some confirmed socks at work in that RfA. Specifically, User:Rick Browser, User:The Eye, and User:Jean-Luc Picard. Now it should be noted that these accounts were not new, and were only discounted because a checkuser was done. I think if we start having these kind of requirements, more users will simply create lingering sock-puppet accounts that they bring out of the woodwork every so often. In fact, I'm sure this is already the case. So, no this solution would not eliminate the sockpuppet problem. jacoplane 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When sockpuppetry does happen, it puts great stress on the candidate and makes the RfA ugly and appearing to be "controversial" although it isn't. It is also no fun to accuse people of sockpuppetry. Hard rules are much fairer and easier in this case: votes by people not having suffrage could be moved into an extra section and not have the discussion about them fill all of the regular voting section. Kusma (討論) 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Most important is for users to be aware that if they have questions about a vote, they should feel comfortable raising them; there are far too many votes on far too many RfAs for the bureaucrats to research every voter in depth. As Deathphoenix points out, there are usually users "watching over" each RfA, and it is essential for them to bring out thier suspicions. In most cases, it doesn't matter, because the RfA passes with flying colors, or falls below the threshhold were removing one or two votes would matter, but in a tight case, it's important for us to know that there are votes that should be considered. If a user is unsure of themselves, they should contact a bureaucrat privately to discuss concerns; I know I'm more than willing to discuss concerns like this with individuals. Essjay Talk • Contact 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This also suggests that regardless of whether people add comments about possible newuser or sock activity, that the bureacrats would be well served to check things more closely when the consensus isn't as clear cut. And I'm expecting they do, whether or not people help out. But helping out presumably makes things easier for them... ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no need for instruction creep concerning suffrage or sock puppetry. Users should feel free to comment in a civil manner on other users who are voting, and then the bureaucrats should review it. We have a long history of close detailed time-consuming scrutiny of close RfAs by bureaucrats, thats their job. The most recent is Linuxbeak's promotion of Tawker discussed here. One of the nice things about having a bunch of bureaucrats is that there is always one available with the time to do a comprehensive review of a close RfA. No fewer than five bureaucrats have done promotions since Francs and Cecropia retired. NoSeptember talk 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think my RfA is more likely an oddity than the norm. :-) Jedi6-(need help?) 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the sentiments above that we don't need another "rule" regarding RfA. I trust our bureaucrats to be able to tell when a user is a sockpuppet with malicious intent; right now, we don't have a major problem. Remember that we should assume good faith to the highest degree possible - simply because someone is new should not mean that that person is automatically excluded from any discussions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Honestly, users shouldn't be given suffrage unless they have been around for a MONTH and have AT LEAST 500 edits. — Deckiller 20:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • har har har... --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm serious :) — Deckiller 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I protest, as that's too low. So here we are: To be able to vote, you must be here for 2 months, have 1000 edits, out of which 100 project edits, 250 user talk edits, have worked on some featured article, and have 95.5% edit summary usage! I mean, we need serisous dedicated people to vote, and not just everybody. And if somebody has three sockpuppets all satisfying these criteria, let them all vote, no? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
These proposals are all far too liberal. Only members and former members of the Arbitration Committee should be allowed to vote. We must restore sanity to Wikipedia! Kelly Martin (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom should not usurp power that belongs to Jimbo alone. One-man votes are also make counting easier. Kusma (討論) 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously not strict enough. The user must go on a quest and do at least 3 of the following: 1) rescue a helpless princess, 2) resuce a helpless prince 3) destroy an evil Darlord, 4) destroy an evil magical artifact, 5) kill a dragon 6) prove the Riemman Hypothesis. In fact, now that it comes down it, I dont think Jimbo has doen any of those, so I guess to be fair he shouldn't be allowed to vote. Presumably zero votes means no consensus, so all adminships will fail until Jimbo hurries up and complete's his quests. Anyone know any dragons needing slaying? JoshuaZ 00:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To Deckill, sorry, I misinterpreted your question as something like "We shouldn`t have a suffrage, but we should only allow users to edit here if they have been around for a month..." Apologies, with that interpretation, I thought it was a joke. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay ^_^. As for the above, how about 2 weeks and 250 edits? :) — Deckiller 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
My vote is going to be biased, since I don't even meet those requirements, and I participate in the RfAs. But bias aside, I'm liking the time requirement, but I don't think the edit requirement should be that strict. Some users, especially in their first few weeks at Wikipedia, would rather sit and observe before they jump into things. Also, we don't want to give the impression to less frequent editors that they don't have a say in how Wikipedia works. Even an edit count of 20 would ensure that new users know what Wikipedia is about before voting, and it would also discourage sockpuppets; if they *tried* to make twenty edits, it would be very suspicious.(^'-')^ Covington 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I personally think the number of additional questions candidates are being asked is rediculous. In the space of less than 24 hours, lightdarkness received an additional 14 questions. He's managed to answer all 17 of his questions so far, but it's too much. I had my RfA back in November, and I didn't get any additional questions, and neither did anybody else really, at that point. I don't know if bringing out a limit to the number of questions would be the right thing to do, but it can't stay like this in my opinion. What are everyone else's views? — FireFox • T [15:08, 11 April 2006]

As someone who initially proposed adding additional questions (but only three or four, though with admins being more likely to be desysopped, I don't see this as much of a necessity anymore), I have to agree with you. The number of questions being asked on these new RFAs is simply insane, and since the user asking these questions isn't point out that these questions are optional (like mine did), the candidate often feels obligated to answer all the questions. It's insane how many questions are being asked. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could limit the 'hypothetical' questions - you know the ones 'You begin the process of correcting a cut and paste move when a tornado strikes up outside your house. You have no computer in your basement. You are wearing green socks and eating a bagel. Do you run for cover leaving the correction half done, or do you complete it first?' Robdurbar 16:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The tornado carries you off to the Land of Oz!--more--
The Wicked Witch of the West appears in a flash of green smoke!--more--
She kills you instantly...--more--

Do you want your possessions identified?
I would obviously create a sockuppet with my socks to finish the edit, while I eat my bagel before running for cover. Johnleemk | Talk 17:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with asking more questions of candidates as long as the questions are sensible. If these nominationsa are "discussions not votes" then asking the candidate stuff is a necessary part of the process. That this is a comparatively new phenomenon is unfortunate; we should have been doing it always. -Splashtalk 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to restrict anyone from asking questions. I also have no problem with someone adding Optional questions: above these added questions even if the question asker does not. NoSeptember talk 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed questions are often only rhetorically optional... someone might say the questions are optional but some users vote oppose if their questions aren't answered. So if question are really to be optional, such oppose votes should be disallowed. Mikker (...) 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No, we can't disallow votes on that basis. If a voter is being unrealistic in their expectations we can point that out, and we can point out unreasonable questions too. But ultimately the community through its voting decides what is acceptable. We don't need more rules about who's vote is going to count. NoSeptember talk 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough but just note I was making a conditional point: if questions are to be optional in a substantive sense then oppose votes of the type I mentioned need to be disallowed. If we're happy for questions not to be voluntary or if we believe disallowing such votes does more harm than it's worth, then no change needs to be made... Mikker (...) 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, holding the record for most questions, I think the additional questions help an "on rhe fence" voter. The willingness to respond to 12 questions also helps signify the editor is serious IMO. On the above note though I'll add a bib bold optional to my list. -- Tawker 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who is slightly responsible for the question inflation, I'd argue that additional questions are in general going to increase someone's chances to become an admin if they answer them well. For Jedi6, for example, I was mainly thinking of opposing, largely due to the concerns discussed in the first of my questions in that RfA. However, he gave a good detailed response illustrating why my concerns were not an issue. Thus, I voted to support. It seems to me to make much more sense for those considering opposing to ask questions first about how the user would adress their concerns. This makes more sense than what many voters do where they vote oppose for some reason, and then when the candidate attempts to respond to the various oppose concerns people vote oppose because the candidate is being too defensive/argumentative. JoshuaZ 17:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent. I asked my optional question for all candidates, and some of the candidates' responses to my questions led me from not voting at all to voting support, so yes, it helps. My concern is putting a candidate through answering fifteen or more questions, and I wonder if all that is really necessary. I have no objections to a few questions (having asked a few myself), but I wonder if pushing the questions up to double digits is necessary unless the candidate has some clear problems in the past that need to be addressed. BTW, take a look at my questions here. I haven't asked them in a long time, as I feel they're unnecessary with a change in arbitration committee, but they're still available for use if anyone wants. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with it. Presumably if the candidate finds the questions too burdensome he will leave the questions blank, and will pass or fail the RfA with that taken into account. If the contributors by and large agree that the questions were unreasonable, then not answering them shouldn't substantially affect whether or not he is promoted. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I too had my RfA in the days of 3 questions being the norm... I dunno if I'd feel like the hassle of RfA "nowadays", though the barrage of questions are only part of it. We should be cautious of making RfA so annoying that many would-be good admins don't bother. --W.marsh 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to simply asking any questions on the candidate's talk page? Most of these questions won't have any influence on people's vot comments. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA is "supposed" to be a discussion, so I say, more questions!ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

See also WP:DFA... I still think it's an idea that has some merits, even if it hasn't been accepted or used much (discussion is goodness)... I have no problem with thoughtful questions, I think seeing how candidates think is useful. But one downside of questions is that you have time to think about them. In real life, out in the wild, there are certain sorts of situations (a fast moving vandal, for instance) we want admins that do the right thing most of the time without taking a lot of time to think about it... and others where taking time to think is the right thing to do. I expect knowing which is which is not easy.

THAT said, 38 questions may have been a bit much. I think Tawker (with his 12 questions cribbed from various sources) may be getting revenge in the traditional fraternity hazing way... what was given to you by your predecessors, pass on to your successors, it all flows downhill. OK not really, but it sounded funny. They're actually good questions! Let it oscillate for a while, the right level will depend on the candidate. We don't need new rules or guidelines I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no merit to asking additional questions; the questions in the template already do a good job of gaguing the suitability of the candidate (plus we should also focus on the candidate's edit history). If everyone felt "I want my question to be answered, or I won't support", then the RFA process will become very confused and frustrating for the candidate. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
PS Being able to articulate responses to 100 questions do not necessarily mean that you will be a good Admin. in practise. We are missing the point here. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's getting absolutely ridiculous too. I scroll through pages and pages of questions... not only that but some of the questions users set are ridiculous. "What policy covers 'to blacken the memory to one who is dead'" or something like that. Don't tell me if that user had answered that wrong that the person would have opposed. I'm getting very angry with this. It's "Requests for Adminship" not "Lets question every single action and do a complete evaluation of this person using 9.99 x 10999999 questions. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be a fairly new development brought in by Masssiveego. Generally though, questioning is a good thing to help gauge suitability as in open questioning for interviewing purposes rather than closed questions for testing purposes. MLA 10:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would characterise (my opinion here, which I am entitled to hold, based on my assessment of the content and results of asking them) those questions as "trick" questions, designed to trip up the candidate so that Massiveego can justify (in whatever scheme he uses) voting oppose. One was poorly formed, and when the candidate tried to answer it anyway, the candidate was dinged for not reading Massiveego's mind as to what was sought. I am certain as I can be without mindreading that the 'crats discount much of what Massiveego does. My concern is that not everyone else does. Those questions should be disregarded when evaluating whether questions are good or not, just as they should be disregarded when evaluating candidates. (again, in my view, which I am entitled to have) ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Masssive also opposed a candidate for not answering his questions in 24 hours after their being asked. JoshuaZ 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Be fair. I think it was actually 24 hours and 7 minutes. What a slacker that candidate was, eh? It apparently is not fair to assume that people have lives once they decide to stand for admin. </sarcasm> ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I want to know why I was the only person ever asked: "What do you have against the month of September?" This is clearly a question that everyone should be required to answer ;-). NoSeptember talk 10:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. — FireFox • T [10:18, 12 April 2006]
If someone named NoMay turns up I pledge to ask them what they have against May. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no problems with on topic questions but it has been getting a little silly. Lightdarkness's RFA has gone 100% wonky with LOTS of off topic questions, as a "joke". RfA is not for jokes, if you want to joke around take it to a talk page, RfA's are serious. As for "baiting" candidates with reasons to oppose, I don't agree with it. If a user doesn't get the question they should be able to ask for clarification (which I did several times with my questions) and nobody should oppose simply based on the fact that they didn't get their (possibly hard to understand) question -- Tawker 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to chip in and say personally, I would not have minded getting asked extra questions (I wasn't during my RfA), because it would have given me more space to discuss my viewpoints on stuff. It wouldn't have bothered me at all. I know I watched my RfA like a hawk that week, as I'm sure most candidates do, so it's not like I wouldn't have noticed any additional questions or really minded taking the time to answer them. That being said, I think we should be careful in asking too many questions, but I'd like to know if anyone around does feel like they werer asked too many questions themselves. Tawker maybe? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 14:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find I had too many questions, I was bad and encouraged on topic questions (I'll admit, I was starting to think my RfA was going to fail and I wanted it to hit the record books for something) - though I think a lot of the questions helped candidates see what was going on and were not totally stock so nobody could think that I looked at past RfA's and the phrases that worked. Overall, I am for questions, just nothing really really silly and off topic. RfA is not a joke, lets keep it at least semi serious.... please! (though one of the questions was a test of my sense of humour, no idea what to say there :) -- Tawker 06:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally lean towards not limiting the number of questions that can be asked. I think they are an important mechanism to get a true feel for the candidate's personality and approach, in combination with a review of their contributions. They also give the candidate a chance to respond to issues raised without having to respond to many individual votes (which itself can be frowned upon). It seems quite common that a question is raised in the format "Several users have raised concerns about X. How would you address these concerns?". Although they do lead to extra work for the nominee, it is not a huge amount and I feel that anyone entering into an RfA should be prepared to put in that extra effort to assist the community in making the decision.
Answering the questions should be optional, but I think that not answering questions or deleting them can send the wrong message to some voters and make them wonder:
  • Does the candidate not understand the policy mentioned?
  • Is the candidate unable to address the concern?
  • Can the candidate not be bothered to answer the question?
  • Is the candidate hiding something?
I'm not saying that it is correct to infer such meaning, just that I think it is likely that some will. Because of this I wonder if some further guidance should be included in WP:GRFA, to the effect of: "Answering additional questions is optional, but a failure to do so may be interpreted negatively by some contributors." TigerShark 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm. On the one hand, the "old" questions are becoming less and less useful, because every candidate who's not entirely sure in answering them and who has half a clue will look what people recently promoted answered. On the other hand, all these "optional" questions mainly benefit candidates who are good at answering questions the way the community wants to see them answered - a good quality in an admin, but not the only one for sure. I'm undecided - questions are good, but they should somehow be related to the candidate ("You did $something. Would you do it again?"), and not general boilerplate like "Who are you, and what is your stance on userboxes$some_recent_issue". -- grm_wnr Esc 22:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Suffrage requirements on other language editions

I would like to collect some data, just for comparison. On de: to be allowed to vote on RfA you need 200 article space edits and two months, on fr: it is 3 months and 300 "significant" (non-botlike etc.) edits. nl: has one month and 100. Other languages, anyone? Kusma (討論) 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a fair comparison here. Each language operates independently of each other, and the voting rules and promotion guidelines vary from language to language. For example, on nl, it is strict voting - anyone above a certain percentage (80 percent, I think) is automatically promoted. That's why they have strict voting suffrage requirements. Also, because of that, in nl bureaucrats aren't given the responsibility of deciding consensus - it's a strict number count. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
On ru: you need five edits prior to the nomination. Conscious 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In the Italian Wikipedia: logged in user, registered at least 30 days before start of nomination, and having done at least 50 edits it:Wikipedia:Amministratori/Sistema_di_voto/Requisiti - Liberatore(T) 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I like what they do in ru: - let us adopt that, my friends. BD2412 T 18:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, five edits is a nice small number, and the requirement of having them before a nomination could help avoid sockpuppet votes. — TheKMantalk 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The downside is that you can create ten accounts now, make five edits with each and use them for all the following nominations. Conscious 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the purpose of the requirements would be to discount votes by suspiciously new users, rather than to legalize sockpuppet voters that pass the requirements. — TheKMantalk 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If someone wants to go to the trouble of setting up a sock puppet to lie in wait, anything we come up with isn't going to be a huge hurdle. I think, as TheKMan pointed out above, the requirement of having the edits before a nomination could help avoid sockpuppet votes, which seem to be triggered, on occasion, by a particular nomination. -- DS1953 talk 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with TheKMan and DS1953. Also, having a minimum number of votes - even just five - would also make sure that well-intentioned new users know how Wikipedia works before casting a vote. (^'-')^ Covington 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Ten edits and seven days registration prior to opening of nomination. John Reid 23:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think 11 edits and 6.5 days is better. -Splashtalk 23:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, then how about 1 year and 50,000 edits. ;-) BD2412 T 23:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Guess who just passed 50k edits last month ;-) Seriously, is setting a specific number really so bad? Kusma (討論) 23:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Didn't we say that 50,000 edits is mandatory retirement level? Wikipedia can't take any more of those carpel tunnel lawsuits ;-). NoSeptember talk 00:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Backlog

Yeah, just two noms, but with thirteen 'crats claiming to be active, a 24 hour delay for no apparent reason (and if there is one, with the devs tweaking everything in sight, please set me straight) is, in my completely useless opinion, inexcusable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't fret. We're not dead. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
They're not pinin', they've passed on! These bureaucrats are no more! They have ceased to be! They've expired and gone to meet their maker! This is a late bureaucracy. They're a stiff. Bereft of life, they rest in peace, if you hadn't nailed 'em to the perch they'd be pushing up the daisies! They've rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! These are ex-bureaucrats! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not dead yet
I can dance and I can sing
I am not dead yet
I can do the highland fling
I am not dead yet
No need to go to bed
No need to call the doctor
'Cos I'm not yet dead Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In all seriousness, however... Cecropia has recently resigned as bureaucrat (as has Francs2000), so things have been kind of weird in terms of RFA upkeep. I'm going to do my best to keep up with the backlog. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cecropia's resignation threw everyone off kilter. But it doesn't have to be just you keeping up with the backlog. With such a limited scope of responsibilities, and so few promotions to preform, every bureaucrat should be on top of this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this delay shows why we need more bureaucrats. A number of editors have been saying that we don't need more and have blocked attempts to promote more admins into bureaucrats. But as this delay shows, we need more of them b/c not every bureaucrats will be able to do work every week. We have a redundant number of admins to achieve coverage of tasks on Wikipedia and we should have an equally redundant number of bureaucrats to cover needed tasks.--Alabamaboy 17:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the old Soviet model of getting a job done. ;-) If the current workers aren't doing the job (aren't, not can't), double the number of workers on the job. And if that doubled number don't do the job ... -- Cecropia 18:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There are way more than enough to get the job done, they just neglect/ignore their responsibilities. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't understand why people are so impatient to get their adminships. A delay of 24 hours is perfectly reasonable, and really anything under 72 hours is perfectly ok with me. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, there was a big hoo-haa about CSCWEM's RfA because it would have run for 17 days. I know 10 (which is what you're suggesting would be reasonable) isn't quite 17 but still, do we not need to be consistent? --Celestianpower háblame 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure we do. But frankly, I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it. You're in good hands... we're not going to just disappear. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
To Kelly Martin: My own adminship (not bureaucratship) was controversial because a couple of editors (who, I am happy to say, later became friends) raised a fuss over my editing that they disagreed with on a contentious article. This led to (for the time) a huge voting body for and against me. When the 7 days passed, I was in what we now call "the [high] gray zone." Over the following days no one of the bureaucrats took any action, even when continued voting put me over 80%. Finally, Ed Poor promoted me and the rest is "history." (Fast Forward) When Angela called for more bureaucrats I applied and eaily won. But my point is that in my nomination and comments, I gave my concept of what a bureaucrat would do, and promised not to leave people hanging in space, as happened to me. I tried dilligently, while I was bcrat, to fulfill this. So I don't take this lightly, and yes, I still feel that it is very important, when someone is waiting to see whether or not they will get a desired Wikirole, not to let them cool their heels. My principles come from business training, but from the business training that cares about its "customers," not an old fashioned mortgage company, or a government bureaucracy, which says: "Someone wants something that is depndent on my action. They can wait until I get around to it.". -- Cecropia 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oddly, my PoV is somewhat the opposite. It took me about two days to be promoted, by Raul, during a period when you did practically all promotions. After about two days, I did catch Raul on IRC and ask him if he could close it, but otherwise I let it go figuring that someone would do it soon enough. Frankly I'm a bit bothered by the rampant immediatism that seems to be overtaking the Wiki. I suppose it's to be expected as we get more people who grew up saturated in the glorification of self that was the late 1990s.... Kelly Martin (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


The 2nd CSCWEM RfA wasn't so much about the 17 day length, but that only supporters knew about it for the first 10 days. In other words, it doesn't mean much in terms of a backlog. --W.marsh 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Minor issue - everyone who happened to stumble across it for the ten days before CSCWEM accepted happened to vote support; saying that "only supporters knew about it" makes it sound like a conspiracy, but any editor could have found the page, as there were numerous appeals on CSCWEM's talk page asking him to accept. BD2412 T 22:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the issue is that there is a select group of editors who have been entrusted with a very specific set of responsibilities, which they either ignore, or neglect. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here. We shouldn't think in terms of ignoring or neglecting responsibilities. Friday (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Jeffrey, that's three times in this thread you've given the appearance of saying (paraphrased for effect "The 'crats are a bunch of slackers"...) If that's what you mean I am not sure I agree. We all have real lives, readers, editors, admins, 'crats, developers, all of us (Except BRION, the foundation owns his soul... well at least 40 hours a week it does...). Expecting promotions 5 minutes after the close is about as realistic as expecting answers to questions posed on RfAs within 24 hours. The sky will not fall in either case. Jeffrey, I do not understand why you repeat this theme, it just seems divisive to me. Perhaps you could clarify what you really meant? ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, indeed, our 'crats are some of our best editors and admins. I do not doubt for a second that they may be too busy with Other Stuff to do a promotion right away, or to do every other promotion. But there is a serious argument to be made in regards to bureaucratic activity. There are two (soon to be three) very narrow, very well defined, not very time consuming, specific tasks that bureaucrats undertake. Those who applied for that job understood this, and wanted to do this. Yet, for some reason there are more than a few bureaucrats who simply don't do the very narrowly defined task the community has entrusted them with. One volunteers for a position with an occasional well-defined task, a position that is rather hard to get, and can only be achieved with extraordinary support and trust from the community - yet they don't do their job? Bureaucratship then becomes a glorified popularity contest or method for seeking aproval. It's simple: one asks for a job, the community gives it to you, then you don't do it: what picture is one supposed to paint? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

...and the mouse quietly works away. :) --Durin 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I take minor offense to the notion that RfB is a glorified popularity contest. RfB happens to be the most stressful week of your life on Wikipedia if you actually have a shot at passing. David practically had to keep me from having a nervous breakdown during that week. The 90% approval rating is tough. That means that 1 oppose vote effectively cancels out 10 support votes. If you can convince 90% of a large group that you can and should be entrusted with a tool (I managed to convince 120 people), then damnit, you've earned it. Just because we are not always on top of the job at the exact moment that something is done doesn't mean that we're negligent or unqualified. We have real lives too. Now, I've stated that I will do my utmost to pick up whatever slack the parting of Cecropia and Francs2000 caused, and I stand by that. But for God's sake if you've got something to complain about, just say it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't take it too personally, Linuxbeak. This is an "if the shoe fits, wear it" issue. If it doesn't apply to you, ignore it. But I have to take exception to your pointing out how difficult it is to become a bcrat and then saying that if you succeed in the process "you've earned it'" Earned what? The right to say you are a bureaucrat but will do the work whenever it's convenient? The right to throw your weight around in adminship discussions but rarely promote? The right to accept a responsibility and wander off, then get angry if a user like Jeffrey asks where you all are? Or in the case of Danny (the only name I will name) the right to be inactive for more than a year, then waltz in to make a controversial promotion? -- Cecropia 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I could write a silly script to post a note somewhere when time is up for certain admin nomination and a bureaucrat needs to close it. Would that help? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies I couldn't get on last night, but my ISP went down and I had to wait for it to come back up today. I believe I've tended to most requests within a few hours of closing since I was promoted, with the exception of those I felt I should recuse from. In fact, I signed on the other night specifically to be sure that Can't Sleep and another nomination that closed around the same time were promoted, because I wasn't sure the other bureaucrats would be around. I think overall we're doing a good job here, and that we certainly can handle the situation; we may just need to poke a few of the older hands and let them know that they're needed again, as they have probably gotten used to someone else handling everything. Essjay Talk • Contact 06:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if anyone should take offense at my comment here -- but -- what is the problem??
How can we worry about a backlog of admin nominees? A large backlog of TfD deletions can be a problem; the longer it sits, the greater chance that a clueless editor will slap a deprecated template on a few dozen articles and escalate the backlog. A backlog of copyvios is a potential problem; the more copyvios floating in store, the greater chance that some lawyer steals Jimbo's shorts and he reaches for the Big Circuit Breaker.
Granted that some backlogs must be worked off by admins; so promoting admins indirectly works off more important backlogs, too. But the key word is "indirectly". If some zealot ran for adminship swearing to work all the admin-only backlogs down to one hour even so I think it would do no harm if he had to wait a few days.
For the record: Should it happen (a) that I find myself in the running and (b) get the nod and (c) no b'crat gets around to handing me a mop I promise I will hold my peace for at least a week. What's the hurry? The backlogs will still be here. John Reid 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of questions

RGTraynor removed the standard questions from his/her RfA - here. I have assumed for now that this was unintentional and have added them back. I just wondered if there is any precedent for the intentional removal of such questions by the candidate. Cheers TigerShark 09:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few editors who have opted to not answer them; they are not obligatory, although they are certainly traditional. Given the excessive number of questions that have started appearing on RfAs lately, I'm almost moved to say "Bravo!" Essjay Talk • Contact 09:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair comment, but I wonder if deleting, rather than just not answering them, would be the right thing to do (unless they were obviously nonsense or bad faith). That might possibly give the wrong impression. Certainly, I think that once the candidate answers the questions (and especially if "voters" have commented on those answers) - they should not be removed as they then form an integral part of the RfA. This is what happened in this case, but as far as I know it was a mistake. Cheers TigerShark 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Who "owns" the candidate's RfA page? (answer, it's a wiki, no one does, not even the candidate) I guess I'm slightly supportive of 'crats using their good judgement and removing out and out silly questions/answers (but on the other hand, not very supportive, because I think they humanise things, within reason, and what's the harm?), but not at all supportive of the candidates themselves removing questions. Once a question is asked, the candidate ought to answer it, or choose not to, and leave it unanswered, but not remove it. If this practice of deliberately removing questions that weren't maliciously placed spreads, it might become a factor in some people's voting statement of opinion, well mine at least. RfA is supposed to be a discussion. Within reason, more questions mean more discussion and more understanding. (this is setting me up to get 94 questions, I am sure of it!) ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
He's talking about the standard three questions themselves getting removed, not added questions by other users. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he is, in this specific case. But Essjay DID remove some (increasingly silly?) ones from a different RfA. Since he drew the "silly line" just AFTER my questions, maybe I feel lucky... but I would not have removed as many as he did. That said, he's a bureacrat and I'm not, meaning his judgement is more seasoned on this (by loads) than mine is... ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, no, I didn't. Look at the history. A regular old admin removed questions, I had nothing to do with it. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You've said "no I didn't" twice (here, and farther down) so I'll apologise twice (I already did farther down but it merits saying again/before/whatever), I was wrong, I wasn't paying close attention, I should have checked the history instead of relying on faulty memory, and I'm sorry. No slight or impugn was intended! I do agree you should find a different Mindspillage pic though, and fully intend to take you to task on that every chance i get. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I do rather object to bureaucrats opting to remove questions on the basis of being bureaucrats. We hand the 'crats power over the outcomes of this process, not over how the community conducts its deliberations. It is not up to the 'crats what questions a candidate should and should not be asked; it is up to them whether to answer them or not, and people can remove them if they really must in their capacity as an editor. Bureaucrats have had this slightly overbearing view of their RfA-superpowers before, when they attempted to directly suspend the process: but they control only the end, not all the means unto it. -Splashtalk 01:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, to be clear I was deferring to Essjay's judgement (rather grudgingly, because i thought they were worthy questions) not precisely because he was a 'crat, but rather that knowing he was one, I knew he had been around a lot longer than I and had more seasoning, and further, because I trust his judgement (more or less, except when it comes to photoshopping Mindspillage pictures, but I digress)... I or anyone else could still revert those removals, he doesn't own the page any more than any of the rest of us do. Heck I might go revert them now, I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Just like to point out, you're wrong: I didn't remove questions from any RfA. I removed an innapropriate commment from an RfA; questions were removed from the same RfA, but not by me, check the history. Shanel moved the questions to the talk page, not I. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, apologies. I was shooting a little blind on the back of Lar's comment. Essjay says that he didn't remove them, so there's no problen. -Splashtalk 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
And another set of apologies here. You did not remove the jokey stuff, you removed stuff that was wildly inappropriate after BorgHunter removed the jokey questions (and Shanel moved them to talk). My bad. It was all pretty fast. But details schmetails. My point stands, I tend to trust your judgement (even about stuff you didn't do!) and in general am willing to shortcut a bit on who to trust, people on arbcomm, 'crats... how did they get there? By having more experience and more good sense because of that more experience (and if in general people don't feel that way it sort of says they think the process is broken)... is any of this making any sense? ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
On the important issue (the photoshopping), my only complaint is the constant use of the same image. I would like to point out to Essjay that many nice pics can be found from the various Wiki Meetup galleries :-). NoSeptember talk 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinions (each worth exactly the standard 2¢ and no more): • Nominees should not remove anything from their nomination pages whatever. If I see it I will vote oppose, no slack. • Nominees should do their best to answer all questions posed. A good part of adminship is fielding stray balls. • Bureaucrats should not tamper with nomination pages in any way; they get their chance to play god soon enough. • Editors should not throw excessive or funny-only questions on nomination pages; it's stupid. • Editors should rm such questions on sight. Like any other edit (in my playbook) you express yourself directly by adding or rming once and once only. If you add and it's rm: Well, if it had merit then someone else will restore it. If you rm and it's restored: Well, if it didn't have merit then someone else will rm it again. John Reid 23:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrative thank-yous - again

This issue has been archived - IMO to early.

Voting for someones' RfA is not a personal favour, thus thanking, whether by template or else, is awkward. But I've the impression that a lot of votes are reciprocal, i.e. returns for votes given. I often feel that RfAs are prepared by spending a lot of time on the RfA page, voting at random, merely hoping to reap the harvest. "If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout". That's how many "thank-you" templates are worded, and it smacks of corruption of the voting process. I feel it leads to bad decisions. Though at the moment only a funny nuisance, thanking for votes should be strongly discouraged. Maybe reciprocal votes should be devalued. --tickle me 03:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be hard to implement something like that. Participation in RfA has long been something that potential Admin nominees have engaged in, even well before this whole thanking trend started going on. I think it just comes with the system. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe candidates better warn in advance that they will thank people!!! (except those they know don't want it...) OK, not necessarily. I think thanking is just the polite and thoughtful thing to do. While technically not necessary it's just nice, and it adds some color. I particularly appreciate clever or pretty thank yous, and especially thank yous that go to all commentors, even those that were neutral or oppose, because to me that's showing the candidate wanted the feedback, good and bad. I have never expected any quid-pro-quo for supporting a candidate, although I can't speak for anyone else. I participate in RfA because it's important to the project, not because I want to be an Admin someday in the future (I've moved from probably don't to probably do but that's not relevant). Note: Admitted bias: I collect all the ones I've gotten here. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm of two minds. On the one hand I appreciate all forms of politeness; good manners never go out of style. On the other hand I feel it's inappropriate to take individual notice of a vote. Again, my opinion of an editor improves when I see him thank me for my oppose comment. Yet again, I don't vote as a gift to the nominee; I vote in the interest of the project -- as I see it. I wish thank-yous would come unembellished by cute graphics and clever formatting. I'd prefer to keep the deck clear for action. Another side to the issue of these bread-and-butter notes is: How am I to reply? I reply on my own talk to comments made there; I think it's safe and sane. But I doubt if these instant celebs are checking back on my talk. Should I crank out a cute, clever congrats template to slap on all successful nominees' talk?
Given all the potential headaches of adminship, perhaps the unsuccessful nominees are the ones who should be congratulated -- but that might be taken the wrong way. I'm only certain of one thing: I don't want to see any comment on my talk from a nominee before closing time. John Reid 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Replication Lags on Interiot's edit counting tool

I use Interiot's tool for counting a Requesting User's edits (I don't have editcountitis, just so you know) but now that the Replication Lag is up to 2 days (and keeps on rising), how will we be able to see the progress of the User's edits if Wikipedia data is no longer updated? Funnybunny 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing unusual about the current replication lag - it's been known to lag for a few days at times. The time will eventually decrease. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the toolserver is no longer receiving updates from enwiki. The replication lag will get ever-longer until that problem is fixed. -Splashtalk 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's a little more serious than a general lag at this point - see User_talk:Interiot for details. -- MarcoTolo 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the details - I didn't realize that the toolsever wasn't receiving updates. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You could try Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool or Interiot's Tool2. -Splashtalk 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the primary reasons that I started the tool. Although I haven't been working on it recently due to a lack of time and technical prowess, thanks to the great skills and efforts of the members of the WikiProject, the tool is now better than ever and serves as an adequate backup when the toolserver is down. Because it is independent of the toolserver, it is not affected by any technical issues - all it requires is that Wikipedia is up and running. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Will they be able to fix this? Funnybunny 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Brion has commented on this [2] RicDod 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To be totally cynical, what effect is the lack of an edit counter actually having on RfA's? Can some frequent voters share how their voting pattern may have changed? :) Stevage 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Can some people just stop saying that sort of thing because it's been said many times before? :) -Splashtalk 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Dunno if I am a "frequent voter" or not but if it's permanently gone I probably will vote less. When I can't make up my mind, either I do research, or I don't vote. One class of research I do is to look in various namespaces to judge the candidate's contributions. Not looking for absolute percentages but am looking for signs the candidate does/does not understand policy, does/does not help shape policy, does/does not engage in constructive discussion with users, does/does not help resolve contention in articlespace, and so forth. Just looking at their contributions the raw/onwiki way is a way but the contribution tree helps a lot as it is more efficient. Note that since the recent change to contribution to allow filtering by namespace, using the onwiki way is certainly easier than it was previously (and bravo to whatever developer *cough* Robchurch *cough* did it). If I can't satisfy myself in a certain time spent, I won't vote. More efficient tools mean a greater fraction of "satisfy in a certain time spent". Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh, ok. Actually for what it's worth, I miss the edit counter, I like seeing *my* edits. Stevage 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh back, because I bet you were expecting a bunch of people to admit they have editcountitis and won't vote for people unless they have x% this and y% that and a contribution pattern that isn't a bell curve and etc. Right? Smile. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the down toolserver will affect RfA for at least a couple of weeks -- not for me anyway. I don't really care what a nominee has done yesterday or last week (unless it's truly exceptional, therefore not a countable thing). I want to see overall editing for the last several months and this is still available. When the lag grows to an appreciable fraction of the minimum length of membership I'll consider (currently 3 mo), then I'll worry about the toolserver. John Reid 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
General agreement, but I would be highly annoyed to be missing oh say the last month of a user's edits then I'll be pretty concerned. JoshuaZ 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This tool is not essential, although it is ok to have around. I just hate seeing all that blue/purple/orange when I look myself up ;). NoSeptember talk 23:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)