Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 94

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

Reform proposal trial runs?

OK, so there's been a lot of talk going around about this reform, and the discussion seems to be making some progress. Do you think it is appropriate to run trials or test runs of some of the proposals that seem to be getting good reviews, or in theory seem to be a good idea? I only suggest that because how else would we know which ones work and which do not. The only problem would be whether these RfAs would "count," in the sense that the RfA candidate would actually be promoted if the system allows for it. (I personally would say yes, but I bring it up because there might be some objections.) One possible candidate might be the Proposal_by_Carcharoth which sounds very good in theory and discussion has been going well.

So what does everyone think? Nothing will happen unless we just give it a go. Maybe a formal proposal would be written up for the "good" ones and a trial RfA or two would be run for that proposal. So how can we do this? └Jared┘┌t┐  19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me - we won't really know if these proposals will work or not unless we try them. I would say that the Proposal_by_Carcharoth is a good one to try (though, so are some others). For this to go ahead, a formal proposal would need to be written up; in particular answering the questions given by Jared (talk · contribs). Then, the technical side of it would need to be worked out, for example how will the random jury selection work? Finally, it would need to be worked out how the trial would work, in particular, who would be the candidate? After watching some recent experiments on RfA, I think this needs to be thought of carefully. Camaron1 | Chris 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that it would be a bad idea to make the results binding. I have large concerns about the inherent fairness of some of those proposals, so I do not want people promoted based on them. -Amarkov moo! 18:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Indeed, until there is a very large consensus indeed I don't think any of these proposals should be binding. People from every part of Wikipedia should participate in the decision for a change so major before it is taken, as who becomes admin effects the whole of Wikipedia. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not object to a simulated run, but nobody should be promoted short of an established method, I suppose it depends on how far the proposed method deviates from conventional practice. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It does depend on that. However, every proposal (bar one that simply mandates more discussion among bureaucrats) deviates very significantly from conventional practice. Nearly all are "don't allow supporting comments", "don't allow discussion on the RfA page", "ignore reasons that I think are bad", or trial adminship. -Amarkov moo! 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Any "proposed method" is dead before it starts. (proposals Do Not Work (tm) ). In fact, if you would like to see certain practices rejected before they become common, you would do well to write them out as a policy proposal. (you will have ~8:1 odds that the practice will be rejected)

If you'd like your system to have a chance, try some experiments, possibly off-wiki. If the system works the way you thought it did, run it as an alternative alongside RfA. If it scales better than RFA, it will slowly take over, with RfA only acting in a vestigial fashion. --Kim Bruning 18:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC) this method works for any other process you would like to improve on too :-)

When a proposal is truly needed the proposal has a much better chance. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is obviously a need for a change to the RfA system, and step one of soliciting possibly solutions for the problem(s) is underway. What I suggested here was to phase in step two, which would put into trial a few of the possibilities. I'll have to agree that, yes, maybe granting adminship on a trial would not be such a good idea. But otherwise, the trial should run normally. What I'm really asking here, though, is should we go ahead and try out one or two of the possible solutions, just to see how they'd actually work if implemented? If so, then maybe I'll start writing a full-out proposal for one of them. └Jared┘┌t┐  02:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So long as nobody is promoted based on trials, I have no objections to running them on the main RfA page. It's been shown repeatedly that there is simply no other way to get participation in trial formats otherwise. -Amarkov moo! 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If you need someone to be the candidate for a fake RFA that works like a real one, I'd be happy to be the guinea pig. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 02:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll volunteer to be a guinea pig as well, if I seem like a suitable candidate. –Pomte 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll be one provided that the results aren't binding and it's a process I think might be good. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I've started expanding Carcharoth's proposal, but I've already run into some snags as far as how we'd get users picked. I think this would be a great job for a bot (i.e. a bot sees that a new RfA candidate has been placed on the RfA page and then sends a message to X number of people randomly.). How we would do it, though, would be tough. On this subpage of mine I started writing it out, but as you can see the specifics are hardly specific. Maybe someone who wants to help could look at this and try to do a little more explaining. └Jared┘┌t┐  03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mock RFAs show nothing, nobody would spend their time and energy arguing on mock RFAs, neither vandals and trolls nor POV-pushers would appear on mock RFAs. The result will be straightforward, bleak and boring discussion unrepresentative to the real life. We have to try schemes in real life. Lets select a scheme (e.g. Carcharoth's proposal), ensure that most of the readers of this talk page agree for an experiment, ensure that bureaucrats agree to promote if the experimental RFA succeed, find a candidate agreed to be the guinea pig and go ahead. Alex Bakharev 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But can we really run a binding trial over the concerns of people who think that a system is inherently unfair (or just stupid)? -Amarkov moo! 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
One could equally ask how we can run binding discussions presently over the concerns of people who think that the current system is inherently unfair (or just stupid). Really what is called for is careful selection of the method to be trialled; that is, only the more promising and broadly approved methods should be trialled. --bainer (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree that trials should not be binding, but they should still be well organised with a full proposal written before it is tried. Though saying that, the current attempts at writing up Carcharoth's proposal have not been easy. I can try and help out - but I am not sure where to start, and I have other things to do. Camaron1 | Chris 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trial RFAs can be quite enlightening, both showing what to do, and what not to do, like this example. Some parts were fun, some parts were a tad too much work. I this case, we learned that possibly refactoring RFA isn't enough ^^;; (though have fun adding questions still, if you like :-) ) --Kim Bruning 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather taken aback to see my proposal being mentioned this prominently! :-) I'd like to thanks Jared for expanding the proposal on a subpage of his user page (User:Jared/sandbox3). I would comment over there, but the discussion page for the sandbox is a broken (double) redirect pointing to (presumably) the last bit that got moved from there. The main problems seem to be selecting random users, which is why I think the way to select the committee (let's not call it a jury - wrong overtones) is to have a list that RfA regulars (and others, of course) add themselves to. Quite how long this list would have to be, I don't know. But then the set-up at Portal:Middle-earth/Random-article could be used to select people from such a list, using dates or something to make the generation automatic. Or maybe something more robust could be devised. Once that happens, then it might work. The key thing is that this system would be a discussion first and foremost, followed by a "committee vote", followed by a bureaucrat checking things worked and promoting the candidate. Whether the percentages of a vote involving 50-150 people will translate to a vote of around 20 people instead, is problematic. In effect, what this system does is temporarily appoint random community members to bureaucrat-like positions where they are effectively asked to judge the mood of the community (that rabble discussing things on the floor), and then the real bureaucrat judges whether the randomly appointed members have got it right or not. This shares the pressure of final selection between the temporary committee and the bureaucrat, emphasises discussion, avoids pile-on voting, and should be more transparent. To go into even more detail, to avoid problems with inactive users (even those who put their name on a list may go inactive), the users on the list have to certify their presence within (say) a day, otherwise they get dropped and the list moves up. Once (say) 20 people have certified they are present, the RfA committee has formed. Hmm. Once you get into details, you see the advantages of the rather simple system currently operating. Anyone (well, almost anyone) can vote. No need to wait. Just pick a random week-long snapshot opinion poll of the diverse Wikipedia community, and pass to the bureaucrat for closing. The main disadvantage I can see with this is if the "committee selection list" ends up being so small that the people on it effectively become bureaucrat-lites. That and the daunting amount of bureaucracy. Though RfA was once simpler than it is now. It all comes back to the scale problem. <sigh> Oh well, that's my thoughts. Let's see how things develop from here. Hope I haven't killed off my own proposal! :-/ Carcharoth 18:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect, so if you want to comment on that talk page of mine, you may. In retrospect, this proposal, while good, seems to be complicated, and overcoming the obsticles may be difficult and may not be worth all the trouble just to ensure we get the best possible opinions on candidates. That said, I would still certainly like to see this run in a trial, at least one time, just to see how it would actually work. └Jared┘┌t┐  18:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The biggest obstacle I see is to determine the criteria for the jurors. Once we have that, I can make a script to generate a list and we can possibly try it out? --ST47Talk 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha! I've just realised what that weird Wikipolitical Compass thread is really for! Follow some of the links to the raw data, and you find a list of voters here. The criteria used there were: "all voters who voted in at least 5 RfAs from January 1, 2007 to May 7, 2007". How about using that list as the starting point? You'd have to try and avoid users that have been banned or are no longer active, but that is dealt with by requiring people selected to confirm (within a set time period, say three days) that they are here. For now, maybe, just randomly select people from that list until you get 20 people confirmed and willing to take part in the experiment as the first "committee", then find a willing candidate guinea pig, then start the community discussion, let the committee vote, and see what the closing bureaucrat makes of it all! If people like the idea, the concept can be refined further with more experiments. Carcharoth 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly there is a strange logic to this system, as on the one hand you have a community discussion and vote that anone can contribute to, and at the end of it one person (the bureaucrat) judges borderline cases. Will a middle-ground of a committee help in borderline cases? Isn't that what bureaucrats do anyway (do they, as a 'committee', discuss borderline cases)? Carcharoth 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Would 20 be enough? I have a way to make any amount of random people from that list. Of course, if this works, we would want a truly random sample of eligible users - perhaps users can opt-in for 'jury duty', but that's looking too far ahead. Is 20 enough? Is the message I'm putting at User:ST47/JuryDuty good? --ST47Talk 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Opt-in? No, that would corrupt the concept beyond belief right from the very start. Picaroon (Talk) 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As the various rfa reform proposals go, this one sounds above average, mainly because it would be quite interesting to watch. But for the final outcome to actually, significantly differ from what we have today, the "jurors" need to be non-regulars. The proposal is bound to fail if we get the same people who constantly type "Oppose, edit summary usage is only 70%" and "Support, because he already has a bunch of supports" as "jurors." I say we offer the job of "jury member" only to people who have never participated in a request for adminship before, so as to make sure they're not privy to the silliness this place displays on a daily basis, and will therefore be genuinely shocked at the sort of comments I mention above. Using regulars would be like having your gardener, your banker, and your aunt appointed to a jury deliberating whether to convict you. Picaroon (Talk) 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but we're going to run out of potential jurors really fast. If we do do a random sampling, then the 50 sane voices can override the 10 regulars, but we can't say that some people are automatically out. --ST47Talk 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm running now against random users with settings of 100+ edits, and once we are finished, 100 jurors will be posted. Then, I'll manually check contribs to find any active users, and I'll run again if I need to until I have 100 potential jurors. If we want to go forward with this, we need a decision on how many jurors we need. I'm thinking that 100 should be good, we'd have varying opinions, and that's about the average amount of comments nowadays. The only way to go from there is down, maybe choose 50-80 users to ask? --ST47Talk 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having a jury if ultimately the bureaucrats decide anyway (as outlined in the proposal). Either you have a jury, and then its decision is binding, otherwise why this complexity? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, to prevent those who always vote from saying stuff like "Oppose, edit summary usage is only 70%" and "Support, because he already has a bunch of supports" from doing it, and to make it the community process it should be. Let's see how the trial goes. --ST47Talk 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I have an easier method of getting a list, it will just take some time to get a list of active users and then I just have to filter it by edits and get a random selection. --ST47Talk 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no guarantee that a jury won't complain if editors fail to use edit summaries. It would be a better use of one's time to write the encyclopedia than sitting on juries I think. A jury won't make a difference except in borderline cases anyway, which would be better served by a handful of bureaucrats discussing among themselves. The latter would be a more efficient use of manpower, with the same results I'd guess. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
But since the jury is of random users, such as the group I'm about to post, it is less likely to be regulars. The jury is replacing the vote, you realize, because it sounds to me as though you think the jury is replacing the crats? --ST47Talk 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a group ready and can generate 100/50/however many users from it at random, should we contact User:R, the first volunteer above? I'll be back in about 7 hours. --ST47Talk 10:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out my comments at User talk:ST47/JuryDuty. I personally don't think this is quite ready yet (much as I'd love to see what happens when you notify 100 random users - you might provoke quite a firework display). I would strongly urge waiting until some more input comes in. The big stumbling point at the moment seems to be whether to go totally random (seems too much like spamming to me), or select randomly from a (fairly large) list of people who are more likely to be prepared to take part in a week-long debate (or at least vote at the end of it). What will be interesting is how RfA regulars will adapt to this system. You also need to sort out the layout of the RfA before going live. Where do you list the 'committee' members? Where do they sign? Where does the community add their voice? How do you keep the community and committee discussions separate? Should the committee give reasons or not, or should they just participate in the main discussion and then cast their votes? You could also have a stripped down version where you have a nomination statement, candidate statement, and questions, and then the community are restricted to oppose reasons only, the committee votes, and the bureaucrat decides. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy of this proposal is expanding too much, in my opinion. I can't see a simple way to do this and I am close to disowning it! :-( But if a simple trial run can be worked out, it would be good to see what happens. Carcharoth 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think this is ready for prime time. Seems like there's a lot of unanswered questions. RxS 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we miss nothing by trying it. Hell, why don't we just have a less known admin undergo another RfA as proxy? Nothing to lose, and no one is really put in jeopardy. David Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
General I'd agree, but if there's something to this (which I'm not convinced about, but anyway..) and it's given a trial before it's really ready and fails badly it may not get another chance. At this point it's still just an idea...it really needs some solid ground I think. RxS 18:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Suggestions for Carcharoth's proposal

OK, let us become serious, and list what needs doing.

  1. How large is our panel? 100? 50?
  2. How much support is needed? 80%? 75%? 67%?
  3. Who is our guinea pig? Preferably someone who is already an admin, as David said?
  4. How do we choose a panel? I used 100 edits and active within the last week, is that OK? We can set something up where any user who edits in a 24-hour period is added to a list, and chosen from at random?
  5. How long is it open? 1 week?
  6. Do we need a quorum? 20?
  7. Can we contact users? Should a bot undergo a WP:BRFA? Should we ask for permission on WP:VP?
  8. I have a template in my userspace at User:ST47/RfA test, and it needs updating and further enhancement. Do we keep the neutral section? Do we need both General comments and Discussion?
  9. Do we allow a 3 day period of discussion before the panel submits their votes? Is that too bothersome for panelists? Can we encourage, but not require, it? If so, should we?

--ST47Talk 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with being the guinea pig for this. I'm already an admin, so it being non-binding isn't an issue, especially if I fail. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I made this into another section. Anyway, I'll reply to your questions/comments.
  1. I would suggest that a panel of 75 people should be contacted. This is an average/high-average approximation for how many people respond in general on RfAs.
  2. As far as passing goes, I think it would go against consensus to suggest that there's a cut off point. But again, if we're using a 'crat to close these (or even an admin) then it would be left up to them to decide what consensus is.
  3. For a guinea pig, yeah, maybe a recently promoted admin, so we can have something to compare our results with (sort of like a control for an experiment).
  4. The electorate should be as you suggested, or something very similar.
  5. It should probably be left open for about a week, unless there is an obvious consensus and almost everyone has responded. Maybe 5 days. You have to remember, though, that in order for this to work, the person must check their messages (talk page), which not everyone is able to do every day.
  6. We definitely need a quorum. I think 67% of the spammed group is sufficient, so if we're using 75 people, we would need 50 or more responses.
  7. Can we get someone with a bot to let us use it for this purpose? That would be ideal. It would make the spamming task so much less of a pain.
  8. As far as discussion goes, I say keep the user introduction paragraph and the questions, but dump the rest. It's too much like the current system. Maybe if we have one section devoted to where each user spammed will put his or her final vote and a good explanation as to why, and then another section for discussion where anyone can discuss anything. I don't think voting sections are necessary, because everyone is working sort of together, sort of.
  9. I think that if only the discussion section is left open for 1 or 2 days, that would be ample time for anything of importance to come out into view. It's like the trial of a court case, whereby the only way the jurors can actually decide anything is by seeing what is laid out in front of them. Then, they can submit their opinions. That's good thinking!
└Jared┘┌t┐  20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
And responses...
  1. OK, 75 users it is.
  2. Leave the judging to the crats
  3. Any objections to using EVula?
  4. There were two suggestions, plus one more, I can either make it random requiring edits in the past week, make it random out of those who edited in the last 24 hours, or make it random but give each person more 'chances' based on the amount of edits, so those who are more involved would have a greater chance than those who edit once a week.
  5. Maybe say 5 days, but it would obviously stay open until we get a quorum.
  6. I think 67% is a little much, and that we can't expect that many, and was thinking more along the lines of 25-33%, however if we use the third option above for #4, we can probably bring it up, because we get more active users. Is getting more active users a blessing or a curse?
  7. I can write a spambot easily.
  8. Right. How about a discussion section as you said, and also a section where the panelists are listed and they can put a vote and comment?
  9. I stole that from another proposal. 2 days of discussion would fit in perfectly with our 5 days stated at #5 above.
I am going to try one more panelist selection process, based around number of edits in a 24 hour period, so I'll need to collect data for a day or so. --ST47Talk 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Couple questions, how is success/failure measured in this trial? And why such a small pool? Wouldn't you get a better sample (and higher particapation) with a larger pool? And along the same line, is the pool weighted for higher amounts of edits per day? Won't that select for vandal fighters and bot operators? Nothing wrong with those folks, but they don't make for a good sample of the makeup of the range of wikipedia editors. RxS 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The crats can decide on whether there is consensus or not, that is their job ;), and are you saying that 75 users is too small? The reason I'm leaning towards editors with more edits is because the first panel test I did ended up mostly with people who wouldn't understand what's going on. --ST47Talk 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and bots are exempt. --ST47Talk 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
But I'm talking about bot operators, they aren't exempt right, those who run bots from their accounts? Not to mention folks who run AWB and all the other tools available. My other question wasn't about consensus, my concerns are centered around pool sampling and what benchmarks for success/failure are considering for a trial. In other words, exactly how will you judge whether the trial was a success or a failure? RxS 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Proposed reforms strike me as not good ideas, and as solutions looking for problems. I just don't see a need and would not support of the proposals. FeloniousMonk 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal's probably going to fail, but I'd like to see what happens when someone tries it. --ais523 10:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see a value in any of the proposals. One of the primary flaws in Carcharoth's proposal is the unlikelihood of even 5% of the 100 editors chosen having ever even run across any of the candidates. For example, on this discussion page I know only Kim and FM. If you really think editors are going to ferret out info on candidates they don't know, and will be able to look over 5K edits or more (the usual numbers of edits for most people in an RfA) and come to a proper conclusion, you probably believe in Santa Claus as well.
Another drawback to Carcharoth's proposal is that the RfA process should be democratic: picking a "jury", even at random, is hardly democratic. Besides, the addition of another layer of bureaucracy will hardly be a benefit and will likely be a drawback. What fuels the over-powering urge humans have for creating needless layers of bureaucratic bullspit, especially when those layers have no apparent value on only serve to gum up the works?
No offense guys, but I don't see the system as broken, and I don't see any need for any of these proposals. •Jim62sch• 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that current format of RfA doesn't really represent community consensus. Only a vanishingly small number of active editors vote on any single RfA. You get a mix of RfA regulars (some of which are very conscientious, some less so), drive-by voters who rarely explain why they've turned up to vote, and those who know the candidate well. If anything, RfAs would be improved by a primary division of voters into (a) those who know the candidate and (b) those who don't know the candidate. Those who know the candidate would have to indicate where they have encountered the candidate. Those who don't know the candidate would either explain their reasoning (such as conscientious RfA regulars) or be exposed as a drive-by voter who can't be bothered to explain their vote. I admit this has little to do with 'my' proposal (and for the record I am unhappy with aspects of it as well, so much so that I'm trying to disassociate my name from it!), but the concept of using random voters might show people how random RfA is at the moment (or not). It seems that drive-by voting is grudgingly allowed as long as those voters remain in a minority.
And I think a far bigger problem is the lack of transparency over this 'random' selection process. I'm sure ST47's process is random, but it needs to be visibly so. Carcharoth 13:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Right, so as I understand it, there is a random jury for each RfA and these are the people who decide if the candidate passes or now, right, I have some major concerns with this...

  1. I thought wikipedia was not supposed to be a bureaucracy? This seams far more bureaucratic than the current system. It's a far more complicated process which also only allows a limited community view i.e. the chosen few.
  2. What if someone outside the jury has a major concern? How are they supposed to raise it? In a normal RfA, they could simply oppose with their reasons - allowing a transparent view of the candidate.
  3. There are many valued contributors here who wouldn't have a clue what is required to be an administrator, why should we give these the sole ability to get a candidate promoted? I can see opposes for "spending too much time in wikipedia space". If this goes ahead - people should volunteer their services and then be picked at random from that group - we're not a court service.

Sorry to put a damper on it, I just feel this proposal is far worst than the current model. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the option you raise in point 3. As for point 2, people have always been able to raise major concerns, and that wouldn't change. Raising a major concern should be just that, raising it and discussing it. Not raising it and providing a single oppose vote. Major concerns should lead to discussion and several people deciding to support or oppose after the discussion. Finally, arriving in reverse order at point 1, the community can still express their view, but in the form of discussion on the RfA page, rather than voting. I also share your concerns with the excess bureaucracy in this proposal, but haven't been able to think of ways to reduce it (yet). Carcharoth 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A major concern is when people do become eligible for this "panel". It would be tempting to simply generate a dozen accounts to increase the likelihood of being "picked". Note also that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors never participate in RFA and may have no idea whatsoever of what adminship entails, and will likely have better things to do than picking through the edits of someone they haven't even heard of. In other words this suggestion has a high likelihood of attracting sheep votes: the first participant says whatever for some arbitrary reason, and the others "tag along" because they don't know any better. It also preemptively ruin the chances of anyone doing the kind of useful work that makes you enemies, such as, oh I don't know, vandal fighting or tagging unfair-use images. >Radiant< 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You've convinced me. The stories below about how people find out about adminship (and why they stay) were interesting as well. I'm now going back to concluding that things aren't broken, and that the scale problem may be a problem, but if things plateau, then it'll be OK. Carcharoth 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • In case the above was not clear, I'm "officially" (well, as official as Wikipedia gets) withdrawing my support for 'my' proposal. Others are more than welcome to carrying on developing the idea, but please call it something different (ie. don't refer to it using my name). I'd also suggest restarting discussion in a new thread if anyone does want to carry on with the idea, and archiving this thread. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Overdue requests

Am I allowed to remove nominations that exceeds its time limit, with results of "Pending, awaiting bureaucrat's decision"? And can I then create a link somewhere in WP:RFA that links to a page that stores all the pending nominations? Would that reduce some work for 'crats? Aquarius • talk 16:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't really save any work. We already have the bot trackers that tell us when they are due to close. And we've generally held that nominations are open for comment until they are officially closed by a bureacrat under the idea that it's consensus we're looking for, not votes. - Taxman Talk 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Moreschi is overdue. Majorly (hot!) 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That would just seem really tedious. As Taxman said, TangoBot makes hourly update of the status of all current RfAs, and it also highlights those that need to be closed. You can see it at WP:BN. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Moreschi was overdue as Majorly mentioned, so I was just wondering. Thanks! Aquarius • talk 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA record?

Is 22 23 concurrently running RfAs the record? —Kyриx 04:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More to the point -- does it still have a Problem? — Dan | talk 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be trite to say it but the best way to get more admins is to nominate more people... Changes to the RfA process may help or they may not, but I wonder if time would be better spent finding good candidates than worrying about the system we have for confirming them. WjBscribe 05:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The bigger problem I'm finding these days is getting good, experienced candidates to agree to a nomination. A growing number of people who would use the tools with distinction are seeing the flak that flies your way simply by having a toolbelt, and are deciding that its not something they fancy. Rockpocket 06:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It's the most since Tangobot started using descriptive edit summaries last July. Someone knows, I'm sure (probably NoSeptember). And I'll have to agree with Rockpocket about the current issue. Dekimasuよ! 11:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I've tried to take up the challenge to nominate more people, but of the six I've asked so far, three have declined outright and three asked to wait. And my first nominee didn't pass... *sigh* -- nae'blis 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I say we blame it on Snowolf for stacking up WP:RFA! Four of the candidates were nominated by him. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It does seem that in recent weeks there have been more RfA candidates and they are getting approved at a higher rate than before. It might be worthwhile to give the current situation time to see if it is a fluke or if it will maybe hold up for awhile, before proceeding with any more reform proposals. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely having many nominations is a sign that RfA will shortly be broken since a) there is an increased chance of promoting an admin who turns bad (for which RfA will get the blame) or b) someone won't get promoted who someone else thinks ought to, who will then come here and scratch the record. Splash - tk 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why RfA is attacked for those things. Even if every single desysopping is the fault of RfA for letting someone bad through, and a full eighth of the people who were not promoted should have been, it still has above a 90% success rate. That's an A in my book. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Splash is being sarcastic. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-five editors running for adminship. One net featured article gain last week. o_O GracenotesT § 05:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The summer holidays are coming, I expect the nom. rate to drop soon... feydey 17:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First awareness of RfA

Can anyone here remember how they first heard about WP:RFA? I've been randomly flicking through various lists of random users (generated for the proposal being discussed above) and I'm wondering just how many regular editors aren't even aware of much of the bureaucracy underlying (or frothing on the top of) Wikipedia? It might be interesting to see how many users asked at random by the above proposal become involved in RFA, or even realise that they themselves could one day ask the community for approval to use these tools. I'm asking how people first heard about RfA because I have encountered some strange attitudes out there that seem to think of admins as being able to rule on content issues, and wonder how much the role of admins is misunderstood (or not) by editors in general. So add your story to the section below. Carcharoth 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First became aware of admins and adminship

  • Visited the user page of an editor I was talking with and saw something there about them being an admin. After seeing a few more references, I eventually followed it up and read some of the documentation (eg. Wikipedia:Administrators). From what I can tell, my first contribution to this talk page was in September 2006, while I first commented in an RfA in April 2006. Carcharoth 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was trying to get to Arbcom, which I had read about on some talk page somewhere. So I used the abbreviation in the discussion I saw, which turned out to link here instead. -Amarkov moo! 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • After a few edits around Wikipedia, my inherent lust for power and ego gratification led me to search out how I could assert my iron will over the community. Mwuhahah...
    Actually, I have no clue whatsoever how I first tripped over this. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say I first looked up (or at least noticed) admins in my research on dispute resolution when dealing with DreamGuy, and saw it as something I'd like to pursue if I ended up sticking around.
    What's funny is that I kept meaning to self-nom, but never felt that I was quite there. I remember breaking 4k edits and thinking "well, maybe once I hit 5k", and when I did, thinking "well, maybe once I hit 6k..." EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I can sympathize with that. I occasiionally thought about self-noms, but if I had I would have felt so... dirty somehow.. go figure. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not quite sure, actually. I think I stumbled across User:Daniel.Bryant's candidacy for ArbCom first, but people complained he wasn't an admin. So I wourked my way over. No idea when I actually began voting. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Kept seeing a certain user all over the place, then noticed on his talkpage that someone wanted to nominated him for adminship. Sounds like fun, says I. That was my first vote (yep, it was a vote). – Rianaऋ 15:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC) <edit> Heh, found a link! [1] That wasn't as bad as I thought it was... – Rianaऋ 15:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking through my early edits, this is the first occasion I seem to be aware of administrator (asking a non-admin ironically). This was my first edit to an RfA, again kinda weird I know... then I note I'd support the user here (I failed to notice they'd been indefinitely blocked). Here's a comment on Misza13's RfA, but still no supports or opposes yet. Ooh my first vote, an oppose, how mean!. (The user was indefinitely blocked soon after). Ah, memories. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins? too long ago to track back in my mind, either through reading the policies or AFD participation, both of which occurred in my first 24 hours here. RFA? My first contribution was Moink's request for reapproval in May 2006, which probably was a followup to this AFD. GRBerry 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess my first real awareness of what admins were was at an RfC for Zephram Stark in September 2005. I first started really participating in the Wikipedia space in December 2005, and my first RfA action was to support Yamla, here. I'm not actually sure how I came upon it in the first place. Kafziel Talk 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Before my first edit. (I happen to like reading things like instruction manuals and rulebooks, and I'd found quite a few things in the Wikipedia: namespace long before I became an editor.) --ais523 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking over old edits, I seem to have come here based on noticing that a particular editor was standing for adminship. I then slowly progressed to the point where I now view the standings every couple days. -- nae'blis 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Mine came a few days after registering... I was browsing with Random Page and found a totally crap page and was wondering how to delete it. (And that is how I found AfD within my first dozen edits, too. It scarred me for life.) I'm another one who reads the manual for everything. so I found out about requesting deletion, and admins, and how you become an admin. I think I looked at the RfA pages in bemusement and fascination, wondering how people spent enough time here to become admins, and this back when 1000-1500 edits was fairly standard. I decided those people were crazy. It turns out I was right. :-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I first found RfA browsing the contributions of Luna Santin. He was the first editor to welcome me to Wikipedia and just over a month later, his RfA began. The next day I participated in my first Rfa, with a brief !vote of support. - auburnpilot talk 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't believe that no one has ID'ed this one yet.... My first awareness of RFA was from going to someone's talk page to post a comment, watching for a reply, and finding one of those "thanks for voting for me" spam messages there. --After Midnight 0001 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's see...I don't recall where and when I first found RFA. My first RFA edit was almost six months after I started contributing, so it definitely took me a while to find it. (Not as long as arbcom, though. I had never been there prior to the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war.) Sean William 03:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure. I suspect it was a few months after I started editing in earnest. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh my... I'm not sure about awareness of the process but trolling through my early contribs I find that I became aware of admins via Votes for Discussion, and apparently I participated in an arbitration before I participated in either RfB or RfA, and my first participation in either of those was to oppose an RfB!... sigh. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't really remember, but I suspect back when I joined I just read all the 5 pages there were on Wikipedia ;-). --Stephan Schulz 11:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
At the instant you made your first edit (presumably at the time you joined, as it was to create your userpage), RfA looked like this. It's interesting how times have changed... --ais523 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting to look back. I was there a few weeks before that, but wanted a watchlist to monitor the reaction to my Harry Blackmun rewrite. Look, Ma, no sources! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Finding out how to deal with vandals I came across WP:AIV and had a look at admins. I was too afraid to vote for a while. This was in August 2006, 2 months after I started editing. James086Talk | Email 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I first came across "Requests for adminship" during Ryulong's last nomination. I supported Ryulong, and didn't give any input on any more RfA's until Persian Poet Gal's request for adminship. That's how I found out about the RfAs. :) Acalamari 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • First became aware of admins: Long time back, probably March 2004. First participation in RFA [2], July 2004. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • First aware of admins before account creation when I saw {{adminbacklog}} on a page like WP:RM (can't remember exactly which page), although at first I thought they were some group in an office somewhere (being paid!). I dunno when I realised they were (fairly) normal people and when I saw the expected standards (1500-2000 edits), I dismissed them as insane (now my edit count is about 3500- must be really insane). I have only recently started to actually bother !voting on this page though. GDonato (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That would have been during my second month, when I first was figuring out how to nominate things for deletion and spent a while reading through the various policy and meta-pages afterwards. I never actually participated in an RfA until quite a bit later though. --tjstrf talk 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Came along probably after I hanged around at then-VfD. Back in those times RfA was remarkably similiar to how VfD worked, where percentages then still ruled the day. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Almost immediately after I started working on the dead-end pages backlog, I got a number of very angry messages from admins who disagreed with me. After mediation had proven its utter worthlessness, I simply started hanging around at the admin board. I don't think I did much at RFA until somebody nominated me. >Radiant< 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Total Edit Count

Maybe this should also be added on RFA talk pages since this includes deleted edits. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wannabe Kate gives a more detailed breakdown of the work the user does, not mere numbers. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying drop Kate. I'm saying have both. This one shows deleted edits. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
hmmmm, how is it supposed to work? It doesn't work on my laptop. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I get a number of lines of code but the count can be seen sitting between <count> and </count> (if that's what you see). Will (aka Wimt) 21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats right Wimt. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I get a lower number there (5718) than from Wannabe Kate (5814). Is it missing some namespaces or lagging behind somehow? –Pomte 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I get a massively inflated figure; no doubt because, as part of WP:WSS I end up prodding a lot of articles which go on to be deleted. If it could be cleaned up to generate bar charts as Kate does, it could produce a more accurate pattern of activity - but if most of an edits are to now-deleted articles, might that lead to "all your edits sucked and were deleted" claims? Flogging a dead horse argument, but once you get over the 1000 or so "not just a flash in the pan" mark, edit counts don't mean much. I made 600 edits in a single day last week breaking up Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom into smaller categories, but it took less time & effort than the single edit I made last week which brought Metcall from start to GA class. What would be useful is something that gave separate counts for minor and major edits — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It's simply reading the edit count field in the database, which uses a different definition of 'edit count'. It doesn't do any sort of paging through Special:Contributions at all (and so is much nicer on the servers than most edit coutners), and would be highly difficult to change. --ais523 11:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlogs

I really do hope that these candidates, most of whom are clearly going to succeeed will actully follow through on their promises to spend time in WP:CSD. Because I, and a few others am working my butt off there.--Anthony.bradbury 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes do deletion sprees there, but it isn't a promise. In my rfA for example, I said I'd avoid deleting stuff! ;) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, in my RfA I mentioned that I'd spend time at WP:RFPP, though I don't think I've edited there much more than a half dozen times since. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity as criteria for "oppose"

Should inactivity be seen as a criteria for opposing people?? I think it depends on the situation, really. In my RFA I was criticised for not being active enough, but I do have legitimate reasons for doing so (and fairly recently, I haven't been that active as I used to be due to the following):

  • My Windows XP (Home edition) has been sluggish recently and playing up, sometimes taking ages to start-up
  • I have other real-life issues that mean it is hard to edit Wikipedia, due to me being on the move.

If people mention that they may be inactive they should say so in their RFA. I will mention this if I am ever nominated for RFA. However, people shouldn't just treat inactivity as criteria for opposition - they may have mitigating circumstances, like mine above.

This isn't a rant, or an attack on contributors, just a suggestion that people should try and assume good faith if people are inactive for a period of time. --SunStar Net talk 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The point about inactivity is due to the fact that wikipedia is continuously evolving, if a user was very active 3 months ago, they will have understoond our policies and guidlines then, but things change quickly here, and if you go for a few months with relative inactivity, you will not be upto speed with the current environment. I agree that it should be treated on a case by case basis - but that's the reason. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The only problem is convincing some people that people do know policy. I've been inactive, by my own self-admission, but I still try to keep up with policy as and when I can. --SunStar Net talk 09:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Not active long enough" makes sense, "recent inactivity" does not. -- John Reaves (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MAKE LINDENS FAST!

There's an unfortunate tendency for prospective admins to feel they have to work specifically to pump up their edit count. This is worst when it's done doing useless things, e.g. welcome messages to blocked vandalbot accounts. To that end, here is some useful work that needs doing. Rack up those edits! Pump up your score!

  • More than one screen shot on a page? Bad, against policy and likely a copyright violation as well. Unlink all but the first screen shot and mark the images orphan with {{subst:orfud}}.
  • Read {{spoiler}} - it should no longer be on any article with a subheading "Plot", "Summary", "Synopsis", "Background" or whatever, as those directly imply that plot elements will be included. Remove it and {{endspoiler}} in such cases. (Consensus is emerging that if the spoiler warning isn't eliminated entirely, it'll be severely curtailed. Thus, this will also be an exercise in which you can demonstrate your diplomatic skills.)
  • Fair-use galleries are not just against policy but blatantly violate copyright. Typically found in band discographies - if you see a band article with <gallery> in the wikitext, you have a prospect.

Any others? - David Gerard 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions above. I also recommend:
  • Patrolling new pages - not just the first 50/500 that show up when you click Special:Newpages, but the older ones. Put {{newpagelinks}} on your userpage and click the higher numbers once in a while. So much slips through the cracks.
  • Check out fair-use images - if they're on an article which isn't mentioned in the fair use rationale, remove it from that article.
  • Tag huge fair use images for fair use reduction or deletion if that's out of the question - screenshots and album/video game covers are generally the worst culprits.
Vandal fighting is great, but active users should look further than Special:Recentchanges. – Riana ⁂ 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

great idea. Some from me:

  1. Look up biogs of living people and hack the POV out of them, and/or redress the balance.
  2. Check out the newest AfD nominations and be the first or second to comment (this will help people assess the value of your contributions in a way that pile-ons will not)
  3. Find a category of stubs that you have some knowledge/interest in and expand some to beyond stub size or apply the {{notstub}} template if they're already pretty encyclopedic for that topic.
  4. Develop a FA. It's not as hard as you might think and it'll ensure a firm grip of many important policies and guidelines.

Cheers --Dweller 10:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Developing a Featured Article is an interesting exercise even if you don't make it to an actual FA. Teaches one a lot about the writing of an encyclopedia - David Gerard 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And I would not say tag the oversized fairuse images - I'd say resize them. You don't have to be an admin to resize an image - David Gerard 10:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, even better. Just that I tried resizing something sometime and made a real mess of it, so if you don't trust yourself to do it, tag it - even that helps. – Riana ⁂ 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
RC patrol can also rack up edit counts. 175 edits (almost 3/min) in one hour! MER-C 11:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, didn't Riana just say: "Vandal fighting is great, but active users should look further than Special:Recentchanges." Carcharoth 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is telling that three of Dweller's suggestions require writing (improving POV biographies, expanding stubs, creating a FA). Admin candidates: forget tagging and voting and so on - just go forth and write some encyclopedic content. That is why we are here. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! We need to send the admin candidates to help clear the editing backlogs! The current admins can deal with the admin backlog. Warning: both the preceding statements may be false. Insufficient data. Carcharoth 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the candidates could get on with writing encyclopedic content while they are unable to undertake admin actions. They can deal with the backlogs, if they so desire, after they get The Bit™. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot more backlogs than just the administrative ones. If I see someone helping out where they can, I'm more willing to support them and their occasional editing history than someone who reverts 200 vandals a day. Sure reverting vandals is necessary, but we have enough headstrong newcomers willing to take up those ropes anyways. ZsinjTalk 03:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with the first piece of advice there. We aren't limited to "one screen shot per page", we are limited to to number of screenshots which meet the criteria and serve the article. This is far more complicated than a simple numeric judgment: the fair use of an image is dependent not only on the image and rationale on the image page itself, but the article text, captions, even the page layout. There's nothing so simple as a numeric limit, since depending on the page there could be anywhere from no images at all to half a dozen which are being properly used.
So while advising people to get practice evaluating and writing fair use rationales, removing images which serve no purpose but decoration, etc. is all good, there's no shortcut method around actually learning how to apply fair use images properly. Trying to enforce a numeric limit in place of this is just going to promote sloppy speed-editing, superficial understanding, misapplication of policy, and possibly edit wars. --tjstrf talk 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You could write something similar to this for it, although be sure you have your facts and policy straight. Incidentally, I don't understand the title of this section... Making clones of me is all well and good, but it seems a little far-off at this stage. Or do you mean something else by "Linden"? Grandmasterka 05:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See Linden dollar. --tjstrf talk 06:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Doing something useful rather than goldfarming - David Gerard 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Good ideas all. Let's put them somewhere more promininent than a talk page with an excessive postflow and archival rating. >Radiant< 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't this page manually archived? Anyway, I suggest finding a page linked from Wikipedia:Community portal or that clean-up task template. For now, I'll copy over the ideas to the Community portal talk page and hope someone there does something with them. Carcharoth 10:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Make gnomish edits in an article on it's way to FA status. Make the edits by section to boost edit count. Enter meaningful sounding comments in edit summary to hide the fact that you're just fixing things like comma splices and spelling. Then not only you're bumping up your edit count, you can claim you helped develop an article to featured status. —M (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I wrote out an essay

On administrators. I've rarely contributed to this talk page because I've felt that for a long time we've had a question without an answer: what is the bottom line in why being a sysop is no big deal, but the process is rigorous/biased/broken? Trust, how to use discretion, judgment and be accountable as well. I think that we've been over thinking things for far too long. Feel free to edit, provide sources and links and whatnot. If not, I'll get to it.

"Simplify, simplify." ~Thoreau.

Teketalk 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You missed two admin powers; admins also have the ability to create user accounts even if the account name is similar to an existing one or they've already created 6 accounts that day; and admins cannot be autoblocked or affected by a block on their IP. (Neither of these comes up all that often for most adminship work, but WP:ACC work takes up quite a proportion of my log.) --ais523 11:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Special:Unwatchedpages too? GDonato (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Editprotected and move pages despite move protection (see WP:MOP). GDonato (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much, page updated. Basically, I want this to be a reference for "Can I trust the user with these abilities?" with a clearcut transparency of what a sysop can do, and why it is a big deal in not being a big deal. Teketalk 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You also missed "abuse magnet", which I think is the most surprising ability of an administrator. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent canvassing concerns

I'm really annoyed by the recent concerns about canvassing, because I think it isn't an issue that should be so influential in RfA's. I think that we should be allowed to tell the community about our RfA's, as an effective way of increasing participation. And I think that a good way to do this is using something similar to {{Editor review}}, which can be put on a user's userpage to announce that they are undergoing an RfA. We should still punish blatant "vote-whoring" (for lack of a better word), but I think there should be SOME notification of an RfA, so that those who know the user (for good or bad reasons) don't miss out. G1ggy! 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's pretty solid consensus that banners on your userpage are perfectly fine. Isn't there? -Amarkov moo! 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I would hope so! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
People who oppose canvassers are simply clutching at straws, and are simply desperate to oppose for something. Sheesh, it's an admin, big deal. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Do I clutch at straws? Would a capable admin need to canvass for votes in the first place? —Kyриx 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A competent admin shouldn't need to canvas for votes. A simple banner on your userpage/talk page is fine. But adding things to others talk pages and to your sig is going too far. If a user doesn't understand the basic policies like canvassing they aren't ready for adminship. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't. Please explain how they aren't trustworthy. I'll find you some examples of canvassing if you like, of one of our best admins. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
How is a user who doesn't understand policy ready for adminship? If they are attempting to skew consensus in their RfA what's to say they won't use the tools to go against consensus? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Listen. I don't understand policy like the back of my hand either. Does it make me a bad admin? No. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing isn't some obscure policy most people haven't heard about. It's fairly simple to understand. Don't attempt to sway consensus by seeking editors with similar view points. An editor going for RFA should be familiar with all the basic policies. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd never even heard of it when I was promoted. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Presumably you had heard of Wikipedia:Consensus, though. That implies no one-sided canvassing. -- nae'blis 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be because it didn't exist then. -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It did actually. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is basically taking a chance. You draw in some editors who have firsthand experience working with you and, presumably, will support your candidacy. On the other hand, you'll inevitably turn some of the regulars off, to the point that they'll oppose on that basis alone. This is actually detailed in the guide to guide to RfA's (recommended reading for all RfA applicants), under "what !voters look for and hope not to see". If someone wants to roll the dice, then that's their prerogative. I wouldn't oppose solely on that basis, but people should at least be aware that it's frowned upon by many, as it's detailed in the recommended reading. MastCell Talk 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Canvassing guideline is a bit vague. On one hand it allows some communication while disallowing others. There is no clear dividing line. In the recent case I supported the guy but warned him of what would happen. It was really rather sad to see him go down over this issue. I'm perplexed myself because I am considering my own RfA. But if I ask people what they think about me is that construed as canvassing? What if I ask a couple of people to nominate me? The point is, if the policy was crystal clear we could expect pristine adherence. As it is, it's like a mousetrap waiting to spring. And by the way, WP:CANVASS is not a policy. It's a guideline. JodyB talk 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd think that an RfA candidate would take the time to read the guide to RfA which is pretty clear about how canvassing is frowned upon. Like I said in Booksworm RfA, editors who have befriended you on Wikipedia are the most likely to know your strengths but they're also the ones most likely to be oblivious to your faults and so canvassing tends to skew consensus. How would we react if somebody started canvassing people who have been in conflict with candidates? Surely we would not find this acceptable but I fail to see why canvassing people you've colaborated with is more acceptable. Pascal.Tesson 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It is confusing at first glance, yes, but it becomes second nature. I don't find anything wrong if an RfA candidate (current or potential) asks for clarification regarding this topic. Ask away. —Kyриx 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Going back to my RfA, after receiving a request to run, I'd asked 2 admins to pre-clear my candidacy, highlighting specific issues that I wanted feedback on. One wasn't active at the time, so I asked a third in his place. When I was ready to accept a nomination a month later, that wasn't an issue for anyone. (I think I mentioned it in my general comments, but don't now recall; I know nobody mentioned it in opining.) GRBerry 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've started work on a prospective banner for this. {{User:G1ggy/RfA Banner}} There's a to do list in the source code (commented), please have a look at this. Opinions, suggestions? G1ggy! 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record I think even that is a bad idea and I'm not sure why it should be considered helpful. It's not like RfA is lacking in participation. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't find anything wrong with such templates, as long as they're plain and neutral. —Kyриx 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh for pete's sake! {{Rfa-notice}} has existed since October 2005, just use it instead of reinventing the wheel. -- nae'blis 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There wasn't one for RfB, and while it will get used far less often, I've created one: {{Rfb-notice}}. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah.... :-) Re-inventing the wheel. Almost as bad as adding a 4-day-late comment! Full marks to G1ggy for boldness. One question though, did G1ggy look and fail to find the existing template (if so, why?), or did G1ggy just not look? Carcharoth 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully the "I couldn't find it" argument won't exist anymore; I just added "See also" sections to {{Editor review}} and {{Rfa-notice}} that link one to the other. Their uses are similar enough that I think it's a worthwhile addition. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
People could also use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Rfa-notice to see who is using it. And then cry foul about canvassing... (that was a joke!). Or even to read old discussions about it (lots of links to the WT:RFA archives). Seriously, the 'what links here' reveals it is not linked from any WP:RFA page, when surely it should be. Where would be a good place at WP:RFA to mention it, along with strongly worded warnings about canvassing? Carcharoth 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added a link to it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which strikes me as the most sensible place. I also included a little mention about how canvassing is akin to ensuring a failure; seemed like a good way to kill two birds with one stone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most people would be OK with a template like that. And in response to Jody's question, nominations usually require a bit of coordination, so I don't think anyone would frown on discussion in that arena. Notifying a Wikiproject that one of its members has been nominated is probably OK, as Wikiprojects generally aren't monolithic entities - one of the nominators did so in my RfA and it didn't seem to raise any hackles (or maybe no one noticed?). There's canvassing and then there's canvassing. In the case at hand, I think what rubbed people the wrong way was the dozens of talk-page messages that the candidate left - it plays on some deep-seated Wikipedia aversions to spamming and the like. MastCell Talk 04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Since my coding sucks (for lack of a better word), could someone please have a look at that template, and code it so that there is an option for 2nd, 3rd, 4th RfA's. G1ggy! 08:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Canvassing upsets editors because it was perceived to be lopsided and partisan. Same as in AfDs, it was thought to selectively spam editors whom the candidate thinks would support his point of view (or adminship, in this case). Even if the candidate is well-intentioned in getting as much community input as possible, this concern still sticks along with it till today. It is widely perceived that a good candidate need not go to editors to ask for support, rather editors coming to support the candidate themselves. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On the one hand, there's the very real concern of RfA becoming Wikipedia:Pop contest, which makes people not want you to canvass for votes. On the other hand, if you have friends on-wiki they would appreciate the chance to vote for you, and if they don't watch the RfA page then you telling them is the only chance they may have to find out about it. Personally, I wouldn't find telling a few people about your RfA offensive, but if a person's been spamming the talk pages of everyone they've ever exchanged three words with, then that would definitely earn an oppose from me. I could make such a great sig pun with it though. tjstRfA 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikifriends probably visit each others' talk pages at least once a week. The template {{rfa-notice}} on a user page should work well for them; and the nice thing about this template is that you can't control or predict who will visit your talk page, so there's no opportunity for partisan notifications and vote-stacking. ··coelacan 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Some people aren't concerned about the background functioning of Wikipedia. They come to edit articles and that's all they're concerned about. RfA's, AfD's RFC's and all the other alphabet soup things we do to keep the service running is beyond their interest and that's OK. I guess it would be nice however, to have a system wide method of telling people that XYZ is seeking adminship, maybe something like the banner advertising the international wikiconference. Of course the down side to that is that people become immune to it and don't really pay attention to it. Maybe it could be an option that a user selects or unselects. While that might work for RfA's because there are only two or three per day, It certainly would not work with AfD's because of the volume of pages listed. Anyway, Booksworm will know better next time and his experience highlights the importance of no-canvassing. JodyB talk 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I use Tangotango's report for. It sits on my userpage and I look at it every couple of days to see who's there. Doesn't everybody (at least, everybody who cares what's happening at RfA) use that? Kafziel Talk 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The only bot page that shows RfBs is User:Dragons flight/RFA summary, so don't forget to check that one from time to time. NoSeptember 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I use WP:BN sometimes, but more often User:Mathbot/Most recent admin (which I have watchlisted). The page itself is pretty useless, but its history alerts people to RfAs starting. --ais523 12:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for 2 very good tips (Kafziel and ais523). I have wanted something that warns me about users running for RfA for a long time, now it is more or less luck if I happen on anyone that I know of that I really want to vote for. This should help. Stefan 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Prejudicial canvassing is not OK, but the user I nominated did not do so. His so-called "canvassing" was neutral as it was sent to all users appeared in his talk page, not just ones supporting him. Anyways, using this obscure guideline as the sole reason to oppose is not a good practice. WooyiTalk to me? 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If he was going to alert users, he could've said "if you're going to comment", not "if you're going to support". Interpreted one way, that could also mean if you're not going to support, don't go there. (though I doubt the user meant that). Still, the user shouldn't have said "support". --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That's known as nitpicking. Who cares how he said it. Doesn't affect his admin abilitiy. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
A good canvasser will know the difference that sort of difference in wording would make. And even if someone's first RfA goes badly because of this, waiting til next time doesn't hurt. Carcharoth 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't hurt but it's completely unnecessary. People complain about lazy admins and RfA being broken - it's them that cause it! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose on the basis of canvassing alone, but if it was part of some larger behavior I would. Like an obviously desperate attempt to get the power just for the sake of having it. Quadzilla99 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA format idea - new proposal

Please see User:SunStar Net/RFA Reform/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SunStar Net - and actually vote in this one. It's dual-purpose: it tests out a new format, and it also will be a useful guide on what I need to improve to become an admin,

If it works, it works, if it doesn't.... oh well, I can always try again with a new format! --SunStar Net talk 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Just a little note; are you intending that an RFA on this format is decided based on the number of votes cast? If not, could you perhaps explain the difference between this format and the existing one? My concern here, or at least as this format appears is that the whole thing will just be based on the sole number of votes for/against a user, basically meaning that it's all reduced to a popularity contest. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not quite a vote-count. Users could vote Support or Oppose, but they have to give full reasons why they feel the user is suitable/unsuitable for adminship, not just one-line answers.

This is a typical reply on the current system: Support - user is excellent. Username SunStar Net talk

The change would be based on comments given, e.g. Support I have seen this user, and he has made good contributions in areas X, Y and Z and is good at conflict resolution. I have worked with him on article X and he was very helpful whilst dealing with a controversial issue.

It would take into account the number of votes, but based on reasons why the candidate should be nominated, not just WP:ILIKEIT votes (which are common on RFA/AFD's).

This was the idea I was getting at, above. --SunStar Net talk 19:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any different to the current system, except possibly mixing the support and oppose !votes in the same section. What is going to make people give better reasons than they do now? --Tango 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free to improve the proposal as you want. I was suggesting that people give full reasons, not just "I like this user" or "I do not think this user will do well as admin" - if the bureaucrats would take reasons why into account, then it could

work. It may stop RFA's from turning into vote-counts. However, it is not yet fully written up, so feel free to expand it or change it as you will. --SunStar Net talk 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Please list this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. But I have to agree with Tango; there would basically be no difference here as compared to how things are today. Also, remember that having a bunch of support/oppose !votes from established users does actually say something about a candidate, even if they haven't given any reasons as to why. As for my own opinion, I feel that we need a bigger change in the process; this would only change some of the wording in the policies, without actually having any practical effects. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
...and correct me if I'm wrong but it's not like too many people fell in love with the Moralis format! Pascal.Tesson 04:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I thought the format of that RfA was a lot like love ... lacking order and logic and progressively complicated and messy. ;) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) In case anyone's wondering, I'm not really this cynical and melancholy. Honestly.
Only thing better would be to Javascript it to so each opinion randomly floats around on the article page. --Ozgod 05:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
... maybe even with this as a snapshot ... -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I personally dislike messy stuff so counting of support/oppose !votes will be harder to count this way. The new format proposed would not make any difference and it just changes the looks of an RFA page, nothing else. Not everyone will give reasons for supporting an RFA candidate, so why the change? Terence 09:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Counting the "!votes" is irrelevant, since RfA is not a vote, but a consensus garnering mechanism. The votes are meaningless. --Durin 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still questioning the use of question number 4 regarding arbitration enforcement. Either way, I'm not really a fan of the Moralis format. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The idea is, basically, that bureaucrats should take into account, the quality of the arguments, rather than the number of votes. --SunStar Net talk 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by banned sockpuppet of banner user

What is the policy on this? There were also several personal attacks by this sockpuppet in the discussion, and he ridiculously accused the user who was being considered for AFD of using a sockpuppet and made several other personal attacks to the user who had been accused of being a sockpuppet of the user being considered. Should these comments be deleted, striked through, or simply have a comment written under them? I think that they're so absurd and irrelevant that they shouldn't remain in the discussion. hmwithtalk 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any contribution by a banned user can be reverted on sight; see WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits and WP:CSD#G5. --ais523 07:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice. I have done this. Cheers! hmwithtalk 08:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)