Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 05:26:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Poll

Foregoing archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 200#799 active admins

I've just done a quick read of this thread and, well, to be frank, it's not clear just exactly how many editors here think the above-mentioned concern is legitimately a problem. While indeed voting is evil, I believe in this instance, it would be beneficial if we could have a quick show of hands. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who believe the lack of active administrators is a problem

1. I think that both choices here are too black and white: it is not a huge problem, but it is certainly not not a problem. The backlogs are there, WP:AIV, CAT:RFU, the white and blacklists, &c. I'm also not saying that there are no other solutions possible left and right, but it remains that some actions need to be done by very established editors, and a lot of those things need to be done with an admin bit .. and I believe that that needs a steady, significant influx of fresh admins. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. In some areas, such as AE I see a fairly small circle of admins carrying a rather large and, I imagine, demanding workload. It takes time and ability to get sufficient reflexive command of our policies and a feel for 'what works' and how to ensure that actions are interpreted as being constructive that fewer 'new' admins could spell trouble down the road as we look for as Beetstra says very established editors. Unomi (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3. It's already a problem and it will get worse. The lack of admins puts an extra load on the currently active ones and this can lead to admin fatigue. Sure, it would be nice to have more successful RfAs but one more question we should be asking ourselves is "how do we keep the current admin corps?" Also less admins means an increased perception of power. Pichpich (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
4. It is a problem insofar as it keeps causing lengthy discussions like this one, distracting people from improving the encyclopaedia. :) More seriously, I do think we could generally use more admins in many areas - we certainly aren't at the point where we can see 'we've got enough admins' - and in that sense, the dearth of admins is a problem. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Per Robofish. Often times, it takes hours to have an RPP request actioned, by which point, lots of vandalism and BLP violations have taken place. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Intermittent backlogs; too much workload for dedicated admins; less patience for handling disputes and teaching our wiki ways to passionate but disruptive editors; danger of group think without a steady influx of newcomers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Close to disasterous, we need dozens more rright now! Bearian (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who believe the lack of active administrators is not a problem

1. It is not yet a problem in terms of backlogs, though possibly in terms of community health. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. It doesn't seem to me to be a problem right now, because everything seems to be working ok -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3.  – iridescent 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Not a problem (unless we consider the amount of time spent on this perennial discussion). It is overly simplistic to believe that the number of active admins is a useful barometer, especially when we see that at least 701 of those 799 active admins also appear on the list of most active users in the history of Wikipedia. If the project actually starts to suffer in a way that is directly attributable to the raw number of active admins, we'll figure it out then. In the meantime, we should pat ourselves on the back for being part of a project that continues to improve.  Frank  |  talk  12:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Well I have just looked at my usual haunt speedy deletions and there is no backlog. Any daily backlog which builds up there always gets removed when America wakes up (recently the level for considering it a backlog was reduced from 75 to 50, I have no idea why). I then noticed someone commenting on this page about AIV backlogs so I thought I would have a look and I noticed AIV was empty and there is nothing for me to do there. Because I work on European time I only ever seem to get a small handful of really difficult AfD decisions left for me so I rarely close AfDs as a newish admin, unless I can devote a spare 45 minutes. Polargeo (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
6. I'm yet to be convinced that admin-related backlogs are currently any larger than previously, when there were more active admins. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
7. The decline in the number of active administrators is merely a consequence of the decline in the number of active editors. We should get used to the idea of wikipedia having fewer edits and fewer editors. Fewer admins is a not overly concerning result of that. However that does not mean that I don't think RfA "standards" can be a little high some times. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Yet to see any firm evidence that there's a problem. We may not need as many admins as a going concern as we did as a startup, especially with advances in bots.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Don't even see that there is a lack of admins. If there is a slight one, it is not a problem yet. Or at least no more so than it used to be. (X! · talk)  · @052  ·  00:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
10. I see the occasional backlog at some of the areas I look at, but even if we had 10 times the number of active admins, that will still happen. Some admins go away for a while and come back (for example, I've been away for pretty much the last month and a half, due to the birth of my son - that's been more important than Wikipedia!) - real life takes precedence over enwiki, but that doesn't mean that all our "non-active" admins will not be back! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Admittedly I've been more busy in content space, so am not sure that there have been any admin-related backlogs of ongoing concern, but suspect there haven't been (??) However, I do believe there is an issue in lack of active admins in pages with ongoing sanctions and difficult areas (at least there was when I was an arb and I suspect that still holds true). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
12. I don't think the quantity is an immediate problem. My greater concern is the quality.--Kudpung (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the number of active administrators continues to decline it will at some point become a problem.

1. Yes. We need enough admins to do things like delete pages and block vandals. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes. Clearly it will, if it continues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3. I am afraid that this is obvious. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Well, um, yeah. sonia♫ 09:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
5. -- Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 10:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Unless we find a way to replace them with a very small shell script. Unomi (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
7. It is hard to put one's finger on a "problem", but I find it problematic that a small number of administrators are handling a large majority of the tasks. We are all susceptible to burnout and if numbers continue to decline, increasing workloads will fall upon those that remain - in turn causing more burnout - in turn causing more to reduce activity or leave - in turn causing more burnout on those left - and so on - eventually we may enter a tailspin from which it will be difficult to recover. –xeno^talk 13:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Eventually. However, I don't think it's simple to quantify how many we need, even as a proportion of the total number of active editors, due to increased automation of certain admin tasks and increased complexity of policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
9. In the longer term. We're at the stage where we have the luxury of actually experimenting with the adminship process (rather than contemplating) without the pressure of having to get it right first time. We don't have to take it, but if we do not, then as a collective we will be fools for not doing so. The notion that people will voluntarily lower their standards at RfA is nonsensical. Alas, the way wikipedia works, you will never get consensus on change unless all but two options have been categorically ruled out. And judging by people's attitudes to change, one of the options would have to be "do nothing", which is usually popular. --WFC-- 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
10. As of now, the number of active administrators is not a problem. However, if this decline continues it could eventually turn into a problem. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Of course it will become a problem. I think once we're below 500, we'll be in the shit. You can only ask so much of users before they crack. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    That would be a good thing though wouldn't it? It would force the system to change to a more rational system of governance, which clearly won't happen otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    Judging by what happens in other projects, once we drop below functional levels the foundation will step in and appoint sufficient admins for this project to function. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    Which is the opposite of desirable, as the community may have no say, and candidates whom have been rejected previously could be appointed. Esteffect (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

12. Does anyone have any idea how much of the admin workload is fixing problems caused by IP editors and newly-registered accounts? If those problems ceased to happen, how many active admins would be sufficient? - Pointillist (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Eventually. This is years away, though. (X! · talk)  · @052  ·  00:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Eventually. Connormah^talk 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
15. It would. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Isn't this stating the obvious? Even if the number of active administrators was declining by 1 a year, "at some point [it] will become a problem". However, I do not think that the problem is anywhere in the near future -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    The decline is more like 100 a year. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

17. Clearly Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Agreed with this view. Orderinchaos 16:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Yes, eventually. Having fewer active admins around could potentially result in higher average amounts of workload for the remaining active admins, and there's only so much that one individual admin can do. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Theoretically and broadly yes. Not sure what number is the critical number though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
21. It will eventually if we are not able to make the process less humiliating, and more objective. What we might get is more quantity but a drop in quality.--Kudpung (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Yes, but the Vandal Fighter proposal is not a solution. Esteffect (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Obviously, absent any rising number of admins to counter the decline, it will more or less become a problem. Wait, aren't declining numbers of oversight always a problem? There won't be any people left to block vandals! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
24. The trend for the last couple of years has been disheartening; March was a particularly bad month with only 2 successful candidates out of 26 (December and January were pretty bad also, with only 6 of 26 passing in each month). August looks like it will have a much higher than 50% success rate, and if the current nominations close as expected, we should have 13 successes (not to jinx anything). That's at least a return to the 2009 norm, so unless this relative "boom" is a fluke we may see the trend reversing. -- Atama頭 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

    This relative "boom" is likely to be a response to the recent Signpost article, and so is unlikely to represent a long term reversal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

    I thought about that too. I also thought that maybe seeing the success rate would encourage other people that "you can do it too". I guess we'll see. -- Atama頭 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

25. Yes, it will become a problem at some point. Probably sooner rather than later, given that Wikipedia continues to grow in size and popularity. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
26. We need people to maintain order. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Makes sense. How soon it'll be a problem is another matter. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
28. This obviously makes sense. I have a few suggestions which may help: Why not make smaller, but similar permissions (user group rights) which can be given to non admins to perform such tasks? Rollback was originally an admin tool, and I believe, if they don't as yet exist, the deleter right, block right and other such rights may help. Otherwise, maybe a group of 'crats could work together with Jimbo as a team to promote highly active users into admins, with little or no community consensus. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    How about a set of requirements for the user to meet to help with that promotion team? Additionally, admins could find such users who meet the requirements, and recommend them to the team for adminship approval. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 13:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    This has been extensively discussed already many many times. I suggest you spend a little more time on wikipedia (say 1 year) before coming to any conclusions. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

29. Obviously. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. The wording of the options above is faulty. There is not a clear lack of active administrators. Sure, if the number of active administrators fell to 4, one could assume problems would follow. But the wording of the first two options above suggest where this poll is intended to lead the reader. Townlake (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   The last sentence is entirely true. --WFC-- 14:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Agree that the wording of the first two questions is flawed and intentionally or unintentionally comes off as a Push poll. Third question is pretty obvious. Going to have to decline to participate. Jusdafax 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   I added the third option because I thought the poll with its two options was at best a distraction. Of course the difficult thing is that we don't and can't know when the decline will turn into such an embarrassment that the foundation will step in and appoint admins as I believe they've had to do on other wikis. There are so many variables - how active are the admins we have, how evenly spread are they in their hours of activity, whether we can somehow make admins more efficient, or use bots for some of the things we need admins for. My fear is that we will get over-dependent on a small number of hyper active admins, and when they get burned out or overwhelmed we will need a lot of new admins to replace them. But unless we change direction we will at some point hit a major problem, and it would be good to get that agreed or flush out the reasons why people disagree. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

2. I agree with Townlake, and furthermore, insufficient research has been completed on the issue. We need more info on: "how many admins there are on Wikipedia in total", "how many admins have left Wikipedia", "how many admins took admin actions each month", "how many actions have been taken each month, and the reasons for any decreases or uninvolvement from certain areas by each admin", "the reasons why certain veteran admins have never entered certain areas", etc. etc. This data then should be compared with the RFA stats. If we were to elect more admins who are going to be unwilling to enter those areas where they are needed, or who are unlikely to have sound judgement in one or more of those areas, then I wonder what the point is in worrying about how many admins are elected each month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
3. I don't see the problem. New users come (like me), and older users move on; big deal. There will always be talent coming and going. All we can do is nourish the new and experienced users and hope for the best; this is an open and unpaid project afterall. Tommy! [message] 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   The issue is that we have an imbalance and the number of active admins is falling rapidly, and what few new admins we have are rarely new users. We have almost no admins who joined us in the last 18 months and few who joined us in the previous 18 months. This isn't an issue of turnover, this is an issue of decline. ϢereSpielChequers 10:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

4. I agree with Tommy2010 that there is always turnover in online communities, and we need to “nourish [both] new and experienced users and hope for the best.” And I also agree with Ncmvocalist that further research is required (my boss once said that if you cannot measure something then you should forget about it). Bwrs (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is in fact a lot of discussion and info gathering underway at the moment (for example). Although it might be locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, at least it's a start.--Kudpung (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

<sigh of contentment>

Delighted to see six RfAs running and even more delighted to see them all currently "green". A pleasant interlude in a decidedly awful day. --Dweller (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, today's weather alone is enough to make it a dreary day, let alone having to work an extra three hours at work. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's perhaps what happens when those who might oppose are chased away, or their arguments dismissed by bureaucrats. I've long wondered why wikipedia doesn't just ban all oppose votes as disruptive, unless the candidate is generally unpopular of course. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the current surge of good candidates coming forward is nice. One might even pretend for but a moment that the overall atmosphere at RfA has changed; that RfA is now a pleasant, fun, world of positivity :P. Swarm^Talk 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That'll be the day. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAICS from the recent unopposed RFAs, it's a piece of cake when candidates have sufficient content skills in addition to the traditional process and policy experience. - Pointillist (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It also helps to block unpopular editors expressing unpopular opinions. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the system is far from perfect. But there's aren't so many dodgy admins active nowadays, and over the past two years content has become more necessary for candidates, so I think things are going in the right direction. I'm beginning to accept that promoting unpopular opinions on wikipedia requires more planning, intelligence and self-control than I'm prepared to invest day-to-day. If I had that much self-discipline, I'd rather get the benefit of it in real life than here anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, it is in perfect order: [1] —Soap— 12:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hooray, RFA is officially no longer broken! :-) Aiken ♫ 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Its great to see the number of active currently active RFAs rise to near the 2005-2007 average. But I think we need a little more than that spike before we can consider the drought over. I'm hoping that August will see the highest number of RFAs of any month this year, and it could even reach the 2009 average. But we'd need to have a month of RFA having 5 or 6 in the green before I'd accept RFA had been repaired. ϢereSpielChequers 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to have 12 successful RfA's this month. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 20:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We unfortunately don't have all greens anymore. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A very important question

I have wondered this for a long time. Why is it that almost everyone who comments in an RfA puts their !vote in bold at the beginning of their comment? It seems rather redundant, since there are already section headers that say what all of the !votes are in each section. Does anyone have any ideas as to why people do this? And I apologize in advance for wasting everyone's time with this rather trivial question. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Some believe that bureaucrats are swayed by the Oppose, Strong oppose, Strongest possible oppose from the Master of the Galaxy nonsense that so many seem to be tempted into. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the formating break helps me quickly get an idea of how things are going, find the start of each !vote, especially when my eyes are going numb. Dlohcierekim 21:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard an ancient legend that that's when you're supposed to get off the computer, but I'm sure it's just a myth. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No doubt it's just a myth; there's no way that could be true. And Malleus, what do you mean "some believe"? I thought that everyone believed that? Are you saying it isn't true? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've tried it when voting here in the UK, where we still do it by putting crosses on bits of paper. No matter how hard I press on the pencil, my vote only seems to count as one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Teh sooper sekret burakat formula assigns a point value to the strength of the bold, the length of the initial support/oppose comment, the time of day, the barometric pressure, and the "uberwikiness" of the commentor. So, for example, If Dweller giving a Support is 5 points, then Bastique giving a Master and Commander of the Galaxy and Universe, and BEYOND!!!!!!! support is worth 500 gazillion points, auto-sysop, auto-crat, and the keys to the executive washroom in the OTRS lounge. The aforementioned is solely humor and has no resemblance to the truth. -- Avi (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just a convention from other voting venues, such as AfD, where the "keep" and "delete" arguments aren't segregated. Then it's easier to identify them by the boldface word. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably to do with the fact that RFA is a vote (though everyone pretends it isn't). At AFD (which is not a vote), the comments are usually bolded still, probably a habit from the days when it was one. What really bugs me is not the adjectives so much, it's when people "switch" from Oppose to Strong oppose, or whatever - as if it makes the slightest bit of difference. Aiken ♫ 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes a big difference. In two ways. One, it influences other !voters, who may be persuaded by arguments put forward. And secondly, bureaucrats have from time to time noted that adjectives are helpful in tight decisions. --Dweller (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

However, the difference it makes may not be what is intended. An editor voting "Strong Oppose" makes me approach their argument with greater scepticism that I otherwise would. What annoys me especially is editors voting "Strong Oppose" (typically with an aggressively phrased rationale) on obvious NotNow RfAs - that's playground bullying behaviour. CIreland (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right and particularly where they switch to strong oppose after they fail to close per NOTNOW [2]. just rubbing salt into the wounds :) Polargeo (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"...bureaucrats have from time to time noted that adjectives are helpful in tight decisions..." Dear me, I hope not. What happened to looking at the arguments presented and the consensus found? Aiken ♫ 13:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what they're doing. --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For example: if a large number of participants weighed in as "weak oppose", then an RFA in the "discretionary zone" is more likely to be closed as successful as a result. This is confirmed quite often by bureaucrats in closing rationales. –xeno^talk 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though for the sake of clarification, the adjective isn't the end-all/be-all; obviously, a !vote of "Strong Oppose I dislike the shade of orange in the candidate's signature" wouldn't cary as much weight as "Weak Oppose Candidate states that they want to work at AfD, but their answers show that they don't understand our deletion policy." The adjectives are usually reflective of the comments that follow them, which is why we've got three 'crats here (myself included) saying that they pay attention to them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

...so I can stick with the dark oranje then?--ClubOranje^T 10:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• A bold one or two word summary at the start makes it very easy to read diffs in isolation, whether reviewing via the page history, or by a user's contributions. This applies equally at RFA and XfD. Also, as per Dlohcierekim, this formatting style is much easier on the eye than a wall of uniformly formatted text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Playground is indeed the operative word, especially when you check up on the !voters and question posers and realise just how many of them are children.--Kudpung (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of articles created

One of the latest excuses to oppose somebody is by pointing out they created "only" 7 articles, or whatever. What's the purpose in mentioning this? What's the ideal number? 10? 50? 50,000? And here's when it gets silly: what if all 7 creations were of FA standard? Doubt the opposer bothers to check this. But, if they had 50,000 creations of unsourced BLPs, it wouldn't be an issue at all. This is a very poor way of evaluating a candidate indeed.

I'm just bringing this up so that hopefully people will become aware of how absurd it is, and stamp it out before it becomes a fad reason to oppose with. Aiken ♫ 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just what I'd expect from a user who has only created 8 articles. BigDom 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So you agree with quantity over quality? What is the number you require? Aiken ♫ 13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We all know it's sometimes hard to tell, but I think that response was very much tongue-in-cheek.  Frank  |  talk  13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Spot on Frank, I wasn't being serious! I do like to see evidence of article creation, seeing as a successful candidate will be "in charge" (at least, they would like to think they are) of article builders and vandal fighters alike, but I don't have a value set in stone. BigDom 13:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah that's good to know. I think some article creation is good, but pointing out "only" seven articles as an excuse to oppose when the candidate has GAs and FAs to their credit is a bit pointless. Aiken ♫ 14:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, quality is definitely preferable to quantity (says the user with over 1400 creations...) BigDom 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as we are talking about one or two opposes I would just go to their talkpage and discuss it with them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is inaccurate; users with many unreferenced BLPs have been earned opposition for this. –xeno^talk 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm seeing a big problem with people valuing quantity over quality. They would rather see a high number of low quality articles rather than a few good quality ones. Same with edits to articles - some choose to make lots of little edits, and others one big edit to improve articles significantly. The latter would be penalized because they didn't have a higher number of edits. Ah well, it's always another reason to say no :) Aiken ♫ 14:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think sometimes we are too quick to think "His name is on the first revision" equals content creation. Well, it can, but it can also undervalue those who take existant crap and whip it into compliance with norms, or take something in reasonable shape to a GA/FL/FA standard. Both of those are quite legitimate content work, and a candidate who does a good deal of that can show very few article creations. Courcelles 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very true, and in fact I think it's significantly more difficult to expand an existing article to GA or FA than it is to take one there from scratch. Perhaps a better metric might be how many of those created articles have amounted to more than a sub-stub hill of beans. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just another weak oppose (see discussions of the last weeks about that), and the 'crats should simply ignore these in their verdict. If oppose reasons don't span further than that .. let me be clear, I know spammers who have created more than 7 articles, all deleted, it is easy to create 50 articles without references on hardly notable people, just to get your count up. There are editors who create 1 or 2 articles, and have a helped on a number of GA/FA articles. There are editors who have neither, but still they do know the policies and guidelines, they have done a lot of work on articles which will never get to FA/GA. This type of counting just does not say anything. Yes, it says something if someone has only created articles which are all deleted, or when there is no proof at all' that an editor has ever significantly expanded a handful of articles, or brought articles to FA/GA, or created articles. But seeing them separately is not a reason to oppose, and I am afraid that such opposes are mainly done when there is nothing else found (these numbers are easy to find ...).

The issue is, that sometimes I have the feeling that following !voters pick up on one mistake or one bad point, and then the opposes start to pile up, all on the same reason. Ah well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread was created based on my opposition in a recent admin application Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Connormah_3#Oppose I would like to remind that the number of articles created was not my only problem. Please read carefully my opposition: it's based on number of articles created (7), DYKs (1), GAs (1) (although it seems like it might be two) and FA (1). This is too little for an admin applying in 2010. I know a plethora of contributors who have way more than that, and those should be the ones running the show. My oppose may indeed be a weak one, but I consistently need the help of admins in content related disputes. The best contributors in that area are people who are substantial contributors. However these people are drawn little to adminship because they don't want to dirty their hands with the job, which sometimes is quite demanding. As a result the creation of content in Wikipedia suffers and the quality of it depends on the people who insist the most with their edits. I find it very hard to have people come and review an RfC. I would like to see admins run there and be the first to give their opinions. I would also like a better functioning Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, but it seems like admins are little drawn to these things. I don't like admins who just use the tools to block and ban people, I would also like to see mentoring skills in them. Why can't we have more leadership skills in admins but only police like behavior? --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"This is too little for an admin applying in 2010". I don't agree at all. It is possible to be familiar with content/articles without having achieved status on certain articles, or created n articles. I actually agree with many of your points, particularly about admins who act like police officers. But opposing candidates like the one mentioned won't actually help the situation. That particular candidate has the experience. Not every person wants to be an admin, and I can think of numerous article writers who wouldn't ever apply. Penalizing those who do apply, when they have experience in what you want, won't help anything. If you want article writers as admins, persuade them to run. Aiken ♫ 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't it obvious? Anybody who doesn't meet certain special standards are grossly incompetent. I've uploaded just one image. It's obvious I don't have a frickin' clue about images, how to license them, use them, etc. Also, 17% of all of my edits have been deleted. That's just not possible unless I was a vandal creating all sorts of useless, rapidly deleted articles. I've also created just one article that actually stuck. I don't have any FAs, or even GAs. I have less than 50,000 edits, and I only have four barnstars. I'm incompetent. I should be blocked, as a threat to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, only one image?? Aren't you that guy that spends most of their time on here dealing with images? :-) Aiken ♫ 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ayup. I'm obviously grossly incompetent in that arena, having uploaded just one image. Of course, my point is the idea that you can judge a person's ability by how many articles they have started is ludicrously absurd, and anyone that attempts to apply such a metric to an RfA vote should be laughed off the forum. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think most of the questions and objections on these things are pointless and stupid and the whole RFA process has become needlessly officious and pedantic. It's certainly a lot of fuss and palaver for something that's supposedly no big deal. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that admins, like janitors, can make life quite uncomfortable if they want. It then takes a great deal of fuss and palaver to de-sysop them (there was an admin last year who had been blocked twelve times before his bit finally got cleared). Calling adminship "the mop" or "no big deal" doesn't reassure editors as much as it used to. - Pointillist (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely, which is why insisting applicants have at least N articles created to their name will provide a cast iron safeguard against such miscreants. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't buy the "article created" test at all. It is making articles encyclopedic that counts: just being the first person to create the stub doesn't automatically make you a better person. Anyway, improving other people's work is a better test of admin readiness. Someone who only creates articles from scratch wouldn't have the experience of interacting with others. Some content experience is a necessary condition for adminship, but it certainly isn't sufficient. - Pointillist (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why "What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?" is question 2 is beyond me. It really should be a late additional question. Kingturtle (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It's a way of asking what the candidate thinks is important about the project; and it tells the voters (I'm not going to pretend that this isn't a vote) what they've done to advance those goals. While I think think focus on you must have 1 FA and 3 GA and 2 DYK... is harmful, I don't think the question as posed is problematic per se. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume that Kingturtle here was being a bit cynical .. Indeed 'What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?' gets completely ignored when editors are plain counting number of articles created, and counting number of DYK, FA and GA's anyway. That question should plainly be replaced by 'How many articles did you create, how many of those did you get to FA or GA, and how many did end up at FA or GA at the end, how many DYK did you have (any of the new articles?), and in how many other FA or GA class articles did you participate? (hint: if you have less than 10 articles here, and your number of DYK, FA, GA is less than 2 each, or less than 5 in total, then don't bother to go through this RfA)'</massive dripping sarcasm>. This is just plain absurd. The editor creates articles, the editor worked in the field of FA/GA/DYK, do we have any doubt that such an editor is not understanding (and following) our core policies and guidelines (well, I generally don't read that from such opposes)? If all these numbers are 0, sure, then that might become a question (but still, then go by the answer of Question 2, and look at what they are proud of and what articles they significantly worked on ..). If that plain counting is not accompanied by some form of "I can't find any significant content creation, and you've not worked at a good handful of articles expanding them significantly at all, I can't assess your knowledge of our policies and guidelines" then such plain counting opposes should be plainly ignored by the 'crats (and I really hope they do).

As TenOfAllTrades says, and repeating my earlier point, this type of opposes is harmful, I have now seen a couple of RfA's in the last couple of weeks (some did pass .. and I am happy about that), where you see one opposer finding one minor point, and suddenly the opposes pile up .. 'as Opposer X found that one mistake, I have to oppose as well.' (hint: we all make mistakes, and most are not fatal (even when made as an admin) .. if the mistakes pile up, perpetuate, or the editor/admin will not acknowledge the mistake .. thén it is a problem, but one mistake (amongst a significant number of similar edits), even a relatively big one, is not a serious reason not to trust the editor), it is nitpicking. I repeat, and that is what I said in earlier discussions regarding the slowly declining number of active admins as well, those counting criteria are over the top (if they do not look at any other significant content creation which is not related to the plain creation of articles, DY/FA/GA's etc.), the majority of those criteria sets are totally incomplete anyway (they are teinted strongly by the fields one works in, totally ignoring any other fields where the to-be-admin will have power (even if they say they will never work there, well, some to-be-admins say they are not going to delete articles, but they still will get that power, and still opposes arise of the type of 'does not get involved in AfD's'); and believe me, I have seen the admins dropping by in those areas on which they were not judged in an RfA); if those were strict expanded that set to all fields the admin has power, >95% of the editors should never, never pass; 6 out of the 7 that are now open would NOT pass my criteria by FAR (funny: guess which one would, actually), they all miss, IMHO, crucial experience in an area where they DO get the power (and I actually don't trust them there ..))!

It is about 'trusting the editor to know the policies and guidelines and not to abuse the powers'. A measure for that is NOT plainly counting the number of FA/GA/DYK/created articles .. c'est le ton qui fait la musique, not the length of the track, not the number of notes used, not even BPM rate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dirk, I salute all you said :) The article count only counts if vote counters take the trouble to take into account the quality of the counted creations. Far too many of them are indeed a 'sub-stub hill of beans', and unsourced or badly sourced BLP. It's not about the number of FA/GA/DYK, it's about content, basic format, and naked URLs and about candidates who expect someone else to come along and clean up for them - it's like prefects and fagging (British English) in in a British boarding school of the kind I went to. There is no excuse for promoting an admin who doesn't know, or won't apply the basic principles of article creation, and a !voter who !votes simply to outweigh the well founded oppose! votes based on such principle, is a hypocrite. There are too many active admins who I would't vote fo today, and a great many who would SNOW by today's thankfully high standards (even if those standards are based on the wrong ideals). Yes, it's about trust, and if we can't trust an editor to respect the rules of creation, how can we trust them to respect the rules of the tools?-Kudpung (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not, actually? The far lesser standing rank of "autoreviewer" requires 75 articles created. If one sysop equals ten autoreviewers, this will make a nice rounded threshold of 750 created stubs, no less. It's not that difficult. East of Borschov 16:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And here we go: Are 50 stubs "better" than a full-time review of an existing article?

IMPO telling me that someone has created too less articles is just a lack of arguments. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer is just so you don't waste npps' time, right? If someone is a pure vandal-fighter or npp or something why bother with autoreviewer? There would be no point in asking for autoreviewer if you weren't creating lots of articles. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To continue your point, the trouble starts when "someone a pure vandal fighter or npp" not known for anything else applies for the coveted delete button. And all the hell of "personal check lists" breaks loose. Make the informal article creation hurdle mandatory, like the infamous unwritten edit counter. East of Borschov 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not sure I've understood what you mean by that, but anyway:) I not convinced an article creation count is helpful, but if we are forced to have one, it should require that the new article has sufficient reliable sources to prove notability and no "unsourced BLP" concerns. Any new article that didn't satisfy those requirements should arguably count as a net negative at RFA. - Pointillist (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled aka Autoreviewer is indeed an efficiency whitelist for newpage patrol, if I were not an admin then I doubt if I'd qualify for it. So if some people want to increase the status of those who widen the pedia by adding new articles as opposed to deepening it by improving articles; May I suggest that instead of opposing candidates at RFA who wouldn't qualify for the Autopatrolled flag, you argue for Autopatrolled to cease to be part of the default admin rights (and start a convention that admins can't give that right to themselves). ϢereSpielChequers 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are in violation of a policy so obvious it isn't worth linking the page in question. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you refer to as obvious. Could you link it? Jonathunder (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GSorbyDesroid opposes

were much more civil and helpful than others I've seen it previous snows. I thank the participants for that. Dlohcierekim 13:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Although all snows should be like this, I think it has a lot to do with this user's potential. With a lot more XP and some guidance, I'm sure they would make a great admin in the future. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely..by the way, Tyrol, an anon (probably a toll) found your oppose and thought XP was hit points or whatever it means and I reverted it. Recommend writing out experience :) Tommy! [message] 18:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call, I hadn't even thought of that when I wrote it! Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG... EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about civility and personal attacks at RfA

Make no mistake. I'm pretty outspoken, have at least half a dozen truly shocking comments to my name, and accept on balance that I'm somewhat fortunate to have a clean block log. But when did posts at RfA become immune to the likes of WP:CIVIL and the no personal attacks policy? The tone of at least one of the last ten supports in Connormah's one (plus a diff linked to from a second one) makes some of my outburts seem kitten-like in comparison. --WFC-- 20:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA is a feculent sinkhole of hatred and rage, the one place on Wikipedia where people are tacitly allowed to vent their spleens with no filters, and finally say what they actually think about someone without much fear of being blocked. This is, of course, a problem; RFA used to be a fairly simple process, and now it's much more of a trial by fire than anything else. The real problem, of course, is that everyone pretty much agrees that RFA is broken, but nobody can agree on how to fix it. Everyone has their pet theories on how to repair what's broken, and are uninterested in compromise. Then there's the bloc of people who just oppose any change to anything anywhere. What can you do, really? Not much. → ROUX ₪ 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Aw, come on, Roux, don't hold back, tell us what you really think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad summary, but it's even worse than that. A candidate might reasonably be criticised by friend and foe alike, that goes with the territory, but it's now the case that opposers are equally targetted, and nobody tries to do anything to stop it. With Connormah's RfA, for instance, it is to the candidate's discredit that he has taken no steps to rein in his more abusive supporters. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been several RfA's that have failed for that specific reason... failure of the candidate from reigning in his supporters. One of the more notorious RfA's (which played a role in an admin resigning under a cloud) failed with many of the opposers pointing to the behaviour of the admin/nominator and the candidates inaction.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's true, that does happen, despite it being a little irksome. At least in this case, Connormah did say he's been kind of busy as of late, if that counts for anything. 174.52.141.138^{Also 67.136.117.132}20:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an overall maturity problem rather than a Wikipedia problem. But who knows. Tommy! [message] 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Another example of poor judgement then, running the RfA gauntlet when you don't have the time to pay attention to it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what any of this means... apparently I'm too stupid. – B.hotep •talk• 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, if people came up with valid reasons to oppose candidates, they wouldn't be lambasted for looking around for truly pathetic reasons to oppose. This is true of many recent RfAs, WP:Requests for adminship/T being a good example. Nobody was debating that the RfA was premature, so what does one achieve by writing "oppose. You don't have enough edits"? It's insulting to the candidate and does nothing for the opposer other than pad their edit count. RfA is supposed to be about whether someone is suitable to be an administrator, not whether they have 2 million edits or twenty featured articles. And people wonder why we can't get enough decent candidates to go through an RfA! Some of the opposers in recent RfAs should be ashamed of themselves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly many of the supporters in recent RfAs should be even more ashamed of themselves. I realise though that the trend at RfA is to eliminate all opposition as being worthless. Why not just block everyone who opposes for disruption, as some clearly want to do? Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Malleus is spot on: if there's a quality gap between opposers and supporters, it's clearly the opposers who have the reasoning deficit. "Fully qualified candidate" and "Why not?" are entirely common and unremarkable support input. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC))
      • And "fixed concerns from last RfA too soon" or "didn't twiddle his thumbs for some arbitrary amount of time" is useful input? I'm not condoning incivility in the support section. I would love it if people could actually participate in RfA with respect for the candidate and fellow participants, but the incivility of supporters doesn't give opposers a licence to insult the candidate. Candidates submit their RfAs as good faith offers to help out, so the very least we can do is offer them a little bit of respect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      • At AFD it's the burden of those who want the article gone to provide good arguments. A no-consensus close results in the same fate for the article: kept. At RFA it's the burden of the opposers - most supports are just votes without any commentary. If all the opposers can up with is along the lines of "Not got a million edits", I don't blame people for supporting. Aiken ♫ 21:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the supports are generally civil, but many are frustrated, particularly on the RFA mentioned, of the apparent pettiness of some of the opposition. It's no excuse for incivility, but it seems some editors will jump on anything they possibly can to oppose somebody, whether it's actually a relevant reason, or just something pulled out of nothing. Once opposers begin to oppose with reasonable and logical commentary, the comments in the support section will probably stop. This isn't to say that all opposition is unreasonable - most of it is fine - but you'll find that the criticism is almost always for opposition that's petty or nothing to do with adminship. Aiken ♫ 21:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also true to say that some editors will jump on anything they possibly can to support somebody. Have a look at some of them. – B.hotep •talk• 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with that? Someone is proposed to be an admin, so we assume they are qualified until proven otherwise. Or did AGF at the door of RFA? Aiken ♫ 21:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Bubba said he had a problem with it, just that it goes both ways. ceranthor 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a perfectly logical and sociologically supportable position that those who seek power too much are the last to whom it should be given; some native North American tribes even chose their chiefs on that basis. That you or anyone else does not share that view, or believes that someone can transform themselves into a model wikipedian in a mere six weeks, does not confer the right to abuse those who hold a contrary view. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Good faith" isn't a synonym for "competence". Someone can have the best faith in the world, but potentially be crappy at any given task. With no working desysop mechanism or probationary procedure in practice, adminship is effectively for life; it's down to the candidate and the nominator to persuade people that the candidate is competent. I don't know where this "default position is support" meme has sprung from over the last six months or so; in all Wikipedia processes (from AFD, to Arbcom elections, to policy proposals) the default position is "maintain the status quo", which in the case of RFA is "do not promote". – iridescent 21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I chose the wrong word and knew as soon as I saved it was wrong. A better thing to write would be "Do we assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent?". People come looking to oppose, which is a bad outlook. It's needlessly negative. If someone wants to help out, we should assume they are suitable - unless proven otherwise.

It's been going on a lot longer than six months. Right since the beginning of RFA in fact. Aiken ♫ 22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, Malleus is right. :-) The default position in RfA is "not pass"--there needs to be a preponderance, a clear majority, of users who trust the editor/applicant with a block button that works on them--even the other administrators. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

... and that's where I generally trip. One, administrators are scared rigid to block each other, and two, well you can probably guess what two is. I've got far too many admins champing at the bit to block me already, without adding another one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, don't get me wrong here, I like you, but you seem to be under the delusion that all admins are maniacal 12-year-olds just waiting for an excuse to block you. We have better things to do. If you don't do anything to get yourself blocked, you won't be blocked and the vast majority of admins are far more concerned with dealing with vandalism and BLP issues or protected edit requests or any of the other things that anyone vaguely competent could do if we just delegated a few of the abilities. Blocking you is quite low on the list of priorities for most admins, or did I just miss that memo after my RfA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's no delusion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then it's no wonder there's always a backlog, all the admins must be just waiting to block you! Come on. Maybe there are a few who are out to get you, but most have far better things to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has mentioned default positions other than Iridescent. The default position is in fact neutral. We then have to decide what decision to actually make. I would assume the candidate was qualified, unless anything concerning came up. I assume you would assume they weren't qualified, unless their good points shone through? Aiken ♫ 22:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody has mentioned default positions other than Iridescent"? You know we can read, right? – iridescent 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nothing about default positions there. Aiken ♫ 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone opposes, so we assume they have thought about this, we then support (or oppose) of our own volition, we don't support because of the opposition. Do we? Seems hypocritical to say RfA needs fixing then willingly break it. – B.hotep •talk• 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

People consider RFA broken in different ways. I consider poorly thought out opposition of qualified candidates damaging to the project. Others, however, might consider lots of qualified people being promoted as being a problem. Aiken ♫ 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Poorly thought out opposition is, well, poor. I think, somehow, that the percentage of poorly thought out opposition is in the minority compared to poorly thought out support. That is more damaging. – B.hotep •talk• 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If the opposition was truely effective, then supporters generally switch over, and more people come and oppose. I suppose the same effect is sort of happening in the RFA mentioned, just the other way around. Aiken ♫ 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in anyone's views on what qualifies a candidate to be given the block button, which I frankly consider to be far more dangerous than a few wrong CSD taggings, but for which there can be no previous experience. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why I proposed Wikipedia:Vandal fighters, for people who want the block button to block people who actually need blocking (vandals). Unfortunately, barely anyone cared who wanted it, and I gave up arguing for it. Aiken ♫ 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable idea, but you can't change anything here, it's set in stone. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If that what you think, why didn't you say so on the VF talk page? We were pushing hard for a distinction between short-term blocks of IPs/unconfirmed accounts vs the power indefinitely to block established contributors. - Pointillist (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if he had done, it still had no chance of going anywhere. Too many people didn't like the idea. I think they didn't understand it fully, but that's my opinion. Aiken ♫ 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, nearly everything on-Wiki is set in stone, even in the face of reasonable new ideas. But the solution seems to me to not give up arguing for good ideas too quickly, which, frankly, you did. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because hardly anyone was helping me, and I was getting very frustrated. I decided to walk away and do something else - I wasn't interested in getting into a dispute over something so petty. Aiken ♫ 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But Malleus Fatuorum should have participated in the VF debate anyway, given how deeply s/he has deprecated the current RfA process in the past—and to some extent influenced those of us who prioritise content contributions. I'm afraid that nowadays s/he is beginning to look rather like a shabby tiger - Pointillist (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not a "she", but on bad hair days I suppose I can look a little "shabby". I have seen so many of these failed proposals for unbundling that I don't see the point in wasting any more time on discussing them. It ain't gonna happen. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You can still comment on the proposal by clicking here. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, off the top of my head I would say if a candidate, shall we say, "urges" or "promotes" people to be blocked when there is little or no chance of any right-thinking admin doing so within policy, that would be a red light for me. – B.hotep •talk• 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At a simpler level, I would say bad reports to AIV and incorrect vandal warnings show a lack due diligence, suggesting the candidate is less qualified for access to the block button. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's obvious enough. Aiken ♫ 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was simpler. :) But it covers ANI and 3RR also. – B.hotep •talk• 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But what about the guy who reports a vandal who's had three warnings, but not the ten we seem to require these days? I frequently block in such cases, but I'm aware that many admins would decline the report until the inevitable 11th or 12th edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be exaggerating a tad. – B.hotep •talk• 22:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides, WFC, the reason you started this thread: was it because someone lost their rag, blew a fuse, couldn't stand it anymore... and managed to drum up one "per..." support? – B.hotep •talk• 22:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I started this thread for the reasons I stated. By all means, allow the !votes to stand, I have no intention of using this as an excuse to de-rail the RfA. But the sheer level of vitriol here is not on regardless of the substance of the arguments, and must not be allowed to continue. It's really that simple. --WFC-- 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Better question: How do we encourage civil and respectful participation at RfA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's an easy one. Voters address their comments to the candidate's qualities, not to their dislike of the awful opposers, who ought to burned in the fires of Hell. Similarly with the opposers of course, who ought not to mock the stupidity of most supporters. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, but how would that be enforced? Something along the lines of WP:REFACTOR whenever someone makes an irrelevant comment? And what should be done about the votes that are simply votes without a valid rationale? (For example, in my own RfA, I got several "why not" supports, and one of the opposes used the rationale "deletionist tendencies" without elaborating further. Seemed like an irrelevant comment, to me.) ~Amatulić (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Well a support is generally thought of as just an endorsement of the nomination, but I'm not a fan of the drive by "I can't be arsed to check and everyone else is supporting" type votes. @Malleus, I agree with you to an extent, but how do we get the opposers to oppose tactfully and focus their comments on what they see as the candidate's shortcomings and why they are unsuitable for the role. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Instead of sniping at each other in comments and filling the RFA up with noise, I think we should consider that all commentary regarding anything other than the candidate should be moved to the talk page. I definitely think we should allow reasoning to be criticised, but it ought to be done away from the page itself, in a critical way, rather than trying to persuade the voter to change their mind - which rarely works, and often causes friction. Aiken ♫ 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe—I haven't thought this through fully—the most popular tests of adminship should be decided on a separate page and then used in short form during actual RfAs. This approach would allow principles like content experience to be refined without humiliating any individual candidate. It might also help us to separate the proposed "VF" model from the current admin rights. - Pointillist (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad you started a new section. I'm on my BlackBerry now and it couldn't handle the size above and crashed. Re:WFC, I wasn't really questioning your motives, it was a good question. I just thought I'd highlight a rather comical rant which had a debatable net result. – B.hotep •talk• 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)