requests For Adminship/Archive 158

Rather than fill another 100 archives with the same kind of junk as the last 100, the page is now closed. No further comments are to be made below the line. Thank you. -- Gurch (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's something strangely hilarious about this, but I don't know exactly what it is. bibliomaniac15 05:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you posted? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)}
Well, we could fill another 100 archives with "RfA is broken", "zomg ageism", and "zomg badgering". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that's what the first 150 archives were about. We should try something different for the next 150. Maybe anyone who actually cares about the process could go over to WP:RfA Review and help out collating there, and something solid might come out of it.--Aervanath (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
gurch i'm sure you've done this several times before. or is my memory failing me Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That's probably the point, isn't it? This talk page is all about repetetetition. --Deskana (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Gurch as a point, but he's missed it! We shouldn't simply be making archives based upon the time... but rather subject!! That's right, let's have an archive for "zomg ageism" another archive for "RFA is broken" another for "zomg badgerin" another for ...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 13:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Archives by subject would be a great idea. User:NoSeptember started something a long time ago, but never really completed it. I started something offline but got too busy. I note above a topic from ~September 2006 about ageism. It would be interesting to see how attitude have changed (or otherwise). Majorly talk 14:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this mean no more RFAs ever? Damn... I was hoping for 2015. rootology (C)(T) 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it means this page is closed, not the actual RFA page itself. And whilst the page is getting some air, you ought to try now Rootology. Majorly talk 15:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
What, seriously? rootology (C)(T) 15:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)No, no. You can do it on the project page I think - just the talk page is closed. We can still write ridiculous stuff/repeat the same thing/whatever on the RFAs themselves, until someone closes that. The we'll come back here, and maybe we can continue all that on RFBs. No offense meant to anyone, just my stupid self kidding around ;D Chamal ^talk 15:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No, no, I was kidding, I know RFA isn't closed. Majorly saying I should run is what I'm confuzeled on. rootology (C)(T) 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
But if this page is closed, the internets will explode! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just make it a redirect to Wiki: PEREN#Requests_for_Adminship_is_broken — Rlevse • Talk • 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness

It might not be a bad idea for somebody (with a lot of free time on their hands) to create a box at the top of the page that references the common discussions and asks people to refer to them before making the same suggestions over and over again.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't people just apply their powers of not reading to the box as well? :P delldot ∇. 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Then we can create a load of templates to direct them to the correct page, like we do at the help desk. But seriously, I think this is a good idea (if anyone is willing to do it). Chamal ^talk 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
How did they compile the indexes for the village pump?--Aervanath (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, guys...

*sigh*... YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG -- Gurch (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh great Gurch, please enlighten us! :P SoWhy 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
His lack of reply is how to do it correctly. That's the enlightenment. Follow his ways, and don't reply to this message. Giggy (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. —kurykh 09:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already been closed. Dean B (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The real, real problem with RfA is that I didn't pass it, and would never pass it. Any system that rejects and demotivates exemplary editors like me is fundamentally flawed, as a matter of simple definition. Only half joking. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I passed it but then I failed it again. Does that mean I'm only half exemplary? :| -- Gurch (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If Malleus had a better attitude towards other editors, he would certainly have passed RFA. As it is, he doesn't believe in the civility policy (his words). If only he could be a little more friendly and patient with those he disagrees with, and not so grumpy. Even I would support him if he made a turnaround. RFA is only broken until you or your friends pass it. Prior to his own RFA, Malleus rarely, if ever, contributed to this page. Now he is one of the highest contributing editors here on this page. What does that tell people? Majorly talk 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, both Malleus and Majorly have edited this page 595 times, tied for third most, according to this tool. I'm number 12 on the list. Useight (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Majorly). Just ain't gonna happen. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Clearly, if you can't be civil then you have no need for the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Your logic appears to be faulty. Perhaps you meant something like "If you can't be civil then you don't deserve the mop"? Even then though, the logic is dubious ... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly the path to exemplary-ness is more edits to this page. But I am only 108th :( -- Gurch (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I'm 22nd, and it's been ages since I posted here regularly - you people just aren't trying! (And, in keeping with Gurch's theory, I did pass my RfA unanimously. I did, however lose my RfAr 7 to 2...) --Tango (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In what far-away universe does not believing in the the civility policy equate to being uncivil? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are extremely uncivil sometimes, so maybe that's a sign. Majorly talk 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Extremely" is POV. Or perhaps peacock language, depending on your viewpoint. You, on the other hand, are an example that we all ought to be aspiring to I suppose? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is POV, but it's not POV that you are uncivil sometimes. You admit it yourself. And no, I wouldn't give myself as an example. Majorly talk 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is no better than your general demeanour. I have never admitted that I am uncivil at times. Indeed, if I had, then your point about me not believing in the ludicrous civility policy would have made no sense. It is certainly true though that my patience for what is clear idiocy is not unlimited. To that charge I will plead "guilty". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your own unfriendly, angry and cynical demeanor is precisely why you aren't an admin, Malleus, and never will be. Hanging round this page saying "Oh, what an awful process this is, how wrong it was I wasn't promoted!" won't change anything. Majorly talk 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. Nevertheless, it's important to hang around this page, or more importantly the article page, to do whatever I can to make sure that unsuitable candidates like yourself never again become administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh but he is right Mal. You have been the only road block in the pursuit of your adminship. And zOMG a threat. Synergy 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Some mistake? I am not pursuing adminship, nor will I ever pursue adminship. The point of this topic, which seems to have escaped far too many, was to point out in (what I thought) was a humorous way why so many might be claiming that RfA is broken. I didn't really expect it to degenerate into another Malleus bashing episode. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. I must be mistaken. You just spend so much time here and complain so much, I mistook that for you haven't gotten over it yet. And if my comment was "bashing" I'd hate to see when someone "actually" gets mad at you. Go cry abuse somewhere else, you'll get none from me. Synergy 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Synergy, try listening to yourself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick Majorly, you need to make a post, I just looked and MF just overtook you for number 3 on the list! (I'm in the top ten, but surprisingly not the top five!)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am third due to my other account Al tally. Majorly talk 21:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
you cheated! ROFLMAO---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the toolserver is more likely to be accurate [1], and for me it certainly seems faster. Dragons flight (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As of making this post, I just moved up a rank on the "Most edits to this page" ranking system. It's like a new and more fun form of editcountitis. --Deskana (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just what Majorly wanted to hear---another reason to oppose "Oppose Isn't in the top 25 people who've edited Wikipedia Talk:Requests for Adminship!" ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this count as one of the "admin areas" that the hapless victims of RfA are recommended to frequent on pain of everlasting damnation? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be easier to defend it on an RfB. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
At my RfB I was criticised by some for lack of edits here. On reflection, I think I should have been commended. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It is one of the areas that when I see coaches recommend they frequent that I cringe... it is a sign of coaching designed to pass the RfA. IMO, people who frequent WT:RFA and aren't admins actually find it harder to pass... especially, if they make their first edit here within their first 3 months on wikipedia.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't find it too hard - I made my first comment here a week before my 3 month anniversary... Majorly talk 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, my first edit to this page took place six months after I starting actively editing, nine months after creating the account. Guess I got off to a slow start. Useight (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Now 16 edits away from overtaking Useight... —kurykh 22:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created a monster! Useight (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, cool! I have 15 edits to my username (16 including this one). I did wait 3 months after I registered to post here, but I didn't know it was important to do that. Alack! I fear for my future prospects!! MUST...INSULT...MALLEUS...FAT-- Crystal whacker (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's impossible to insult me, but if you want to give it a try, you'd better be wearing your very best flameproof underwear. And minus brownie points if you afterwards appeal to the lame civility policy. Do you feel lucky? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I just called you FAT Crystal whacker (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I am a liitle overweight, that's true. You may choose to call me fat if you like, so long as I'm allowed to call you ... well, no need to go there just yet. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh my god. I'm 9th on that list. I'm so ashamed. And Malleus, you're not fat. Your momma however....Keeper | 76 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

(9001/-0/0); Scheduled to end 25:50, 32 January 2009 (UTC)

• Seventeen of my meatpuppets and thirteen of my sockpuppets are blocked, and so have been prevented from taking part in this RfA. I don't think that's fair. I've got loads left, so the result is in no danger, but there's a principle at stake here. Is it right that one adminisatrator should be allowed to block me 30 times? Isn't that some kind of conflict of interest, or even harrassment? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I had to do it!!! I was condemned for not exercising my adminly godlike powers at my RfB... need to get that admin editcountitis up...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)PS, I think I got another of you 170+ sock puppets... IRC my ass... we know they are all Socks!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, I don't know if you noticed, Balloonman, but among the 170 socks you blocked was User:Jimbo Wales. Well, I guess live and learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
He'll never notice, it's not as if our God-King contributes to the project anymo....
We lose more editors that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

 

1. Support Malleus would make an excellent admin.... wait, is this the wrong area? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   WHY?? BADGER BADGER BADGER. Majorly talk 01:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   MUSHROOM MUSHROOM. seresin ( ¡? )  05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   A SNAKE!!!! A SNAKE!!! Keeper | 76 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
   There's a badger. Happy now, Majorly? Xclamation point 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Because the average admin cusses far more, is more aggressive, meaner, and far less caring about other's feelings than Malleus. That is the honest truth. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support, as the user is sarcastic. Great quality in an administrator! --Izno (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Malleus is clearly unable to distinguish between the "bad" behaviour of administrators and the BAD behaviour of regular editors. I think you should reconsider your vote. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Don't worry, Malleus, we've had a word with the closing crat. It's in the bag.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Relieved to hear. Bloody well cost enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - If he's getting IRC, we might be able to get him into the Cabal ;) RockManQ (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Preceeding comment by VX! VX!^~~~~~
   Yes, I hear they are recruiting after they got caught in the crossfire between Sauron and the Dark One. Bad business, that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as one of the only editors left with common sense. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   You or him?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Obviously not him; he's supporting Malleus! Giggy (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   (ec)It's obvious, it has to be Malleus, because anybody who supports Malleus has to lack common sense ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   What Balloonman said. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong Support per Julian---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Based upon the evidence presented below by Coren, change vote to strong support!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per myspace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
7. And to think Majorly thought Rfa talk was useless support. EVula owes me a favor, I'll be sure he closes this one properly...Keeper | 76 04:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Anything to break the gut-sucking ennui. Dlohcierekim 04:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
9. I think consensus is forming here Majorly talk 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Keep; obviously not a living person so BLP doesn't apply. — Coren ^(talk) 04:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
11. I COULD NOT EDIT THE SUPPORT SECTION! PANIC!!!! support, per WP:3LA, WP:A3I, WP:GLYPH, WP:RSTLNE and WP:LETSGIVEITTOHIMSOTHATHEBLOCKSJIMBO. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Anonymous approves this message! I heard that you needed a raid? - 14:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Thought he was one already. Since I find out he isn't, he's damn well gonna stay that way!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Per Malleus. Xclamation point 00:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Malleus clearly has no interest in the daily argey-bargey of administrator life. He gets enough of that at home. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Comment it's slowing down. Let me go canvass about 200 users with some spam!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Let me do that, I'm activating my IRC account even as we speak. Just watch the supports come flooding in now. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Strong oppose user has written a number of outstanding articles.--Patton^t/c 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   is that number 1?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   OMGZ U BADGERER CHAGING TO STRONG OPPOSE. Btw I don't know what your talking about.--Patton^t/c 08:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   First it's preperation now it Chaging... don't they have spell check on these computers anymore??? :P---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
     Clerk note: Only admins have access to the spell check button.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   LOL I have a tendency to type too fast.--Patton^t/c 11:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Delete. User may have a sense of humor. That makes him far too dangerous. Should be banned immediately before he incites any more diversionary threads. That, and he failed to answer the standard questions... Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Waste of time. Nobody bothers to read the answers anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a spoilsport, but I respectfully suggest you guys archive this and move on. This seems to have run its course. Townlake (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Proposal does not have 75% consensus. – iridescent 21:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The respect word has been deployed, time to get boring and serious again. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The really, really true problem with RfA

The really, really true problem with RfA is: it exists. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that decisions at RFA are being made (always by other people, of course :) without data, or inconsistently. I'm taking requests; which pages, spaces or categories that the candidate did or didn't contribute to are most important to you when you're voting? Before you say "It varies depending on the candidate" ... I don't have time available to give a comprehensive report on every RFA candidate, so I'll limit my search to a few standard pages or types of pages. I'm leveraging the fact that I've participated in enough RFAs that I have an idea which of the candidate's diffs are going to be significant to at least a few voters, but I'll be looking for feedback as I go; I'm happy to provide more or fewer diffs, depending on what you guys want. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• My baseline is 500+ edits to WP namespace, and, where the candidate mentions an intention of working on deletion, some deleted contributions (to show speedy experience). Stifle (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I don't agree actually. More data is bandied around about candidates now than in the past - for example, when I was promoted - and I do not think that this has necessarily improved the process or the quality of candidates being approved by it. It has been some four years since I went through the process - back then the only datum that ever really cropped up was total number of edits, now the complete statistics are provided on the talk page and candidates will be opposed for not editing enough in particular namespaces. I do not think that it is a given that the calibre of new promotions is improving because this greater range of data allows voters to weed out "bad" candidates. I think that your report may well prove to be helpful, but I disagree that the main flaw of RfA lies with the "lack" of data about candidates. Simply put I feel that a candidate is either acceptable or unacceptable, the number or range of their edits does not come into it. Rje (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got a list of links to some editors' RFA criteria on User:Davidwr/RFAs. Mine are there also. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As that page shows, there is a varied list of criteria for each person - some not always the same as others. Getting peeps to agree on a standard for RFA would be pretty hard based on all the differing opinions on it. ArcAngel (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rje. I do not think the extra data useful; to me, the most important quality is demeanor and ability to communicate effectively in a text-based environment. If the candidate demonstrate knowledge and commitment (really, any commitment: articles or WP space), then I will support him. On the other hand, if a candidate has that je ne sais quoi that leaves me uncomfortable, then I would likely abstain; or, if warranted, oppose (such as: cut 'n' paste copyright violations). The namespace breakdown doesn't do it for me. Neither do questions. I only care if they demonstrate that they would be willing to research their actions, be thoughtful, be courteous, and generally support the community. In other words: are they trustworthy. If an editor is mature, reasonable, intelligent, and upholds our principles; then, he should be promoted. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lazulilasher. Decisions made without data? I couldn't imagine more data being available to anyone who wants to look at it. As to the charge of inconsistency, of course decisions will be inconsistent when the issue is one of trust. A lot of that is going to be on assessment of the total person, not just on a set of numbers. Dean B (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Try this, and this. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What will get a bad response is if people "volunteer" their own favorite type of information for every candidate in some kind of heavy-handed way, so what I'm asking is: what's the community consensus on what kind of information is always welcome? Reading all the links above and judging from past RFAs, I'd say we have consensus that requests for and use of tools is always considered relevant; does this sound right? (Rights are granted at WP:PERM for Rollback, Account creator, New Page Watcher and AutoWikiBrowser.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think *fd edits would be useful too - although, obviously, the nature of these edits is more important than the number. I generally find that contributions in these areas are a good indicator of a candidate's policy knowledge and ability to play nice with others. Linking to a candidate's contributions to these discussions may be very helpful in RfA. Rje (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that's right, but I suck at XfD. I hope someone will provide this information. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In cases where expertise on XfD is considered as the primary reason for RfA, it is usually indicated so by the nominator with links to a few example of his/her best performance. More than often, editors who object to the candidacy or question the candidate's proficiency XfDs would bring it up with a few XfDs cited as examples. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

i want to put my username in for nomination, and i have done all the steps, but when i go to edit the Rfa list, it wont let me, saying it's semi-protected. please help Vik0z0z (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's protected to prevent people from running who have no experience, please review wp:NOTNOW.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec'd by BM) I'd suggest reading WP:NOTNOW. You simply won't pass at this time. I can delete your request if it helps. Sorry to seem harsh - the notnow page has some useful links. Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
So that's why it never let me add my name. I thought it just had some sort of "jerk filter". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently we need a version of {{welcome}} that includes the phrase "please don't run for admin just yet" :-( SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
We need a version of {{welcome}} that says "nooooo don't do it, run away while you still can" -- Gurch (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the nomination was created in the mainspace at Vik0z0z and deleted as a test page. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with the present system is that administrators are allowed to be both players and referees in the same game. Potential administrators going through RfA perhaps ought to be explicitly asked to agree that they will not use their tools in any dispute they themselves have become involved in, and will immediately stand down if found to have done so. OK, I know I'm dreaming. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That was a depressing result :( ....sorry but that came over as a non-sequitur, how are teh two observations related? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Having the referees on the same side as the players has worked well enough for Man U for ten years. 92.11.217.44 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But at least the referee has the decency to wear a different coloured shirt from the players, not pretend to be one of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We could start a wiki-petiton to have that solidified as part of the RfA process. What's the worst that could happen, everybody says no and we go on with our day?--Koji† 19:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the concept of temporarily stripping admins of sysop status for inappropriate actions. Repeat offenders should be permanently de-sysopped. Majoreditor (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed... I would love to see a system where we could block sysop powers for a period of time (making a week block from sysop power the equivallency to a day for a routine block.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, I thought that was the rule already. Most admin policies I've read used the term "uninvolved administrators may..." or "... should be done by an uninvolved administrator..." or "except when the action is non controversial, ... should be done by an uninvolved administrator." I see nothing wrong with admins using tools on disputes they are involved in if both policy and an all-but-one-editor mega-consensus is on their side, such as reverting vandalism. If this is a real problem, then an admin guideline or admin essay describing when it's okay for an admin to use the tools on articles or against editors in which he's an editor or a party to a dispute should be written. If I were to write such an essay, it would boil down to this:
• An admin may use the tools on pages he is involved with for non-controversial, non-disputed actions, such as handling normal vandalism, blocking unauthorized bots, enforcing ARBCOM sanctions, routine maintenance, and the like. He may use them on controversial or disputed actions or in ways that affect editors he is in a dispute with only in an emergency, that is, when there is not enough time to wait for an uninvolved administrator to act. Examples include very-short-term blocks of authorized bots where an uninvolved editor would almost certainly extend the block, very-short-term protection pages that are under rapid-fire edit wars where an uninvolved editor would almost certainly extend the protection, very-short-term blocks of rapid-fire disruptive editors where an uninvolved editor is almost certain to extend the block, and the like. "Very short term" means just long enough to get an uninvolved administrator's attention, typically well under 1 hour, probably under 10 minutes. Before "declaring an emergency" ask yourself "what's the worst thing that could happen if I wasn't an admin?" When in doubt, don't use the tools, wait for an uninvolved administrator.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made this remark before, to Malleus as it happens. Deeply unpopular though it may be, but the thought does occur that the very best admins would be non content writers. There seems to be a common mantra that "only article writers understand article writers" without any actual proof of this. To me, the very best admins potentially would be those that don't give a damn about ..... nazis, Israel, homosexuals, polygamy, communism, if Ireland is part of Great Britain, Pakistan, Poland, Native Americans, what colour stilton is etc. etc. etc. Again, an unpopular view I'm sure but just as grounded in fact that writing encyclopedia articles = can handle a block button. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But as it stands right now, some of our best content writers are also admins. I don't think that anyone is seriously considering not allowing admins to be content builders. Hence, we're always going to have circumstances where admins are a party to editing disputes. Majoreditor (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Question for Balloonman. You wrote above that you "would love to see a system where we could block sysop powers for a period of time (making a week block from sysop power the equivallency to a day for a routine block.)" The idea has merit. Can you flesh out how such a temporary sysop block might function? Who would make the decision and how? Majoreditor (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Therein lies the challenge. I'm not sure about the execution of said proposal. I don't think we could put it in the hands of admins... but what we might do is have something on ANI, wherein the community could quickly agree that the tools were abused, and notify a board like 3RR, wherein a 'crat/stewart would be able to implement a short term block based upon the recommendation at ANI. (This is just a throwing out a thought, it is not developed, just a possibility. I am in favor of any means to A) actually get a means to deal with rogue admins and B) make the bit less of a big deal.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedantically, 2–1 is hardly a thrashing. :D Garden. 21:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The block button is rather unusual in the administrator's armoury, in that it's perhaps the the only tool where lack of experience of article writing is not an impediment to its use. It's also unusual in that it's the only tool which candidates are obviously unable to show any experience in the use of. Combined with the damage that it can cause when unreasonably deployed against hard-working and well meaning content builders that makes it very dangerous indeed. Far too dangerous, in fact, to be handed out to administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone did once suggest a way round the "unable to get block experience" problem. Nobody seemed to like it. Actually, I'd disagree with you that a lack of article experience is no impediment to using the block button; I think part of the problem with overzealous civility blocks stems from certain admins (by no means all) forgetting how frustrating getting your article deleted/having inaccuracies repeatedly added to an article you're working on/petty MOS nitpicking can be, and not making allowances for the occasional outburst of frustration. – iridescent 21:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't "do" blocks for incivility. I do blocks for vandalism. I do protections when blocks are not the best option. I do deletions when I see attacks, copyright infringements, tests, nonsense and blatantly obvious promotion. I've yet to see a convincing argument - no strike that - I've yet to see any argument that those tasks require the ability to write glorious prose as well. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, easy to lose track of that, especially when these users are new and no idea how to complain constructively, vis a vis talkpages. Garden. 21:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a fair point Pedro. I guess my view is coloured by my history of having been on the receiving end of a couple of (what I felt were) inappropriate civility blocks. I'd also guess that I'm not the only one who's been punished in that way, even though punishment is not meant to be the purpose of a block. So to that extent my point still stands. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Blocks are not punishment. Blocks are protection. I'm not going in to your blocks Malleus, but yes civilty blocks do seem to be both pointless and punishing not preventative. However, I still argue that none of my list of actions above requires the ability to string three words together (except "you are blocked"!), let alone brilliant prose. It does, however, require WP:CLUE - the fact that the community seems to associate writing words with diplomacy (one hopes), good judgement and general awareness baffles me. I think we blind sight oursleves into
• "good writer = good wikipedian = good admin". That's wrong.
• "sensible person = sensible person" is the only metric I need.
Writing articles may demonstrate one is sensible. But it is not the be-all and end all. Well, not for me. Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Writing articles is only one part of the equation though. A great many of us plebians spend too much of our time protecting articles, by reviewing amendments and rolling back and/or undoing when necessary, and engaging in any subsequent talk page discussions. Why is that given no weight when judging whether a candidate has demonstrated sufficient experience in "admin related areas"? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I thought it was. BTW a great many of us plebian admins spend a lot of time "rolling back and/or undoing when necessary, and engaging in any subsequent talk page discussions". Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have an excellent way to determine someone's temperament and suitability for adminship. Get them to submit something to FAR. If they refuse because it is a slaughterhouse, they are appropriately sensible and deserve the tools. If they submit something and get through it without biting someone's head off they get boosted straight to 'crat. Ironholds (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)-
Damn, I couldn't even get Carroll Pickett to GA, something about not enough reliable sources mumble mumble groan groan. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to read the review to be able to tell you why that fails to meet the GA criteria on so many different levels. Why haven't you improved it? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Improving it as much as possible is on my to-do list. My mumble mumble was because of one fatal flaw that will keep it out of GA: While the person meets WP:N, there are simply not enough different sources to meet GA. Well, at least not if the reviewer was correct. Until or unless the person goes on another publicity tour or otherwise makes press, even at its best it will be a "missed it by that much" article. As to why I haven't worked in the changes from the review, it's on my to-do list. The main reason I made the comment here in the first place was sort of as a joke reply to Ironholds. Obviously, that attempt at humor went nowhere. Well, that, and the secret plot to get at least one other editor to look at the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Trust me. Sourceing is the least of that article's problems. But why are we talking about that here? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeeed. You're straying dangerously close to having a productive conversation on WT:RFA. as you can see from the rest of this page, that is prohibited -- Gurch (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

←Why would anyone who isn't improving the mainspace somehow and only focusing on drama edit wikipedia? Btw if you protect pages, revert vandalism etc that is improving the mainspace. Personally I think anyone that only focuses on drama joined wikipedia just to become an admin and fulfill whatever hunger they have for power. Oh and btw it's usually not very hard to source an article; if there are no sources for something minor then who cares? I've got an A-class article which is about to go on FA review with a point left out becuase there were no sources; it passed GA and A class reviews with no opposition and I'm sure it iwll do well in FAC too.--Patton^t/c 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As a word of advice, you should definitely mention at the start of the FAC what this unsourced-and-therefore-removed statement is, as the article might fail 1b otherwise. Giggy (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry Gurch!

It looks like some of the last few RfAs have had over 100 support votes (PeterSymonds 2, GrahamColm, Climie.ca and even Rootology). Is this because these candidates are well-known around Wikipedia or other projects, or because lots of users are paying attention to RFA? SF3 ^(talk!) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Climie.ca, but the other three are (were) probably the three highest profile non-admins on the project after SandyGeorgia. – iridescent 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds was desysopped last August for allowing another editor to use his account and perform admin actions. Rootology is a former banned user. The other two, I haven't heard of, but no doubt they are well-known. It's unlikely because people are paying attention to RFA especially at the moment, no more than usual. Despite the lack of RFAs, they're still as popular as ever for voting on. Majorly talk 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}? Perceptions of a user's "profile" surely vary. Like Majorly, I don't recall ever noticing GrahamColm before. Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do, he's very prolific at WP:FAC. Ah, but that's only to do with improving articles, not about admin navel-gazing, I see what you're getting at now. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the second half of your comment unnecessary and offensive. Dragons flight (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of us enjoy improving articles without going through what is essentially the article version of RFA. I'm not too familiar with many of the FAC regulars because I don't write featured articles. One, don't have the time. Two, don't have the skill. Three, don't have the patience for it. FAC isn't the be-all end-all of writing articles on Wiki English. Majorly talk 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Never said it was the "be-all and end-all"; in fact I probably do more than most to improve articles outside of the FA remit. All I said was ... well, it's there for anyone to see what I actually said. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again. Useight (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you must mean there you go again. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm innocent I tell you -- innocent. Useight (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• cough* Really? Not Malleus or myself? I mean, if you combine us two together, we can make a 1 degree of separation for most of the project. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The last RfA that succeeded with:

• Fewer than 100 supports - R'n'B, closed 22 Jan 2009
• Fewer than 90 supports - R'n'B, closed 22 Jan 2009
• Fewer than 80 supports - CRGreathouse, closed 16 Jan 2009
• Fewer than 70 supports - Dravecky, closed 1 Dec 2008
• Fewer than 60 supports - Xymmax, closed 14 Oct 2008
• Fewer than 50 supports - Cenarium, closed 19 June 2008
• Fewer than 40 supports - Zedla, closed 10 Mar 2008
• Fewer than 30 supports - Chetblong, closed 17 Feb 2008
• Fewer than 20 supports - Lbmixpro, closed 12 Dec 2005
• Fewer than 10 supports - PZFUN, closed 12 Dec 2004

• 2008: ~32 promotions with 100 or more supports
• 2007: ~26
• 2006: ~44
• 2005: ~5
• 2004: ~0

Just for fun, Kingturtle (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

665 supports for 6 successful candidates so far this January isn't necessarily evidence for an unusual amount of interest in RFA, more likely it is a symptom of our lack of candidates. Before the drought of the last ten months we had 27 admins appointed in the first 26 days of 2008 and they received 1,483 support votes between them. So what we actually have is a sharp fall in voting at RFA, just not as steep a decline as the number of candidates. Hopefully the interest in voting hasn't actually fallen and if more candidates stood more votes would be cast. WereSpielChequers 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, you logic does not compute... 21 additional candidates means that there are a whole lot of additional opportunities to !vote. Using your numbers, if there were 665 users on 6 RfA's that means that there is a MINIMUM of 111 unique !voters... probably more. In fact, we know that there are more, because at least one of those RfA's finished much higher. While there may have been roughly 1500 !votes last year on little more than 25 RfA's, that means that there were on average 60! voters per RfA. That's a 50 !vote difference on average, or almost twice the participation per RfA from a year ago.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
My assumption is that while some RFA !voters like me are currently finding the time to take part in most RFAs, if we were averaging one successful RFA a day I doubt if that would continue (it certainly wouldn't on my part). As for unique voters this time last year - John Carter had 146 supports and Rudget 113, but the typical successful RFA had 40-50 supports and 0-3 opposes. Of course a true picture would need someone to run a program across the two groups of RFAs and compared the number of unique !voters in Jan 2009 with Jan 2008. NB these stats ignore failed RFAs, neutrals and opposes, but I doubt if including them would alter the total pattern of a sharp drop in successful RFAs being accompanied by a much less sharp drop in RFA !voting. WereSpielChequers 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well its mainly because we have had over 150,000 active users in the last 30 days so RfA's during that time is likely to get supports in 3 figure numbers. I'm desperately waiting for a candidate who can achieve over 300 supports because there hasn't been one since Giggy's 299 supports  ..--Cometstyles 02:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Why desperately? Useight (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
With recent comments about how the RfA process is failing, a decent candidate who can achieve that will probably shut those that question its effectiveness and hopefully allow good users who fear becoming an admin due to the horrible experience of other users on RfA's to take the plunge ..--Cometstyles 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Even better; I'll run again and we can get 300 opposes :D Giggy (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA participation increased steadily up until August-September 2006 approximately. I'm guessing people stopped bothering to turn up after Carnildo and Sean Black were passed because they came to the conclusion that the bureaucrat would do whatever they wanted and promote their mates anyway (whether that reasoning is correct or not). YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Who??? I've been here for over a year, and I don't recognize either of those names, which tells me that your hypothesis predates me... which means it would be valid for explanations that predate me, but not for 2009 activity levels.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of them either. I'm guessing people who have a clue who those people are might have decided not to turn up; as for everyone who joined in the two and a half years after that point I somehow doubt they were that bothered. Ironholds (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is true or not, the RfAs in question are probably Wiki: Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 and Wiki: Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The first one I can see causing problems; those are bad numbers to work out as 'successful'. But as mentioned, two and a half years ago was before a lot of people even joined; I was around at that point but my first reaction to 'the crats are promoting friends!' would have been 'what is a crat?'. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
They were both reinstatement RfAs, and the bar seems to be set a bit lower for those.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

...wow, a horse that's been dead so long its just the bones that are being beaten. Seriously, I think somehow tying a drop-off in RfA participation to two RfAs that, for most people, are in the distant pass is a bit silly. I'd never heard of Carnildo until after I was already an admin, and first read Sean Black's RfA however long ago I first read your comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard of both users. Neither are poor/bad admins (Sean was renamed to something else, and is basically inactive) which of course goes to prove further RFA shows nothing of capability of adminship, only popularity. Carnildo does a lot of useful image work. Promotions such as Carnildo's only angered those who think RFA is a strict vote. It's nothing to do with bureaucrat promoting their "mates". Majorly talk 12:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, finally someone who's long here enough to remember these two candidacies. It was a point of no return upon promotion, as they were the watershed cases that defined and led to today's political landscape of RfA. For those who needed some context : till up to the point, Cereopia who did most of the promotions have always set the bar of consensus at a higher percentage (that is to say, 80%). Since then, there is really no agreement as on what would be really be "consensus", even on the Flagged Revisions debate at the other end of the shore. Wehwalt : Not necessary. RfA/Ryulong. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If I had to hypothesize on a reason for fewer RFAs, I would create the following line of logic. In the last year or so we saw some desysoppings like Archtransit, Eyrian, and Alkivar. People took two things away from those desysoppings. One, it was too easy to pass RFA and somehow being stricter on candidates would have prevented those people from becoming sysops (I disagree on the prevention aspect). Second, that given how hard it is to desysop someone even when a good number of the RFA participants have realized something went wrong; RFA is more of a one way street than a bi-lateral trust agreement (I would agree with this). So people started being harder on RFAs, more failures, etc. Eventually candidates figured out that even though they could perform the tasks of adminship, one or two character traits (expressiveness, edit warring block, maybe a bit of myspacing) would be raised at the RFA and result in fail. This also would probably explain the increased frequency of NOTNOW RFAs, as many people who are experienced and would fail have figured out it is not worth running. MBisanz ^talk 13:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not easy to pass RFA, so why should it be easy to remove it? And you're right, being stricter on candidates just because we had(ve) a few bad eggs among us is the way to the slippery slope. Nothing goes wrong at RFA promotion time. People change over time. If the consensus was to promote, the consensus was to promote, and the past cannot be changed. Because of this attitude of "guilty until proven innocent", we are of course way down on promotions compared to previous years - just compare this month to January 2008. Something has gone very wrong, and it's within the community and up to them to sort it out. Being stricter on RFAs won't stop bad admins. It will however, stop good admins passing. Majorly talk 13:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is where you and I have a major difference in perspective. It's not easy to pass an RfA, but part of the reason why it isn't easy, is because it is the only real time that people can have any say on Admins. Once they get the bit, it is a major pain in the butt to remove. People get the bit, and it is nigh impossible to take away. (I'm still not convinced that we could have forced the bit out of your hand if you didn't give it up.) As long as either getting or losing the bit is a big deal, then being an admin will be a big deal. Make it easier to remove the bit, then 80% of the opposes disappear---it becomes much easier to support somebody who has 3K edits and 3 months of solid work and a great attitude knowing that you can revoke adminship somewhat easily. If it is a fight to remove, then people will see preventing potential problems from getting the bit as the solution. Don't give the bit to USER:X because we can't get it back.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
We'd all debate till the cows come home on any community deadminship process. It has been so for the past 3 years (I tried pushing for reforms myself), and nothing gets implemented. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't debate that...The problem with true democracies... we can't really get anything done...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Drought?

WereSpielChequers, above: Before the drought of the last ten months....

Simple question. Is there a need for more (competent, at least moderately energetic) admins? -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But I would be one to say no only when WP:ADMINBACKLOG is completely empty. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not admins' backlog, strictly speaking: checkuser actions are not admins' liability; sorting through images to delete/keep/commons is a specialty job. Is 8 (eight) CSDs a real backlog? NVO (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
CSDs aren't the only admin arena that is regularly backlogged. Majorly talk 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, 8 CSD is a backglog that 1,600 cannot manage :)) My point was quite different though: what are the chances that one of ten new admins will settle for specialty work that is not so obvious as deletions? Quite weak. NVO (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Dlohcierekim 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• We could always use more admins tending to the backlogs of Wikipedia, blocking vandals and assisting new users with finding their footing. Even if we weren't facing some sort of "drought", I don't see "We do not need any more administrators" as being a particularly convincing reason for opposing someone's RfA. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. The question at an RfA is 'do I trust this user' not 'do I need this user'. Ironholds (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yep. I'm of the philosophy that more able-minded admins than we need is always good. Xclamation point 04:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The only problem with having more than "needed" is that then the "bored" ones go and try to find something to do. Keeper | 76 04:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • They could always y'know, do editors work rather than admins work. To people who have kept the tools for a long time that may seem an alien concept :P. I often feel bad about supporting good content editors at RfA because the job leaves less time for them to write stuff. Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't really understand this issue. Surely there are editors who get the mop and continue on their merry path of editing, utilizing the tools only as the need occasionally presents itself. Or is such a person somehow betraying the trust shown them when they pass their RfA? Unschool 04:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        • There are some excellent editors who do; I'd point to User:Choess as a particularly good example. An admin, I've never seen him anywhere near drama, and his mainspace contributions remain wonderful. My point wasn't that such people are 'betraying the trust shown to them', but rather that they are an excellent example of what an admin should do; rather than participating in dramah they continue to be rooted in the mainspace, only making admin-related edits when strictly needed to. You do unfortunately need to balance those people with those admins who almost exclusively work on backlogs and similar; the admin:vandal ratio is not such that only using the tools when you really, really have to doesn't cut it any more. Ironholds (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh, I didn't think that you felt that there was anything wrong with it, quite the opposite. I was just wondering about the expectations of those who vote at RfA. I think it's obvious that admins of all types of interests are needed, but at RfA it appears that many participants expect prospective admins to exercise their new tools in all possible arenas, something that in reality I rather doubt happens most of the time. Unschool 04:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm more concerned with seeing proof that the person has an understanding of policies/guidelines and is civil/communicative. The only time that I will raise an oppose based upon the lack of experience in a specific area is if the person explicitly states they intend to work in a given area. EG if they say they want to work on CSD, then I want to CSD work in their background. If they want to work on DYK, I want to see DYK work in their background. I won't oppose somebody for not having edits at XFD, if that person is primarily somebody who works on templates. I don't care where they work, but I do like to see some proof that they are more than just an article builder or my spacer.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• More admins are always welcome. We don't have a limit on who we can promote, and since our current lot are dropping like flies, it would make sense to promote more to replace them. Majorly talk 12:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A very common trend is to disappear after getting the sysop bit which seems to be on the rise. I was actually hoping that this wiki would be smart enough to have a de-sysop policy as this will force these admins to use their rights rather than show it off as a badge of honour and because their isn't, it seems more appropriate to appoint as many admins as possible and hope that they do not disappear after getting the rights..--Cometstyles 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I've recently come across some people who seem to have the requisite qualities so perhaps (and for the first time) I'll do a spot of nominating. -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This thread is not actually intended for serious discussion. For those who want to contribute to the discussion, do so above. This thread is for those of us who sit back and throw peanuts at the serious folk.--Aervanath (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For newcomers to this page: Yes, the above discussion has lasted for 3 days as of this writing. Yes, it may continue for three more days. Yes, it started over something most Wikipedians would view as trivial. And no, it will probably not change the status quo. This is perfectly normal. Nothing to see here. Move along, folks. (And yes, my posting this will change nothing, either. I'm just going with the flow.)--Aervanath (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It has done something I believe to be important all the same, whatever anyone else's view may be. That is to firmly close the door on at least one form of censorship here on wikipedia. I think that's worth three days of discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite archiving every five days, this page is currently longer than World War I and World War II combined. Just saying. – iridescent 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, WWI is twice as big as this page in terms of readable prose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt there's very much readable prose here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Using the word "readable" to describe the wall of sound above is stretching the word to breaking point. – iridescent 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Great minds think alike, and apparently at the same time, too!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(ecx3)Julian, you just made me laugh so loud I scared my dog. *grin*--Aervanath (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)meta-irony: nothing in this section will change anything, and I said that to start with, but people are going to post multiple replies anyway. Including me. Is it hypocrisy, or just POINTy devilry? Who can tell? And the fact that I was edit-conflicted THREE *swear word* TIMES by other editors rushing to respond to the pointless responses to my pointless comment just makes it that much funnier. In fact, the third edit-conflict made me scare my dog AGAIN. Maybe I should keep hanging around this page, after all.--Aervanath (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You may want to buy the large size of popcorn; either that or take a nice walk, and we'll give you a program when you get back. (Not being facetious; I get that people don't want to miss out on what's going on, and we owe people a summary at the end of what happened.) Difficult polls, like the Flagged Revisions poll, might have 6 different positions that you have to at least grapple with; RFA questions deal with people rather than articles, so we might be dealing with 25 different positions of what's really going on and how best to deal with it. It's just going to take time. It seems painfully funny because your expectations are low, because we have never before produced a statement of consensus of any kind that candidates or onlookers could rely on; the closest we've got, WP:AAAD, was written mostly by bureaucrats, and it's got pretty wide support, but it wasn't produced as a result of this kind of consensus-gathering among this many people. But I believe this is going to be #1, so I'm going to stick with it until someone boos me off the stage asks me to stop (at which point, someone else will probably step in). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so. Hello all you new people, if there are any. Welcome. How are you? Really? That's great. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people have left the building, but not everyone has said everything they want to say. We're trying to figure out what the majority and significant minority positions are so that we can write them all down, so that we don't have to do this again. Who's next, hopefully someone who hasn't already made their position clear? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is RFA, discussions are supposed to last a full 7 days. Are you suggesting we close this discussion early under WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW?  :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I got a thumbs-up on this last bit of advice, and then I'll be quiet for a while except for mumbling approval or disagreement. The drumbeat of "We've heard enough now, don't bother" is annoying, because we're not done until everyone's been heard; and if you have say 6 loud people (including me) who repeat the same things, that means that we haven't even heard from most people who have something important to say yet. Anyone who feels really annoyed by this discussion should check to see if they're annoyed because they know there's something we're missing; if so, speak up. If anyone tells you to go away, and you're not monopolizing the conversation or acting up, I'll thump them. Not only should people feel welcome to speak up, they should feel free to stop listening, confident that what they've said before isn't going to get overlooked as soon as they leave the room. Nothing is going to get decided until everyone has had their say, and then I'll notify everyone on their talk pages that it's time to come back and check to make sure that we understand your position and you haven't changed your mind. Okay, carry on. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my hat's off to Dank55 for his optimism. If he can form a consensus out of the mess above, I think he should be automagically promoted to Bureaucrat.--Aervanath (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
As punishment? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, for the sin of actually being productive.--Aervanath (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of having thousands of discussions here, what we should do it give everyone a subpage of the talk page. Let them write their opinion on ten different issues or so. Then, when someone creates a new thread, those who want to have their say merely links to that subpage. Thus, everyone gets their opinions across and its completely condensed. Good, no? I like it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. I'll start the ball rolling - Ottava, your subpage is here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I was actually thinking here. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Efficiency is good, on-wiki subdiscussions are good. But IMO everyone is welcome to be heard, right here, right now, with the understanding that if they want to talk about the price of beans in China, they're probably not going to get useful feedback til we're done with whatever is already going on. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I was making fun of the system, Dan. :) We all basically know how every other person feels, so why not just cut to the chase and simply list their names without any explanation or any real statement. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is how we generally run RFA's, so why not run this page the same way? It's not like we're unused to the format. Just make everything a straw poll. (Yikes, I can't believe I just said that. Better go re-read meta:Polls are evil.)--Aervanath (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What question would you guys like to poll on? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not the issue that started this whole charade? "Does any editor have the moral authority to remove an optional question asked at a candidate's RfA because they believe it to be inappropriate?" Put me down for a resounding No. Don't much care what anyone else thinks, and I won't even be watching the vote. There's right, and there's wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Should people unilaterally remove questions based on moral authority? No. Should people be allowed to criticize others for asking inane questions? Yes. By the way, the notion that questions are "optional" in the fullest sense should have been repudiated a long time ago. —kurykh 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
They should be allowed to criticize others for asking what they think are inane questions, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I meant that. —kurykh 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Morally authority? I don't think my religion has stated one side or another. :) How about - "is it fair for someone to remove a question that they think is disruptive to the process?" Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In a word, no. That's a slippery slope. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. Morality and religion are entirely decoupled in my world Ottava. If only it were so in the good old US of A. Can you even imagine the US ever having an atheist president? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
A slipper slope of more sloppy and salacious standards regarding the structured administrative system? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to order a pint of whatever it is that you're drinking Ottava. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not drinking. If I was, I would currently be listed on the RfA page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps one day we should launch concurrent RfAs, like the way aircraft send out chaff to divert incoming missiles. If we give the bastards enough targets to fire at they may miss one of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There are two others that hang out in these parts that would be good candidates to join. However, I suggest we do it this day so that we at least get 24 hours of distraction before people crash down upon us. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you two could get Sandy to join with you for simultaneous RfA's, half of America is going to go around with laptops or blackberries glued to their faces for a week. I'll write a FA about it, The Longest Week (wikidrama)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

←A straw poll needs options; what might someone do instead of removing a question, designed to handle the same problem? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it? Get a life? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We haven't had any new input for a while; that might be a sign that people have said what they want to say. How about we give it another 12 hours or so, and if there's no more discussion, then I'll post of list of as many position statements as I can find, and people can sign off on any or all they agree with? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As Dank55 has pointed out above, the sheer number of editors contributing here makes it really hard to pick out consensus before people get tired and just start ignoring the discussion. One suggestion I just thought of (and started to implement above) is essentially to turn each thread that starts picking up steam on a serious topic into a mini-RfC: do a quick straw poll to get ideas, and then each person can start a "View by" section to facilitate further comments. If necessary, these can be moved to subpages and transcluded back here for ease of contribution. As an experiment, we can start with the two straw polls I started above, and see how it works. Thoughts?--Aervanath (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. I weep for the first time contributor to WT:RFA. They're going to have their heads snapped back for failing to adhere to format. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a position on how we implement these things. I like Hammersoft's instinct that no matter where we put things, we should loudly boo anyone who criticizes people for putting stuff in the wrong place or speaking out of turn. I like Aervanath's instinct that complete lack of organization is itself a form of oppression. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to take heart from Dan's optimism, and hopefully the three of us can enforce WP:BURO and WP:BITE here.--Aervanath (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. No doubt, RFA is practically broken (if not, it's in several pieces). But, I think that this could help, though I doubt we're be able to effectively change any of the voting trends at RFA or manage the number of editors who go here (which, IMO, is too much & part of the reason why I stopped !voting in RFAs). Ceran^→//forge 17:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not proposing any changes to RFA itself (I disagree with you on that point, as I think it works fairly well), I'm just trying to reform this talk page so it is a) easier to parse for newcomers and b) possibly productive.--Aervanath (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am currently going through the ~150 archives of this page and sorting them by topic. It's slow, tedious work, and I've only gone through the first 36 so far, but perhaps that could be useful once I'm finished. Useight (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope you're not refactoring them completely: it's also good to have the original archives that were in chronological order; dual sets of archives would be my ideal.--Aervanath (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the original archives are remaining untouched. I'm making a completely separate copy. Useight (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "it really hard to pick out consensus before people get tired and just start ignoring the discussion." Many editors read threads and have opinions, but do not enter into the fray. So, please do not "pick out consensus" from a thread if it isn't specifically asking asking for a consensus positions. Kingturtle (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That is, in fact, exactly what this suggestion is designed to do: by starting mini-RFC's for each thread that warrants it, we're encouraging other editors to come out of the woodwork and contribute, even if it's just a line or two in support of someone else's proposal.--Aervanath (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
My reaction to mini-RFC's is: go slow, and try to keep the focus on one question at a time, to the extent we can and still be open to letting people say anything they want whenever they want. People's answers change as their expectations move lower or higher. We'll like the answers we get to future questions better if we first ask one question, and everyone knows that they're being treated respectfully, and most people decide that the process for producing a "committee report" on that question is basically working. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a contract for my behavior at WT:RFA during Februrary (and only in February, I don't enjoy playing "big daddy" at all). If I succeed, then someone else may want to do something similar in March. The biggest problem of the moment is an information problem; multiply the number of people who have opinions on RFA stuff by the number of opinions they have by the number of questions on the table, and you understand why Aervanath says that talking on WT:RFA is like "shouting into a wind tunnel". The contract I'm proposing is that I will read everything that everyone says about everything, ask a lot of questions, and then write down my understanding of the available positions so that everyone can vote on what they do and don't support. This will be different from RFA Review in that I'll be focused on one issue at a time, and I'll be listening carefully and make sure no one gets left out. This is not some kind of Mother-Theresa instinct; this is the reality of RFA. In policy discussions, there are (arguably) winners and losers, but everyone votes in RFAs, whether they have "minority" positions or not, and candidates want to know and have a right to know what they're up against.

If I get a generally positive response now, then I'll start asking questions on users' talk pages, and if I get some friction, I may suggest that someone else might do a better job. But I've got some "history" of one kind or another with most of the people at WT:RFA, so I'm probably not a bad choice, if it's going to work at all. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Dank55 for WT:RFA February monitorship; but I encourage you to closely monitor your wikistress levels: if it gets too much, recruit some deputies. I'll throw my name on the table to help out; just let me know.--Aervanath (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, February, huh? Excellent choice, selecting the shortest month of the year. :P Useight (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see what purpose this will serve, and I'm not really down with having specific questions about my RfA supports/opposes moved to my talk page - that's something I actively seek to avoid, unless the candidate him/herself has a follow up question where Talk is appropriate. Townlake (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, or even anyone but me, but I don't much care for getting unnecessary messages Usually the orange banner means SOMEONE is kvetching about SOMETHING, I'm busy with something else, and I KNOW it won't go away until I read it. I see no point in increasing same for long and drawn discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
@Townlake: This proposal is about WT:RFA, not the RFAs themselves.
Point taken, I misread, thanks - but same rationale for opting out. Dividing discussions out of WT:RFA onto User Talk pages strikes me as inefficient and confusing. Townlake (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, we'd only be using the talk page notices as brief personal follow-ups to ascertain consensus and bring editors back to the main discussion. This wouldn't divide the discussion up to the point of confusion; rather, it would move a lot of the confusing personal back-and-forth onto user talk pages where it belongs.--Aervanath (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Dan and I will probably be more than willing to take opt-outs such as yours into account.--Aervanath (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support because I'm not cut out for shouting into wind tunnels, and because you never know what we might learn. Dan: my position is clear and concise: people should be free to ask questions whether or not others think they are acceptable, RfA candidates should feel free to not answer them, and RfA instructions should be amended to reflect both things.  Frank  |  talk  19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good enough, I don't want to come off as asking for applause here, it looks like I should try to do something. I'll read everything I can, then throw up a "naive" list of the different positions (without listing the authors) that people have taken on the subject of off-the-wall questions, then you guys can correct any misimpressions I have and add things I've missed. Wehwalt and Townlake, I'm actually 100% with you; the more we can do on WT:RFA, the happier I am. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Anyone should feel free to criticize what I'm doing; I'll understand that the criticism is partly about me, partly about you, and partly about what you'd like to see at WT:RFA. I'll do my best to comply. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the good intentions here, but I just can't imagine that this will resolve anything. Getting bogged down in detailed scrutiny of this page does not seem a good idea to me. As you're an admin, I think we could use your valuable time and talents on tasks that will be of more benefit to the project. Dean B (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree, but every admin decides how his time is best spent. I help out at AIV and delete expired prods sometimes, but what I really do is turn out a FA every two or three months and try to keep TFA/R in some semblance of order.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess it depends on whether it reaches analysis paralysis. In the busines world, sometimes it is better to scrutinize data in order to improve revenue / cash flow / profit margin / whatever, but sometimes the cost of taking the time to scrutinize the data is greater than the benefit provided by increasing said revenue / cash flow / profit margin. I guess it comes down to the opportunity cost of the analyzer's time. Useight (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the whole point of this is to AVOID paralysis by analysis: this whole page has been an exercise in analysis paralysis. By filtering out the actionable suggestions and bringing them back to the table in an organized way, we'd (hopefully) be increasing the probability that progress would be made towards actionable decisions. I think your collation of the past archives will also help us reach the same goal; we can go through those archives and more easily pick out the ideas that were lost because we got off-topic.--Aervanath (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
To Wehwalt - true but in this case, Dan has asked for opinions on whether he should do this. For what it's worth, (not much) he has mine. Dean B (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Buy a wall and bang your head into it for 30 days. It would probably be less painful for you than what you are proposing now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Committees

Reprinted from WP:RFACOM (tweaked)

[begin] The position heard most often at WT:RFA is "Stop talking and get back to productive work". WT:RFA has the most edits of any page on EN.WP, and people have said similar things from the start, so we have plenty of evidence that WT:RFA doesn't meet the need; people have stuff they actually want to talk about, and they're not being heard at WT:RFA. This is a place where you can get your message across. Join one or more committees below that share your views on what you're looking for in RFA candidates, and make your positions known on those talk pages. People who share your viewpoint are likely to listen, and you might enjoy it, and working together, you might be able to improve the quality of the rationales at RFA. Try to focus on what qualities you're looking for in candidates instead of trying to fix what's wrong with other voters; this is the RFA equivalent of "criticize the edit, not the editor". If your views aren't represented by any of the committees we've got so far, start your own! [end]

Discussion in the nature of "WTF?" goes here; discussion to try to make it work is welcome at WT:RFACOM. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• tweaked 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rationale: in the past, every attempt to find consensus at WT:RFA has failed. RFA isn't politics, but I'll use a political analogy. If you gave a yes-no survey to everyone in the U.S. Senate, all you'd find is that everyone seems to want the same thing. There are no pro-tax people, only anti-tax and fair-tax people. There are no pro-abortion people, only pro-choice and pro-life. There are no pro-big-government people ... etc. No matter what question you're asking and how you frame it, politicians and their constituents will insist on rejecting the way you frame it and framing it in their own way. If we don't let people frame and answer the questions in their own way, any survey results will be meaningless. If we try to frame the questions without letting people first discuss things among themselves, then the answers won't be meaningless, but we won't particularly like the answers, either, because the quality of people's input increases as they talk things out with sympathetic people. WT:RFA !fails at providing a sympathetic ear; I don't know of anyone who thinks different. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Update: Aervanath would like to go through a lot of recent WT:RFA threads with me and use that to create a survey; I'm fine with that, as long as we hand over the survey to people with different viewpoints and let them frame the questions any way they like before they answer. Working on it. Anyone else want to help? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• forgive me for being slow on the uptake, but didn't we get a survey already? You might want to start by finishing the "review" of that. Protonk (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference for what to do first; people have asked for a lot of different things. Do I hear a second for tackling RFA Review first? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Works for me; I've asked Aervanath. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)