requests For Adminship/Archive 191

Interestingly I found two statistically significant predictors of desysopping. These predictors were # of months active and percentage support at RfA (I dropped actual support and actual opposes because of multicolinearity). Higher support percentages predict a lesser risk of being desysopped. Similarly, more experience (in months) also predicts a lesser risk of being desysopped. These account for approximately 25% in the variability of desysopping. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Provide the regressions and/or significance levels, please. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Here they are. Let me know what other values you'd like. I didn't want to overwhelm the statistically uninitiated. Months (b = -.09, p = .049, odds ratio = .91), Percentage support (b = -.15, p = .035, odds ratio = .86). I should also note that these were computed using the more conservative Wald statistic. The overall regression was similarly significant (χ²[6] = 12.74, p = .047, Nagelkerke R² = .30, Cox & Snell R² = .22). IronGargoyle (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Marginally significant, but seems valid to me. So then, do we have a plausible causation to go with the correlations? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I typically consider marginal significance to be ps > .05, and < .10, but that's really beside the point. We can't prove any particular causation from this. It is only relevant for prediction. I'm going to have to re-examine Tabachnick and Fidell to make sure that there isn't a problem that the ratio of desysops to regular admins in the sample is not equal to the ratio in the population. I don't think there should be, and the other approaches I took produced approximately the same result. I think if anything it speaks to the accuracy of RfA in predicting outcomes. I would caution against necessarily using these data as a justification for raising the % standard, however. We have to keep in mind that the risk of desysopping is still exceptionally low for any given participant. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
True. Furthermore, a high enough % standard to filter out a large share of admins that have been de-sysoped would also have severely affected those who are in the "Exemplary" group (for example, a standard of 90% would remove 7 desysops but also 5 exemplaries (and 3 controls, amongst them myself) and one of 95% would remove 12 desysops but also 7 "exemplary" admins). And of course the whole discussion requires us to assume that the % really has any correlation to the strength of the arguments behind the !votes – which I think most people would argue against since RFA is not a vote. Regards SoWhy 10:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I would argue that RFA as presently constituted is very much a vote.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If users stopped justifying their !votes with rationales, the crats no longer had discretion and !voters stopped changing their minds and switching their !vote during the RFA; then sadly I would have to agree with you. ϢereSpielChequers 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It's much more of a vote than any other discussion-based aspect of Wikipedia, wouldn't you agree?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, ArbCom elections for example are a vote. RFA has vote-like aspects like counting of numbers and percentages but on the other hand RFA has specific exceptions that disqualify it from being a real vote, e.g. that we have a specific group to judge consensus and that people pass or fail despite (not) meeting a specific percentage of support !votes. Regards SoWhy 17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't dispute that RFA has elements of voting, and is more of a vote than much that we do, I just thought that "RFA as presently constituted is very much a vote" was somewhat overstating things. Anyone who !votes without a rationale and without further participation in the RFA is IMHO voting rather than !voting. Also its not unheard of that someone can vote per someone else and then not clarify their position when the person they've voted per strikes their position. ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be "not unknown" for there to be exceptions, but that doesn't negate the assertion that, by and large, RfA is a vote. There may be a fuzzy range between 65% and 75% where an RfA can go either way, but examples outside that area are very uncommon. Compare to AfD, our next most "vote-like" process (in terms of participation and politics at least), where every day there are closes which go against the head count based on weight of argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 09:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That puts one of my three arguments that RFA has some aspects of being a !vote instead of a vote into some context, but the other arguments still apply. I have seen RFAs dramatically swing based on discussion during the RFA, with the support level rising by 10% or more and falling by as much as 50%. I've also seen !voters set out their reasons for a !vote and changing them after discovering they were mistaken – not something one can do in a vote. ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this phenomenon (support in a given vote varying over time as new evidence is introduced) not present in the real-life analogue of opinions polls during elections? Of course the discussion has an effect on the end result – the problem is that when it comes down to deciding the end result the discussion is thrown away in the vast majority of cases and only used in what are essentially tie breaks for candidates whose S:R ration lies within a certain range after the seven days are up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot doesn't appear to be counting the neautral votes? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, has not being doing that for some time recently. AtheWeatherman 07:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Right is a new graph showing the number of active admins at various points in time from 2007 through the present. Seems there is no change in the already established trend. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what happened in late 2007? I remember the last time you posted a graph like this we went over the problems that are responsible for the current trend of decline, but I don't remember reading about what caused the number of administrators to rise so sharply in the first place. Is it possible that it could happen again? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, nice work. Most of the rise in late 2007 can be attributed to the fact that we were still appointing thirty or more admins a month then and did so until the current drought began in early 2008. But I'm not sure we can assume no change in the trend, it looks to me that it is getting steeper. If there is a typical lifespan for active participation here then we risk a steepening decline as we lose our current admins – most of whom have now been admins for more than two years. PS The graph would be a lot flatter and less alarming if it didn't omit 850 active admins. Any chance of a version with a scale that starts at zero next time? Also separate lines for admins by year of sysoping would be really useful. ϢereSpielChequers 15:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Doing it by year is beyond my dataset and I don't have any data before the beginning of the chart, so the 850 lower limit seems reasonable, I might change it to 800 given the decline next time. MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I realize this is an oft-repeated request, but is there a graph for the number of active editors over this same period of time? Perhaps number of edits per month? We've been doing a lot of hand-wringing for quite some time over the apparent decline in the number of active admins and a lot of speculating as to what might be the cause, yet I still wonder if it isn't simply a peak in interest in late 2007 followed by a subsequent decline as the "active admin pool" seeks a natural state of equilibrium. I would like to see if the activity on Wikipedia as a whole has followed a similar peak and drop, or if it has remained steady. Shereth 15:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Give me five more minutes and I'll have a chart of new users, which should match well to what you are talking about. MBisanz ^talk 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel compelled to ask... What's going on with the sharp decline starting around September 2009? I mean, the arbcom desysoppings couldn't have had that much of an affect could they? Until It Sleeps ^{Happy Thanksgiving} 16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think (I could be wrong) that this is a graph of administrators who've made a certain number of actions within the week, so even if admins aren't actually retiring they could cause the graph to drop if they are becoming less active due to school or whatever. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It is defined as 30 edits in the last 60 days. MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know what happened around February last year? There seems to be a dramatic drop which is then rapidly recovered. AtheWeatherman 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Just a guess) Maybe something to do with Christmas, since the data is a moving average of a 60 day period. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If Matt is getting the data from where I think he is, if memory serves something went wrong around then with the process / bot that gathers the active admin data. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
One question, who in the world wants to govern 9 million editors? South Bay (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New user rates

 

 

Right are charts of the number of new users who registered each month for the last 4 years. MBisanz ^talk 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given the active admin. trend above, I'd say there's some reason for concern here. I do have to say that given some of the recent trends such as a lack of unity, and a certain lack of consistency, I do understand the downward trend in regards to active admins. though. I think a little more of "everyone getting on the same page" might be of use to the project. Just IMHO of course. — Ched :  ?  15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Interesting. The new users registration seems to have experienced a similar rapid climb and then peak to the number of admins, albeit one year earlier. There might be some relation, given that you'd expect a lot of folks might feel comfortable with running for adminship after about a year's worth of good service, but the subsequent drop in new registrations was less severe by comparison and seems to have more or less leveled off overall. Hard to draw conclusions off the bat but intersting data nonetheless. THanks. Shereth 16:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• The rate is expected to go lower, as many people already have at least one account. As for the inactive adminstrators, it is worriesome and that's primarly why I came back from a year vacation. We need to develop a way to bring more editors to become active, but every time this is discussed, it gets a little bit of attraction before dying down. Secret ^account 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• If we assume a typical 12 month lag between creating an account and submitting an RFA, then the proportion of editors who go on to become admins has dropped from 1 in 3,000 three years ago to 1 in 20,000 today. I think we should be really worried that our alltime peak in new registrations seems to have fed through 12 months later as a drop in RFA numbers. But some more detailed stats on that would be useful, i.e for each month of new registrations up to 12 months ago how many of those accounts went on to become an admin? ϢereSpielChequers 17:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Cohort analysis. While relevant to the instant question, it would be interesting to know something about the life cycle of an editor. What percentage make a handful of edits then disappear. What percentage become active editors, then drift away. What percentage become active, then become sysops, then drift away. Etc. --SPhilbrickT 17:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Before we talk about the sky falling, can we gather some more meaningful data? How many edits and/or administrative actions did those active admins make over time? How much vandalism occurred, did it change, and how much of it was prevented and/or corrected by bots? How have edit filters reduced the need for action (admin or otherwise)? How has the number of edits changed over time? The size of those edits (minor/major, reverted/not reverted, etc)?  Frank  |  talk  17:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why the rate of new user sign ups would be a good measure or even correlate well with a measure of admins needed. As a first approximation, I think the number of edits is a decent measure.
I'd also like to make sure I'm interpreting the new user count graph correctly. 200,000 or so new users a month seems like a lot. Are these registered new users, or does it include IP addresses editing for the first time? If it includes IP addresses, does it count a person with a dynamic IP as a new user every time they edit?--SPhilbrickT 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Even allowing for the effect of fewer new users feeding through after a year, the very striking change in direction about Jan/Feb 08 on the chart of active admins must surely have some explanation in a change of process or policy then? If we were "still appointing thirty or more admins a month" in late 2007, why did that stop in early 2008? JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I would also agree that number of edits would be more indicative of how much of a problem it is that we're losing actively-editing admins at this rate. Useight (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Frank may have identified one of the problems there. Whilst the number of edits is consistent at 10 m every 6 weeks, much more of the reversion of vandalism is done by bots than used to be. That doesn't reduce the need for admins, but it does leave less opportunity for the vandalfighters who used to be a major source of new admins. As for whether the number of admins should be related to the number of edits or the number of newbies x months earlier, there is no shortage of mops. As long as RFA is about empowering all cluefull, civil, longterm contributors then the key ratio is new admins to newbies of 6 – 12 months ago. ϢereSpielChequers 17:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not lack of opportunity, it's barrier to entry. RfA is now sufficiently intimidating as to dissuade most editors from embarking upon it, and most of the rest from re-applying after a failed candidacy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I probably never would have had the temerity to run for adminship in the current environment ... Shereth 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. I'm very uncertain if I would have run for adminship in the current climate either. I probably would have still passed, but I doubt it would have been without significant opposition. I think our problem is partly to blame on the number of questions, but editcountitis has also gotten worse and content-building expectations seem to be on a cyclical upswing as well. Becoming an administrator seems like it has become such a "big deal" now. That said, I think farming out the rollback button may have drained a portion of the vandal-fighting corps that used to run for adminship. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
In a way I find it sadly ironic that on the same talk page can be found discussions trying to uncover the decline in active admins and discussions that are attempting to figure out new minimum qualifiers such as edit rates. The desire to have more admins and the desire to have quality admins need not be mutually exclusive but I get the impression that they tend to pull in opposing directions more often than not ... Shereth 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Shereth, can I pass you another nail for you to hit exactly on the head? Well said. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the new user rate is less important than both the number of edits from non-administrators and the active number of non-administrators. Are # of non-admin editors dropping off? Spiking? staying in some steady trajectory? Unless we know that, it is hard to assess the problem (or lack thereof). Also, any idea what happened around the fall/winter of '07 to give us a big RfA spike? IronGargoyle (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Numbers only go so far. There are countless other issues we need to consider before we just to conclusions based on a single fairly narrow-scoped graph. It's entirely possible the project is simply maturing and its activity leveling off. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, we may have eliminated socking admins this year more effectively than in the past... Hiberniantears (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wiki: Former administrators and WP:RFAS I think we can conclude that this years Arbcom is marginally more desysop happy than last years, but that that doesn't account for enough difference to explain the drop in active admins. I'm not sure if the spike of resignations in 2009 is real or just a reflection of their recency as I hope some will be coming back. The figures for active admins at end of year are partially deduced from MBisanz's graph, and partially from User:NoSeptember/Admin stats. I don't know if the definition of active has been consistent over the years, apologies for having approx figures for active admins at the end of the last couple of years, if anyone can correct that part of the table please feel free to do so. NB the 2008 figure of 201 admins is potentially misleading, as it combines a first quarter of 85 mops handed out in 3 months with only 116 for the following 9 months of RFA drought (which appears to have started in mid March 2008). Also as a partial answer to IronGargoyle, November 2007 saw 56 successful RFAs – twenty more than was normal in those days and over forty more than would be normal nowadays. ϢereSpielChequers

The spike in admin appointments in November 2007 probably had something to do with plans to re-enable page creation for unregistered users. Graham87 14:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is asked during every RfA, should, "Would you advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an admin?" be added as a default question for all RfA's? Angryapathy (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Have been thinking the same thing myself. Wholeheartedly agree. Actually, why don't we make it a requirement?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. The question as currently worded is misleading and not in accord with current policy. Making it a standard question 4 would give it undue status. ϢereSpielChequers 08:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
People normally advise ArbCom of any alt accounts.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Dunno. about "normally". I didn't. It was strongly suggested during my RFA that I should abolish the sig which I had used for years and that admins should use raw usernames. I did that, and created an alt account with the sig I had gone by for years. I don't use that alt account for anything, but I don't recall taking take any special steps to advise anyone of it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
My response was a bit terse. I meant was "People normally advise ArbCom of any confidential alt accounts rather than the bureaucrats".  Roger Davies ^talk 12:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
"what's the difference between a block and ban" etc are also asked at almost every RFA. I don't think we should, they're not absolutely necessary questions, the three we have are.--Patton123 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Strongly disagree about adding the alt account question. In fact, I think it should be dropped. As was confirmed upthread, it isn't a policy, is somewhat inconsistent with existing policy, creates a de facto change of job requirements for 'crats without any community consensus, and has no teeth. I see no useful information emanating from it.--SPhilbrickT 13:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose As I've said before, there are too many silly questions that get asked at RfA. Questions should be relevant and specific to the candidate you are asking them of. If they are not, it goes from being a legitimate discussion to being a gauntlet. The first three questions are valuable (and always have been) because there are no "right" or "wrong" answers that can necessarily be parroted off of past candidates. The first question gives the RfA !voters a sense of the candidate's interest in administrative work, and thus helps them to focus their examination of the candidate's past work to that work which is relevant. Question two allows for highlighting of encyclopedia building, which is an important quality for many !voters. Question three highlights both past conflict, as well as conflict resolution skills (directly observable in past behavior). As any social psychologist would tell you, attitudes are often a poor predictor of behavior. Behavior predicts behavior.

Good questions should aid in discernment. If they don't, why do we ask them? Do you think anyone with "bad-hand socks" would actually acknowledge them in RfA, or to a 'crat? While the question is obviously a response to the Law and Pastor Theo situations, would this question actually have helped in those circumstances? No. To his credit, NuclearWarfare was suspicious of Pastor Theo, and asked a specifically relevant question about past accounts. But did Pastor Theo answer truthfully? No. Would Law have answered truthfully if asked? No, probably not. All these questions do is perpetuate a culture of paranoia, better left to places like Wikipedia Review. It is like those questions they ask you in the U.S. now when you open up a bank account, rent a car, or try to buy too many donuts at the store: "Have you ever provided material support to terrorists?" What terrorist has ever said yes to this question? It's silly, it's a loyalty pledge, and it has no place on Wiki English. We obvious can't prohibit questions (nor should we), but we can hopefully have the good sense not to ask them when they don't do us any good. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What a fascinating question to ask, I suspect everybody has alt accounts in some form or another. These questions are better left to Wikipedia Review in my opinion. South Bay (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Really, South Bay? I would think that a majority of users have just the one account... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with IronGargoyle. It's not that it's a bad or unhelpful question to ask, per se...it's just that it doesn't really elucidate a candidate's position enough to make it a mandatory question, nor does it add to readers' understanding of what the candidate's all about. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering the way the question has been asked is misleading re WP:SOCK policy, a proper answer would be, "No." That is an answer could be a negative influence on an RfA. Even if the answer were expanded to, "No. My alternate account(s) are already publicly declared, as would be any other account(s) that i might find need to create in the future." it would still lead off with negative phrasing. Dealing with alternate accounts is not part of a bureaucrat's job unless they also work at WP:SPI. Given that declaring in her self-nomand informing ArbComm was not sufficiently transparent mention of alternate/previous accounts for Katerenka's RfA i'm not sure that there really is a way to ask this question where an honest, open answer couldn't be used against someone. If it could be asked in a manner consistent with WP:SOCK then i see no need to prohibit it as an optional additional question but it doesn't offer sufficient insight into most users to warrant it being mandatory. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 05:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I was seriously considering a simple "No" answer (with explanation) just out of solidarity with people who really might have a reason for a completely undisclosed account (editing articles about a horribly disfiguring illness of which you happen to be a survivor say, or editing from a country where you could end up in a prison being tortured). For me personally, not a problem, but those scenarios are not far-fetched by any means. There truly are some situations where, 'crats or arbs, you just can't take a chance that very personal information might get out. And I think we can all agree that some external parties take an interest in ferreting out this kind of thing. That would be my main objection to the question, it could put some people into an untenable position.
And commenting to the thread a little above, no Bw, I interpreted the question as "now or in future", exclusive of "have you in the past". If I had used an account in the past but didn't intend to anymore, I wouldn't have considered it even if I still had the password. That's beside the point of this thread, just getting it out there.
I would like to see some form of this question, but maybe better posed along the lines of "what is your understanding of WP:SOCK policy, how have you applied it in the past, and how would you apply it in future if you were an admin, as regards your own editing?" I tend to agree that in its current form it's not particularly illuminating, other than to elicit the candidate's general views. Liars will lie regardless and CU only catches the liars who are stupid too, at least as far as RFA itself goes (not a PA, just the mechanics of CU as it relates to RFA). The question could be recast to better elicit understanding and intentions directly relevant to suitability of an RFA candidate. Franamax (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it should be a default question. As others have said, those who have an alternate account they use for nefarious means will not declare it. Most users have only one account anyway – for example, apart from the couple of occasions when I have forgotten to log in (and hence shown up as an IP), I have only ever used this account. If I was to ever get the mop, I would use an alternate account (and publicly link it as shown in that policy), so I would use my main account on my home computer (which I know is as secure as I can get it), while using my alternate account when editing (i.e. not admin-ing) from public computers. I would guess that a lot of admins would do this? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. IronGargoyle put it best above in stating that these kinds of questions cultivate a sense of paranoia in the RfA process that is neither constructive nor welcome. Those who are using alternate accounts in a manner to circumvent policy are not going to experience a sudden fit of conscience and spill the bemas just because a standard question asks them, and this puts those editors who do have alternate accounts they wish to be divested of in the uncomfortable position of either acting honestly and very likely being rejected or simply remaining quiet and passing by virtue of a white lie. I cannot see any good coming out of badgering every subesquent candidate with this worthless question. Shereth 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose widely accepted litmus test questions – either this should be required of all admins going forward, in which case it need not be asked, or not required, in which case it shouldn't be asked. I have no problem making this a requirement but I'm not pushing for it.

By "required by all admins going forward" I mean any 2nd account which is used to edit after it becomes a rule, with possible exceptions for technical edits to user pages, e.g. blanking or retired banners.
Standard questions, should be questions which everyone wants to know the answer to, but for which there is no "required" answer, that is, where lack of the One Right And True Answer will cause an immediate and embarrassing failure. If a question becomes a litmus test, it should be removed and the desired behavior or qualification put in a policy or guideline.
When most organizations are ready to appoint someone to a level of responsibility, they present a canned list of requirements for candidates and expectations of behavior once you get the job. They make you affirm you meet the requirements for candidacy and they ask you to state that you will, in good faith, attempt to live up to the expectations of the job. Nobody applies in good faith if they can't sign off on those statements. Perhaps administrators need a similar short statement to this effect.
A Wikipedia version of this statement would be something like "I have read, understood, and shown my ability to edit in accordance with WP:PILLARS, I have read and understand Wiki: Administrators, and if appointed, will edit in a manner befitting the position."
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments on loyalty oaths – the purpose of a loyalty pledge is, or rather should be, to invite introspection and to have people who know they don't have the project's or institution's best interests at heart to think about using their energies elsewhere. It is also to serve as a suggestion to resign to someone who, at the time of the oath, was on board but later decides he cannot live up to his oath. It is not, or should not be, a means to "trap" someone or to force someone who would ordinarily not lie to lie just so they can get something they want or that they think they deserve. Granted, they will have that effect on some people, but its primary purpose should be as a tool to help someone make the right decision before taking on a responsibility and to help them realize when it's time to do something else instead. A loyalty oath made in the privacy of your own home, without any witnesses save whatever supreme being you may believe in, can be far more useful than a signed piece of paper. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How can some of you editors recieve temporary adminship?----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

At present we don't have a temporary adminship process. ϢereSpielChequers 14:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And if trusted anyone with temporary access, the chances are we'd support them with the full bit. Maybe that's just me. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a process for that. Can you elaborate as to why you (or someone) might require temporary adminship? Stifle (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Are you referring to the Rollbacker permission, or temporary admin@meta? - Mailer Diablo 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing, unless you consider we are all mortal. Off-topic: Personally, I'd like to see all adminiships be temporary, expiring after, say, 3-4 years or after 6 months of no editing, whichever comes first, with a mandatory but short waiting period before running again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No one gets out of here alive. The only candidate who's escaped intact since April 8 was Matt, and since he's one of the most active Wikipedians and also in his hell year at law school, clearly he doesn't sleep, so he must be undead. (Avi and AD passed around the beginning of April, and you have to go back to Sept 2008 for the previous successful RfB, by Bibliomaniac.) Security theater is a term used to describe processes that don't actually produce any results but are designed to give the impression that all is right with the world; RfB isn't there yet, but it's close. What's even more distressing is that no one this year has tried a second time after failing. (I can think of a reason why: in the current climate where no one is passing, just the act of running suggests "I think I can pass because I'm better than all the rest", which might be taken as arrogance.) I think there are some fixes available without having to lower the passing percentages ... if we even want the fixes. Maybe we'll never get 85% to support a crat candidate again, in which case, we'd do everyone a favor by closing up shop and sticking with the crats we have. I'm not suggesting that, I'm just saying it's a better alternative than what we've got now. So ... ideas? What's the best way to select new crats, if we want any? - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Disappointing to say the least. Well, if 90 RfA votes is considered too low, near perfect judgment is required, and you have to be well-known, I don't know if there are any candidates left for bureaucratship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Half starting to look like you're right – if this is going to be the way of RfB, it might be a little easier on prospective candidates to just let them know ahead of time "You most likely won't pass, but feel free to accept this nomination if you're feeling particularly masochistic today ..." Shereth 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The very last part of your post sums it up Dank. Why do we want more? Scribe is back, EVula, Matt, Biblio, AnnonymousD, WarofDreams and Andre are all active. Honestly the workload is hardly that bad at RFA (as moaned about ad nauseum above) or Bot flagging that we need more bodies. Frankly bots handle most of the rename / usurp stuff so that crats simply push a button (thouht I of course cannot believe why we still have the ludicrous 'crat only flag at renames anyway). Bluntly we don't have any more need for people with the rights. That's not saying that more people shouldn't have the rights, just saying as a wiki we have no workload issue set aginst the limited numbers that do. Pedro :  Chat  22:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't need more, but it would be nice. We're getting an increasing number of RfAs that run more than 6 hours past their close date, and that can create a problem because the late votes and rationales are counted, but people who watch RfAs and respond when necessary tend to tune out around the closing time. In a recent one than ran long, all 3 votes after the deadline were opposes, which could have easily swung it the other way. Even more important I think are the crat discussions in tough cases, which I hope we'll see more of; they're enlightening for the entire community. It would be nice to have more crats participating who have in-depth knowledge of various areas the candidates are getting critiqued on (such as deletion work), and other new crats who follow RfA closely. Even if it didn't affect the end result, the back-and-forth in the discussion could have a positive effect on future RfAs. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Since decisions like RfA closures are subjective at the margin, it is better to have more voices than less voices even if the work is getting completed on time. More voices would mean that, over time, decisions will tend to reflect and move toward community consensus, common sense, whatever (more decisions in number will be closer to the fat part of the bell curve) while less voices typically increases the percentage of outlier decisions. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I buy Dank's logic there either. If an RFA is anywhere near 80%, anyone who is watching but waiting to see if it's going to be close is probably going to jump in. We'd have to have an RFA run from above 80% to below 70% in "overtime" for that danger to even be realistic. Doesn't seem like a big concern to me. Anyway if it becomes a major concern, a bot could close the RFA when time was up, highlighting that it's waiting on crat decision. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have previously stated this and I think it needs repeating: We have elevated crats to a sort of demigod status of admins, a who is who of those who managed to annoy no one with any particular strong opinion or who has made the most inter-wiki connections and we have completely forgotten what the reason for this user group was in the first place. We have reached a state where the same candidate can manage to be opposed for being too bureaucratic and not being too bureaucratic enough, for participating in too many or too few RFAs, for being too bland or too outspoken about an issue, in short a state where we will not manage to find any candidates willing to run anymore since no one will dare to try it anymore. Crats were designed as a sort of admin with an extra button that for its nature could not be entrusted to any admin but which is basically a dull technical job (as Jimbo puts it). Since then, crats have got two more dull technical buttons, renames and bot flags. Still the community has somehow arrived at a point where they will not trust an admin with a good history of judging consensus to handle judging consensus in those areas because they have made that edit a year ago or have spent that much time at this part of the project or hold a particular opinion one disagrees with. I am not saying that high standards are a bad thing in general. But standards need to be at some level that at least a decent percentage of admins can get there (imho every admin who has a decent record of using the tools without problems should be granted the crat flag). No one wants admins as crats that have a history of misusing the tools or other problems. The perfect admin candidate is clueful, civil, helpful and active. But the perfect crat candidate has to be trusted yet not have too many "hats", have their own opinions yet be bland, active at the crat areas yet not too much, bureaucratic yet not bureaucratic. Unfortunately, no living human being can fit such contradicting expectations. And of course even if a candidate fit those requirements, someone would argue that there is "no need" for more crats which the candidate can't even influence. I think "need" has nothing to do with it. We don't promote admins based on the need for them and nor should we think in such terms for crats. If we don't have work for crats to perform, that's great. But I'd rather have a lot of crats with little to do than a few that then might be overwhelmed. Also, please do not forget, the crat-flag is just that, an additional flag. It does not remove the admin bit so those users can and will still perform admin duties. They just could do some more things if needed.
Disclaimer: Yes, I admit, I have contemplated running for cratship myself, since I have been asked by various people to do so and since the crat areas, especially WP:CHU, constantly suffer from backlogs. But honestly, I don't know why I should bother. Everyone who knows me knows that I have never had a problem to hold a certain opinion and certainly I have never claimed to favor a certain point of view because of any wiki-political reasons. Still I have (as far as I know) also a track record of not a single admin action to further any viewpoint I hold. So, in my little dreamworld, if someone with strong views on certain topics and a clear track record of never misusing the tools to further these views, with a history of judging consensus and working in crat-related areas, ran for cratship, I'd probably support them. In my humble opinion, crats don't need to be without opinions, they just need to be able to separate them from their task, just like admins do and a requirement of skills in the areas related to cratship is the only thing that should separate a RFB from a RFA. I would feel confident to meet such requirements – but I also know that I will probably never meet those requirements the community currently seems to expect.
Sorry for the rant. Regards SoWhy 23:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Taking a look through RFB history, we've actually promoted a higher percentage of candidates in 2009 than ever before (assuming we exclude 2004 from consideration). Three of ten candidates this year have passed, and that 30% is higher than the 22.7%, 17.3%, 19%, and 21.4% from the previous four years. Despite this higher ratio, three new 'crats is the fewest we've ever had in a given calendar year (tied with 2005). Does this mean we're scaring away potential candidates? This is the first year we've ever had fewer than one RFB (regardless of success) per month. Obviously a case can be made that the current bureaucrats can handle the workload just fine, but just as the number of RFAs is falling, RFBs are following suit. This may not be a problem now or in the foreseeable future, but eventually new troops are going to be necessary to pick up the mantle. Useight (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think the goal of 90% is way too high. I have no problems with the oppose rationales, but I do think getting 90% (or even 85%) is simply too high. It is a shame that Iron withdrew, but that's the system we have. 85% means that if you stepped on anybody's toes, you probably will fail. This past year I've had six people ask me what my thoughts were about their running for 'crat. Let me put it this way, I think I've only seen one of those six people actually run---and all of them indicated that they were going to run in July/August. 2 of them I thought would pass easily, 2 were questionable, and 2 were unlikely... I've also told Nihonjoe that he's overcome my objection to his last RfB, but that was 2 months ago and he hasn't rerun... 90% is just too daunting. Think about it, does anybody honestly think they are going to get 90% of the !vote? They may feel honored when they do, but does anybody expect it? I'd fully support lowering it to 80% with 'crat discretion going down to 75%. 80% is a number people can contemplate, but at 90% nah, potential candidates won't run because they don't think they'll get it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
And if they did think they would get it, when everyone else recently has failed, that attitude alone might annoy some voters. Maybe everyone should run at the same time, like ArbCom (although I don't think we should have any fixed number of "seats"). - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucratship is overrated as well as poorly named.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote o' the day. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the name is quite fitting for a "dull technical job". It's the current idea of it that does not fit the name. Regards SoWhy 23:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If we don't need more bureaucrats, is it surprising that the standards have risen? Obviously if there is no pressing need for more, then folks will need someone extraordinary in order to get involved in the request. I think the 80-85% support ratio that has the most community support is fine; the last time we had a significant consensus to lower the threshold we also had an apparently urgent need for more 'crats. Until we actually need more help, fewer fine candidates will run and fewer will succeed. Nathan ^T 23:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, the requirements for a crat to be promoted would depend not on their skills but on the need for more crats. If we selected someone with less skill if the need for more crats existed but not a candidate with more skill if the need did not exist, wouldn't that lead to a situation where we choose people not (solely) based on their skills but on the time they choose to run? Regards SoWhy 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Further, by the same logic, the candidates with the better skills, having been turned down before, aren't likely to run again when the need is there, leading to the promotion and fostering of a corps of mediocre crats during times of need, mediocrity leading to mistrust with the community, leading to more stringent criteria outside times of need. It's a self-defeating circle that will invariably weed out the better candidates (who, had they been accepted, might have prevented the time of need in the first place). --MLauba (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course, and has it ever been any other way? The willingness of people to support candidates for 'crat and administrator fluctuate with the perceived need; we don't change the support ratio required, but the threshold for support by individual voters changes with the times. The number of candidates also changes with perceived need. After a few "RfA drought!" threads, we get more RfA candidates for a little while; the last time we had a huge spurt of RfB candidates, it was after a discussion about how we really needed more. Nathan ^T 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a general comment the main reason I have stayed as active as I am is because when I have taken off for a day or two to do something else, I come back and there are always half a dozen to a dozen stale rename requests waiting. I'm not saying we need to lower the standards, but we certainly do not have an oversaturation of crats. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't look at an 80% threshold as really lowering the standards (my expectations are what they are.) But it is making it more in line with realistic expectations. Take Iron for example, I couldn't support him based upon his lack of experience, but he seemed like a fine candidate otherwise. The problem with 90% is that it means that a few people can too easily sink an RfB, it may be semantics, but rather than seeing it as "lowering standards" I see it as making it realistic while keeping the standards.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Changing the threshold ran into opposition this summer. Are there ways we can help the candidates be better candidates and the voters be better voters? Looking over this year's failed RfBs, there's a common thread that the candidate was genuinely surprised at the reaction to something they had or hadn't done (much like RfA!) Just a thought: how about if we let the candidates declare a couple of months in advance? We wouldn't want to pin anyone down ... maybe candidates could get feedback along the lines of "I'm not going to tell you how I might vote, but if I supported you, it would likely be for your work in X, and if I opposed, it would be because I didn't see enough Y." That would at least give candidates a clue what to work on. To keep this fair, a bunch of candidates should get feedback at the same time, then run maybe two months later, to give them time to work on the things the voters gave them feedback on. This might help the voters be better voters, too, by focusing attention on RfB issues. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Balloonman here that the 90% threshold is a bit too high. Recently, perfectly good administrators such as Xeno, IronGargoyle, and Ballonman have seen their requests sink because of a few issues that were exaggerated and thus caused other editors to pile on top of them. This leads to the question of why retry when you lost the first time. I have the feeling that we will see all of these editors in the future try again, but it’s the other editors who I think we should worry about. I don’t think that there should be fear of a disconnection between bureaucrats and everyone else, but these high standards might lead to an elitist view in the eyes of some of these people who have the tools. Dank has a good point, but I get the feeling that that kind of is like an editor review in a way. I'm all for the idea of it though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Mine shouldn't have surprised anyone after my blunder... but the 90% basically says that regardless of what I do, how productive I might be, or what I've done since, or in the future, I will never get 90% support. It ain't gonna happen. So, even though, *I* think I would be a good 'crat, and I think a number of other might think agree, I will never get 90+% support. With RfB, the minority clearly rules, despite my belief that risks in passing a questionable 'crat is less of a risk than than passing a questionable admin. A bad admin can do a lot more damage than a bad crat, and a bad admin may go unnoticed. EVERY action of a 'crat is under constant review.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) PS I could add a few names to the list above of good candidates---some of whom I opposed and would oppose again in the same circumstance---but that I feel probably should have passed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone just cut and past this to the January 2010 archives now, and save us all some time? Tan | 39 05:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rapier like, the sweet sword of truth! Ha Ha Ha. Well said Tan. Pedro :  Chat  07:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It's true that our institutions are fairly conservative and slow to change. Judging from past discussions (I'll provide links if anyone wants them), we're not likely to get consensus to change passing percentages, although consensus can change. But that's not the whole story; change is possible, in fact, there's already been a big change; there's now a solid majority in favor of making RfA/RfB less of a "gotcha", although different people express this preference in different ways. Some brainstorm about how to get good information to potential RfA/RfB candidates here at WT:RFA, some take the time to give helpful feedback before, during and after individual RfAs/RfBs and encourage candidates to run again if they fail, some do coaching or teaching or mentoring. Contrast that with two years ago, when 56 people were promoted in November. At that time, I think a lot of voters had the attitude, "If you can't pass RfA, you're really not getting it and probably not worth the trouble." Now there's more support and more sympathy, and that's a good thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it; by ignoring that we've had a major poll on passing percentages, and that it successfully demonstrated a consensus for a lower threshold, we risk invalidating the result. Nathan ^T 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe the poll Nathan is referring to is Wiki: Requests for adminship/RfB bar. I replied to his comment on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've compiled a list (here) of all bureaucrats, their date of promotion to +crat, and their recent activity; make of it what you will. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks. It would be more useful for sorting purposes though if the dates were in YYYY-MM-DD notation... Regards SoWhy 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  Done Hope you don't mind. Useight (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone actually point me to a single capability beureaucrats have that requires a prompt action? We need people with admin rights to delete G10's etc. promptly. We need oversighters on hand quickly for more serious stuff. I'm struggling to understand why we need vast hordes of bureaucrats when closing RFA's does, explicitly, not need to be done on time, when bot flags can very much be done whenever, and when renames are a matter of courtesy and hardly critical – yes even RTV's are hardly critical as the past history of the account is already deeply imbeded here and on Google. I'm not against more 'crats at all, after all it's only a user right on a website, but the crat flag seems to me to be about as essential as rollback to the ongoing upkeep of the enyclopedia – actually less so to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that is an idea: Make +crat a flag that can be requested at WP:RFPERM at the discretion of any crat. :-D Regards SoWhy 21:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that crats have to deal with a lot of complaints along the lines of "He's a sock" and "Don't listen to him, he's been out for revenge ever since I reviewed his article." It's probably better to deal with private complaints privately, as ArbCom does. I wouldn't say that renaming is non-urgent, because renaming is sometimes the best way to deal with UAA issues, and you can't know just from looking at a CHU request whether we might lose a new contributor because they're being pestered about their name. See MBisanz's comment above. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Two responses. People should not assume crats can handle privacy-related matters. We are not identified to the WMF and while we provide a non-public email list to send RTV requests to, there is not the same guarantee of privacy made with the arbcom-l or functionaries-en list. Second, the rename issue isn't urgent by any manner; it is more of a customer service matter that we can make new users a bit happier and more likely to stay around by doing a spelling error rename in an expedient manner. MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right, but I'm not sure if that's responsive to what I was saying. People are going to get upset from time to time when they see something funky going on in an RFA ... whether they're supposed to or not, I suspect they contact one or more crats about it, and that's probably a good thing; it does nothing for the atmosphere at RfA if people are publicly throwing around accusations without evidence. And while I agree that renames are usually non-urgent, a theme at WT:U these days is that we should be very solicitous of new users who are getting pestered about their usernames. Prompt service isn't required, and you're all volunteers, but it can't hurt. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC) P.S I'm not saying bureaucrats suck (not publicly :), and it's not a big deal ... but I don't think we can say "we don't need any crats because there's nothing useful for them to do", that's going too far IMO. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, here's a sortable (mostly!) list of unsuccessful RfBs. Most supported is Riana, most opposed is me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the upper end of the discretionary zone is 90%, but Nathan mentioned at my talk page that he believes I implied that, so I want to clarify. The poll I mentioned above, Wiki: Requests for adminship/RfB bar, was well attended, and some believe that it established a new RfB discretionary zone of 80% to 85%. However, in the middle of the poll when the trends were clear, Riana failed RfB with about 86%, and some candidates since then have indicated agreement with that decision. (Riana had asked that the poll not apply to her, but still.) I've never heard a definitive statement from any crat that the discretionary zone is now 80% to 85%, and the lowest successful passing percentage (after Feb 2004) has been about 87%. I don't know what the range is. Since I regularly collaborate with several people who I think might run soon, I'd rather not make an argument what the range is or what it ought to be, per COI. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a year and a half since we have run the poll, a long time in Wikipedia terms. I think that we should run it again because we would likely have a different percentage of votes everywhere. I'm all for doing this because of the above discussion and the fact that people should be able to voice their opinion on something that seems to be a big issue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt it's necessary. I have no reason to believe the outcome of the aforementioned poll is now invalid or outdated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to try though, so I think we should discuss what others think of this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We have plenty of 'crats. Having high standards for 'crats is one of the only things that has prevented RFA from devolving into complete and utter chaos. Thank goodness for high standards for bureaucrats. Similarly -- for a long time we were promoting too many bad admins and it is a good thing that standards have risen, promotions have declined, and less bad apples are slipping through the cracks. Unfortunately the politics of Wikipedia (no desysopping unless you torture kittens) are such that it often takes 5 good admins to counteract a bad one. For the few issues where backlogs have arisen debundling is, in every single case, a simpler, easier and more effective solution. --JayHenry (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

how do you become an adminster? --Anthony 5432 (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Anthony 5432

Good question. As rule of thumb, it helps to be an active contributor with at least 6 months of decent editing. For most people, their first month or two editing is a learning period, so don't look to become an admin 6 months from now.
Sometime in the middle of next year, go read WP:ADMIN and the links on that page and come back here with your questions.
Even better: Read those pages now and think about them over the next 6-8 months.
That's the answer from a practical perspective. From a "technical" perspective the answer is "nominate yourself and hope 7 or 8 out of 10 people who reply to your nomination support you." The reality is, if you don't have enough experience and enough good editing under your belt, you won't get anywhere close to that level of support. Remember being an administrator is not a big deal. There are only a few things administrators can do that ordinary editors can't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to start thinking of a new set of questions since the questions in place have been used for so long. It is now also possible that one could theoretically look at a successful RFA and copy good answers into their own RFA? What do others think of this idea? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The answers to the questions are all necessarily personal, so it's kind of impossible to cheat there. Anything you say you want to work on will be scrutinized, as will what you have already done, so anything aside from answering honestly will just result in a (quick) failure. The third one is the only place you could hope nobody finds a big conflict but that's unlikely; besides, the interesting part of the question is about how you would handle said conflict. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. I just felt that a mixing up of the questions might help to address the cries that the process is kind of rigged in some ways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The optional additional questions are a good place for individuality and should be used well to that end. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can ask questions, so if anyone thinks that the process is "rigged" or a question hasn't been asked that should be, ask it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Most boilerplate questions are either gotchas or pointless. We should discourage them in favour of people actually RTFCing candidates, and encourage people only to ask questions which directly pertain to the candidate's editing history. I was about to add "or philosophy" onto that until I remembered that RfA has evolved to the point where expressing an opinion on anything results in a net negative to support. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 19:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

as I understood Ktr, the argument isn't for more boilerplate questions--and I think there might be a good argument for fewer, possibly none, except for: what do you intend to do, and what other names? DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I would be in favor of fewer questions. It seems to me that in 2006 there were usually only 1 or 2 beyond the standard 1-2-3 set, and I'm not aware of any catastrophes resulting from the promotion of incompetent admins in that era which would have been prevented by asking them more questions when they ran. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and suspect the questions may even be distracting people from spending time assessing the candidate's contributions. It would be interesting to compare the number of diffs quoted in the question and oppose section of the typical RFA today with that of a year ago. My worry is that the lack of diffs and the heavy reliance on stats and questions could mean that not only do we have the problem that RFA is less likely to appoint a good candidate, but that we are less likely to spot the flaws in a bad candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In some discussion above someone raises the impact of "after the deadline" votes.

Is there any reason we can't have a bot mark RFAs and RFBs as "closed, results pending" when the timer expires? That would eliminate the whole issue of "after the deadline" contributions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We could do that, yes, but there would be a new problem to deal with whenever the expiration time on the RfA is incorrect, which is not uncommon at least early on in an RfA, and I imagine there might be some where it doesn't get noticed until after it's over that the closing time was off by a few hours ... there's also a few RfA's where the bot seems to miss the closing time due to strange wiki formatting. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason why an RfA has to close on time? Is there a reason why a person who shows up 4 minutes after the "scheduled" time shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion? This isn't a presidential election and rarely do RfA come down to the wire. When a 'crat gets to it a 'crat gets to it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. Obviously if the RfA is already closed and settled then later votes should not be considered, but if no action has been taken on it then there isn't much reason to simply discount opinions for having been made after the 'scheduled' time. Unomi (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
To do so we would especially first have to change consensus so that !votes should not be cast after the deadline. Current consensus is that the "deadline" is a minimum time the RfX is to remain open, not the maximum time and as such !votes after that timestamp are equally valid. Personally, I don't think there is any issue about "after the deadline" !votes at all. While Dank has made that example above to argue that we need more crats (which is correct), I think the main issue of RfXs staying open for hours after the deadline is the psychical impact on candidates who want to know the results but that cannot be addressed by a bot or closing the RFA "pending evaluation" but only by a judging of consensus. Regards SoWhy 15:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The deadline is a mere recommended closing time, not a strict limit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I assume it is technically possible, but I don't see the value. I reviewed the rationale above, but is isn't convincing to me (with one caveat). Obviously, people ought to chime in on time, but if some makes a good faith effort to review the candidate, and ends up getting the response in sometime after the technical close, but before the crat review, I see no good reason for discounting the input. Anyone posting late has to understand that they are running a risk that the crat has formulated an answer before seeing the response, but if you are late, you take that risk. My only caveat is that if we find evidence of gaming – editors waiting until the end of a close call and jumping in on one side, it could be a problem. I hope that won't happen, but I think it would be tough to orchestrate, and unlikely to change the opinion. I'd be more concerned in an Afd, where two !votes could make a real difference.--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This conversation is getting kind of beany. Gigs (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
What, I can't hear you, I have legumes in my auditory canal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the others: there's no reason to worry about an RfA which has gone even a few hours long. If it's a day over, then yes, but even 3-4 hours isn't really going to make much difference in most cases. Even if it does, it's never a bad thing for more opinions to be expressed. That's the whole point of the discussions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a real problem, or a perceived one? Are RfAs for sub-par candidates passing because of "after-hours" !voting? Are perfectly good RfAs crashing and burning because of a sudden rash of opposition at the last minute? The timestamp for an RfA's closure is the earliest that an RfA will be closed, not the absolute moment it will be closed.

If you want us (the 'crats) to be johnny-on-the-spot about RfAs, start pooling your funds. I've actually gotten a text message about an RfA that was overdue for closing, but I didn't close it because I was busy. That's what happens in a volunteer-only project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Second the above. Unless there is any demonstrable, material harm being done by allowing a discussion to remain open an extra hour or four, what is there to worry about? 'Crats lives do not revolve around when an RfA is scheduled to close. Shereth 17:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's no material harm done, there's nothing to worry about. If there _is_ harm done, the 'crat will know to discount it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Evidence of candidate misconduct is valid regardless of when in the RfA process it is presented; the same goes for false statements about a candidate. (I'm not disagreeing with you, just merely pointing out that the 'crats won't regard or disregard a !vote any more or less based solely on when it is placed) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Per EVula, but I do prefer that closing happen relatively soon after posted closing time. A few weeks ago I woke up and saw one that was open almost 8 hours afterwards. As for closing EARLY, see early closing rules I was taught when I became a crat. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
And just to make this agreement circle unbroken, I agree with Rlevse. I prefer that RfAs be closed pretty close to their end time; I just don't think it's necessarily a problem when that hasn't happened. (and I think the 8 hour delay was a fluke of everyone's schedules being crap at the moment) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a heads-up for those with concerns re: de-adminship, and the progress being made to put a process in place with broad community consensus. Comments and discussion are now going on at Wiki talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, and the more, the merrier! Jusdafax 22:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from RfA/RfB for a while; all my brain slots are filled with other things. While I'm gone, I hope people will keep dropping by candidates' talk pages after their RfAs are over. We've generally been good about that this year, but we've fallen off a little bit lately. Jeffrey Mall put up a notice saying he was feeling drained after his RFA, and no one replied. When I saw it, I shared an analogy of taking your clothes off at the doctor's office: it helps to know that they've seen thousands of whatever you've got already, they don't care, and they're not going to talk about it after you leave. A few friendly comments after a tough RFA can make a lot of difference. He replied that "I believe someone even accused me of "ad captandum vulgaris" and referred to me as untrustworthy." It helps to let people know afterward that some of the comments aren't as bad as they sound. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll second that. An unsuccessful RfA can be a semi-depressing event and the comment(s) that Dank left on my talk page were helpful in keeping things in perspective. @Kate (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a big difference: Your medical exam isn't open for the world to see. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is one aspect of RFA that has greatly improved. After I got the note that my first RFA had closed in October last year my takpage was dead for days, then I started getting messages about various reviews I was doing at FAC. I think that we could improve things, and maybe make better use of all that reviewing we do at RFA if where appropriate, we dropped by the talkpages of failed candidates and set their permissions for Rollback or Autoreviewer. I can't remember the last non-rollbacker who came to RFA but I'm sure there have been some whose contributions would definitely qualify for Autoreviewer. ϢereSpielChequers 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Great idea. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I just want to say to Dank that you are being very thoughtful for bringing this up. I received some wonderful messages during and after my failed RfA a few months back, without which I may have lost faith in this project and left. J04n(talk page) 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. The comments I received from people after my failed RfA were a real morale boost, especially WereSpielChequers's. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is the community that is making the decision, then some variation of voting with supermajorities and vote discounting is the way to go. It's not a straight majority vote or even a straight supermajority vote but it is still a vote at its core. South Bay (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Definitely agree. Speaking from my own experience, a simple "Hey, sorry about the bad news, but I'll support after x months if you do y to improve" is a big help. A failed RfA is certainly a discouraging experience, and anything that helps prevent scaring away future candidates is a good thing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Chiming in that my own experience too is that kind words go a very long way in recovering from a difficult RfX. -- Avi (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now, Wiki: Requests for adminship/Ronhjones is currently dropping like a stone, simply because the majority of his edits are done with automated tools... Quite a few of the opposers have commented that he makes very good contributions, but are opposing simply because he uses automated tools most of the time. How does this make someone unfit for adminship? I know it may seem like this thread should belong on the individual RfA's talk page, but this is focusing on a more generalized problem. More and more people are using automated tools, and using them more and more often than they manually edit. Why? Because it's easier. It's faster, and allows one to get much more work done than if they were to manually edit. So, why are we denying people adminship because they use a more efficient means to get things done? Isn't that like denying somebody a promotion because they ride a bike to work instead of walking? Isn't it time we drop this... negative aura, so to speak, around automated edits when it comes to RfA? The thing that should not be 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I see nothing wrong at all with using automated tools, although if your entire contribution history consists of anti-vandalism work, with no evidence of communication skills, knowledge of standards and policies, and sufficient clue, you might not be fit for adminship. As Fastily mentions, adminship is more difficult than clicking "revert" --> "next edit" and repeating that 20,000 times. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt there is a general rule that you cannot pass RFA if you have a huge % of automated edits. Just look at J.delanoy (talk · contribs). The case seems to be a special one where the community does not seem they can assess the candidate, although I personally would not see that as a reason for opposing. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
J.delanoy's RfA seems to be the sole exception though. Most other RfA's where a large sum of the editors contribs are automated have not passed. Wiki: Requests for adminship/Kingpin13 is an example of an RfA that was opposed, with one of the reasons being a high ratio of automated edits. One of the reasons my last RfA failed was because I have a high ratio of automated edits. The thing that should not be 14:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not really true; Mentifisto (talk · contribs) and Camw (talk · contribs) have both passed, albeit marginally, within the past year as almost solely vandal-fighters. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Mostly echoing the above, but an excessive proportion of automated vs. manual edits can make it a bit difficult for a candidate's finer qualities to shine through. RfA standards have grown increasingly demanding as time progresses, and people are usually looking for some kind of positive history to show that a candidate is capable of making the right choices in situations where admins are required. Look at it this way : would we want to see AN/I threads closed with summary, automated edits that don't show any actual thought behind the closure? Not really. It is not to say that using tools is a bad thing, but vandalism reverts and general typo fixes via pressing a button do not really showcase a candidate's best qualities. It can be a bit depressing when a candidate does have superior qualities that seem to be drowned out and overlooked, but you can hardly blame the !voters for missing the quality edits when they are not so easily found. In the end it is a quality vs. quantity issue – not to say that automated edits are low quality, but they certainly aren't the type of high-quality editing that fussy !voters want to see. Shereth 14:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That RfA isn't failing solely because of the automated edits; I think the opposers have done a pretty good job saying why they're opposing. I like automated edits, but if you make a lot of edits with relatively little thought, the odds go up that you'll make mistakes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I originally posted this on the RFA talk, then I saw this dicussion so I'm moving it here:
Like a few others have indicated here... I really don't understand why a high automated edit ratio is a problem in and of itself. So far no one has really indicated a logical reason why someone with 5000 non-automated edits and 25,000 automated edits is somehow less qualified than someone with only the 5000 non-automated edits. It just makes absolutely no sense to me. This seems like some kind of cargo cult requirement to me... at some point in history someone was rightfully opposed because they had nearly all automated edits and very few other edits... and somehow that morphed into a "ratio requirement". So can someone explain it? Gigs (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA has its fads and fashions, and sadly I fear this is one of them. I've reread the oppose and neutral section, and still can't see examples of the candidate making mistakes, with Huggle or otherwise. I'm not a huggler myself, and mentally discount Huggle edits by a large fraction when assessing RFA candidates, but I am worried that the current hostility to Hugglers at RFA could backfire. ϢereSpielChequers 14:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers hits the nail on the head – RFA goes through phases (fads and fashions) where expectations change. Over recent time we've seen more and more automated tools used (in particular Huggle) and somewhat inevitably we're now seeing a backlash against their use at RFA. I recall that over-dependence on AWB was an RFA killer a couple of years ago. I agree this stance isn't overly positive, but equally we need to look at things on an editor by editor basis and focus on the non automated edits to get a better handle on the candidates capabilities. In this particular RFA I think the opposers have done that, and their oppose reasons are pretty sound. Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Like I just posted in Ron's RfA, the percentage requirement is completely illogical. Had the candidate done less vandalism work – keeping everything else static – he'd be getting more supports. What the fuck. Tan | 39 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I agree that Atama's rationale is sound and the rationales of those that agree with him. But those that simply state a percentage seem to have looked no further than the numbers. This automated edits/manual edits ratio thing appears to be the new editcountitis. This guy has made more manual edits in the past year, than I have made in the past seven. I guess I'm in the clear though, because I'm too old-school for automated edits.--Atlan (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. While I opposed the RfA in question, it does seem nothing short of irrational to object based on straight numbers. (Also, the "only created 17 articles" thing is disappointing). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The % thing does seem odd, discussing the quality in the non-automated edits of lack non-automated edits would make sense but opposing base on a ratio seems strange, if someone had around 5000 all manual edits would that be a bad? --Nate^t/_c 15:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I too think these Opposes are pretty bizarre. 'Too many automated edits' seems to be the new version of 'Wrong balance of edits across namespaces' – which is mentioned on WP:AAAD as a bad reason to oppose an RFA. This one seems to imply that using automated tools is actually bad – that somehow, instead of making 5000 edits with an automated tool, a candidate should have made all those edits manually instead, despite the fact that would have taken much more time and have no obvious benefit. I can understand opposing a candidate who only seems to make automated edits, but when a candidate has good manual contributions as well as good automated ones (as I think Ronhjones does), what's the harm? Otherwise, if this trend continues, perhaps we should add a note on the pages for AWB and Huggle that 'use of these tools may jeopardise your chance of passing an RFA'. Robofish (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? The goal of Wikipedia isn't to achieve adminship, and more to the point, anything can jeopardize your chance odds of being successful if used in an inappropriate or irresponsible manner. Tools such as Huggle and AWB are fine to use, but not everyone who uses said tools exclusively are fit to be sysops. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This trend (zOMG he has (?:antivandal|automated) edits :OOO *Strong oppose) has been going on at least since around January 2008. I understand that a lot of automated edits may obfuscate a person's real intentions and/or personality/demeanor, but face it: other than in response to vandalism or other concerns related to recent changes, how often is the block tool used? How often is protection used? And even deletion is used, in the vast majority of cases, in response to CAT:CSD, or CAT:TEMP. I would guesstimate that probably more than 90% of admin actions taken are in response to vandalism, and yet the surest way to fail an RfA is to primarily fight vandalism! Why is this the case? It seems completely illogical.
In my second RfA, I did not pass because I was any better or more accurate at fighting vandalism than anyone else. I passed because of this. From a practical standpoint, this was a complete fluke. You cannot say something like that on purpose, because if you do, you are faking it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, how the times have changed. I remember when vandal-fighting actually had some respectability in the caste of Wiki-jobs. So how many people remember using Popups or even (save my soul) VandalProof...? bibliomaniac15 21:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh, in my hey-day Wikipedia was only available in black and white... Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You had white??? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sort of :) Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I still use popups! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I use them to quickly get a glance at the editcount, and userrights of a user, and occasionally during newpages patrol (If they say an unpatrolled page is empty [deleted], well, that makes patrolling said page that much quicker). Quite nifty. If you're talking about editing with them, I don't use them all that often for that purpose. The thing that should not be 01:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I still find popups quite useful. :) @Kate (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's only going to be a matter of time until some of the antivandal people get fed up with being treated like dirt and start demanding Recent Change patrol or Newpage patrol and opposing RfAs on those grounds (especially after the drama of the whole NEWT affair). I won't do it, because I think this "he hasn't done enough in my area" stuff is silly. Different parts of Wikipedia for different people – it's all valuable. This litmus test business really needs to stop, before it makes RfA even more dysfunctional than it already is. So 85% of his 32,000 edits are automated. That means that 15%, or about 4800, are not. Would you oppose somebody with 4800 non-automated productive edits as not having "enough" edits? Ray^Talk 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• It does bother me too. Some folks I respect quite a bit are making this "ratio of automated edits is too high" argument. (Jeffrey Mall's RfA for example). I don't understand how automated edits cancel out non automated edits in some way. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I would certainly oppose an RfA who had done almost no non-automated edits, since I think a minimum of content contribution and a significant amount policy-related discussion is needed, and those can't be automated. and also oppose one who had done automated edits so fast as to make many mistakes, and I think a history of automated tagging needs to be checked that the person also helps the novices more personally. But to simply object on this ground is wrong and counterproductive. I don;t think it advisable to start using them as early as some people do, because it makes it harder to think and learn, which go together-- but that depends on the results. I avoided them for the first two years, myself, but I should have started earlier than that. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I haven't used a single automated edit so I don't know what it's like. Do the commonly associated tasks require explaining to anyone or the thought at the back of one's mind that I'll need to be able to explain this action? I'm just curious. I haven't voted against any of the nominees. From what I can tell concerns about the ability to communicate effectively also seem to be a common problem cited in these cases. Lambanog (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • At least for things like Huggle, the word "automated" is a misnomer – it's not like we have something like a Bot going editing away, with the edits accumulating to our account. It is more like "one-click" editing for things like reversions, templated warnings, etc. The editor still has to personally examine the diff, choose whether to revert, which warning, etc. The level is automatically chosen if the editor chooses to warn. It speeds up the specific tasks associated with Recent Change Patrol over manually substituting the template, etc., in a tabbed browser, by a factor of 5 or so. Ray^Talk 22:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • It may be a misnomer, but such tools do promote and encourage automaton-like behavior in users, and the single-click nature means less scrutiny (as opposed to preview). People always like to max-out, whether it's credit cards, hard drive storage, or posts per minute; it's human nature. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
          • That might be the case for some, but personally, I look closely at every reversion I make with huggle, at least as closely as when not using huggle. This is because I realise that using huggle it is very easy to make mistakes. Moreover, huggle is only supposed to be used for blatant vandalism. Why you would have to look closely at the revision to make sure that the 'gyjksggfhjsyegjsgfyjg' really is next to that heading, I don't know. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC) — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm moved to add that the learning curve with huggle takes a bit of time. When I first got it, I had to find out the hard way that it was a good idea to take it slow, and carefully consider the revert I was going to make, and that if it was vandalism, what kind of vandalism, which guides an admin in deciding to block and for how long. Fortunately I had some feedback to guide me, some grumpy, some kindly. I soon learned to use a second computer screen to google or otherwise confirm edits I wasn't sure of, and to check for vandalism by multiple vandals, which is more difficult to deal with (usually in articles on schools, but also found elsewhere).) Used carefully and thoughtfully, as I see editors like Ron and others doing in 'round the clock effort, anti-vandal patrollers using automated tools keep Wikipedia reasonably free from pixel graffiti, some clever, much hideously crude. It is hard, sometimes disgusting labor; and the term 'automated', when used in a dismissive context by those who have little idea what the process actually entails, does anti-vandal work a great disservice. And I'm pleased to see that Ron's vote has turned around, partly I suspect as a result of this frank discussion. Thanks, 'Thing', for starting the thread, and to all participants. Jusdafax 21:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So I'm seeing a strong consensus in this thread that 'insufficient number of non-automated edits might be a valid reason to oppose, but insufficient percentage is not'. Am I right? I would think that if 'crats knew that there was a wide consensus against a particular oppose rationale, and that was the only reason offered in someone's oppose, they might consider giving that oppose less weight. What do you all think? delldot ∇. 03:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to blindly encourage/discourage any sort of vote, as even the most seemingly absurd reasons for opposing/supporting may be applicable in certain cases. The 'crats are among the most intelligent and neutral editors there are, so they know how to weigh each argument and when to discount weak rationales. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I wasn't advocating creating a hard and fast rule or anything, more just inquiring whether folks thought that this might be one of those arguments to avoid, whether as a general rule we could say the community considers this rationale to be a weak one. delldot ∇. 03:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Per this thread, I've moved my vote in Ron's RfA from oppose to neutral. I still don't think he's got the experience I'd like to see in an admin, but after reading this discussion I agree that automated edit percentage is generally not a good reason to oppose. However, there's got to be a limit to that. A good admin candidate can't exclusively be a vandalism patroller or a new page patroller, at least not in my book. There has to be more substance to their edits. Ron's got the substance – just look at his templates – but not all candidates do. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone will need to argue how the number of automated edits a user has dilutes their other work, constitution, and notable contributions of an edit. Unless you can find a direct correlation that editors with a greater percent ratio end up to be terrible admins, or the validity and importance of their other work becomes compromised, there is no real argument to using this as a bases to withhold adminship. The ability of an AfD voter to separate work quality from something like disproportionate numbers in the data seems slight odd when looking at the task at hand. Many of them argue that they cannot gauge the editors ability and knowledge of Wikipedia policy from these edits, but in the same right they would not be able to gauge the inability of this editor either with out looking at their other body of work. The validity of these votes in my opinion seem to be the responses of voters who have failed to properly investigate the candidacy of an editor in their entirety. Mkdw^talk 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

tl:dr (absolutely not saying this about any candidate mentioned in this thread) but one of the reasons for not liking autoedits is that some editors make many fucking awful edits that way, and are unwilling to accept responsibility for those edits. "It was a mistake, I was using twinkle / huggle / rollback; it looked like vandalism" etc. You see people leave the project because they (incorrectly) got a templated warning and you start to not like auto edits. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to name names, for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would hang a system-wide problem on the backs of a small group of editors. It's a fairness issue. Anyone can look into the deletion/block logs and admin boards to decide for themselves if there's a problem. For what it's worth the admins I am referring to have been admins for less than 6 months so were subject to the same general rules as RFC is working with now. South Bay (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's the alcohol and lack of sleep, but South Bay's comment makes no sense to me. Are we still talking about automated edits?--Atlan (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps might have meant to post in the section below? The thing that should not be 13:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling a high proportion of automatic edits removes the editor from the creation process. They can claim greater expertise for example in objectively knowing the rules but are far removed from the common sense application of them. They know Wikipedia rules more than the subjects they are applying them too and sometimes Wikipedia would benefit more if they didn't wield the axe so haphazardly. Lambanog (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
But why? What does the proportion have to do with it? If a user has solely 5000 non-automated content edits, you find this user somehow superior to one that has 5000 non-automated content edits plus 20,000 automated vandal-fighting edits? The automated edits somehow cancel out the content ones, and the editor becomes less knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy? This makes no sense. Tan | 39 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tan on this. In fact I believe using Huggle has the ability to give you more experience than just doing manual editing alone, because you happen to be exposed to more articles and how they've been constructed... Both kinds of editing can go hand in hand... knowing how articles are constructed can help in finding more subtle vandalism, and knowing how to look for vandalism can give you more experience when it comes to how articles are constructed... The thing that should not be 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well the haphazardly comment makes sense when discussing some RFA candidates. But to oppose a candidate because they "wield the axe so haphazardly" you really do need to trawl through the candidates contributions, and find either a pattern of mistakes, or failures to properly rectify mistakes. Then you need to include diffs in your oppose that illustrate this. Simply denigrating the candidates contributions without having diffs to back that up risks leaving other !voters assuming that you've done a thorough check and not found anything troubling enough to be worth reporting. ϢereSpielChequers 17:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm simply explaining how a certain kind of ratio of edits could be reason to go against a candidate since it was asked. Yes one will need to dig deeper to make a properly definitive conclusion but I think it can be considered a legitimate warning flag. In any event it was not what sunk the recent candidacy hopes of those for whom the issue was raised. Lambanog (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just literally stumbled on this discussion or would have commented on it earlier. All an automated edit does is make it easier to exercise good judgment and save Wikipedia from its growing reputation as "the encyclopedia that anybody can vandalize." The same good judgment is required as in a manual edit, except that you can use more good judgment and do more good. Even if you don't use an automated tool, a glance at Recent Changes reveals how much trouble Wikipedia is in. So yes, one doesn't want an administrator who does nothing but automated edits, and besides, an editor like that would probably be cross-eyed and unable to perform in useful society ;). But heavy use of such tools should be viewed from the standpoint of value to the project, and someone like RonhJones has saved Wikipedia's lard hundreds if not thousands of times.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)