requests For Adminship/Archive 31

I've also deleted an IP vote on User:Who's RFA- by the timestamp, it appears that it was the same user. Ral315 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove the vote. Mark it as a sockpuppet below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if this has been brought up before, but it is possible for a user to contact other individual users to discuss whether or not he or she is worthy administrator material before actually submitting his or her formal nomination. Is such "campaigning" before formally requesting adminship 'poor form'?  Denelson83  01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with discussing adminship with a few friends. It is when the number of people being talked to/solicited becomes substantial when compared to the number of voters on the typical RFA that I see it as a significant problem, and this is a reason I have used for voting oppose in the past. Dragons flight 01:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It means you fail the "must have ego the size of a small universe" requirement. More seriously it depends. If they are ask a couple of people to make sure thier aplication wont get completely pwned then fine. If they are trying to mobilise potential supporters I'd be more concerned.Geni 01:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

(After two edit conflicts) I don't see a problem with asking a few users if they think you're ready for adminship, or asking someone to nominate you, so long as you have had significant contact with them in the past. It wouldn't be appropriate to ask lots of users, or to ask in a public place like the Village pump, because that would just be duplicating the RFA discussion. If you wanted to ask someone privately, by email, or in IRC, or IRL, then no one else would know about the discussion yet the effect would be the same.-gadfium 01:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought that would be the case. Thanks for your insight.  Denelson83  02:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I notice, browsing through the comments made by voters, that the use of edit summaries is considered important. I use them consistently in articles (except very occasionally when I accidentally press "save" before I realize that I haven't filled in the summary box). I see from comments made in Jdabidb's RfA that edit summaries which consist of only a section heading supplied automatically, with no text added from the user, don't count. I'm just wondering to what extent we're supposed to use edit summaries in talk pages. I can see that it's very desirable for edits to articles, because people scrolling through the history page want to know if you've just added a comma or changed the entire meaning. That helps them to know whether or not they want to read the diff. Since talk pages are for comments, I generally feel that it's sufficient to leave it with the automatically-produced section heading. While I occasionally add something like "agree with John", "reply to Mary", or "added {{unsigned}} template", I often don't, as I feel that the automatically-produced heading tells people what topic I'm commenting on, and that should be enough to make them know if they want to read it or not. Am I wrong on this? Is there a general policy that edit summaries should be used on talk pages as well? Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not that big a deal on talk pages, I sometimes copy and paste what I said into the edit summary for short comments. --fvw* 00:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been one of those who has used the RfA process to encourage edit summaries. I have counted article edits only in that; I have not counted edits to talk pages, for example. I don't recall anyone else holding the lack of summaries for talk page edits against anyone either. (I hope not, because I tend to do exactly what you described you do, Ann.) What you describe seems very reasonable to me. Jonathunder 00:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I hold it against potential admins too if they don't put edit summaries. And right, while edit summaries are very important on article pages, they matter less on talk pages; I guess one can use his/her judgement there. Oleg Alexandrov 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

In a speech to a college class, Jimbo commented that editors are expected to include summaries as a courtesy to others. To my knowledge, there is no written rule. It's just a standard we hold each-other to. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wiki: Edit summary. Jonathunder 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand do people really belive edit summeries anyway?Geni 02:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't believe WoWs edit summaries (unless they are like "Wheeeee!"), but I sure as hell would belive yours and any other trustworty user gkhan 03:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
What if you have a highly trusted user who leaves "minor" as an edit summary? Would you trust that it was just a minor change, not worth greater explication? -- BD2412 ^talk 03:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Let me ask you, would you check the minor box, if you hadn't made a minor edit? that is, yes I would trust the edit summary gkhan 03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe every edit summary (and I've spotted the odd mistake where someone accidentally did something other than they intended and edit-summaried, which makes the odd check all the more worthwhile), but I certainly use it for a sort of triage of edits: you can't always view everything on RC, and edit summaries help in choosing. --fvw* 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I mess those up from time to time - I have preset edit summaries for disambig fixes and for missing article redirects, and occasionally I'll click the wrong one. But for something as minor as either of those operations, I don't bother to go back and put in a corrective edit summary. -- BD2412 ^talk

In general, I would suggest the following: Edit summaries are not necessary for truly minor edits (although I'll often put "spelling" or "comma"). They are optional for talk pages; something like "comment", "reply", or just copying-and-pasting your comment will work, not necessary for your own user page edits (although you may find it helpful later), and "required" for any non-minor (typographical/spelling) article edits (of course, this is not an official policy). I think it's a good idea to always use edit summaries, except for minor edits. Regarding adminship, I would probably oppose or at least comment on someone who did not consistently use edit summaries for article edits (and the automatically generated heading summaries don't count). Not using summaries for talk page edits would be fine with me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have article pages on my watch list; I have talk pages on my watch list. The only difference to me is that I expect edit summaries on article pages, and I very strongly encourage them on talk pages. Courtesy applies to the entire project, not just the end product. It's the same degree of courtesy being provided to others in both places. If an editor neglects the courtesy on talk pages, then I'm far less likely to support promotion to a position where the editor's courtesy reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. Unfocused 04:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They're important to some people, though I think that they are overemphasized on RFA because it is easy to see what a user's habits regarding edit summaries are very quickly when reviewing User Contributions. There are more important criteria we should be considering, albeit criteria that are more difficult to discern. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There are only a few measures of an editor that are valid reasons to support or oppose someone for adminship. The only three that come to mind are as follows:
1. Experience sufficient to demonstrate a commitment to bettering Wikipedia
2. Basic knowledge of policies they're expected to act upon
3. Courtesy in dealing with other editors
Editors who fail to use edit summaries display a lack of basic courtesy to others, especially to those who are on dialup either all or part of the time. It logically follows that editors who lack basic courtesy are less likely to be courteous in more important situations. This is why consistent use of edit summaries is an extremely important selection criteria for good admins. However, it is certainly not an elimination criteria, and even I have supported a few editors who didn't use edit summaries consistently. Unfocused 17:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we add a statement to RFA policy: "Please refrain from voting oppose on nominations that are clearly failing". I think we can avoid a lot of bad blood that way. Thoughts? Borisblue 13:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I like it. My only concern is that a nomination can be "clearly failing" one minute and can turn around the next - if a nominee has, say, 4 support and 5 oppose votes, they are clearly failing; but if a dozen people turn up to vote support over the next hour, then the candidate is headed to success. In the meantime, people who would have opposed, and may have supplied relevant information as to why the candidate in question is unsuited for an adminship, will have held their tongues (and may not revisit the candidacy to see if it takes off). If we add such a statement, perhaps we should qualify what constitutes a failing candidacy. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer that nominations that are clearly failing be removed by a bureaucrat. If a nomination is still active, all users should be able to vote on it, whether they're choosing to support or oppose. Limiting one side of the vote doesn't make sense to me. Carbonite | Talk 14:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Why not just end an Rfa if more than a certain number of legitimate oppose votes are registered? I haven't check back through, but I doubt that any nom with more than 10 oppose votes has ever succeeded no matter the number of support votes....Fawcett5 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, apart from Fvw's comment below, that would turn the process from consensus into consensus, providing that fewer than n people oppose. That would be a major policy change. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Looking at User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records, 5 of the 39 listed top most active nominations had more than 10 oppose votes. --Durin 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to toot my own horn here, but I received 13 oppose votes (most of which were stronger endorsements than the support votes, but you can't count that). --fvw* 14:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Some recent experience would indicate that the occasional candidate for adminship fails to understand what consensus means. Given this possibility, I am now inclined to think that letting all RfAs run their full course int the interest of transparency is, on balance, the best practice, despite the possibility of hurt feelings. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. I do think we should be encouraging those whose RfA is failing to withdraw early, and make it as easy and non-humiliating as possible to do so. --fvw* 15:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think rules such as this get in the way of discussion, which is what this process should be about. I think a better rule might be that people should only vote in pile-ons, and cake-walks for that matter, if they have a comment to make which may be of value to the candidate in terms of improving their editing in the future. (To be honest I think all votes should be accompanied by some sort of reasoning, but there you go.) Rje 16:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I personally do not feel an RfA that is going poorly should be closed out and removed from the active RfA list. Only nominations made in bad faith should be treated in this manner. My rationale for this is that while a pile-on might offend a user, a person who would most likely make a good candidate in the future would use the failed admin nomination as a reference point on how they could improve themselves to become great admin material. If the nomination is closed prematurely, there may be additional items of concern that might not be addressed the next time a person comes up for nomination. From what I've seen, the nominees who get offended at oppose votes would not make good admin material anyways. For those that it does not offend, the full RfA on the nominee is a potentially very useful training tool. --Durin 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whoa, this discussion has gone waaay off topic. The reason I made my suggestion in the first place is to avoid pile ons. One example would be Empty2005's nom now. I don't see any reason why ANYONE would vote oppose now. I'm sure those who did had good intentions, but adding an oppose vote would just hurt Empty's feelings. So I say we state in the "guidelines" that we strongly discourage people from piling on oppose votes in nominations that are clearly going to fail. Whether or not we should remove them early is a discussion for another day.

I really don't understand the occurence of late of suggestions to constrain the RfA procedure. As it stands, it works and pretty damn well most of the time. This is because it is unconstrained and we don't need to pretend our way around it. If an editor wants to withdraw their RfA, they are able to do so by clicking the edit button, just like anyone else. If they don't want to, there is no reason to suppose that adding constraints to the process will be particularly help. -Splash^talk 17:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't suggest a constraint... what I'm saying is a firm reminder that Admin candidates are people, and people can get their feelings hurt by oppose votes being piled on them. In the interest of civility, I say it's simply good wikiquette to refrain from casting an oppose vote once the nom is dead. And yes, people have been hurt by this process- perfectly good editors have left wikipedia simply because they had an admin nom piled on with oppose votes. Borisblue 17:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
An example would be User:Rl Borisblue 17:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose; nominating for adminship means you agree to be judged, positively or negatively by the community. If you cannot take criticism, simply don't nominate.

Bureaucrats; if you would please, when you close out an RfA would you please make a note of the decision that was made regarding the RfA perhaps similar to the way in which AfDs are closed out? In many cases it is not readily apparent as to what the result was. For example, [1], [2], and [3]. Not having the decisions on these pages means a person perusing them would need to check Wiki: Recently created admins and/or Wiki: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies to clarify the status of the RfA. Thank you, --Durin 16:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Terry had suggested the same. Infact I was going to do the same tonight. A different colour such as the yellow or grey used in fr: meta: could let one know if the nom was sucessful/unsucessful. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Or just a notice at the top of the page. I had that trouble too on my RfA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestianpower (talk • contribs) 22:57, September 28, 2005

Ok, I've done something about it. User: {{rfap}} (RFA promoted/pass); {{rfaf}} (RFA fail). I've used two different colours so that it is clear that the nom is 1) over 2) successful or unsucessful. See this Wiki: Requests for adminship/DESiegel =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't work, as now there is an open box (meaning any text/images following the RFA will be included in the box). Talrias (t | e | c) 20:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
All it needs is a box closer at the bottom, a la {{ab}}. I'll make one now. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Done - tag {{Rfab}} to the bottom, see if it works. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 20:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd prefer the subst: instead of the direct template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

...isn't working for me and I notice a comment on the page about it's removal. Is it gone? Marskell 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's working for me as of 01:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC). A few days ago it wasn't working with a notice saying something like, "To remind you what Wikipedia is about, Kate's tool is down for now. Why don't you spend some time contemplating what Wikipedia is really about? I'm sure it'll be back up tomorrow." Is that similar to what you're getting? --Blackcap | talk 01:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The newer version is down, but this one still works. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) (warning, this user is infected with editcountitis, engage with extreme caution)

I've noticed that most of the recent noms have been at exactly 3:55 UTC. What's going on? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The history says otherwise, so I suppose people are copy-pasting the last nominator's handiwork. -Splash^talk 05:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
When I made the {{RfA}} template, it was 3:55. I fixed this like three days ago I think. But that's the reason, and the worst possible result is that someone may lose a few hours in their RfA or wait a few more hours. OhNoEs!! Redwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note: A bug in the system is preventing bureaucrats from setting admin rights. This does not affect a candidate's RFA, or the RFA process. All sucessful RFA candidates will be added to wikipedia:Recently created admins but not wikipedia:List of administrators till the bug is sorted out. Developers have already been notified.

Special:makesysop is used to set admin rights. Currently an error: "page not recognized by Wiki requests For Adminship/Archive 31" is being displayed. If this is rectified, a message "you do not have permission to access..." will be displayed. Bureaucrats will be checking this page periodically, but if you notice the page up before a bureaucrat does, please feel to contact any one of them ([4]). =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Does this effect only makesysop or other flags as well? Like bot flags for example? Just waiting on one atm so just wondering. ∞Who?¿? 06:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well bot flags are the responsibility of stewards. I really don't know about the bot situation. As of now, bureaucrats have little power. They can't rename users, or set admin rights. They can only close RFAs. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
That I didn't know. One would think that a bureaucrat would be able to at least rename, but that a different discssion :) Thanks for the info. ∞Who?¿? 06:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you are basically impotent right now, maybe we should start calling you lambies.  :-) Dragons flight 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I just came from meta, and bot tags are suspended too, same bug. Figured I would answer my own question here in case anyone else wondered. And I wonder wonder.. Who who who.. And I was more partial to the title Big Kahuna, makes me feel like we're at the beach. ∞Who?¿? 19:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering the fact that so many voters are suffering from a serious case of editcountitis, should we not indicate on the top of the page that 3000 edits is an expected minimum for admin candidates? If an good user and admin candidate is voted down because s/he only has about 2000 edits, such a warning could spare the candidate a lot of suffering. I would hate to see great candidates leave because they have been voted down by people afflicted by editcountitis.--Wiglaf 07:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would rather not. 3000 edits seems far too high for me. I was nominated for adminship right when I passed 1000 edits, and no one commented on my "low" edit count; of course, that was six months ago, and RfA voters seem to have become more picky since then. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
No I don't think it is too high based on observing votes. Many voters base their votes NOT on the qualifications of the candidate but on whether the candidate has an even edit pattern during many months, and enough edits. Some will even vote against, if the edit pattern indicates a little enthusiasm for the priviledge of becoming an admin. I do think we should consider the fact that candidates are people with feelings and try to spare them rejection for having too few edits during a certain period of time.--Wiglaf 07:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This would only give editors the incentive of making bad faith edits to blowup their edit count. I have seen a lot of very good editors with less than 3000 edits, that I would trust as an admin. There are several other things to consider, style, copyedit abilities, personality, policy understanding, being bold, and many others I consider over edit count. When I even look at edit count, I look at where the edits have been and for what. If you look at some of the current RfA's you will see that there are these same questions. ∞Who?¿? 07:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but based on past observations, I fail to see that such qualities really count. Edit counts and edit patterns appear to be more important to certain voters.--Wiglaf 07:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I recognize and understand your point of view. It is just sad that this is the case with some users. I think its better to stay away from more restrictive and discriminating rules; ie m:instruction creep. ∞Who?¿? 07:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is a semi-complaint about the oppose votes on Wiki: Requests_for_adminship#Shauri. I still insist my oppose has nothing to do with editcountitis and encourage people to read my reasoning in the comments section Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This is not based on your vote, but it is based on the contrast between the support votes and the oppose votes. The support votes claim that this is a good candidate, whereas most oppose votes pay more attention to edit patterns and edit counts. The nomination page says at least 1000 edits and three months, and I think this is misleading.--Wiglaf 07:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It can be sometimes - but not for that candidate. According to edit history the candidate has only really been here around two months - and the two months have an unusually large amount of time seperation between them. For example, I've only technically been a little over two months, but I did one edit back in march - does that somehow mean I've been actively editing for three months? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, but I had no clue about that technicality when I nominated her and I would never have put her through this if I had had a clue. If you think this is important enough for rejecting the candidate I think we should state clearly that edit patterns over several months is a criteria.--Wiglaf 08:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
No, a fixed number does not determine the true worth of a candidate. Its possible to rig up your stats by fixing minor errors, repeating a procedure repeatedly, or even surreptitiously using a bot. What about those users who actually compose a full article offline and paste it here? No fixed counts please, please also go through the archives. 1000 seems to be a rough indicator that the person knows more or less about the wiki process. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Alright, what about an editcountitis and edit pattern caution?--Wiglaf 08:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
You may read this: Wiki: Requests for adminship/Standards =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Unfortunately, I see that they have forgotten to mention that wikibreaks during the last six months may disqualify an otherwise deserving candidate.--Wiglaf 10:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I find that Editcountitis is a contentious issue. Thus, a moderate page may be created with just one edit, whereas a sentence may result into several edits. Naturally, there must be several other factors which the community may be taking into account while deciding such matters. --Bhadani 11:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
it should be noteded that someone "fixing minor errors and repeating a procedure repeatedly" would logicaly be a better janitor than someone who writes big articles. In my role as an admin I've just made over 100 changes to wikipedia that involve nothing more than "repeating a procedure repeatedly" and they won't even show up in my edit count.Geni 12:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Look, you're only inviting unwanted debate on which department in WP is more valued. Lets nix the debate right now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
what on earth does what makes a good admin have to do with which department in WP is more valued? Adminship does not exist to reward good editing.Geni 14:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, you claimed that those who fixes minor errors logically make better janitors. Well, by using the term janitor, I assumed you meant admin, since both the terms are more or less linked here in WP. Anways, if you do mean that janitor=admin, I'd politely disagree. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think having a specific number of edits is any kind of reasonable measure. For what it's worth, in a study of 126 admin nominations over the past few months, I've observed that 2,000 seems to be the point at which nominees gain acceptance. Please see [User:Durin/Admin_nominee_charts#.22Isn.27t_2000_edits_pretty_arbitrary.3F_Why_not_3000.3F.22]. But, as noted by several others here, edit counting is a horrible way to evaluate a nominee. An "edit" is too vague of a definition of a contribution to Wiki English. Use of it as a measure equates all edits as equal, when in reality the value of a given edit is highly subjective and impossible to measure in any objective way.
The root issue seems less to be about the number of edits than about the ways in which WP:RFA voters make determinations about the acceptability of a nominee. I don't think we should be in the business of warning people off from being nominated or nominating themselves. Instead, I think we should be proactively looking for ways in which to encourage people to not focus on edit counts, but instead focus on subjective measures. Please see my User:Durin/Admin_voting_measures, which bend strongly towards subjective measures.
I do think there is probably room for developing a page notionally titled "What makes a successful admin nominee". I think Wiki: Requests for adminship/Standards focuses far too much on number of edits and time on Wiki English. For the article I'm suggesting, substantial research will need to be done to establish patterns of behavior common to successful admins and admin nominees and similarly for unsuccessful admins and nominees. Even before that, some moderately strong definition of what "successful" and "unsuccessful" within this context means would need to be determined. The concept for this page is still nebulous; I've not begun any work on it, just some thought experiments.--Durin 13:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly spelled out that voters may use their own criteria. For some, edit counts are important. For others, they are not. For some, edits in the Wikipedia namespace are important. For others, they are irrelevant. I don't see how we can spell it out any clearer. If your observations indicate that 3000 edits are required to pass, you clearly haven't observed very much. Jdavidb 13:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but we really should warn about editcountitis and 3000 was my suggestion.--Wiglaf 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, if an nominee with 1500 edits - half your suggested number - and otherwise an excellent candidate, was voted on by the 60 Wikipedians who currently list their standards at Wiki: Requests for adminship/Standards, they'd pass 49/11. They'd still pass with 1000 edits. If they had 2000 edits, they'd romp in 59/1. Grutness...wha? 07:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when is it 3000 edits? My RfA passed July 22 and I had 49 support votes and when I was first nominated I had 2000 edits (I think at the end of the week I had like 2600). But who decided 3000?? Redwolf24 (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

3000 does seem to be the number now for some reason. I just saw one person oppose because there wasn't 10,000. The standards seem to be jumping, except for "popular" people (which I still assert popularity alone is really bad to evaluate a candidate by, even though it is tough to buck the norm, as it were). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Back in the good old days, 2004, there was no such thing as Kate's Tool, and as a result, this editcountitus disease didn't exist. People were nominated for their work, judgement and experience. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My question is, hasn't anyone got the idea, from the number of responses and arguments contrary, that to the majority of us edit counts aren't as important as what they've edited, how they have acted, etc.. Administration, when it boils down to it, has nothing to do with editing articles, its about ADMINISTRATION, you dont' need a mop to make pretty articles. ∞Who?¿? 08:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

WHOA - that is not good! Lest someone forget that at the end of the day there's an encyclopedia to build - someone's gotta actually wikify an article rather than just tagging it. Not only that, but an ideal administrator is not an administrator - rather an ideal administrator is a good editor with administration tools. I.E. the user would ideally spend most of the time thinking about/editing the articles he likes, then take care of a little bit of vandal-hunting linkspam etc., then have time at time at the end of the day to give a peer review. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Dont' get me wrong, the main reason I have so much enjoyment from working on Wikipedia, is the fact that it is an encyclopedia. I feel that every users contribution helps a great deal of people in many ways. But lets look at it from another perspective for just a moment, the bad paper version first. If you were publishing a paper encylopedia, well for that matter any media format, you would normally have writers, researchers, copy editors, editors, etc. Would you also not have systems engineers and programmers and technicians that work on all of the equipment, are they not as important to the produciton of said project? Yes, that is to the extreme technical side of things, but it boils down to each user has certain talents, some users write very good articles, and have a very high edit count. Maybe they just add a great deal of one time entries for further improvement, but don't contribute in any other fashion. Would this person necessarily be familiar with or comfortable with dealing with other users, categorization, vandalism? Does this make them less or more important to Wikipedia? Now take the opposite of that, you have another user that has a "low" edit count, but enjoys dealing with other users (welcoming, VIP, VfD, ANI), does RCP , maybe categorization and templates, but is not very good at writing articles. Does this make this person less or better on Wiki? The answer to both is no, there is no better, all users are equal, except maybe to those who think editcounts count as more. As stated, we are here to build an encylopedia. However, the latter user case maybe better suited as an administrator, even though they don't really add to the content of the encyclopedic portion. That's mainly what I meant, I didn't mean to imply that the encylopedia was not important, its the reason we're all here. IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 07:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I so want to nominate User:JoanneB for adminship. She's an experienced editor with over 2000 edits, well balanced over different namespaces. She's tirelessly fighting vandalism and participating in WP:AFD. No fair her having only been in Wikipedia for a bit over one month! — JIP | Talk 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're after here. An informal RfA/RfC? Better not to examine someone publicly in that case, I'd have though. Ask around the talk pages of some editors whose judgement you trust, rather than in a public forum such as this. -Splash^talk 14:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
At that rate, she'll have 6,000 in 3 months, and be a shoo-in then. I counsel patience. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Echo BD2412. Put a reminder in your tickler file to nominate her in late November or early December. If someone beats you to it, c'est la vie. If you wait and do it in a couple of months, she should fly through if your estimate of her is on the mark (I'm assuming it is). --Durin 16:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I leave notes on their talk pages asking them to remind me to nominate them in the future, as I know I will just forget. Martin 16:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I felt this way about a p[otential admin earlier this year and even left a comment on his talk page something like "start thinking about whether you'll want to be an admin in a month or two's time". When he'd been here three months and a day, i went to his talk page... and found that someone else had offered to nominate him a couple of hours earlier (he went on to get admin with a strong vote and is a highly respected admin). Don't worry - if they keep going for another couple of months, you or someone else will nominate them. The main reason for th three month wait is to make sure they don't suffer wiki burnout after a few weeks. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Grin, I just read this and I feel flattered, of course :-) And sure, a rollback button would be great once in a while (uhm, quite often actually) (and yes, I know that being an admin is more than that)! I've spent quite a lot of time on Wikipedia for the last couple of weeks and feel like I've learned a lot, and I'm very glad my contributions are seen as useful. But I think the 3 months period is quite reasonable. I'll use the next couple of weeks to learn more about how stuff works on Wikipedia and to get to know more people here. I don't think I'll be bored :-) --JoanneB 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I find this comment, and variations on it, to be inappropriate and in very poor taste and am disappointed to see its continued use. It is unclear to me whether it is intended to be a reference to a marketing phrase used by producers of adult content, or some sort of reference to people who are actually in lesbian relationships. I have some friends who I respect greatly who are in lesbian relationships and do not see the humor in this at all, and would like to ask everyone to please stop. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase does not offend me personally, but I wish I understood what it meant. What does "extreme lesbian support" mean, anyhow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hall Monitor (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't originate it, but in my use it's simply intended to be memorable. --Phroziac^(talk)  17:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
You know, I bet you're right about porn advertising. ~~ N (t/c) 17:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought i was the only one who didnt understand. While not offensive, I think it is a little immature. Martin 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. As I responded to your message on my talk page, I did not mean it in any adult marketing or rude way. I also happen to like lesbians. You never responded (or did i miss it?), or said that you felt i should stop immediately. I'll discontinue it's use and change my support template immediately. --Phroziac^(talk)  17:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought Phroziac was making a personal statement when I first saw the phrase, and was sort of pleased about it because of what visibility means to gay people. But I think that initial impression was mistaken. I'm not personally offended but I do see how it could be offensive to someone since it's sort of an appropriated phrase. Like calling things "gay" when what you mean is "dumb" -- although this is an imperfect comparison since I don't think his intentions are bad at all. (Sorry Phroziac!) · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, i should mention I don't agree about this, but I have changed my template. It now says...
User:Phroziac/support --Phroziac^(talk)  17:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Phroziac. I agree with The Uninvited, and would also be happy to see the phrase and its variations dropped at this stage. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (Struck out after template was changed back, though I understand why it was. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

Phroziac and whoever else may be using a template in voting, please use it only with "subst:". Templates in voting contexts have been discussed before and strongly discouraged because they allow someone trollish to transparently change your vote after the fact, without having to edit the actual page you voted on. Also, it is generally considered a bad idea even for you to change your vote phrase after the fact. I have an impression based on previous discussions that vote templates have actually been banned from AFD, though I don't know where to find a reference for that. Dragons flight 18:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and will go back and replace all instances of it before just a few minutes ago with the old "Extreme lesbian support" message. My process for this will involve it temporarily changing back to the old message though. Anyway, I won't be responding to this thread anymore, as I am on a wikibreak (sorta). Contact me on my talk page if you need me. --Phroziac^(talk)  18:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the only one who should write "Extreme Phroziac support" is Phroziac. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I apologise if you took my one vote as an insult, but as someone who has many friends who are in same-sex relationships (I was best man for one of my friends in a recent same-sex wedding), I've noticed that by-and-by, my friends tend to be less sensitive to such things than I am. In fact, I've become less sensitive as a result and take such things humourously (hence, my vote). Maybe it's the same thing as {{example of minority}} people having no problems making comments about {{example of minority}} people, but not having other people do the same. In fact, my buddy was laughing, not huffing, over these votes. I wasn't planning on voting that way again, but I'd like to explicitly point out that I'll desist, with humble apologies. --Deathphoenix 17:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found the whole AfD slightly surreal, but in no way offensive. I read it as a parody of a societal phenomenon, namely that of the lesbian-porn-flick-for-men. It's just a parody. Nobody's saying lesbians are inferior, nobody is saying they're not allowed to marry, it's just somebody saying that straight porn slogans can be funny, especially when taken to the extreme. --fvw* 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with UC, and I find its continued usage stale and in poor taste. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, are we discussing whether it's funny anymore or whether it's offensive? The first I could come around to, but the second seems like baseless PCism to me; Could someone explain how parodying adult entertainment slogans is offensive to anyone apart from possibly adult entertainment producers? --fvw* 17:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Some of the confusion here may be that it's not necessarily immediately obvious that that's what it in fact was doing (i.e. parodying a porn slogan). It wasn't to me, anyway. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
So perhaps the user who started it was a lesbian who supported the adminship strongly? I can understand that you didn't get it, but why then immediately assume that it's something negative? --fvw* 18:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think I did anything approaching that -- I never assumed any negative intent at all, and don't think I have said that I did. I only said that I could see how some folks might find it offensive, though I don't personally. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I misread who started this discussion, sorry about that. I still don't see how it's parseable as offensive though, even without good faith I can't parse it in any way that makes a jab at lesbians, let alone being offensive to them. --fvw* 18:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
No problem at all. Ultimately I think this is probably just a tempest in a teapot, but it is worthy of discussion I think. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I am surprised that this must be spelled out. Why one might consider it offensive depends upon the meaning one ascribes to it:
1. If merely serves to provide shock value, then it is offensive because it utilizes a demographic group that has suffered a history of discriminiation as a source of humor. Build your own example using the names of other demographic groups and decide whether they are offensive, then consider the parallels.
2. If it is a gratuitous reference to pornography, it is inappropriate on Wikipedia, see Wiki: Profanity for parallels. We have articles on sexuality, and on films and literature with sexual content -- including pornographic materials. Discussions of them in context are fine; gratuitious references however are IMO inappropriate.
3. If it is read literally, it is intended to evoke the idea that Phroziac (who is male) is either lesbian or engaging in some sort of uniquely lesbian thought pattern in his support of a particular candidate. This doesn't make sense since lesbian people are by definition female, therefore we can only conclude that this is an attempt at absurdist humor. As per #1 above it is inappropriate to utilize a demographic group that has suffered a history of discrimination in this fashion.
I would appreciate it if someone would explain to me exactly why this is so funny. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It's an extremely timid statement compared to many "articles" around here, and much more "specific" things go on at AfD (my user page is much worse... heh :)). I think people need to take a breather, its meant to be humor not an ad etc. (humor is such a relative thing anyway) - WP:NOT censored. Maybe it should be more like EXTREME CHOCOLATE SUPPORT WITH CHERRIES ON TOP!!!!! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:07, 30 September

2005 (UTC)

Maybe it shoud be changed then if so many editors are uncomfortable with it. Personally, I find no problem with it, and it sure strays away from the monotonous "Support", "Support", "Support", "Support". What can I say, people are jsut inventive. →Journalist >>talk<< 19:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW the top page on google for Extreme lesbian support is Phroziac's User talk page.Geni 19:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hahahahaha.... Man, did I get a kick out of that, I don't know why. Here's the link: [5] --Blackcap | talk 19:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's a relatively minor matter, and I'm sure those who don't like it can live with it (which is probably why it hasn't come up on this page until now). But since Wikipedia is full of different kinds of people, there are probably some who find it incredibly funny and witty (in fact the adoption by others of this slogan and variations of it suggests that), some who find it shocking and/or offensive, some who find it not particularly offensive, but a bit irritating, and some who found it funny at first but think it's rather stale at this stage. I wouldn't have bothered to comment on it, but since the issue has come up, I think it should be understood that there are people who, for a variety of reasons, would prefer if voters would place their support votes with simple (and helpful) comments like: "Strong support. Excellent candidate. Conscientious, and works well with others." I've personally been quite confused by this issue, as it led me to believe that Phroziac was female – a belief I now find was erroneous. And it seems that I lack some background knowledge that would place this whole thing in context – the references to "parodying adult entertainment slogans" and "parodying a porn slogan" are quite lost on me, sorry! Anyway, I'm enjoying Wikipedia, regardless of what voting templates people use, and I certainly don't want to offend anyone, but for the record I'll state that I agree with Uninvited Company and Nichalp on this one! Several people have adopted this slogan and variations of it. They're free to continue, of course, but now that it has come out in the open, some voters might be happy to going back to something like "Strong support", knowing that some of their fellow Wikipedians are slightly uncomfortable with the other wordings. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh :) - you're forgetting the golden rule of the internet! "Male until proven otherwise"! Besides it leads to potentionally (but not really) witty variations like

1. EXTREME CAKE SUPPORT WITH EXTRA CREAM!
2. EXTREME GEORGE W. BUSH SUPPORT WITH EXTRA SUPREME COURT NOMINEES!
3. EXTREME TEXAS SUPPORT WITH MORE HALIBURTAN SHENANIGANS!
4. EXTREME KOFI ANNAN SUPPORT WITH EXTRA OIL FOR FOOD SCANDALS!

OK, that's enough :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, my instinct is "male until suggested otherwise. And, in my view, Phroziac certainly did suggest otherwise! I should add that I consider some of the voters who are using the rather confrontational wording to be excellent, courteous editors. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This discussion underscores how ugly the process for rewarding merit on the wikipedia is. That people determine who should and should not weild admin powers while making moronic comments such as the above is a clear indication that this is a failed process.

Voting is anti-wiki~!

• Wiki: Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy
• Wiki: Polls are evil
• Wiki: Don't vote on everything
• Voting Is Evil.
• Wiki: Wikipedia is not a democracy
• Wiki: Consensus
• Wiki: Survey guidelines
• Wiki: Jimbo Wales discussion at Harvard Law School, April 25, 2005

The majority has no claim to the truth. Sam Spade 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Adminship is not "merit." It's a set of extra housekeeping buttons. Also notice this is requests for adminship, not votes. android79 18:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but the name hardly changes anything though, does it? The fact remains that, on AfD and RfA, what is accepted in the end is not concensus but a large majority (upwards of 2/3 on AfD, 80% or so for RfAs), really. It's all good and fine to say we operate on concensus, but what's really happening is not that. In real concensus (and even in the WP version), if there are people who actively oppose a proposal—even just one person—you don't have consensus, and the proposal falls. On WP, we regularly close debates on AfDs, RfAs, VfUs and other three-letter acronyms which have people virulently saying that the action being taken (whether support or oppose) is unacceptable for the community. That's not concensus, that's just majority rules with a large majority. I'm not saying I agree with Sam, necessarily, but I do recognize that our "community concensus" is just a thinly veiled democracy. --Blackcap | talk 18:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The name is irrelevant. No absolute vote-counting is done, either on RFA or AFD. The closing 'crat or admin determines if there is a (rough) consensus based on the discussion that ensues. It's not quite what it ought to be, but it's not a strictly democratic process, either. Whatever it is, it works reasonably well. android79 19:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just not concensus. It's a majority. Don't get me wrong, I think it works fine, but I do think that we should call a spade a spade. --Blackcap | talk 19:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • VfU is all about vote counting - that's what is used to justify decisions there. Plus nearly AfD I've been a part of the closing admin uses the number of votes (counted) to justify the closing of the "discussion". Not that I think its right... but there seems to be an insistance to call apples oranges... maybe it should be different, but that's the way it currently is. Feel free to disagree, of course :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Sam, I would appreciate it if you could identify which comments in particular you find "moronic" and exactly what alternate views one with a greater intellect might hold. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If that's not a baiting comment, I don't know what is. What's the point in being insulting? --Blackcap | talk 19:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll take the bait. IMO there is a clique, which dominates this article, much as there are cliques that dominate other articles or topics. These are not always the same people, or a "cabal", or any other sort of nutter fluff, but subculturesque cliques, similar to what is found among adolescents, or among employees in nearly every workplace. Its very mundane stuff.

Anyways, this group uses code words, jargon, netspeak, or whatever you want to call it, and is otherwise completely out of touch w the outside world. The above I found a good example of that. These "learned elders", those who determine who is and is not a trusted user, (hardly anybody votes) carrying on in such a manner struck me as notably absurd. Sam Spade 20:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's a self-perpetuating problem, Sam - those who vote regularly become familiar with the process to the point where fully expressing what will generally be understood in a few short code words will seem like a waste of time. I'm sure there are plenty of editors out there who are not even aware that they can vote on (or become) admins. The solution is to convince a larger segment of the Wiki population to take the time to come here and express their views on candidates (or on the process itself). -- BD2412 ^talk 21:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot randomly selects users for moderation. Perhaps somebody should set up a bot which periodically randomly selects a logged in user from recent changes and posts on their talk page an encouragement to visit and participate in WP:RFA (or any of the other processes that could use more involvement). Jdavidb 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Sam has a good point. He is a good editor, has made a huge contribution to WP, and while he may get into edit and content disputes, he has more than proved himself that he would not go on a vandalism rampage or something of the sort if he were given admin tools. But he would never pass an RFA - my feeling is, largely because of his political views. This suggests that the system is broken. Admins should not be selected on the basis of popularity, and they should not be selected on the basis of their sociopolitical views. You should support an admin who you feel you know well enough to judge that they will not use the extra tools in a way that will hurt Wikipedia, and you should vote against people that, based on their actions, you think would use the tools to the detriment of Wiki English. I think this obsession with edit summaries is bad - an RFA is the perfect time to ask someone to be polite - but I don't see why you should refuse adminship on the basis of popularity and the person's use of language like "moronic". Guettarda 21:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. The Rfa is deeply flawed in many ways and should be abandoned and replaced with something else, SqueakBox 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If I have had a dispute with some users, they may feel that I will misuse the tools - which is pretty much the same as saying that I am not popular. IMO, any user who can be trusted as a non-vandal and has a decent number (say, 500) edits should be made an admin without going through the messy business of voting. Tintin 22:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, 1500 edits and I would agree, SqueakBox 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you determine "who can be trusted as a non-vandal"? Letting the bureaucrats do it is cabalistic, as there will always be controversial cases. If there's some method other than voting for getting community input and ensuring that it will be acted upon, I don't know it. ~~ N (t/c) 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not getting blocked during 1500 edits? SqueakBox 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just think how many problems it would solve if we had 10,000 or so more admins. IMO the bar should involve knowledge of the process and vested interest in assisting the community. Those who are shown to abuse the office should be removed, but why have apopularity contest to get in? What purpose does that serve? Sam Spade 22:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is the popularity contest that makes the Rfa so flawed, SqueakBox 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you do something unpopular, like be uncivil, you don't deserve the tools. The users who are 'popular' here are the ones who go out of their way to be nice to people. Popularity, though its not really segmented at wikipedia, is earned and deserved, and if you go around trolling, guess what, not popular :O Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the difficulty of removing sysop rights from editors who misuse them or are abusive is a problem. Solve that problem, and I bet you'll find people are much more willing to trust others with sysop rights to begin with. Friday (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, you got to screw up BIG time for that, a la 172 or wt:User:Wonderfool... Redwolf24 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is abundant evidence that users who go out of their way to be nice to others get rejected. Part of the problem with the popularity contest method is the number of editors who quit for ever in disgust, SqueakBox 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who go out of their way to be nice to others get rejected? Where? I passed basically on those grounds myself. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Redwolf24. My RfA succeeded largely due to my being nice. It certainly wasn't due to my massive edit count (1000 at the time). — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well we could start with Sam Spade, SqueakBox 00:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ummm evidence?Geni 00:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

He welcomes a lot of new users. When I was new he went out of his way to be friendly by leaving a nice comment on my talk page (the welcome template had already been applied), though this debate is not about a particular user, SqueakBox 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to indent your replies so that this discussion is readable? --Blackcap | talk 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that the reason sam spade is not an admin has nothing to with his friendlyness.Geni 00:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I would support Sam's adminship in a beat. He has been a great editor to work with on Human. What is the deal? I am missing something? ≈ jossi ≈ 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Wiki: Requests for adminship/Sam Spade would be the logical place to look.Geni 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, see no reason why Sam Spade (and Kappa) should not be admins right now. There's a world of difference between expressing strong views and being a threat to Wiki English. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well we seem to have established that niceness isn't enough. I think many people on the Wiki: List of non-admins with high edit counts should be promoted automatically. "Many may not want to" may be indicative of many not wanting to go through the Rfa process, but still be desiring of the extra privileges, SqueakBox 01:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate, if you've done something uncivil quite recently or if you're generally disliked, there's a reason behind it. People on that list being promoted automatically has some flaws, among them being the fact that Wik is in the top 10... Also it pushes more editcountitus upon us, as we've said before, edit counts aren't everything. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sam's Rfa is a good advert for why we should abandon the process, SqueakBox 03:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Uhh.......................

WikiAnarchy? Sam must have done something to warrant the oppose votes, and just because you don't like the results isn't a reason to abandon a process. We can't just say oh, 10,000 edits, you're an admin now... why? Because if we did, Wik would be an admin. And many other trolls could exploit this. Just because of unsatisfaction with one RfA doesnt mean we should get rid of the whole thing, think of all the trolls who RfA has stopped, like User:Rainbowwarrior1977's several attempts. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, how about this and this - a fine editor blackballed by a vocal minority for being an "inclusionist". Let's drop the approval threshold to 2/3, it should be as easy for an editor to get the mop as it should be to delete an article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Kappa is a great guy, I'm not here to argue that. However adminship should be more important than deleting an article. Consider things like Wonderfool deleting the main page at wiktionary. Yes, he had a solid majority of votes (though only like five people voted) but still, it should be a supermajority, and a high one at that. I guess it makes sense to oppose Kappa on those grounds as what if he went AfD closing and he didn't respect consensus (though I think he would). Which would be worse, we delete the wrong article, or we give the wrong person RfA tools :-/ Redwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• But we should trust Kappa of all editors to not delete things that ought not be deleted - and really, since any admin can delete stuff, it's the restraint that's important. Besides, admin tools can be taken away if misused, and I question the logic of denying those who can potentially do plenty of good work the ability to shoulder part of that burden. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes admin tools can be taken away after a long and lengthy process (though if blatent probably asap) but damage is harder to reverse than just deleting the wrong article in an AfD and having it restored. Anyways I'm going to bed, nice debating :P Redwolf24 (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The process of determining adminship and for deleting articles are the weakest points of the wikipedia. They are the weakest because they betray our ideals in an inefficient manner contridictory to common sense, designed to insult and shame those who should be recieving our encouragement andf affirmation. How ever long it takes, the process is broken and must be fixed. Sam Spade 13:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually thhink the weakest point of wikipedia is not telling newbies that if they don't sign up for an account they leaver their IP address for all to see, SqueakBox 15:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Another view: RfA is not broken

With some notable exceptions, the current RfA process serves us just fine. There's always a potential for cliquish behavior, but that's true of all social spaces. Cliquishness aside, RfA as it stands now has one fundamental advantage over other systems for selecting administrators: it allows for open discussion of a candidate's suitability for adminship. If RfA needs any change, it would be to give more emphasis to discussion and less to "voting". A simple solution would be to end the practice of separating "support" and "oppose" votes, combining votes and comments just like the various deletion and FA discussion pages.

Determining a candidate's suitability for adminship is not just a matter of mathematics: edit counts, namespace distribution, etc. As Redwolf24 has noted, Wik would easily become an administrator if we strictly followed edit counts as a qualification for adminship. (For those unfamiliar with the Wik fiasco, he was hard-banned by Jimbo for threatening to destroy Wikipedia with a vandalbot if Jimbo did not ban a user he was engaged in conflict with, a threat he carried out in June 2004; see User:Vandalbot and Wiki: Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz). Other clearly unsuitable users with edit counts above 10,000 include Lir (one of Wikipedia's most notorious trolls) and JillandJack (a sockpuppet of hard-banned User:DW). RfA helps us avoid such pitfalls by giving the community a valuable opportunity to decide whether a potential admin has our trust and to address potential concerns. Of course there are problems, but when it comes to the basic underpinnings and principles behind RfA, what other options are there? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 09:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think people rarely question/comment on other peoples votes/comments because they don't want to appear they are campaigning or POV pushing, thus we have a situation where people are voting as they would in a general election, and not discusing issues. What we need is to make it clear that it is perfectly ok to question other peoples votes, and that votes with no comment or obvious reason (e.g. boothy) are almost worthless. Martin 10:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree that it's more than OK to comment on other people's votes. The only thing that's not 100% kosher is when the subject of an RfA makes belligerent arguments against every oppose vote against him or her, which has happened recently. As for explaining one's own votes, I can't think of too many greater slaps in the face than an oppose vote with no comment, or with a blatantly stupid reason. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 11:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that RfA, while having some flaws, is not broken. Have there been any cases of a Wikipedian promoted through RfA that we later regret? There's only precious few of those cases. In either case, we cannot judge adminship solely from the amount of time here, or the number of edits. Doing so would prove catastrophic, as noted above. And Szyslak, did you mean 2004 instead of 1994? I don't think Wikipedia was around back then... heck, was the internet around back then? :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, 2004. :-) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rfa's are truly the ugly side of wikipedia, and in many cases are little more than troll bait for some to insult and disparage others. We are not paid to be here., this is a voluntary process. When people put in hundreds of hours of works to then be told to f off iut is not surprising so many leave. Defending this trollbaiting process is ultimately defending the unacceptable side of wiklipedia, SqueakBox 15:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought a test to test people's knowledge of how wikipedia works technically, (ie how many admins don't know how to archive a talk page properly?) and re policy, + no blocks for the previous 3 or even 6 months would be a better process without the inherent design flaws that (a) the current process is turning people away from wikipedia in disgust, and (b) would eliminate the ignorance of procedure that many admins show). There would be a sense an admin had worked to get where they were not won a popularity contest, thus admins would be more respected than is the case today, SqueakBox 15:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a serious problem with the technical competence of most admins or adminship candidates. Most admins that I have dealt with tend to stay within their areas of competence—if they don't know how to perform some of the more arcane administration-related tasks, they tend to leave those tasks to others. Even if a new–or old–admin does something that's not strictly in line with policy or normal procedures, usually it's possible to take them aside and straighten up any problems.
The largest challenges that most admins face are related not to techniques but to people. The RFA process entails a necessarily critical (though hopefully not cruel) examination of the candidate's ability to interact well with others on Wiki English. It is also a practical test of that ability—we get to see how the candidate responds to criticism, fair and otherwise. (An admin who can't handle unreasonable people or criticism is going to burn out very rapidly.) We're looking for admins who are polite and courteous, and who exercise their common sense.
In terms of setting a test of Wikipedia policy knowledge or a restriction on editors who have been blocked...I'm not sure that either is necessary. Instances of policy ignorance tend to be brought up at RFA anyways, as do recent blocks. Imposing a hard policy would just hamstring the community if we wanted to make an exception under extenuating circumstances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Szyslak, you say I can't think of too many greater slaps in the face than an oppose vote with no comment, or with a blatantly stupid reason. but you are encouraging the process by supporting an Rfa process that encourages people to slap others in the face, SqueakBox 15:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The idea of RFA "turning people away" makes me wonder. Is this really a recurring problem, or have there just been one or two cases? I've only been watching them for a month or so now, but I haven't seen that they're particularly ugly. I can think of a recent case where an editor said he was leaving due to failed RFA, but that same editor had said he was leaving WP a couple times before that already. To me it seems fairly clear that by going thru RFA, you're inviting others to scrutinize your editing behavior. There's nothing wrong with this; on the contrary, it's a good and desirable thing. Friday (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I've been a regular watcher of RfA, and I can only think of a few rare cases in which people were so disgruntled at their RfA that they left. The only person whom I can think of off the top of my head is the second RfA of ThomasK. Who were you thinking of, Friday? In any case, I don't think that people leaving because of RfAs is a huge problem. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the makesysop function has still not been sorted out. (See story above). I strongly feel that we should pause all new nominations till the bug is sorted out. IMO its unfair to give the candidate a licence but not the keys to adminship. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's a moot point, now, but it didn't bug me in the slightest to get the license with the keys only promised later. I would've voted for continuing nominations. Jdavidb 20:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree. Until makesysop is fixed, there should be a moratorium on promotions and new nominations. — Dan | Talk 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Just don't stop the ones running already. Titoxd 05:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I meant new noms. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, so did I. Sorry if it was unclear. — Dan | Talk 05:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I knew you meant that, only that I wanted to make sure of it. By the way, I was BOLD and posted a notice about the problem at the top of the page. Feel free to revert if necessary. Titoxd 05:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I've also been bold and amended the notice slightly so that people know they can still vote on the nominations currently listed. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A developer weighs in

That's silly. Tim can just promote them with a SQL query.

UPDATE user SET rights = 'sysop'  WHERE username='Graft' 

That will still work, regardless of any bug in the makesysop function. Uncle Ed, Developer Emeritus 13:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I see no reason to not continue with business as usual. Friday (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
That's true. However, I don't know how often we should be bugging Tim Starling to do this, after all, he's got better things to do than to do bureaucrats' jobs. But I'm pretty sure that he can "mass promote" the nominations that are on the holding bin already. Titoxd 18:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the situation is the same in meta I heard. (see the related post above). We have a backlog of 8 at this very moment, and the rate of new noms keep on increasing. If Tim can mass promote, good enough, but as Tito mentions above, Tim must be having more pressing tasks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I just checked Special:Makesysop, and it says "Permission denied." From what Nichalp said earlier, I think that means that it is fixed, so I've gone ahead and removed the big red notice tag and presume that RfA will operate normally now. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed by Tim Starling. It's fixed! Many thanks to him for fixing it. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Yipeee! =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)