Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 72

message: #— Werdna talk criticism 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A major overhaul of the RFA process is needed

message: #VIE! The process at the moment probably produces the right answer most of the time, but that probably isn't enough. --ais523 08:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The RFA process works, but could stand improvement

message: #Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There's nothing wrong with the RFA process

message: #Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfA gives imperfect answers. That's fine. Imperfection is part of humanity.

message: #Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfA does not always get the answer right. There is no reason to suppose that any other system is likely to either

message: #Splash - tk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is unlikely to be a magic bullet that fixes everything that anyone perceives as being wrong with RfA

message: I've started a trial run for myself here. Please treat it as a real nomination, even though it won't be binding in any sense of the word. I've been fairly controversial in the last week or so, so I'm looking forward to generating some interesting discussion on the page. This is a chance for us to see how one of the proposals would actually work in a real situation. — Werdna talk criticism 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you create a set of guidelines for the RFC?  For example, what is a certification, what is an endorsement, what are the format requirements for each?  Are they just signatures and timestamps or something more?  I suggest that you put the guidelines in the Talk Page for the RFC.  Thanx.  --Richard 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. done. — Werdna talk criticism 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Less is more, though.  We're drowning in process right now.  For the record, I think this is an excellent idea.  Guy 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I agree with is the "3 user confirmation" thing. I think that should be added to the process. Other than that, I think that RfA is fine as it is. -  Mike | trick or treat  14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ;This is a nice idea and I think it could work. At least it now requires burden of evidence for someone to place a vote (ie they cant just oppose for no specified reason!). On the other hand it could be confusing especially with lots of participants... We'll see. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was trying to have a sense of humor with the "not binding" disclaimer, that's all. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial run of [[Wikipedia:RFA as RFC]] 

message: Personally, I feel that the biggest peeve about RfA is the inconsistency in the support/oppose patterns of people who participate in RfA. People have varying standards/interpretations, much like in cricket or football, the different umpires and referees have different positions in the spectra : Some will give a 50-50 offside call to the attacking team, some will give it to the defending team; some are hard and cynical on players diving, some give more penalties; some regulate more and hand out more cards and free kicks, some have a laissez-faire. Personally I do not mind people having their own high standards or low standards, but the most annoying thing is how some "judges" apply one rule to certain people, a softer rule for others, or a harder rule for some others. I feel every candidate should be equal before every "jurist" even though the jurists have different standards among themselves. It irritates me when I see (eg.) people oppose saying "only 3 months" or "not enough mainspace edits" [say 1000 maybe], and then when some "cute" candidate or their friend comes along and they get passed with 100 votes at 90%+ when they perhaps only have 3 months or sometimes 500-700 edits, despite other users being stopped with a higher bar. The reverse also happens when some "ugly duckling" candidate (who most likely is introverted and does not have a following) comes along and people start finding some rather idiosyncratic and minor imbalance in the editing pattern and they get a lot of opposes. One of the wikipedians I admire most, User:Sam Vimes appeared to have this problem - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2 - it was running 9/11, but after some rebuttal, there was a 59/8 streak and he scraped home...
* Complaints from about 4 jurists that Sam was focussed mainly on one area - cricket
:* This is the case for most people actually, that they focus on only one topic. In this case Sam also wrote some other stuff on Winter Olympics, Speedway and Handball, and over a wide historical range. A lot of people cruise through editing only one type of music genre, the geography/history of one country,etc, and have no problem. Many other people don't actually edit any topic at all, doing dabs and CVU and other stuff with automated tools rather than human initiative and nobody notices. Some folks only have 500 small edits, yet pass easily.
* 2-3 Complaints that he had only 170 article talk edits and 480 WP edits
:* I searched many RfAs where the candidate had 100 talk and 200 WP edits (excluding Esperanza edits, which don't count), yet passed almost unanimously because the user has a "cuteness" aura which appears to allow them to be passed unnnoticed, including some who demonstrated that they had no knowledge of the deletion policy whatsoever.
* Complaints about not warning vandals
:* This is valid I guess, but to receive about 12 on this matter is quite a lot, as it is not a policy violation, or bad beahaviour. There have been people who are also slack with this but they do not attract such criticism. 
As such, this was a grey zone RfA and was close to failing when it never should have been in doubt, although luckily it was salvaged. Personally in these cases, I would like the bureaucrats to take the "jurists"' track record into account when there is an unclear RfA, because although they express themselves in good faith, there is widespread sentimentalism and a lack of scientificness in the consistency of one's own standards being applied to editors, rather than whether they meet the criteria or not. This is not a comment about civility as a criteria for RfA, it is not a comment on appropriate criteria at all - it is simply a comment about the need for all candidates to be judged fairly with respect to another candidate by the given "judge". At the moment there is  a lot less fairness here than even in "sport" like F1 and boxing where some judges and stewards appear to maximise the chances of certain candidates. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like the bureaucrats to be more pro-active in taking into account candidacies where a user has been either let off the hook compared or been over-scrutinised in such cases. What do people think about this? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely think that there's somewhat of a "charisma" or "popularity" criterion that most people have, but no one talks about.  If people know your name, there's a higher chance that more people will support you unconditionally. If people haven't seen you before, they're more likely to root around for a reason to oppose.  Bureaucrat intervention looks good on paper, but I fear that RfA is too subjective a process for that to work effectively. --Mr. Lefty  (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would definitely like to see more objectivity in RfA, and less blind support for popular but unqualified candidates, and vice-versa. --Mr. Lefty  (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is unconscious, not a thing where someone actively thinks about taking "popularity" into account, but a lot of people (humanl nature) will simply support some candidate because the said person said something nice to them, or socialised with them previously, irrespective of skill deficiency - and vice versa. In a case where this is close I would simply like the bureaucrat to take this into account (like weak/strong oppose/support) by checking the recent RfA standards employed by the voters. RfA is subjective in that people have different standards, (which is a separate issue), but I would like the 'crats to check the consistency of the judges individually, as every judge should be consistent with his/her standards in fairness to all candidates, even though every judge has different standards. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your idea of bureaucrats comparing how "jurists" comment on rfa's of different candidates for (a lack of) consistency sounds reasonable. But if that's going to happen the way you suggest it, we need >10 more 'crats. And not lazy ones, either. Picaroon9288 02:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, no one does RfB anymore, and the ones that do don't succeed. But that's another rant. --Mr. Lefty  (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you listening to yourself here? Reality check: Bureacrats must now evaluate the contributions of every single voter in light of previous RfA's? That's a totally unrealistic responsibility to give to anyone. The average RfA would take several hours to close, dozens of hours on particularly well-frequented votes. People should be able to regulate their own voting behaviour without forcing a bureacrat nanny on them. --tjstrf 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No they don't. Only one or two RfAs per week are in the close zone where there would be a big difference. The fact is that some people choose not to regulate their vote and unconsciously will not "judge" candidates consistently, or perhaps  want RfA to become a beauty contest. It would take no more than 3-4 hours per week to analyse the close ones and we can always get more 'crats onboard if we feel that there is too much work. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bureacrats should not have the responsibility to (nor are they imo qualified to) judge whether an individual's standards are being kept consistently, and it would be an horrendous drag for them to do so. Case by case judgment is a positive thing, blanket standards are negative as they do not allow exceptions for those who we are willing to trust due to our personal knowledge of their behaviours or excellent ratings by others that we would trust. --tjstrf 01:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific and Emotional judging and bureaucrat intervention 

message: What happened to the little bot-updates summary page?  I found it quite usefull in deciding which RfA's were close enough to take the time to consider "voting" in.  Even if there is consensus to remove it from the front matter it would be nice to link it from the See Also section.  Eluchil404 04:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BN.  Borisblue 05:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes indeed. It was me who removed it from the frontmatter  It is an useful tool, but it does not belong in the lead paragraph describing what adminship is about. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary page?

message: I have a question - if an editor is an administrator on another language Wikipedia or sister project, but there is evidence that he/she is breaking WP policies and behaving in a disruptive and boorish fashion on the English Wikipedia, can action be taken against that editor on the project where he/she is an administrator, based on this evidence? Rama's arrow 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, as every wikipedia is somewhat independent from the other ones and have their own set of rules. If s/he is behaving somewhat properly there, then I don't think there can be taken any actions against the administrator. The only thing is to inform the other admins over there of that persons behaviour. Perhaps they'll have a serious talk with the user. MoRsE 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if it was serious enough you could take it up with meta, but otherwise it's like MoRsE has said - each language is pretty much autonomous. And I personally think it's best that way. Themindset 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  admin behavior 

message: I think I found one of the causes for the rampant editcountitis... the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards actively encourages people to set an arbitrary cutoff point in months or amount of edits. Additionally, the list is long enough that most people wouldn't read much past the beginning, but the first couple of entries happen to have excessively high standards. I would strongly recommend deprecating this page, or cutting out the editcountitis columns. >Radiant< 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps. But that people are free to vote in any way they wish is a good thing rather than a bad thing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea of the standards page is a good one, and I like to point misguided self-nom's to it so that they get the gist of what people are looking for... The fact that some of the standards are old and are from people who may not participate with RFA (or even the project) anymore is indeed worrisome. Perhaps some kind of refresh of the standards page needs to be made... I don't know. But to wipe it out would take away the opportunity for aspiring admins to get a feel for what people at RFA are looking for - which I think would be a disservice. Themindset 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not certain the standards page really tells you what people on RFA are looking for at the moment. The standards that are actually applied do change with some fashions -- at one point, edit summaries were very much in fashion, or featured articles, or image tagging, or namespace editcountitis. The only way to find out what standards are actually applied is to closely follow RFA for a couple of weeks or months. Kusma (討論) 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *We could replace the standards page by some of Durin's statistics to show what the actuall standards are. >Radiant< 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd support unlinking that page, making it historical, and creating something in its place that takes a more global view: Hard facts/data about pass/fail ratios, examples of personal standards that are relatively common (1FA, etc. But I wouldn't in any way cry if the entire section on personal standards went away; people can link to their own in their !vote of they really want to. I think this page exacerbates the problem and sometimes reinforces unhealthy perceptions of false consensus. In addition, it's well-nigh unusable in its current format anyway. This page didn't scale. -- nae'blis 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editcountitis redux 

message: Since I don't really want to nominate myself for adminship as I doubt I would make it, what would anyone think I should do to see how much more I must do to become one with a successful RfA? thanks Teh tennisman 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've compiled my personal advice for RfA candidates here, which may be of use. A better suggestion would be to put yourself forward for editor review which should get you some specific ideas on what you need to do. Good luck, Gwernol 13:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Teh tennisman 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self nomination 

message: I'm a little shaken up by the responses of one of the failing nom's. I know losing any vote, even a !vote like RfA, feels a lot like getting your teeth pulled with a ball peen hammer, but the fundamental rule in any campaign has got to be not to insult the electorate! Engagement and debate are a necessary part of consensus building, but my, oh my! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its certainly an innovative strategy. I particularly like the notion that asking a candidate to answer three questions amounts to a pathological process. If the candidate had spent 10% of the effort he's put into insulting people on answering the questions, he'd probably be passing right now. Perhaps someone should mention WP:BEANS and WP:POINT to him? Gwernol 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would involve the sort of pathology he is so against. LOLCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, did you notice, he redacted the answers and the questions!Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was an entertaining read. I will say that I'm impressed by the candidate's bravery, but wow... just, wow. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 11:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insulting the electors 

message: IF we are going to move forward with something like this, then it is imperative that we answer the questions asked since before Discussions for adminship: What problems exist with the current RFA system, and how would this address them? I'll start. -- nae'blis 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think that's the right direction to take. DFA is a solution that might be good or might not be. In short, it's a creation of a solution before the problem is determined. Analogy; it's like saying let's saying let's change all the tires on the car and then finding out that the real problem was loose lugnuts. There's effort above to determine the problems with RfA. That's a good direction to go, in my opinion. --Durin 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to that is to ask questions solely on policy and procedure in duties. If we ask hypothetical questions, asking "what you'd do in a (particular scenario)?", that will make a nominee defensive (especially if the questioner has "other motives"). But his/her answer to the former question will either be strict interpretation or a slightly cautious, make-sure, double check approach - either of this is good for Wikipedia. Keep the questions technical, and not hypothetical or principle-based. The key element is also accountability - the community can exert moral pressure or hold the admin responsible for fulfilling his basic commitments, but this can't be done if the questions are such that the nominee gives no information or a defensive reply. No information and indefinite information are the enemies. Rama's arrow 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is foolish to think that we can control how anybody will vote. But that's not our purpose anyway - if we can provide sufficient information for those concerned about giving somebody janitorial tools, we should be satisfied. Rama's arrow 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems and solutions

message: One thing that can be done to improve the RfA process, would be to create a sort of apprenticeship period for editors, who seem like they will be good admins, but lack the editing history some of the other editors who participate in RfA would like to see.  This should not be applied to editors with less than 3 months experience or 1,000 edits.  Nor will it be applied to  candidates that will breeze through the regular RfA process.  Users who are apprentice admins would not have all the tools of an admin, but can assist in some of the backlog projects.  If they refuse to do so, then they lose their apprentice title in 30 days or some other agreed upon time period.  Ramsquire 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Esperanza's admin coaching is a program that addresses most of your points. Rama's arrow 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not familiar with this program, do you have a link to it? Ramsquire 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:ESP/AC. Titoxd(?!?) 21:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, TawkerbotTorA's recent RFA highlighted that it is not at present possible for bureaucrats to give "some admin tools" without giving others. -- nae'blis 21:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's extensions that can be used to do that, though. Technically, it's just a matter of creating a user group in LocalSettings.php, grant permissions to the group, and then give bureaucrats the ability to grant it and remove it. However, the devs won't do it unless it is generally-agreed to be a good idea, though. Titoxd(?!?) 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One suggestion

message: Is there any way to stop optional questions. Its making the RFA size too long. Also some of these questions are only remotely related to admin stuff, like questions on humour or wikipedia criticising sites. I would want, that if they have optional questions, either ask it inthe RFA talk page or the users talk page --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fair that if the questions don't concern adminship, the nominee should not answer them at all. Rama's arrow 22:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's good to ask questions, but to be honest I think that Q1 (the mandatory one) is often more useless than the optional because the answers are sometimes about as sincere as a politician's promise. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Should have checked here first. Keep the questions on topic please. Asking their favorite joke is disruptive at worst and not helpful at best. That is an extremely tortured connection to WP:COOL you've outlined, and if ability to keep WP:COOL is what you're looking for, ask something more related to it. And keep the number of questions down please. When it gets to be too many irrelevant ones it's not helpful. If you really don't care if the candidate doesn't answer, put them in the comments section. In the questions section they look too official. - Taxman Talk 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I've removed the favorite joke question. But I still feel that a nominee's opinion on keeping a sense of humor reveals much about their temperment. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still at best barely tangential, and I agree it doesn't really get to what you're trying for. The second question is basically redundant with the first and the third is needlessly phrased as a trick question. It all adds up to not being very helpful to the project. I grant you're trying to be helpful, but trying doesn't mean it is actually helpful. - Taxman Talk 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm trying to do is gauge how well the nominee understands policy. The second question is redundant, I should remove it. The third question is tricky, but if a nominee did answer indicating the punitive blocks were acceptable it would be a good indicator that they don't understand the blocking policy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you're not, when you want to know what the funniest joke ever is. -Splash - tk 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then phrase it so it's not a leading question implying they are allowed. - Taxman Talk 21:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to a yes/no question. The nominee can feel free to expand if they wish. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI where a punitive block on an established user was considered, so this question is timely. Do you feel the IAR and SNOW question is appropriate? PS Splash: I've removed the joke question; that's old news. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no reason to stop optional questions.  First of all, they're optional.  There's absolutely no pressure for the candidate to answer them.  Secondly, it's reasonable to assume that most, if not all of the questions being asked will not only give the candidate another platform to engage the community but it also helps the participants get a better feel of the candidate.  We should in no way attempt to restrict participation in RfA's. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did actually see the particular questions I removed, right ? I'm a repeated advocate of the very free hand editors have in RfA; it is not, however, an infinitely-unlimited one. Questions which are of most relevance when asked late at night in a comedy club do not give the candidate, the readers or the questioner anything, least of all a platform of engagement. -Splash - tk 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's where you're missing it too. There is pressure to answer them. They look official, and people oppose based on people not answering them. I don't think we should stop optional questions either, but looking official does mean the questions that get placed should be well thought out and have demonstrable value in helping build an encyclopedia. I don't think these meet that bar. - Taxman Talk 21:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to indicate that you dislike people being opposed based on not answering optionals, Taxman. So, as a bureaucrat, what weight do you put on opposes that read "Oppose. Didn't answer questions 5. ~~~~" when evaluating rfas you're closing? Picaroon9288 01:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sigh. Did we forget what happened in Lightdarkness's RFA when joke questions got out of hand? Remember that having too many optional questions makes an RFA look like War and Peace, and will probably make whoever wants to comment just skip the questions and make an uninformed decision. Same thing happened with the editcount overkill. Titoxd(?!?) 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Optional Questions

message: We now have two candidate sections - both "Current nominations for adminship" and "vote". "Vote" seemed to appear here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=81935424 , and that's clearly not goign to encourage discussion, but I didn't want to tamper with the RfA page to change it back... Inner Earth 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section appearing...