Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 94

message: Right, so as I understand it, there is a random jury for each RfA and these are the people who decide if the candidate passes or now, right, I have some major concerns with this...
#I thought wikipedia was not supposed to be a bureaucracy? This seams far more bureaucratic than the current system. It's a far more complicated process which also only allows a limited community view i.e. the chosen few.
#What if someone outside the jury has a major concern? How are they supposed to raise it? In a normal RfA, they could simply oppose with their reasons - allowing a transparent view of the candidate.
#There are many valued contributors here who wouldn't have a clue what is required to be an administrator, why should we give these the sole ability to get a candidate promoted? I can see opposes for "spending too much time in wikipedia space". If this goes ahead - people should volunteer their services and then be picked at random from that group - we're not a court service.
Sorry to put a damper on it, I just feel this proposal is far worst than the current model. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer the option you raise in point 3. As for point 2, people have always been able to raise major concerns, and that wouldn't change. Raising a major concern should be just that, raising it and discussing it. Not raising it and providing a single oppose vote. Major concerns should lead to discussion and several people deciding to support or oppose after the discussion. Finally, arriving in reverse order at point 1, the community can still express their view, but in the form of discussion on the RfA page, rather than voting. I also share your concerns with the excess bureaucracy in this proposal, but haven't been able to think of ways to reduce it (yet). Carcharoth 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: Am I allowed to remove nominations that exceeds its time limit, with results of "Pending, awaiting bureaucrat's decision"? And can I then create a link somewhere in WP:RFA that links to a page that stores all the pending nominations? Would that reduce some work for 'crats? Aquarius • talk 16:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't really save any work. We already have the bot trackers that tell us when they are due to close. And we've generally held that nominations are open for comment until they are officially closed by a bureacrat under the idea that it's consensus we're looking for, not votes. - Taxman Talk 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreschi is overdue. Majorly (hot!) 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would just seem really tedious. As Taxman said, TangoBot makes hourly update of the status of all current RfAs, and it also highlights those that need to be closed. You can see it at WP:BN. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overdue requests 

message: Is 22 23 concurrently running RfAs the record? —Kyриx 04:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point -- does it still have a Problem? — Dan | talk 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be trite to say it but the best way to get more admins is to nominate more people... Changes to the RfA process may help or they may not, but I wonder if time would be better spent finding good candidates than worrying about the system we have for confirming them. WjBscribe 05:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bigger problem I'm finding these days is getting good, experienced candidates to agree to a nomination. A growing number of people who would use the tools with distinction are seeing the flak that flies your way simply by having a toolbelt, and are deciding that its not something they fancy. Rockpocket 06:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the most since Tangobot started using descriptive edit summaries last July. Someone knows, I'm sure (probably NoSeptember). And I'll have to agree with Rockpocket about the current issue. Dekimasuよ! 11:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. I've tried to take up the challenge to nominate more people, but of the six I've asked so far, three have declined outright and three asked to wait. And my first nominee didn't pass... *sigh*  -- nae'blis 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we blame it on Snowolf for stacking up WP:RFA! Four of the candidates were nominated by him. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem that in recent weeks there have been more RfA candidates and they are getting approved at a higher rate than before. It might be worthwhile to give the current situation time to see if it is a fluke or if it will maybe hold up for awhile, before proceeding with any more reform proposals. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why RfA is attacked for those things. Even if every single desysopping is the fault of RfA for letting someone bad through, and a full eighth of the people who were not promoted should have been, it still has above a 90% success rate. That's an A in my book. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Splash is being sarcastic. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA record? 

message: Can anyone here remember how they first heard about WP:RFA? I've been randomly flicking through various lists of random users (generated for the proposal being discussed above) and I'm wondering just how many regular editors aren't even aware of much of the bureaucracy underlying (or frothing on the top of) Wikipedia? It might be interesting to see how many users asked at random by the above proposal become involved in RFA, or even realise that they themselves could one day ask the community for approval to use these tools. I'm asking how people first heard about RfA because I have encountered some strange attitudes out there that seem to think of admins as being able to rule on content issues, and wonder how much the role of admins is misunderstood (or not) by editors in general. So add your story to the section below. Carcharoth 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I can sympathize with that. I occasiionally thought about self-noms, but if I had I would have felt so... dirty somehow.. go figure. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the instant you made your first edit (presumably at the time you joined, as it was to create your userpage), RfA looked like this. It's interesting how times have changed... --ais523 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting to look back. I was there a few weeks before that, but wanted a watchlist to monitor the reaction to my Harry Blackmun rewrite. Look, Ma, no sources! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First awareness of RfA 

message: *Visited the user page of an editor I was talking with and saw something there about them being an admin. After seeing a few more references, I eventually followed it up and read some of the documentation (eg. Wikipedia:Administrators). From what I can tell, my first contribution to this talk page was in September 2006, while I first commented in an RfA in April 2006. Carcharoth 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I can sympathize with that. I occasiionally thought about self-noms, but if I had I would have felt so... dirty somehow.. go figure. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the instant you made your first edit (presumably at the time you joined, as it was to create your userpage), RfA looked like this. It's interesting how times have changed... --ais523 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting to look back. I was there a few weeks before that, but wanted a watchlist to monitor the reaction to my Harry Blackmun rewrite. Look, Ma, no sources! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First became aware of admins and adminship

message: Maybe this should also be added on RFA talk pages since this includes deleted edits. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wannabe Kate gives a more detailed breakdown of the work the user does, not mere numbers. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying drop Kate. I'm saying have both. This one shows deleted edits. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: hmmmm, how is it supposed to work? It doesn't work on my laptop. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get a number of lines of code but the count can be seen sitting between <count> and </count> (if that's what you see). Will (aka Wimt) 21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats right Wimt. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I get a lower number there (5718) than from Wannabe Kate (5814). Is it missing some namespaces or lagging behind somehow? –Pomte 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get a massively inflated figure; no doubt because, as part of WP:WSS I end up prodding a lot of articles which go on to be deleted. If it could be cleaned up to generate bar charts as Kate does, it could produce a more accurate pattern of activity - but if most of an edits are to now-deleted articles, might that lead to "all your edits sucked and were deleted" claims? Flogging a dead horse argument, but once you get over the 1000 or so "not just a flash in the pan" mark, edit counts don't mean much. I made 600 edits in a single day last week breaking up :Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom into smaller categories, but it took less time & effort than the single edit I made last week which brought Metcall from start to GA class. What would be useful is something that gave separate counts for minor and major edits —  iridescent (talk to me!) 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simply reading the edit count field in the database, which uses a different definition of 'edit count'. It doesn't do any sort of paging through Special:Contributions at all (and so is much nicer on the servers than most edit coutners), and would be highly difficult to change. --ais523 11:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Edit Count 

message: I really do hope that these candidates, most of whom are clearly going to succeeed will actully follow through on their promises to spend time in WP:CSD. Because I, and a few others am working my butt off there.--Anthony.bradbury 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes do deletion sprees there, but it isn't a promise. In my rfA for example, I said I'd avoid deleting stuff! ;) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, in my RfA I mentioned that I'd spend time at WP:RFPP, though I don't think I've edited there much more than a half dozen times since. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlogs 

message: Should inactivity be seen as a criteria for opposing people?? I think it depends on the situation, really.
In my RFA I was criticised for not being active enough, but I do have legitimate reasons for doing so (and fairly recently, I haven't been that active as I used to be due to the following):
* My Windows XP (Home edition) has been sluggish recently and playing up, sometimes taking ages to start-up
* I have other real-life issues that mean it is hard to edit Wikipedia, due to me being on the move.
If people mention that they may be inactive they should say so in their RFA. I will mention this if I am ever nominated for RFA.
However, people shouldn't just treat inactivity as criteria for opposition - they may have mitigating circumstances, like mine above.
This isn't a rant, or an attack on contributors, just a suggestion that people should try and assume good faith if people are inactive for a period of time. --SunStar Net talk 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not active long enough" makes sense, "recent inactivity" does not. -- John Reaves (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactivity as criteria for "oppose" 

message: On administrators.  I've rarely contributed to this talk page because I've felt that for a long time we've had a question without an answer: what is the bottom line in why being a sysop is no big deal, but the process is rigorous/biased/broken?  Trust, how to use discretion, judgment and be accountable as well.  I think that we've been over thinking things for far too long.  Feel free to edit, provide sources and links and whatnot.  If not, I'll get to it.
"Simplify, simplify." ~Thoreau.
Teketalk 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed two admin powers; admins also have the ability to create user accounts even if the account name is similar to an existing one or they've already created 6 accounts that day; and admins cannot be autoblocked or affected by a block on their IP. (Neither of these comes up all that often for most adminship work, but WP:ACC work takes up quite a proportion of my log.) --ais523 11:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Unwatchedpages too? GDonato (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Editprotected and move pages despite move protection (see WP:MOP). GDonato (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much, page updated.  Basically, I want this to be a reference for "Can I trust the user with these abilities?" with a clearcut transparency of what a sysop can do, and why it is a big deal in not being a big deal.  Teketalk 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You also missed "abuse magnet", which I think is the most surprising ability of an administrator. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, I wrote out an essay 

message: I'm really annoyed by the recent concerns about canvassing, because I think it isn't an issue that should be so influential in RfA's.  I think that we should be allowed to tell the community about our RfA's, as an effective way of increasing participation.  And I think that a good way to do this is using something similar to , which can be put on a user's userpage to announce that they are undergoing an RfA.  We should still punish blatant "vote-whoring" (for lack of a better word), but I think there should be SOME notification of an RfA, so that those who know the user (for good or bad reasons) don't miss out. G1ggy! 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's pretty solid consensus that banners on your userpage are perfectly fine. Isn't there? -Amarkov moo! 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope so! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who oppose canvassers are simply clutching at straws, and are simply desperate to oppose for something. Sheesh, it's an admin, big deal. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I clutch at straws? Would a capable admin need to canvass for votes in the first place? —Kyриx 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A competent admin shouldn't need to canvas for votes. A simple banner on your userpage/talk page is fine. But adding things to others talk pages and to your sig is going too far. If a user doesn't understand the basic policies like canvassing they aren't ready for adminship. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. Please explain how they aren't trustworthy. I'll find you some examples of canvassing if you like, of one of our best admins. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a user who doesn't understand policy ready for adminship? If they are attempting to skew consensus in their RfA what's to say they won't use the tools to go against consensus? --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen. I don't understand policy like the back of my hand either. Does it make me a bad admin? No. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canvassing isn't some obscure policy most people haven't heard about. It's fairly simple to understand. Don't attempt to sway consensus by seeking editors with similar view points. An editor going for RFA should be familiar with all the basic policies. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd never even heard of it when I was promoted. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably you had heard of Wikipedia:Consensus, though. That implies no one-sided canvassing. -- nae'blis 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be because it didn't exist then. -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did actually. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You'd think that an RfA candidate would take the time to read the guide to RfA which is pretty clear about how canvassing is frowned upon. Like I said in Booksworm RfA, editors who have befriended you on Wikipedia are the most likely to know your strengths but they're also the ones most likely to be oblivious to your faults and so canvassing tends to skew consensus. How would we react if somebody started canvassing people who have been in conflict with candidates? Surely we would not find this acceptable but I fail to see why canvassing people you've colaborated with is more acceptable. Pascal.Tesson 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is confusing at first glance, yes, but it becomes second nature. I don't find anything wrong if an RfA candidate (current or potential) asks for clarification regarding this topic. Ask away. —Kyриx 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Going back to my RfA, after receiving a request to run, I'd asked 2 admins to pre-clear my candidacy, highlighting specific issues that I wanted feedback on.  One wasn't active at the time, so I asked a third in his place.  When I was ready to accept a nomination a month later, that wasn't an issue for anyone.  (I think I mentioned it in my general comments, but don't now recall; I know nobody mentioned it in opining.)  GRBerry 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started work on a prospective banner for this.    There's a to do list in the source code (commented), please have a look at this.  Opinions, suggestions? G1ggy! 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record I think even that is a bad idea and I'm not sure why it should be considered helpful. It's not like RfA is lacking in participation. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find anything wrong with such templates, as long as they're plain and neutral. —Kyриx 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh for pete's sake!  has existed since October 2005, just use it instead of reinventing the wheel. -- nae'blis 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't one for RfB, and while it will get used far less often, I've created one: . ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah.... :-) Re-inventing the wheel. Almost as bad as adding a 4-day-late comment! Full marks to G1ggy for boldness. One question though, did G1ggy look and fail to find the existing template (if so, why?), or did G1ggy just not look? Carcharoth 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully the "I couldn't find it" argument won't exist anymore; I just added "See also" sections to  and  that link one to the other. Their uses are similar enough that I think it's a worthwhile addition. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People could also use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Rfa-notice to see who is using it. And then cry foul about canvassing... (that was a joke!). Or even to read old discussions about it (lots of links to the WT:RFA archives). Seriously, the 'what links here' reveals it is not linked from any WP:RFA page, when surely it should be. Where would be a good place at WP:RFA to mention it, along with strongly worded warnings about canvassing? Carcharoth 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which strikes me as the most sensible place. I also included a little mention about how canvassing is akin to ensuring a failure; seemed like a good way to kill two birds with one stone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since my coding sucks (for lack of a better word), could someone please have a look at that template, and code it so that there is an option for 2nd, 3rd, 4th RfA's. G1ggy! 08:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Wikifriends probably visit each others' talk pages at least once a week. The template  on a user page should work well for them; and the nice thing about this template is that you can't control or predict who will visit your talk page, so there's no opportunity for partisan notifications and vote-stacking. ··coelacan 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I use Tangotango's report for. It sits on my userpage and I look at it every couple of days to see who's there. Doesn't everybody (at least, everybody who cares what's happening at RfA) use that? Kafziel Talk 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only bot page that shows RfBs is User:Dragons flight/RFA summary, so don't forget to check that one from time to time. NoSeptember 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I use WP:BN sometimes, but more often User:Mathbot/Most recent admin (which I have watchlisted). The page itself is pretty useless, but its history alerts people to RfAs starting. --ais523 12:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for 2 very good tips (Kafziel and ais523). I have wanted something that warns me about users running for RfA for a long time, now it is more or less luck if I happen on anyone that I know of that I really want to vote for. This should help. Stefan 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Prejudicial canvassing is not OK, but the user I nominated did not do so. His so-called "canvassing" was neutral as it was sent to all users appeared in his talk page, not just ones supporting him. Anyways, using this obscure guideline as the sole reason to oppose is not a good practice. WooyiTalk to me? 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was going to alert users, he could've said "if you're going to comment", not "if you're going to support". Interpreted one way, that could also mean if you're not going to support, don't go there. (though I doubt the user meant that). Still, the user shouldn't have said "support". --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's known as nitpicking. Who cares how he said it. Doesn't affect his admin abilitiy. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good canvasser will know the difference that sort of difference in wording would make. And even if someone's first RfA goes badly because of this, waiting til next time doesn't hurt. Carcharoth 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't hurt but it's completely unnecessary. People complain about lazy admins and RfA being broken - it's them that cause it! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't oppose on the basis of canvassing alone, but if it was part of some larger behavior I would. Like an obviously desperate attempt to get the power just for the sake of having it. Quadzilla99 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent canvassing concerns 

message: Please see User:SunStar Net/RFA Reform/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SunStar Net - and actually vote in this one.
It's dual-purpose: it tests out a new format, and it also will be a useful guide on what I need to improve to become an admin,
If it works, it works, if it doesn't.... oh well, I can always try again with a new format! --SunStar Net talk 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this is any different to the current system, except possibly mixing the support and oppose !votes in the same section. What is going to make people give better reasons than they do now? --Tango 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please list this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. But I have to agree with Tango; there would basically be no difference here as compared to how things are today. Also, remember that having a bunch of support/oppose !votes from established users does actually say something about a candidate, even if they haven't given any reasons as to why. As for my own opinion, I feel that we need a bigger change in the process; this would only change some of the wording in the policies, without actually having any practical effects. Bjelleklang  -  talk Bug Me 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and correct me if I'm wrong but it's not like too many people fell in love with the Moralis format! Pascal.Tesson 04:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I thought the format of that RfA was a lot like love ... lacking order and logic and progressively complicated and messy. ;) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only thing better would be to Javascript it to so each opinion randomly floats around on the article page. --Ozgod 05:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... maybe even with this as a snapshot ... -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. I personally dislike messy stuff so counting of support/oppose !votes will be harder to count this way. The new format proposed would not make any difference and it just changes the looks of an RFA page, nothing else. Not everyone will give reasons for supporting an RFA candidate, so why the change? Terence 09:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Counting the "!votes" is irrelevant, since RfA is not a vote, but a consensus garnering mechanism. The votes are meaningless. --Durin 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still questioning the use of question number 4 regarding arbitration enforcement. Either way, I'm not really a fan of the Moralis format. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA format idea - new proposal 

message: What is the policy on this? There were also several personal attacks by this sockpuppet in the discussion, and he ridiculously accused the user who was being considered for AFD of using a sockpuppet and made several other personal attacks to the user who had been accused of being a sockpuppet of the user being considered. Should these comments be deleted, striked through, or simply have a comment written under them? I think that they're so absurd and irrelevant that they shouldn't remain in the discussion. hmwithtalk 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any contribution by a banned user can be reverted on sight; see WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits and WP:CSD#G5. --ais523 07:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by banned sockpuppet of banner user