Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship/Archive 1

message: do you mean a developed "user page" or a developed "talk page"? i've never seen an object based on an underdeveloped user page, and i would never dream of objecting on those grounds.(Understandable, given my user page!) Borisblue 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I thought user page. I do look at a user's user page, and I do like to see something that is neat and organized. I think user's pages evolve over time, and I think there are things you can see in a user's page that has been involved for a longer time. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd noticed it somewhere, in someone's criteria. However, I don't recall it being used as the basis for a vote. The Land 09:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User page

message: Did a run through of the article. Changes include:
*RFA -> RfA. I think that looks prettier and is within normal usage on the wiki. 
* "Concensus" to "Consensus". That's how Wikipedia:Consensus spells it at least. 
*re-worded some uses of "you" to be more general, specifically in contexts of negative possibilities that will not apply to all candidates, so I tried to make it less personal, i.e. "A dildo, not your dildo". 
Kudos to those who wrote this, I think it is well needed. 
Cheers, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedits 

message: I removed this statement made by Klonimus: "In practice that means that editor's involved certain area's have a very low chance of sucessful adminship. Particularly contentious areas include the Arab-Israeli conflict, and any political conflict involving muslims as an aggrieved party." 
I'm particularly concerned that such a statement will dissuade strong, conscientious editors who want to be an admin some day from participating on contentious articles on Wikipedia. I think this is precisely the opposite outcome from what we would like to see. Further, even if we are to include such a statement in this guide, I think it needs to be substantiated with evidence to support such a trend.--Durin 16:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to propose an example: my nomination of Thames: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thames. He works almost exlusively on controversial political philosophy articles, yet he passed his RFA easily. His only objections were because of his unwillingness to do sysop chores. If you are civil, you can placate even the most rabid POV-warrior. Borisblue 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. I noted in the guide that participation in conflicts could actually help an RfA, if the nominee's behavior during the conflict was exemplary. --Durin 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement removed 

message: As per Durin's maxim, this thing is never going to be read. I think we need a concise version or something. Borisblue 17:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It's too darn long!

message: Everybody; I'm very pleased with the continued improvement of the guide. Already within 24 hours we've had a bunch of edits by eight different contributors. Fantastic! I think we've really brought out a good project that's been needed for quite some time, and the interest in contributing to the article seems to confirm that. Keep it up! I'd like to see this worked on for a few more days at least before we integrate it as a link on WP:RFA. There's still more material that needs to be added. Yes, I know, that makes it longer :) But, as the Guide to RfA it's not just for nominees anymore. <Dory>"Just keep editing, just keep editing..."</Dory> --Durin 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued improvement of the guide 

message: Very useful page taking shape here. 
What about the "requirement" that you accept e-mail? Should that get listed in here? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Email requirement 

message: One extract: Some editors have left Wikipedia as a consequence of an RfA that has gone poorly. This should not be a consequence, as this process does not judge an editor's value to Wikipedia. Like it or not, to some extent it is just this. True, I don't recall votes saying something like "Oppose, crummy editor", but I do often see variations on Extreeem supercalifragialisticexpialadocious support! Putativeadmin is a great editor!" -- Hoary 06:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting comments Hoary, all of them. Discussion within and related to RfA over the last month have left me feeling that no concensus is ever going to be reached on how to improve RfA. There are some very strong opinions on a whole host of matters. I'm now fairly convinced that there needs to be some feedback mechanism to measure the RfA process. Failing feedback mechanisms (which are going to be very, very difficult to create), control structures are the next best reasonable means of conducting the RfA process in any semblance of order. Once this guide goes live, people will be using it as a reference point. I'm especially keen to see how the section on advice for RfA contributors evolves. Regardless of how we proceed on this guide, it will have an influence on the culture of RfA. If we use it simply to model current RfA behavior, it might serve only to confirm the current behavior as acceptable and normal. I think this would be a bad thing. There's a troubling trend developing. Since October 17, we've had 49 RfAs brought (not including Stevertigo's which was a very unusual case). Of those, 16 were withdrawn/closed early. That's roughly a third of all RfAs in that time period. Prior to this, the going rate was about 10%. Two weeks may be insufficient to provide a valid statistical basis that something is wrong, but it is at least troubling. If we use this guide as only a statement on what RfA is now, it might actually make things worse. Having some standards that contributors are expected to abide by would be a positive step in my opinion. --Durin 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something in what you say, Durin, but I think that the relevant howto/policy/whatever pages explain what people should be doing fairly well, and of course if if anyone thinks they don't then he's welcome to change them -- or at least to suggest changes on the relevant talk page. I really thought that this was to be a guide to what may well happen, and how to avoid the worst of it (or how to ride though it without getting too seasick), and perhaps even how to make it moderately pleasant (which I suspect it usually is). I don't think that a pretence that the process is other than it is is helpful for this. But I take your point that it's not good to do anything that encourages more silliness. Then how about just skipping anything about how people are or aren't nominated or voted for on the strength of their edits? I do like the miniguide, to which my main addition would be: "Look at what happened for some recent successes, and also choose among some of these failures". (I might phrase it more invitingly/politely: I'm just a bit sleepy now.) -- Hoary 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On qualities as an editor

message: I've filled out the General advice for RfA contributors section. Probably needs improvement. There's some replication of earlier material. Not sure that needs to be resolved per se though. --Durin 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ed Poor (current admin, former bureaucrat) modifed a number of votes on my RfA  that had a number of similar votes. Also, it's been mentioned before on RfA talk. --Durin 14:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fair enough. Not sure that 'consternation' isn't a step too far though. (Also is there a case that powerful expressions of support are a good thing - counterbalancing the powerful negativity?) The Land 14:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Doubtful. Votes are votes, be they support or zOMG! HE'S NOT AN ADMIN ALREADY! HOW CAN ANYONE VOTE OPPOSE?!?!?!! ULTRA SUPER MAJOR MEGA MASSIVE UBER LESBIAN TRAPPED IN MALE BODY SUPPORT (and Jimbo help us if votes get that ridiculous! :) --Durin 15:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Mmm. I take the point, but I think RfA candidates are as affected by the tone of comments as the actual votes. Isn't the point of this guide to stop people going home because someone's said "I will never vote for anyone who's too stupid to use edit summaries" or suchlike? The Land 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the point is to encourage decorum on RfA. We can't be accountable for nominee's reactions to their RfA. Harsh as this sounds, Wikipedia is not counseling service. We should strive to run RfA in as fair a manner as possible. If we make good faith efforts to do that (such as this guide), how a nominee responds to their RfA isn't something for which we should be held accountable. --Durin 15:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New General advice for RfA contributors section 

message: I have started a Mini-Guide which basically replicate most of what is here in a very minimalist way. Please check it out and comment. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What more do you think I should add or remove? It is a wiki, so you can do it yourself if you really wanted to, but I only got around to doing it for the nominees. Do you think that section needs more? Perhaps something like what was mentioned a few lines up? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'll add some later. Head down in the trenches right now :) --Durin 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA Mini-Guide 

message: We now read: RfA is the means by which the Wikipedia community develops concensus on whether an editor should be given Administrator rights.... I believe that consensus is the more normal spelling. True, the voters don't decide, a bureaucrat decides. But as I understand it, the bureaucrat almost always follows a clear algorithm for what to do when there are certain patterns of votes: in effect, the voters decide. And look, rather than all this worthy but windy stuff about how the Wikipedia community develops consensus etc, can't this just be a straightforward guide to what to do and what not to do? (Policy is already explained elsewhere.) Increasingly, the Mini-Guide seems a more palatable alternative.  -- Hoary 15:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the limited scope of the mini-guide. I had only started it, and haven't finished it (it's a wiki, so will it ever really be finished? 8^) ). I have added the header for other conributors, but was too busy yesterday to really add anything substantive. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *If I might suggest, let's limit the mini-guide strictly to advice for nominees. Else the scope of the mini-guide and GRFA are the same. Plus, the longer the mini-guide the less likely it will be read by a nominee. --Durin 17:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine if that's the way people think we should go. I was just originally thinking it would be a guide with the same scope as the full guide, but much more concise and informal. Perhaps just include brief advice for nominees and brief advice for "voters". Exclude advice for nominators, and all that consensus stuff. I guess the question is, How long is too long? People are much more likely to read bullet points, I think, and that could allow for more stuff. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I think the goal of the mini-guide should be to get would-be nominees from accepting or making nominations of themselves before they are ready. Beyond that, I think the GRFA should be used. --Durin 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I am going to move it into the Wikipedia namespace. Now for a title... I'll get back to you all. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "Some short way". Ha. Okay, how about Wikipedia:Nominees' miniguide to requests for adminship and WP:NMGRFA. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I didn't say I had the answer :-) How about Wikipedia:Nominee guide to RfA and WP:NGRFA? --Durin 00:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a little wary of using NGRFA because it seems a little close to "nigger". I don't think we should be responsible for how people perceive things, but I'm just trying to look out for all angles. We don't want people trying to shout down this because of a perceived racial slur. Maybe I'm just looking to hard into it. Plus the offical title should probably be spelled out. Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship (nominee) and WP:MGRFA? --LV (Dark Mark) 14:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The guide makes enough mention of RfA contributors, and in my opinion WP:MRFA and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship work well. It would be worth stressing that contributors must Strictly observe Wikipedia:Civility. ...dave souza 02:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Developing consensus and all that

message: Before my recent edit:
*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected out of hand based on that simple measure. Whether that is proper or not is beyond the scope of this guide. A nominee with less than 1,000 edits needs to accept that it is what happens. Being prepared to answer such concerns is in the best interest of the nominee. Nominations of editors below 1,000 edits have succeeded in the past. A potential nominee should not assume they should not accept a nomination if they have less than 1,000 edits. Rather, they should be prepared to respond on this point or better yet explain up front in their nomination acceptance why they think they would nevertheless make a good administrator. Those with more than 1,000, but well under 2,000, edits may face concerns but many such nominees have passed. [plus stuff about three months]
After my recent edit, the rather less wordy:
*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. [plus stuff about three months]
After a more recent edit (not by me!), a reintroduction of the <2000wd stuff:
*Nominees with less than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with less than 1,000 edits have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. Editors with less than three months of active experience on Wikipedia can expect similar concerns. Those editors with more than 1,000, but well under 2,000, edits may face concerns but many such nominees have passed.
I'm asked (in edit summaries) to explain my edits on this discussion page. All right then: If people with fewer than X edits are less likely to succeed but yet may still succeed, isn't it pretty obvious that people with between X and 2X edits may have some trouble but are more likely to succeed? Nudge them to look at earlier RfAs and they'd then see for themselves various edit counts and results.
My new, improved version:
*Nominees with fewer than 1,000 edits are less likely to succeed. Many nominations have been rejected for this alone. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to explain why you nevertheless believe you're qualified. Better, explain this before you're asked. [plus stuff about three months]
Unless perhaps we accept that some among the potential administrator nominees are thick, and therefore need everything explained ever so gently and ploddingly. But wait: such people may not be able to digest such a monstrous quantity of text.
Short and simple does it. -- Hoary 15:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And, does the brevity really matter here? If we intend to move the mini-guide into the Wikipedia namespace, this can be, and should be, as detailed as possible. We should strive to be as helpful as possible and every angle should be looked at. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I think everyone's goal is to have this be a valuable tool to RfAs, but we need to explain things to people. That is the point of having a miniguide. That way, people can get the info and if they have more questions, they can check with the full guide. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining the obvious, etc.

message: I've noticed demands for the mysterious Diffs, and eventually the instruction to right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location" to get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post. Is this something all potential Admins are expected to either know, or be capable of finding out themselves, or should such instructions be included in the Other controversy section? ...dave souza 19:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just say that some people were making a big issue of someone's inability to provide diffs in a recent high profile case. Sounds worthwhile to provide simple instructions, or a link to where they're found. For Mac OS X users it's ctrl-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy Link to Clipboard" to get a diff : presumably we should be platform agnostic ...dave souza 19:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diffs for "Other controversy"?

message: Due to legal threats, unremitting personal attacks against me, and demands in an RfC by User:Kelly Martin that I either acquiesce or leave Wikipedia, I am leaving Wikipedia. The WP:GRFA has been a good community effort to positively improve the RfA process. I hope that somebody else will step forward and move this project forward with inclusion in the RfA process in appropriate places. 
I hope that someday people will take the incivility in the RfA/RfB process seriously. People are routinely attacking the messenger rather than the message. I recently attempted to advise several people of their incivil attacks, but was at every opportunity roundly criticized for it. In the worst case, I've been accused of libel. What a travesty this process has become. --Durin 15:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone else needs to take point

message: Any objections to placing this guide for WP:MD? It's obvious that with people like Ambi who refuse to listen and the constant revert warring that is now happening, this guide will never see the light of day. I think it would, at this point, be better to delete this guide and left RfA continue to devolve into a hopeless mess so that Ambi, Tony, and others of like mind can eventually be convinced that it is needed to show what RfA is now, and not what it's supposed to be. I think we're going to have to sacrifice a lot more editors at the altar before we can move forward. --Durin 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. It would be much more of a hopeless mess, and would cost us quite a lot more editors, if this exercise in violating WP:BEANS were to be thrust into practice without any consensus to do so. Ambi 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *It's a mess now because you insist on edit warring to push your point of view into the article rather than actually engaging in any meaningful debate, as was the norm before you and Tony showed up to gut this article. --Durin 18:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it to MfD. It's useless. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, bah. I'm not trying to push my point of view into the article; I'm trying to push yours out. You, however, remain insistent that it must support your views and yours only, or it must die. And there was no debate before we came along: there was two or three people who shared a POV and tried to write an official "guide" to support that POV. Ambi 18:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should have written, "It's useless... to try and have a rational conversation with you." I hope you were refering to Durin and not me, because I have never tried to incorporate my POV or standards into the guide. And there was plenty of discussion before this came along. Durin didn't even write the base article this guide was founded on. And it isn't two or three, it is many, have you looked at the history? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Uh, that's 15 people including 2 bureaucrats...not two or three people. The "two or three people" in this equation far more aptly describes yours and Tony's actions, not ours. --Durin 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * What people? This page has been you, LV, and Borisblue arguing against the changes, and me and Tony arguing for. That's hardly an overwhelming consensus in your favour, so quit the righteous tone. Ambi 06:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *My righteous tone? *laugh* that's rich! Let me remind you, again, that it's you that's been doing the revert waring. If you'd look at the edit history of the article, you'd see there are 15 people, including 2 bureaucrats, who have worked on the article. --Durin 13:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * It's very odd then that only the three people who share your view have come to defend your version of this draft; surely if those 15, including the two bureaucrats, were so keen on your version, they'd have appeared to defend it. And as I just said above, please don't try to suggest that I'm the only one reverting here; it takes two to tango. Perhaps you could try attempting a compromise for a change and drop the "my way or the highway" attitude. Ambi 15:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Pot? Kettle? Black? I'm not the one doing the reverting. As for compromise, hey I'm all for it. Perhaps I should take cue from you and revert back to the version that I think is right? --Durin 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've already made an effort to compromise, as with Borisblue above, but you've done nothing but scream righteous rage. You haven't even once shown the slightest desire to give the slightest ground at all. Ambi 15:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Quite the contrary my friend, quite the contrary. Please recall that I haven't edited the article in two weeks. Thank you, and try to have a nice day. --Durin 17:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Next time, read the comment then reply. I didn't say anything about reverts or editing the article. I said that you've shown absolutely no desire to give the slightest ground at all and have instead done nothing but scream righteous rage - all of which has happened right here. Ambi 17:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Place this guide for deletion