Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 109

message: Wikidudeman says:
: Too many people are becoming administrators who simply aren't qualified for it. The results are wheel warring, admins breaking 3rr, lack of civility, etc, etc.
This isn't an isolated comment. There are many similar comments about the existing administrators.  However I'd never seen anyone who has made this assertion ever back it up with evidence.
Perhaps somebody would like to compile a list of RFCS on user conduct, and use of administrator privileges brought on administrators in the past six months or so, in which there has been consensus that the administrator has acted uncivilly, wheel warred, or broken other policies including but not limited to the three revert rule.  I don't think anybody has done this.
Perhaps that same person would also like to look at arbitration cases brought, for further evidence of seriously abusive actions by administrators.  I don't think anybody has done this.
I say that this is necessary because, on the face of it, there is no reason to believe these assertions that we have many administrators who are unfit to be administrators. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Míkka, While RFA does sometimes filter out the worst people, it has two problems: 1. It doesn't filter out the people who will cause problems down the road who's previous behavior could predict such or lack of any behavior for that matter due to lack of time here. 2. It frequently gets rid of the most qualified people who simply edit the most controversial articles and thus unavoidably make enemies from POV pushers. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here and here are just two examples. I won't discuss their validity here. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both archived now: here and here respectively.   I think that even you will agree that Moriori's odd behavior is untypical.  I can recall this happening once before in my three years on this site.  Dbachmann's inappropriate behavior was, as you see, quickly and capably handled by other administrators.  Of course we all have very different expectations of administrators, but these cases don't at first sight seem to support the idea that there is substantial rampant, unchecked abusive behavior by sysops--indeed, given the outcomes, rather the reverse. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep an eye on that page and you'll see new ones coming up often. Note also that if a non-admin had done what Dbachmann did, it's highly unlikely they would have been unblocked so quickly. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I watch the page more or less constantly.  See also my comments (at the end of the section cited, on an alleged case of highly abusive sysopping, here.  --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: I've recently decided that the real problem with RFA (well, one of them, anyway) is that people get very emotional about it.  Many editors seem to regard opposition to RFA as some kind of terrible thing, almost like a personal attack of some sort.  Where did this bizarre outlook come from?  The same emotions seem to get in the way whenever there's talk about removing the bit- people get very defensive.  No opinion given about someone's suitability for adminship should ever be regarded as a statement about whether they're a good person.  Yet we very frequently see people talking of who "deserves" the bit.  It's about exactly one thing: would giving the bit to a particular editor help the project?  All other arguments are bupkis.  Yet, these other arguments seem to dominate.  Am I way off base here?  What causes this, and how can we stop it? Friday (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the cause is the misguided notion that a successful RfA is affirmation of the candidates efforts and hard work. It's really just an extra set of responsibilities, but most people see it in terms of what they've done, not what they'll do. Leebo T/C 14:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As most of us don't have precognition, the only means we have to guess at what they'll do is to look at what they've done. Past performance isn't a guarantee of future results, but it's a pretty solid way to bet. Argyriou (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)It seems to me that it must be perceived as a kind of personal attack to oppose an RfA, no matter how gently done or how well intended. (And I have opposed, so I'm recognizing as I type this that sometimes this is necessary. And I'm talking about the reception of the opposition, not the offering of it.) If it was simply a consideration of "potentially no value added" by giving the tools to a nominee, there'd be no reason to oppose. After all, the reason these tools are restricted is because some people might misuse them (intentionally or otherwise). Declining them to an individual is, in my opinion, putting them into the category of people you suspect of potential misuse. Removing the tool is even more emotionally delicate, since there you aren't saying, "I think you might misuse the tools", but "I think you have". I don't suppose it's possible to question somebody's judgment to that level without making them feel a bit under attack. :) About all we can do is remind people active in such discussions to be respectful—as the RfA page does—and encourage people who are not respectful to reconsider their approach. I think RfA requires almost herculean acts of "assuming good faith", particularly on the part of a nominator or nominee facing significant opposition. It would be nice if everyone contributing could remain sensitive to the feelings of others. But if everybody did that, we wouldn't need so many administrators; certainly, there'd be no AIV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Leebo. When editors realise adminship is a chore and not a medal, and that no-one is "desrving" of it just "ready and prepared to assume the responsibility" RfA might calm down a bit (not that it will ever happen). The oft quoted "no big deal" is used far too often in the wrong context. Having admin rights is no big deal. What administrators can do is a big deal. One admin range blocking the US senate, or the UK Parliament (for example) would be sure to get Wikipedia a good slagging off in the media, no matter how quickly it was undone. (WP:BEANS on toast anyone). Admins are merely responsible custodians of the good name of this work; This is proved by looking at the uses the tools bring - the ability to remove or revert inappropriate content, and to use preventative blocking to maintain integrity. Admins are not better editors or better people. Pedro :  Chat   15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfft, speak for yourself; I've got a big shiny medal on my wall that says "I am an admin on en.wp, which makes me a better person than everyone else". I make sure to remind all my friends of this in real life, too... in an unrelated matter, nobody returns my phone calls. Strange. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try printing out all your barnstars, or making shiny aluminum-foil versions of them, and pinning them to a hat.  Wear it to all social functions.  Hell, never remove it.  Works for me!  - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I know this has been brought up umpteen times but there is also the variable that all participants in RfAs bring individual standards of achievement to the table. IOW, the yardsticks seem to be from an inch to a kilometer with some editors using circles, cubes and buildings rather than a linear standard. As much as I'd like to believe standards for granting adminship could be distilled to a fairly basic set of applied benchmarks, the reality is participants in RfAs give undue weight to all sorts of stats or personal prejudices. Add to this some participants who have a limited understanding of the actual day-to-day activities of an admin and you have an unrealistic view of adminship. Some people don't get that the "mop and bucket" is not just an funny metaphor but a surprisingly apt description of daily activities of an admin: housekeeping and cleaning up messes. You even see it in some of the self-noms particularly who think it's all power and prestige and a kind of award for their "service" to WP, ie, being longtime editors. And it's not like the reality isn't laid out thoroughly in, say, the three main questions in RfAs or the descriptions of admin responsibilities. Hell, I'm halfway through my own RfA and I'm still not sure I have an accurate sense of the daily responsibilities I will be picking up if I'm promoted. If I, having done a little research and observation as well as a year of editing before committing to the process, am still unclear, it suggests a more general lack of understanding. (I'm apparently in a philosophical and rambling mood.) Pigmanwhat?/trail 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Bibliomaniac15 reminded me of a fear I see often in RfAs: That once promoted, new admins might just go hog-wild (if I may use a phrase) with their new powers. Additionally that somehow the new admin will not be accountable for their actions, that they will be able to do all sorts of bad things without being noticed. As if they would disappear from most editor's radar with the use of the buttons. Does that ever really happen? Yes, I know there are occasional de-sysopings but, really, how realistic is such a fear? I think I'm actually asking this question, not just in a rhetorical sense. Pigmanwhat?/trail 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree- the worry about someone going hog wild is not a very valid concern.  Of far greater concern are those who demonstrate a pattern of poor judgement (or even, occasionally, other problematic behavior), but without doing anything crazy enough to get emergency desysopped.  Those are the admins who do the most damage.  Friday (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real problem with RFA 

message: What happens if an RFA ended? Mine has ended on October 12, 2007. TobytheTramEngine 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your RfA does not have the questions answered, and has no support or opposes etc, so ther is nothing to do with it. Qst 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Well, some questions I tried to answer aren't encyclopedic. TobytheTramEngine 17:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Weren't encyclopedic? I don't understand, if the answers were not encyclopedic, wouldn't that mean you had no encyclopedic contributions (I'm sure you do, just enquiring). Qst 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Oh. Shall I be more careful? Well, it's too late for me to answer the questions. Sorry. TobytheTramEngine 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, if you created the RfA as a self nom and changed your mind, you are allowed to re open it, if you feel you're ready for adminship. Qst 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Leebo's advice seems correct. The end time would be adjusted to 7 days after you added your nomination to WP:RFA - it doesn't mean anything before then. I have to agree with the assessment that you prob don't have the amount of experience that is currently expected of adminship candidates. You seem to be doing good work though. I you don't want to run for adminship at this time, you can request the page be deleted by adding  to it, otherwise transclude it as suggested. WjBscribe 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you do need more experience here. I am sure that if you would get some more experience here, and a constructive member of wikipedia you will get promoted to adminship someday. Do not get upset over it. Cheers!--SJP 03:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA Ended 

message: Just drawing everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WenliBot.  Comments about it should probably go there. — H2O —  03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Finally, that silly little counter which is almost never accurate and updated has some use. :) --Hdt83    Chat 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bad news for editcountitis patients - they won't be able to watch and update tallies like a hawk who has the ability to update tallies. :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please. Everybody knows updating counters is for wimps. My patent pending device is obviously a true man's solution. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a condition known as edit-counteritis which is a prognosis of the more advanced stage of editcountis :D --Hdt83    Chat 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New bot proposal 

message: I made User:PxMa/rfacloser.js which can be used to add the archive templates for RfAs. The parameters are p for pass, f for fail, and h for hold. Only the bureaucrats can use the p and h, but the fail might be useful for those "snowball" closes. It's pretty basic, but still useful :). Ρх₥α 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks cool, Have you tried it? Does it work well? Any input from anyone else who has tried it? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works fine, but again it's very basic :).  Ρх₥α 18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basic, as in? Wikidudeman (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not very many features...  <pause> yet. Ρх₥α 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not see anything wrong with it:) Maybe we should give it a try? Cheers!--SJP 23:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What browsers is it compatible with? Acalamari 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I'm not expert, Acalamari, it will probably only be Mozilla Firefox, as most other scripts are only compatible with Firefox. Qst 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA closer script 

message: Those in favor of keeping the tally: 11
Those in favor of removing the tally: 3
This tally is brought to you by "EVula is avoiding work and enjoys having fun on the RfA talk page" cabal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, how delicious the irony is! J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, I'm neutral. I don't know where I was counted. J-ſtanTalkContribs 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ignored the neutrals; I wasn't that bored. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see this poll, and couldn't be bothered to participate anyway, but I strongly support keeping the tally. WaltonOne 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delicious irony

message: How about:
# People shouldn't comment until the candidate accepts the nomination (there are probably other reasons why this would be good), and
# The candidate should probably be instructed to transclude the nomination themselves when they accept it.
Thoughts? --bainer (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the weather report saying that the sky clearly is NOT falling (and will not fall), I don't see any reason why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate couldn't be altered in such a way that each separate RfA page includes a gentle reminder that no one should vote until after the nom is signed and the page is transcluded. The nominee should be gently instructed not to sign until after transclusion. The RfA front matter could be similarly altered... But this is all procedural; this "once is too many" talk is, to put it politely, excessive. Over and out. --Ling.Nut 12:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just remove the initial votes left before translusion and leave a note explaining that X votes have been removed? If caught early enough, that would deal with it. The problems come when this sort of "running start" is not spotted until later. Carcharoth 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ling.nut, please leave comments here in a polite manner, this is a discussion, not an "I'm right, you're wrong" page. Qst 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Qst, I'm gonna answer that once, and only once. If you have replies to my answer, save them; i won't reply to your replies. Such tit-for-tat interchanges are pointless and distracting. Here's my reply: You're wrong about the way I am speaking (pun intended). I am in fact  discussing; no power moves etc. here. But thanks for expressing your assessment. --Ling.Nut 13:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is Ling.Nut that there isn't any warning advising people not to comment in the support/oppose/neutral section prior to transclusion. I suggest there ought to be. Nothing major, but I can't see what harm it would do, and I can see that it would bring a (albeit minimal) benefit in not having RfA's "start" prior to them being made "public" by transclusion. Pedro :  Chat   13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that votes should be removed. I think it's disrespectful to the voters. Perhaps there should be some code added that candidates/noms should remove before transclusion. A notice that it has not been transcluded, so please don't vote. A div to color the page red or something. Lara❤Love 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OH PS (why do I always think of things afer I press save?) I think only a 'crat should have the authority to do the requisite mass vote-striking, in case of gaming. --Ling.Nut 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all that on balance removing the votes could be seen as rude. I also think a polite note in the instructions asking people not to vote prior to transclusion is a good thing. As for Lara's suggestion about having a line to be removed on transclusion indicating an untranscluded RfA in some way I like that too, unless it makes things overly complex. Pedro :  Chat   13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RfA is probably one of the least complicated processes I've encountered on Wikipedia. Add the line at the top of the page, add to the instructions and the edit window that it needs to be removed during trasclusion. Simple. Whatever keeps people from needlessly losing support during their RfA. It's stressful enough as it is. I'll draft something up. Lara❤Love 14:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This solution is too simple and elegant.  Reject, please complicate and uglify immediately. --barneca (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I KNOW!! Let's make a banner like that one they had for advertising the donation request. Big, flashing, seizure-inducing! Will that help? Hahaha. :p Lara❤Love 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL! Seriously, yes that's better but Id go along the lines of "discussion within the support, oppose or neutral sections should only be made after the RfA has been transcluded to the main page" - basically get rid of the word votes! Pedro :  Chat   14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it. Lara❤Love 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How can it be canvassing to tell people who've already voted that they voted early? The only point of this is to avoid the "running start" effect, when people arrive and see 10 supports already there. I am presuming, of course, that it would be 10 supports. If there were 10 opposes there, the effect would be the same, but the other way. People would look for the reasons people supported/opposed, and would mostly be swayed in that direction. They shouldn't, but it is human nature. Carcharoth 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. EVula, if you are concerned about canvassing, think about how the people voting early found out about the nom? Would all of them have had the page on their watchlist? Carcharoth 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a canvassing concern (for me) because a note left on a talk page isn't just visible to that editor, but to everyone else who see the page (very different from seeing something on the candidate's pages). I've seen plenty of RfAs and RfBs fail, despite having a very solid (and post-transclusion) "running start", so that's not a particular concern for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think for the sake of transparency, people should only comment after the nom has been transcluded - and that includes asking optional questions. If I'm nomming someone and somebody comments prior transclution, I generally leave a friendly message asking them to remove it until transclution - no-one seems to have a problem with that. I don't think it really matters who transcludes them nom, providing the candidate has actually stated that they've accepted the nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still fail to see what damage this does. I would agree it is poor form, but if you try to enforce any sort of prohibition, it is just going to cause problems. I can see people edit warring over this, then if the candidate gets involved... it will not end well. Leave a note on the users' talk pages informing them of how the process works. If they remove it until the transclusion, great; if not, oh well, they would have supported anyway. Maybe they had a good reason; they saw User:X was being nominated but they were leaving for a week-long vacation. Assume good faith, don't treat wiki-process like scripture, and don't edit war over votes before transclusion. Mr.Z-man 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternative suggestion

message: Folks, I can not figure out how to make the nice, neat chart that other talk pages have, so I probably did this (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2) incorrectly.  Can somebody help us out and fix my syntax error?  Thanks in advance. Bearian 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathbot will add it. Lara❤Love 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathbot won't add the talk page stuff.  Done. --barneca (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of talk page at RfA 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biohazard2000 is a request that was not transwikied. The editor is listed at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Rozrozroz. -- Jreferee   t/c 13:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedied under G6 (housecleaning). Improper format (just two paragraphs), created back in August, and Biohazard stopped editing four days after it was created. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biohazard2000

message: I have been nominated, and I'm ready to accept and reply to the 3 questions. Now it turns out that I won't have much time until 21 hours from now - but I want to be here for people's questions. Would it be advisable to wait with my acceptance, or should I rather accept it and add a note for people to wait, or does it not really matter? — Sebastian 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise accepting the nom, answering the three questions, and leaving a note that you won't be able to answer the questions until tomorrow.  It shouldn't matter too much either way though.  SashaCall 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: [ec] I thinking noting that you won't immediately be able to answer additional questions would be sufficient; I doubt someone will oppose just because you didn't immediately respond. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks, folks! — Sebastian 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about timing