Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 71

message: Split into a subpage temporarily to keep the discussion readable. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the very extensive discussions here User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define the problems first? 

message: In response to a comment that a lot of the proposals are starting to look like RFC, I started on a mockup of what an RFA modeled after RFC would look like here. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some RfAs do look like RfCs, but not all. Perhaps the RfC bit would be better suited to the talk page to allow for the more usual simple format where applicable. Stephen B Streater 09:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that defeats the purpose. RFC combines structured discussion with simple endorsement "voting" (I hate that word, but I'll call it that for sake of argument) of which statements apply. This would make it a lot  clearer to see what the issues at work are, and a lot more readable, while being less vote-like. It would increase visibility for minor viewpoints, but it would also keep their relative strength in check. Most importantly, the RFC style helps keep temperatures down, by helping to keep discussion from progressing past debate into heated arguments and disruptive disputes, simply by keeping threaded discussions to a minimum  on the RFC page itself. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Any more comments on this? I'm somewhat inclined to post it on VPP shortly. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Just the same objections I've raised for every other proposal that's been brought forth here of late; it's a shot in the dark unless substantial work is done to evaluate where we are and where we want to be with RfA. It's just as likely to cause harm as it is to make things better. --Durin 13:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need some evaluation here before we make sweeping change. I don't see how this can make things any worse though. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It solves my main problems with RfA (the 'support' votes rarely have much content, and can drown out a valid 'oppose' vote, and spurious opposes happen based on things like unrealistic standards). --ais523 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *It might solve your perceived problems with RfA but may not address an array of other perceived problems by other users. This is one of the reasons why careful evaluation is needed. --Durin 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on this. Careful evaluation is needed, both of the problems and the proposed solutions. However, the posts here, and elsewhere seem to indicate a general agreement that we do have problems - so allowing the current status quo to continue through inaction and infighting could be just as bad. We need to form some sort of plan here of how to evaluate both the problems and their proposed solutions, and make changes accordingly. Right now, we have a process that's turning rapidly into a mockery of our principles including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA as RFC 

message: Stop weaseling! This whole neutral section is usually full of insidious negativity, and it needs to go. If you are not supporting you are opposing. The following are examples of what gets placed under Neutral. If they were placed under Oppose where they belong we would have a clearer picture of what is going on here.
*"you need broader experience"
*"doesn't have the project wide experience just yet"
*"Great contributions, just needs more experience"
*"Neutral - Sorry you just dont meet my criteria for edit summarys"
*"Just need more experience"
*"the answers to the questions above don't reveal a requirement for admin tools on this Wiki at this time"
*"neutral because edit summary use is really quite necessary, and answers aren't that strong"
*"needs a few more enwiki edits and better summary use"
Jim182 22:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. But do you mean that the de jure neutrals that are de facto opposes should be placed in the more accurate column to begin with, while keeping the neutral section, or do you mean that we should do away with the neutral section altogether? I don't quite understand your proposal. Picaroon9288 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Sometimes, answers are vague and a greater explanation is needed.  A user may not feel inclined to support a candidate, yet he may also not feel an oppose is essential. Michael 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "neutral leaning support" or "neutral leaning oppose"?  A user may not feel strong enough on a topic to decisively support or oppose. Michael 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I hardly think this is important, it has the same effect either way, so just leave it as it is. If someone wants to vote neutral, it doesn't make them a weasle, it just means that they firmly believe the candidate is not ready - but would not be a threat to the project with the tools (at least, that's what I mean when I vote neutral). Themindset 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to disagree with most of the comments except for Themindset.  I occasionally vote neutral myself.  I want to be clear that my comments should not be taken by the closing bureaucrat to be either a support or an oppose.  Simply adding a "comment" may not make this as clear, and a comment is more passive.  By voting neutral I am saying "I explicitly do not want to my vote to determine the outcome of this vote, but I do have concerns that could sway my vote one way or another if new evidence comes to light."  I do this usually because there is a single issue that is preventing me from supporting, but that I don't believe it severe enough to block.  I will list my concerns about the user, but that doesn't mean that I won't go along with consensus either way.  My concerns are therefore not sufficient to make a binding conclusion.  I have at times waited as a neutral vote until more evidence has come to light to sway me one way or another. -- RM 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral choices cannot be eliminated. I sometimes vote neutral with some comments.--Jusjih 13:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Neutral comments, although often negative, are comments that someone feels they need to present, but that don't sway them sufficiently to make it into a support or oppose vote. I think we should respect that, even when they are downright negative - if they are that bad, then other people will oppose on those grounds. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it's good to give constructive criticism without piling on oppose.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And an RfA is not the classic "if-you're-not-with-us-then-you're-against-us" sort of thing. One should be allowed to straddle the fence. And I agree with Dlohcierekim's comment above. --physicq210 07:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: <sigh> Elsewhere on this page, there is a complaint about drive by voting or not doing sufficeint research before voting. I dig around until I feel comfortable voting one way or another. I also trust the community to catch anything I might miss. Since RfA is not and never was a vote-- it is a concensus buidling/seeking process-- I believe I owe it to the 'crats and the rest of the community to give some sort of rationale. If I'm going to not support, I believe I owe it to the nom's to help them better themselves. Oppose reasons should not be a form of bullying or punishment. They should be a learning tool.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Opposition. Stop it.

message: Hey - see this Why don't we take a cue from the UN Security Council and replace "Support" and "Oppose" with "Encourage" and "Discourage" respectively? Rama's arrow 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically "Discouraging" is the act of a respectful colleague, unlike "Oppose" or "Object" which makes one sound like a candidate's enemy. Rama's arrow 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is opposing or objecting to the person becoming an administrator. When the formal vote comes around, ambassadors will be opposing or objecting, present reality-obscuring political correctness in an informal vote notwithstanding. —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Rama's arrow is that we are encouraging or discouraging the candidate while the b'crat makes the final decision.  If there are significant numbers of substantive "discouragements", the b'crat can choose not to grant adminship privileges.  I like this idea.  --Richard 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crats don't make decisions, they simply determine the decision that the community has made. Put another way, they don't answer "Should X be an admin?" they answer "Has the community decided X should be an admin?". --Tango 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the least, they do have a veto in cases of serious problematic users. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is simply not the case given their recent clear and present demonstration that they do answer just precisely that question. -Splash - tk 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As we are all volunteers, I think we should not be given quotas to meet-- we all do the best we can. Although featured articles are important, I think cleaning up marginal articles to encyclopedic standards might be better.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Encourage," "Discourage" 

message: Sorry to spam this page with something not strictly related to RfA. The above is an idea to have people sign on to create Featured articles with an informal deadline in place. Maybe of interest to those who use FAs as criteria here. Marskell 15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if we paid administrators this could be a requirement. —Centrx→talk • 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would still be a bad requirement. Administrators must have the goals of the encyclopedia at heart, but that does not mean they need to be churning out featured articles on a regular basis. —Centrx→talk • 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Aargh! Whilst a worthy goal, I hope this is kept well away from RfA; WP:1FA was bad enough (I haven't seen it around recently). --ais523 15:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no--I was not personally suggesting a requirement at all. I just think of this place as an unofficial village pump. The more eyes the better and all that. For those that do informally think of it as a requirement it might be a page to watch. Marskell 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand what FA:s and adminship has anything in common. →AzaToth 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's part of a larger opinion that work in the mainspace should be held in high regard when evaluating a candidate. FA creation is an obvious example of that. Marskell 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the idea is that to get an article to FA status means having a good understanding of the MoS as well as indicating an ability to collaborate and more importantly reach consensus. All these are good experiences that are desirable in an admin.  My only problem is that editors can gain these experiences without ever bring an article to FA status.  Nevertheless, there is a valid connection between 1FA and being an admin. David D. (Talk) 15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I just want to be clear: I did not raise this as a possible RfA criterion. I just wanted people to look at the page and figured people here might be interested given the volume on this talk and that FAs have been raised previously. That's all. (And that's a non-admin's point-of view as well, for whatever that matters). Marskell 22:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page for RFA isn't really the place for advertizing FA efforts. That said, I do plan to try to work more on getting more FAs under my belt, and generally support the FA cause, as I feel more editors should. Best wishes in your efforts to promote FA creation. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL. I have officially been accused of being a member of a cabal (*pumps fist*)! Marskell 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter]] 

message: There's a problem with no-one bothering to run for RFA any more; presumably completely coincidentally, the process is observably poisonous in several directions and the requirements guidelines keep being pushed up and up.
Is there anything useful (or anti-useful) to fixing or tuning RFA at WP:PRO? It's supposed to be a not-a-guideline to process maintenance. - David Gerard 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I guess the eight current candidates must all be mirages, then? Seriously it does appear that there are fewer candidates in recent months, but I'd like to see the real data before drawing conclusions. Also, which guidelines are you refering to? There are no RfA guidelines to get "pushed up and up". There are numerous editors who express opinions on RfAs' each has their own idea of what they are looking for in a candidate. Are you proposing that we add proces by standardizing RfA requirements and remove the element of individual judgement? I thought that was the opposite of what you were calling for in WP:PRO? Gwernol 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see they're deliberately being phrased didactically, for example - David Gerard 11:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've actually lowered my "standards" to better conform with the rest of the community. I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to feel comfortable about supporting a candidate. And some who failed recently clearly weren't ready. Perhaps we need a way to develop and encourage some of the long term users who would not otherwise consider asking for the mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I interpret this differently.  Wikipedia's growth slowed in the early part of this year after what had been several years of essentially exponential growth.  I suspect that the fall off in RFAs (now several months later) is in part a symptom of this more generally slowed growth, and not necessarily a manifestation of changed standards (though that might play a role as well).  I would hesitate about looking at one variable (number of RFAs) and conclude that it implies the RFA process is suddenly much worse than it was 6 months ago.  Dragons flight 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if those are necessarily the problems. Other issues I can think of: For example, I hesitate to nominate Wikipedians for adminiship now, because I am not confident that they will want to handle the (sometimes unwritten) complexities of being one. Although being an admin can be simple, it is often not so. Many administrative actions (and even normal editorial actions) can be interpreted as ways to modulate behaviour, with the facilitator being the Wiki. This can be extremely sophisticated to handle, especially when the Wiki only presents an economy of partial information. Some Wikipedians I have talked to in person, say they do not want to deal with the consequences of being an administrator, even though they are confident they can carry the role. Additionally, after observing all the sorts of things that can occur as a consequence of using this Wiki, that has both myself, and other well meaning people constantly tiptoeing when contributing to this project. This feeling is relentless might I add, and to avoid exhaustion, it is sometimes more managable to be silent than to do the Right Thing. Concerning it is, and systemic it has become. We need a better mechanism of accountability and transparency, and we need better ways of seeking out those users who can carry administrative roles professionally to join the ranks. I might even cautiously suggest that administrators voluntarily classify themselves as being familiar with specific areas of Wikipedian policies and guidelines. These administrative communities would be effective at identifying current trends, and would provide the community with an implicit sort of leadership, without compromising the existing stratification of users. It could be as simple as setting up "WikiProject - admins who specialise with image deletions" et cetera. We have policy pages, but no cohesive and visible communities around them. It's probably more than time enough to grow them and recognize that such structures can complement that which already exists on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an awesome idea, HappyCamper (classifying Admins into departments or whatever). Anchoress 19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who I know is a valuable contributor but presumably has no interest in adminship as it's currently constituted (based on conversations and statements on your pages), Anchoress, do you see yourself changing your mind if one didn't have to pass a "jack of all trades" test, as it were? Or were you just saying it's a good idea but still not for you? One of the problems (and I have no cites, just gut) with adminship is that it attracts people who think it's a merit badge and scares off people who would be willing to do the hard things it entails if it wasn't so unpleasant. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anchoress, your comment made my day! :-) :-) :-) I thought it would be quickly forgotten in the digital ether. Well, that just might motivate me to start a WikiProject somewhere when I get the energy to do so. Stay tuned... - Lar, I find that some of the most interesting admins are the ones who are admin WikiGnomes. There are a handful who have been promoted, but have hardly used (or even completely not used) the tools at all. Instead, they use the perceived authority of an administrator to mitigate edit wars and diffuse complicated situations where the more vocal or abrasive approaches would not be effective. They also spend tremendous amounts of time helping new users, especially those who are struggling with the software, but are tremendously influential in real life. These admin WikiGnomes have such an capacity for patience and listening and work nicely in those niche places on Wikipedia, but would probably not survive the current RfA promotions process. The issue is that lack of perceived activity can be interpreted as inability in the current RfA climate, when this is not necessarily the case. The difficulty is that it is difficult and time consuming to properly identify and acknowledge these very different situations. --HappyCamper 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So how do we recognize, groom, prepare and nominate those who would be good admins but might not consider running?Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder...how important is it to think about what a "successful" Wikipedian/administrator is? How important is it for the candidate to be able express this? What about...whether they can do this in a way which adequately represents themselves, and their feelings about this project? Everyone should share notes next time if chance allows us to meet, say randomly, at next year's Wikimedia conference. Or for that matter, any of the future meetups. --HappyCamper 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-one's running, so up the guidelines 

message: Well, my first attempt at RfA has finished.  I learned quite a few things (as I hoped I might).
And with that in mind, let me response to several of the suggestions on this page (including the last 2 archives), in no particular order:
*I think the support/neutral/oppose system works well - though I would list them in that order, rather than support/oppose/neutral, and add a General comments section to the bottom (if the section becomes over-long, it can always be moved to the talk page, when needed). And helpful editors can always move accidentally mis-placed votes.  I think the Comments section at the top (below the questions) should be for the nom's comments, and direct responses to them.
*:(Inserting a reply to this point here) What's the reasoning for switching the positions of the neutral and oppose sections? They seem fine as they are. Picaroon9288 20:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my proposal to keep it open, I only suggested keeping it open if there was a chance of it going either way - in other words, require clear consensus or a hopeless deadlock to close an RFA. The nominee should retain the option to withdraw, so this shouldn't be an issue - if they don't like how its going, they can back off. I'd suggest that 'crats retain the ability to close a particlarly caustic RFA under WP:SNOW also. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-RfA thoughts about past RfA Reform suggestions

message: See , trying to document the current means by which adminship can be revoked. Please feel free to edit this to more accurately reflect and describe reality. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why this is really necessary in the front matter, as this is the page for approving new ones, not removing old ones. That information is at WP:ADMIN#Administrator abuse. --Rory096 23:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried giving it a mention more discreetly. it needs to be there, because it has an effect of the decisionmaking process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it'll fit in the quick mention, but people do need to be aware that the ArbCom has no compunction about deadminning if really needed - David Gerard 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think increasing the awareness of this is needed here... esp. because people are using the "we can't get rid of them if they suck" rationale for opposing. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documenting current removal process 

message: Should the timing at the top of RfAs say ending or due to end? Thing is, many RfAs finish early, and so the statement isn't true. Any comments? --Alex (Talk) 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending or due to end? 

message: The names of the RfA regulars have changed quite a bit over the last six months, but the process and the reasoning behind the votes seems the same to me. Those who don't give lengthy rationales are too opaque. Those who do are being argumentative or beating up on the nom. 
The complaints about how broken the system is look familiar, but it's different people saying so now. Sometimes I don't how anyone could possibly oppose/support a given candidate, depending on how I happen to be voting. I also see plenty of successful RfA's among those who are unquestionably ready. Then as now, I think the system works etter than some of us think. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  those pesky rfa opposers 

message: There are many ways to fix RfA (some introduces much worse problems). If the problem is too many failed RfAs the simplest way to fix it is to change the requires consensus from 75-80% to 70-75%. The number 75% is not set in stone and many controversial fails were in 70-75% range. abakharev 04:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work, yes. >Radiant< 10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Changing it to 70-80% would be better, otherwise you'll get complaints from people that don't want 75-80% RFAs to automatically succeed. --Tango 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If this were a problem, then that might be a solution. It isn't a problem, or at least, the rate of success isn't a problem, so there's no need to change it. Splash - tk 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The overall number of admins created isn't the entire problem. We are promoting enough, but the process by which we are doing it in overly political, and results in some users that would benefit wikipedia by having the tools not being able to get them.  Take a look at the "define the problems" section above (which is currently sitting on a subpage) - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple solution 

message: Okay, this has been getting to me lately, before I begin: Wikipedia is not censored, Voting is evil. Recently i've noticed (Well its always happend) users striking out an anonymous users oppion (ie. "striking out anon !vote") -- Efectivley this is censoring and there may be some valid reason why a user would state there opinion anonymously (ie. a) They may want to remain anonymous and not get on the bad lists of those that may support the user up for RfA or vice-versa, b) They may be a some what active contributor who does not wish to have an account and/or has ran into the user who is up for RfA and would like to help build consensus and state there opinions; Are we trying to say only the oppinions of those people who wish to register have valid opinions and annons efetivley dont count?)
Now there are valid reasons for stopping some annons posting to RfA (ie. trolling) but all to often I see good users being stiken off the list; Efectivly if it is trolling then strike it out -- but if it is a good user offering valid reasons to help build a consensus then we should not strike them, I mean come on.. it's not a vote. 
Anyway just my 2 cents.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that voting is evil (no matter what Wikipedia says about it), but I wholeheartedly agree that anons should have more of a say, not just in RfAs but the entire encyclopedia. There are good anon users out there like this guy, and I'm sure that there are many others. Just because they don't have a userpage or a long talk page doesn't mean that they are not active contributors. Even if you look at their edit count and see a low number, this does not mean they have only made these many edits. I can tell you that my IP address changes all the time. So, yes, I think we should allow anons to participate in RfA, although if we see an oppose vote such as "this user is a jerk and I'm suing Wikipedia if he becomes an admin" then, of course, delete it as you would any other. But if an anon leaves a vote that says "support. good edit summary usage, and contributions to articles. Unlikely to abuse the tools" why not let it stay? - Mike (Trick or treat) 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's impossible to tell if one person is voting (or !voting, or expressing an opinion, or whatever) more than once if they do so without being logged in. If someone makes two votes from different accounts which have both been reasonably active, there is a good chance of someone noticing something is up (similar editing habits, etc), but with only IP addresses to go on, no-body would even think to request a checkuser. Anons can comment on RfAs, in the comments section, but they can't vote, and their opinions shouldn't be used to gauge consensus (although others may use their comments to aid their own decision, which will count towards the consensus). --Tango 23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true, then Anons should not be able to vote on XfDs (nor should they be able to nominate anything for XfD...). I think this is very much worthy of a much larger discussion. Any suggestions where/what format? - jc37 23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My point was that, since they cannot be accounted for, how can we allow them to join in the discussion, when so often (for better or worse) voting = "concensus". Of course they should comment, but they shouldn't count towards the final concensus, on either XfDs or RfAs. - jc37 01:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD is less voting based - the reasons given are more important. Lots of people giving the same reason doesn't count for as much as two people giving two distinct reasons (if those reasons are true and valid). I think the source of the difference is primarily the difference in number of participents - RfAs get dozens of votes, AfDs usually get 4 or 5. --Tango 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  /me rants on annons.