Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 106

message: Just one comment on what just transpired. As a non-admin who would like to have the mop some day, I'd be more comfortable seeing that conversation in RfC. If I had made a comment one way or the other, I can just see my next RfA going down in flames because a group of voters/commenters decides to oppose me based on what I thought there. Indicative of the problems with the process... Hiberniantears 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly believe an RfC would be a good idea, any objections to me opening it up again and forming an RfC with it? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my support! Hiberniantears 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't see a problem with it, though before anyone suggests RfA reform, it probably wouldn't hurt to read this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. It's inactive, but it gives a decent idea of how various proposals were received in the past. Chaz Beckett 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is fine, but I can't believe ^demon, an admin, put up an MFD for our RFA process without another one being in place.Rlevse 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, there has to be some process in place for adminship. Proposing changes or new processes are fine, but simply scrapping the current one won't work. Chaz Beckett 16:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *I haven't followed RFA for a while. Have things got markedly worse or better since a few months ago? Or are things about the same? Carcharoth 17:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nope, it's just that people are always trying to fix something not broken-;) Rlevse 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alternatively, RfA is frequented with regulars who don't get the concerns demon has raised. I too remain unconvinced that the RfA process is broken. I think it works moderately well. What shouldn't be presumed is that everyone who passes RfA will make a good admin. There should be a lot more "you are getting admin stuff wrong" self-policing within the admin community, and similar criticism from non-admins should be listened to as well. Carcharoth 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks dood. the_undertow talk 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The really sad thing is that when a user put up an MfD for the MfD process (a process which is almost as broken as RfA), he was blocked for a day for supposed WP:POINT violations. Just shows the double standards applied around here to the élite and the mass of ordinary users. WaltonOne 10:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether a block was deserved or not, but it does sound rather POINTy to nominate MfD for deletion. Getting rid of a process without having some sort of a replacement is almost always going to fail and usually creates needless drama. Chaz Beckett 11:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I totally agree; what I was saying is that if one person was blocked per WP:POINT for nominating the MfD process for deletion (without, as you say, putting a replacement process in place), then logically anyone who does the same to the RfA process, without putting a replacement process in place, should also be blocked, regardless of his or her status within the community. This is in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, which are as relevand on Wikipedia as elsewhere. WaltonOne 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the history of each user. If the user who nominated MfD for deletion was doing the same for other pages, that could be seen as wider disruption. Also, if the user failed to explain the reasons, that would count against them. ^demon explained his reasons clearly. Finally, if the block was unjustified, there should have been an apology and retraction in an unblock summary, though if it was a short block the block might have expired before there was a chance to do that. Regardless, the hope is that if the block was not justified, then people can be persuaded of this by pointing to discussion at the time. Equally, if ^demon's actions were considered disruptive, it should be possible to point to discussion about that, rather than relying on a block log to tell you these things. A block log never tells the whole story, and shouldn't be relied upon for snap judgements of a user (though sometimes it is, sadly). Equally, a clean block log shouldn't be automatically thought of as good. Weigh up all the evidence and see how it relates to other evidence. Carcharoth 12:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but Walter Humala did explain his reasons for nominating MfD for deletion, and he hadn't disrupted the process before. Ryulong blocked him for no reason that I could discern. I'm not necessarily saying that ^demon should be blocked (that would be overkill, just as it was for Walter Humala), but I'm saying that the rules should apply fairly and equally to all users, even those who are experienced admins with wide community support. WaltonOne 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that would probably be evidence to raise in an RFC to say that Ryulong is a trigger-happy admin who will block before talking (I'm not saying he is, but that could be one way of describing such behaviour). I have asked elsewhere whether the controversial RfAs resulted in admins being promoted who have caused disruption. One of the most difficult thing to measure is whether trigger-happy admins who blocking too hastily are actively driving away new contributors who are just experimenting. Similarly, those admins who delete pages that have been created a few minutes ago may similarly disillusion new contributors. Ultimately the only way to change such things is to actively ask such questions at RfAs and be critical of such actions. On the other hand, if an admin promoted under similarly controversial circumstances (Danny) has not been questioned at all (I haven't seen anything, but then I might have missed things), then that could be evidence that the promotion, although possibly against community consensus, was in fact not detrimental in the long-run. Quite possibly neither were. Equally, there may be admins who passed with flying colours, but are insiduously acting against Wikipedia's best interests while not appearing on the radar (eg. by influencing POV edit wars with veiled block threats). The solution is not to try and fix RfA to avoid such admins passing, but to question admin actions you are unhappy with and voice your concerns if you see long-term negative trends going unchecked. If admins (and editors) realise that in the long-run (and not just in the short-term) they will be called to account, then that can only be good. This should (and may already) be the case, but if not, then everyone should work to achieve a culture of openness and accountability. Carcharoth 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demons MFD attempt

message: Hey All,
I Have Been A Member For Sometime But Never Really Talked To Anyone!
Can Someone Tell Me, How Do i Request Adminship Here?
If You Know, Please, Tell Me Either By Email Through Here, Or VIA MSN And If You Wont That, Then You Are Going To Have To Email Me Through Here :)
Thankyou
22kálla
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22kálla (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 October 2007
:You need to gain more experience with Wikipedia before applying to become an admin. I suggest that you seek assistance through the adoption programme; your adopter will help you in getting to know Wikipedia and how it works. In a couple of months, with a substantially greater amount of experience, you may be ready to apply for adminship. WaltonOne 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Any experience at all" is the first thing that's needed. 22kálla, are you really aware of what you're asking for, or what this site is? No offence meant. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 22kálla, I do not see any contributions at all from you under the username you quote. Have you contributed using an anonymous IP? To answer your question, you go to WP:RfA and follow the on-page instructions. But in order to succeed in your application you would need to show, by your contributions, approximately three or more months of solid experience and upwards of 2,000 edits, reasonably spread over the whole wikipedia project. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey 

message: My requst for adminship has ended but I haven't been talked to by a Bureaucrat yet!
Im very cross indeed!
Can you contact a Bureaucrat and tell them that I have not been talked by them yet.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beko120
 Beko120 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and follow the instructions there to send it live. I would strongly advise against doing it at this stage; as you have less than 50 edits, it has no chance of passing, and popups are nothing to do with adminship. —  iridescent (talk to me!) 17:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also appears you never transcluded your RFA into the RFA page, which is why no one knew of it nor voted on it. This alone shows you're not ready for admin as you didn't follow the directions.Rlevse 17:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For information, Beko120 was blocked for 72 hours shortly after leaving this message.  BencherliteTalk 22:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I havent Been nomibnated! 

message: After some of the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I've decided to try my hand at creating another desysopping proposal. Please read it over (a read of the RFC might help too) and discuss it on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desysopping proposal 

message: I just thought of an idea of when closing adminships that failed. Maybe there should be a summary from all the comments of what is good and bad and why they failed. Or would this be too much like WP:ER? Simply south 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see where you're coming from, but again this is basically asking the 'crats to 1) do more work and 2) justify their decision. Other than a tiny tiny number of cases consensus is normally clear. I don't think a candidate needs to be further beaten up by a closing 'crat summary identifying their failings as seen by others. If RfA is a discussion then a candidate who fails RfA should review all the input, both support, oppose and neutral, to help themselves in either their editing and/or any future RfA. Succinct closing statements may be nice, but time consuming and less valuable than a review of the input. Of course this assumes positive input from the opposers, but IMHO generally it is. Pedro :  Chat   12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the point? I haven't gone through an RfA, but I've read, and I'm sure it'd be the same for me, RfA candidates generally watch it constantly and read everything posted. It's not a matter of transcluding and coming back a week later to check the outcome. So who would the summary be for? Lara❤Love 12:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as with XfDs etc, if whoever closes it does so for a reason that's not obvious they generally leave a reason anyway. I can see a (faint) use in that if someone's running a second time it would be easier to see why their first one failed, but you're relying on the summariser to get it right in that case. —  iridescent (talk to me!) 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people give a decent summary when they post a comment / vote on the RfA, and often list necessary improvements as it is anyway. Lradrama 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, as part of my (ultimately successful, but then very much on the bubble) RfA, I did my own summary of take-aways. Perhaps we can add something like this to the RfA template to encourage this sort of thing. Encouraging failed candidates to reflect on what was said would likely help them to be successful at the next one, no? Ronnotel 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the crat should post his or her reason for making the decision if it can't be determined by first reading the request. It should be pretty easy to figure out why the nom was rejected by simply reading the request. *Cremepuff222* 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary idea 

message: As part of this analysis I made a plot of all logged user rights events, which consist nearly entirely of making new sysops.  Dragons flight 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admining chart 

message: Can someone close this down please - I'm busy in RL right at this moment, haven't completed a full RFA close before, and haven't time to check that I do it correctly - and I don't want to upset the 'crats! The reasons for my actions will be clear if anyone checks the history of the user..... Pedro :  Chat   10:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it. --Deskana (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, that was an easier route. Thanks Deskana. Pedro :  Chat   10:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you have to make it this public? — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Anyone looking at the history of the RFA page will see the transclusion and removal of the RfA. Only admins can see the deleted page. And I hardly intended to make it "public" but I hardly intended not to either. What's the harm / problem here ? Pedro :  Chat   07:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was kidding. I think that blankings and deletions of wikispace pages are getting a bit out of hand lately, and IIRC I gave Soumyash my support, so I'm naturally interested in what might have happened. However, since I don't need to know, I ironically commented to the contrary because I might never have noticed without this thread here. — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of course is that User:Soumyasch is not the same as User:Soumaysch. Whoever created the latter being very knowledgable of wiki in that they created the account, transcluded the genuine user page and talk, and then created an RfA with well thought out answers properly wikilinked. Just another troll at the end of the day though.  Pedro :  Chat   08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. That... kind of explains it. Thanks. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Soumaysch]]