Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 69

message: I'm going to go ahead and stand against popular belief: Beaucrats are not mindless drones. When a user, such as Spartaz, votes oppose on an RFA, such as The Halo, and the rationale is somewhat controversial, such as being based partly on the nominator, the closing beaucrat will be able to discern the merit of that vote without ten meaningless responses which add little to the overall discussion and mostly question how much they can harass user(s) who dared to vote oppose on ridiculous/spiteful/evil grounds. Just throwing that out there. Perhaps the jist of that sentence could be added to the top of WP:RFA? EFG 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have a few links to RfA decisions by bureaucrats that reflect their "model behaviour?" Are there precedents we can turn to for guidance? Rama's arrow 13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beaucrats: Not mindless drones, a rant by EFG

message: As I was thinking about that the nominatiopn process shouldn't be considered as a vote, I've came up with this idea for reformation of the process:
The nominator forst as usual apply a nomination for a nominee, another person or him/her self, and then the nominee approve or reject the nomination and as usual reply to some standard questions.
The main difference is that now when a user have read the nomination, he/she has the option to sign that he/she have read the nomination, not that he/she support it or reject it. The user have thou an option now to add a comment with reasons against the nomination, or some neutral comment covering the nomination/nominee, but he/she may not simply add a comment with the sole purpouse saying "I support this nomination", because that's irrelevant.
The logic for this system is "A user should be appointed administrator unless there are reason against that", valid reason could be that he/she havn't been on the wikipedia too long, have had receent uncivil discussions etc...
→AzaToth 16:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is quite a good idea. I have a question - can you elaborate on how the bureaucrat should come to a decision regarding consensus? Does he/she still have to count how many criticize the nominee and how many approve? Rama's arrow 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I mean, if there are a couple of criticisms while a larger number have a favorable opinion, what decision should emerge? Rama's arrow 17:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Be mindful of one thing - if people have negative or "pseudo-political" intentions, these will manifest in any system one devises in one way or another. There is a good chance for your idea to address some issues, but it needs to be clear and decisive. Rama's arrow 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a system where people can object to objections... →AzaToth 18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See  for a draft I made how I think it could be. →AzaToth 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New idea of nomination process 

message: Is anyone getting the top RfA to be doing weird stuff to the page? JoshuaZ 22:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA page not transcluding properly 

message: Does anyone object to the minor formatting and hidden comment changes that I made? I removed an extra "----" (horizontal line), merged two adjacent hidden comments into one, and added , because I think I remember one being placed at the bottom a few days ago.  I assume no one has any problems with these; am I correct? Picaroon9288 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor formatting and hidden comment changes 

message: The  template has been the site of a recent edit war. As of now, the Support/Oppose/Neutral/Comments fields are gone, yet there is a tally (0/0/0), and that does not make sense. 
I believe an honest discussion on whether the support/oppose/neutral fields should be in, and if the votes should be numbered, did not take yet place, rather, people were revert warring. So, is the current format what the community prefers? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted edits which appearently violated WP:PPol#Editing protected pages, may everyone please follow WP:PPol#Editing protected pages for future edits to that page? Many thanks. --WinHunter (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be so much easier if people like you would simply stop protecting the wrong version.  Dragons flight 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am open to revert to an much earlier version, before all these have started. Btw, not protecting the wrong version would allow the edit war to continue, which I believed would be very undesireable for this important template. --WinHunter (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:PPol#Editing protected pages: "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.", I am inclined to revert to this version dated 16:04, 10 September 2006 by Voice of All as a temporary remedy until concensus emerge as of how to edit the  template. Any comments? --WinHunter (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definite format of the RfA template 

message: I've been thinking about the statistics in Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages and about problems we might solve from looking at the other language Wikipedias. It turns out that one of our persistent problems is mostly absent in the other languages, and that we could easily remedy it for us as well. I'm talking about editcountitis.
Since everyone at RFA is free to make up their own metrics, we frequently get metrics all over the scale - should a candidate have nine months of experience? How about 200 edits to the wikipedia talk namespace? Maybe 10% of all edits to policy-related discussion? Or is it all "no big deal" for everyone? All the differences combine to make RFA a haphazard and confusing place. Adminship is supposed to be about two things: experience, and trust. By focusing too much on arbitrary metrics for experience, we lose sight of the important issue of trust. It also means we're disqualifying trustworthy people on the basis of arbitrary metrics.
Thus, what I propose is to make a unified metric for experience. Make it clear at the top of the page that to become an admin you need X months time and Y edits and community trust. Make RFA focus on the latter. By choosing, for instance, two months and 1500 edits, we weed out the obvious beginners while keeping the barrier low for serious editors. This should make RFA less newbie-biting, less confusing, and more fair to those involved. Incidentally this is what the Dutch, French, Italian, Norwegian, Polish and Russian 'pedias do, and it works fine with them.
I'm sure that someone will yell "instruction creep, we don't need no stinkin' metric", but I'd say that any metric that is reasonably agreed upon is better than dozens of random metrics depending on who is active this week.
Comments please? >Radiant< 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't put much credence in edit counts themselves, I prefer to look at the breakdown. (Counters like Voice of All's or mine can give more detailed information). I also look at the contributions by hand (especially seeing where the Wikipedia:-space edits are and how inflated the mainspace count is). After all that, I usually don't vote! However, I agree that WP:BITE will be met better if there is some way of discouraging very new users from applying, but am worried that people may apply as soon as they meet the threshold. --ais523 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. I would prefer a higher metric, but surely everyone can agree to two months and 1500 edits as a lower bound. —Centrx→talk • 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit counting is a bad idea because it attempts to quantify something that is unquantifiable, namely experience. Your proposal is another manifestation of that bad idea. If you're looking for a unified experience metric, edit counts aren't going to work no matter how high you set the number. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at edit counts is bad for saying that the 10,000-edit user is better than the 5,000-edit user, but the fact remains that 1500 edits is a very low number if the person has been doing any administrative tasks that would demonstrate the experience and use for admin tools; it is indeed "highly unlikely" that an editor with such a number would be granted admin tools, if not impossible. The reason for the time length should be self-evident. —Centrx→talk • 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he's looking for a universal metric for experience, though. What >Radiant!< seems to be saying is, "Look. Anyone with less than 2 months time or 1500 edits is going to get avalanched anyway, so why not state that explicitly?" All this does is describe why we've been closing newbie RfAs early, so I don't think it's particularly controversial, though I might lower the edit threshold to 1000 (or less, per discussion below -- nae'blis 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with Nae'blis's interpetation. All this notice/guideline would do is inform people that if they have less than a certain amount of quantitative experience, it will not be possible to fairly judge their qualitative experience, so we will be unable to pass them. --tjstrf 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are suggesting some firm minimum below which RFAs are automatically rejected, I'm not opposed to that in principle (for some value of minimum), but if you are calling on people to generally stop thinking about a candidate's edit count distribution, I think that is pretty much a lost cause at this point.  Dragons flight 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with Nae'blis' suggestion. An explicit statement that nominations which don't meet the stated minimum suffrage will be removed as invalid seems to be a positive step. Removal for failure to meet the suffrage should be permissible for all editors. The threshold should be low to allow genuine borderline cases, but high enough to weed out joke/frivolous/malicious nominations. Beyond those minimum criteria, everyone can still apply their own personal metric if that's how they operate in assessing candidates. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down with editcountitis! 

message: I've made a initial draft about new process at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship process. →AzaToth 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new process 

message: Some weeks ago, a graph I made back in April (:Image:NumberofRfAsPerWeek.png) was referenced in a discussion here on WT:RFA. At the time, it was voiced that it might be useful to have that graph update. Here's the updated version: 
 
--Durin 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The single trend line doesn't seem to fit. Just visually, it looks like an upward trend for the first 1/3, followed by a flat or slightly downward trend for the last 2/3rds. Isn't there a minimizing the square roots of deviations formula that can be applied for a non-straight trend line? NoSeptember 21:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sure, there's a variety of ways that you can do trend forecasts. I added this trendline the same as I added the one in the last graph for consistency. It's the same function as the last graph. Note that this trendline is considerably shallower than the last one. --Durin 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *:How about a moving average (3 or 5 week, I'd say)? That would get rid of the weekly variations and show a trend without having to decide what shape the trend is going to be first. --Tango 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I already tried it. It's unrevealing. The trend line's r^2 value is low and may be entirely useless because of that. --Durin 23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfAs per week 

message: In February of 2006, I created a chart (:Image:RfASuccessRate705-206.png) showing RfA success rate over time in support of a discussion occurring on here on WT:RFA at the time. It being six months since then, I thought it might be interesting to revisit the data and see where we stand now. The chart below shows the RfA success rate over time from July 2005 through August 2006. Nominations for editors with less than 1000 edits at time of nomination have been removed from the data set. 
Observation: The success rate over the last several months has plateaued at 45%. --Durin 17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that those red curves can reasonably be called a plateau, but I'm wondering what evidently localised effects cause the sharp transitions? Presumably some highly controversial candidate(s) come along one week, crank up the edit count averages and then don't get promoted... or something like that. One trend would seem to be a lower threshold for success in the last few months but again, with such sharp variations, it's hard to see reliable trends. Interesting, nevertheless, though. -Splash - tk 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *The plateau at 45% is based on the average over the last two months. The curve has been dancing around that 45%, whereas the prior several months showed a decline. --Durin 18:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What jumps out at me is the dark blue line. In 2005, the average % support plateaus near 90%, then it declines in early 2006, and now it seems to have plateaued at 80% since April. So we used to have a support/oppose ratio of about 8 to 1, now it is only 4 to 1. NoSeptember 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may have already been posted recently, but I'm curious what the decline in total nominations has been. Might success rates go down when there are fewer to look at? Marskell 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add the promotions to the rejections from this chart, you may get an idea. Total nominations haven't declined it appears, but that is without excluding the <1000 candidates as Durin has done. NoSeptember 18:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Each data point on the red lines in the above chart is based on the prior 20 RfAs for that data point. So, each data point is looking at the same number of nominations. This helps stabilize the data, at the cost of having some RfAs having an effect on more than one data point. --Durin 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and interesting data as always, Durin. I suspect the declining percentage of support may also be due to several anomalies, such as a number of near-unanimous RfAs a few months ago, combined with some unusually low promotions more recently (Carnildo, etc.), though I think that it (the line) is an accurate indicator of the overall trend. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a look at the median instead of the mean would be interesting. NoSeptember 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Median of what value? The blue line? Want stdevs too? :) --Durin 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't know, I was just thinking out loud, wondering if other figures would confirm what Flcelloguy was speculating about. NoSeptember 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA success rate over time 

message: While we all saw this isn't a vote, its historically been treated as one. I propose that we elminate, or at least restrict "no-consensus" closes, and require a clear pass or fail in all but truely deadlocked cases.
The way this would work is that the RFA would remain open at least to its full term, and after that would be closed only when thresholds for passing or failing have been reached. No-consensus closes would be possible after either a week without further comment, or after 30 days of comment without reaching the thresholds for passing or failing.
Thoughts? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea. It would give people a chance to come back and review the discussion, which many people don't seem to do at the moment. A consensus can often take longer to emerge because many candidates are not known to the people who take part. Stephen B Streater 07:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Please. — Werdna talk criticism 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A longer relist period? This seems to be a simple improvement that would help and which it might be possible to get the community to support. One caveat is that if it does drift to a threshold, the 'crats shouldn't close it immediately but wait maybe a day to see if it drifts back to no consensus. --ais523 09:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a great idea. I'm assuming that you would use >80% = consensus, but what would be fail? <70% ? Themindset 19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *And there begins the endless debate on what constitutes consensus, as predicted :) --Durin 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter. As long as the margin is wide enough that we give a definitive answer, rather than "no consensus". 80% might be a little high. I'd be inclined to say 75% or even 70%. I've rarely if ever seen anything but a fail with under 60% though. I'm still watching some of the alternatives also though - doing away with voting altogether would be preferable. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Should we go forward with this for now with the guidance to 'crats that either overwhelming support or widespread opposition are required to close an RFA (in otherwords the same rough thresholds they use now), and refine this as we go? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *No. --Durin 12:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then what's wrong with this? What harm does it cause? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  (further response to Durin). I really don't see major changes happening to RFA, so the only real way to fix it is to make small changes and see how they work. I consider this to be little more than a proceedural change. I don't think it fixes the entire process, although it would definantely improve the workings of that process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the outcome clearer. 

message: *RfA works similarly to now, except that RfAs never close. If a candidate has more than 65% support continuously for a week, they are sysopped (deliberately low percentage). If a candidate has less than 50% support continuously for a week, they are desysopped (so this has elements of WP:RFDA too). 'Crats can strike out sockpuppet or bad-faith votes, but nothing else. --ais523 14:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to disagree with this idea in particular. Unpopular decisions are hallmarks of leadership. Aside from that, why should admin-editors be forced to ignore the job of building and maintaining an encyclopedia and act like politicians? Rama's arrow 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the RfA would end when one of the boundaries were crossed, allowing any unpopular actions to take place after that point. This has the advantage that it allows more time when the issues are not worked through quickly. Stephen B Streater 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rama's arrow, this has too much politics in it to be workable. Every de-adminship proposal I've seen has drawn concerns about mob rule - increased politicking by the candidate doesn't seem to be the answer. I don't see where SBS's comment follows from the example, as it seems to explicitly leave the RfA open indefinitely. In a perfect world, this would be a good idea, and admins having a talk subpage to collate criticisms might be a good informal implementation of this, but...nah. -- nae'blis 18:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes - I had assumed the example was more sensible ;-) I'd support the RfA ending when it was withdrawn or decisive, and the editor not becoming an Admin unless there was a consensus to promote. Stephen B Streater 09:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am very firmly opposed to this. First, we don't overthrow unpopular (or briefly unpopular) government leaders — even John Locke would dislike this system. Second, I agree with what Rama said - it is important for leaders and people with special tools to be bold, even if they are unpopular for a week or two. Overall, it's a concept that would require micromanagement, "vote sorting", and other problems. Extending the time would not really change anything; Wikipedia is not a political system, and the administrative position is not political. I WOULD support evaluations every six months; if the evaluation is very negative, a second "vote" can be opened. In the workplace, employees are evaluated every few months, and if they are seen to be performing poorly, their fate is determined by the management. — Deckiller 01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like the RFDA element. Adminship should only be terminated "for-cause" and the current systems have enough safeguards - either for actions so grevious and destructive that they require emergency action by a steward, or for disruptive behavior that results in arbcom action. This allows admins to perform their duties effectively without having to worry about lynchmobs showing up whenever they enforce the copyright or verifiability policies. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually... further thought here. RFDA needs to be discussed seperately. Attaching it to any other proposal here seems like trying to sneak it in. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the [[WP:VINE]] point of view

message: The basic definition of an admin is someone who can be trusted to not abuse the tools, and RFA serves to gauge the trust our community places in the candidate. Trust is, by definition, a subjective issue, and very personal. While most people can explain quite reasonably why they do or do not trust someone, other people can understand the reasoning fully and yet disagree equally reasonably. No editor can rightfully claim that another editor is wrong on this or that his trust (or lack thereof) is invalid.
As such, it is impossible for any third party, such as a bureaucrat, to accurately interpret community consensus based on arguments - doing so will inevitably lead to the bureaucrat counting or discounting reasons based on his personal opinion, which, because of human nature, isn't any better or worse than anyone else's opinion. Thus, any RFA that is interpreted by a bureaucrat in any such subjective way, is by definition biased.
The only fair way to judge an RFA is to make it an actual vote, discounting sockpuppets, of course, but nobody else even if their reasoning seems spurious. We should create a strict limit of two-thirds or three-quarters of the participants, and use that as an absolute divider between who passes and who fails. The role of a bureaucrat is a strictly formal one (which gives them more time for renaming users, checking bots, and writing articles). Incidentally, this system is in use in most other-language Wikipedias that have a formal adminship system, and it works fine there. Most dissent on RFA is because of its vagueness; a strict borderline may be somewhat arbitrary, but at least it is open, egalitarian, and fair. Nothing else is.
>Radiant< 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFA must be a vote

message: This first of the standard questions given to every user has been bugging me for a while. The fact it says "if any" is totally pointless, because the whole idea of being an administrator is that sysop chores are helped with. I have tried to edit the template but found it to be protected, so I'm commenting on here. Does anyone agree with me :-) --Alex | talk / review me | 15:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay as it is, as it helps people see if the person nominated intends on using the admin tools should they get them.  No point in being an administrator if you're never going to help out, is there?  jd || talk || 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, I think it should go.  To leave it there might mislead candidates into thinking that they don't have to do anything at all if they have the tools.  jd || talk || 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have to do anything at all if they have the tools. Like everything else on Wikipedia, exercising admin powers is entirely voluntary. --Rory096 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Remove the "if any".  You could even word it more strongly and say "What sysop chores will you commit to doing?" --Richard 16:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea. --Alex | talk / review me | 16:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Richard. It is necessary to perform sysop chores, but since people differ in their area of contribution, the question should stay. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "if any" should go though, as it isn't an "if any" option - if you become an admin, you should become one for a reason. A user may write "I anticipate doing no chores, but would just like to be one" under this current question. I agree with Richard's point about it being worded more strongly. --Alex | talk / review me | 16:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "if any" should stay.  If someone says they aren't planning on doing much in response to that, it serves as grounds for opposition.  It also shows the user that he or she is expected to perform admin. duties if promoted, and it shows the "voters" information that is required to form an opinion. Michael 16:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point. I've seen so many users who request adminship with such a bad idea about what administrators do. By removing "if any" it shows that chores are not an option, and it'll also require the user to do some research about it. Opposition should be made on grounds of another reason, not the fact the question possibly confused them. --Alex | talk / review me | 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are far too many nominations that fail though. IMHO only the ones which are likely to succeed, or get lots of support should ever make it to the main page. --Alex | talk / review me | 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Deleting two words will not change the fact that many admins will do less than others. Most nominees will know that. So just clean delete these words - don't overanalyze. Rama's arrow 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rama's arrow. However, I think it's restrictive to force potential admins to "commit" as per Richard.--Lkjhgfdsa 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should necessarily be commited to what they write, but I'm just saying "if any" is a redundant phrase because of course there will be chores anticipated to help with. --Alex | talk / review me | 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping the question would be akin to the "Found the image somewhere" booby trap in image upload page. The question is: Do we need booby traps in RfA? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  My suggestion about "committing to specific chores" was just to illustrate that we would like admins to commit to helping rather than just having the buttons "for the heck of it".  Since some have objected to the specific word "commit", we could  change "do you anticipate helping with?" to "will you help with?".  I'm not hung up on this bit though.  It would be sufficient to just strike the "if any".  --Richard 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A grammatical point that has been bugging me for a while, and illustrated in the preceeding comment - the wording "would you anticipate helping with" should be "do you anticipate...". On the main point, I personally prefer the "if any" to remain for the reasons stated above. Despite the booby trap aspect, not every admin applicant will apply in order to do 'chores'. It may be expected of an admin, but they may want admin priviledges just so they can go about their normal business without the hindrance of queueing to get simple admin tasks completed. I think it is appropriate to ask if that is the case. Jim182 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That clashes with the purpose of adminship doesn't it? Its not for personal convenience. Rama's arrow 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it's to help the project. --Alex | talk / review me | 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if anyone would disagree, but it is appropriate to ask without assuming. Anyway it was just a minor thought addition - my main point was on the grammar. Jim182 18:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Apart from the fact that removing two words won't change anything, its not a question of demanding that candidates do "substantial work." But "if any" implies that one is free not to do any, which is unacceptable. I'm pretty sure we are over-analyzing an otherwise mundane point. Rama's arrow 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I sound too objectivist, but I would not like to see candidates who don't want to perform admin-tasks stand for RfA. Its not about their capabilities as an admin or admin-eliteness, but I just feel it is a waste of community time if nearly 50~100 people research a candidate's background, ratified his capabilities and granted him sysop status only to find that he doesn't deliver. I am also a bit sad to see that many editors still see RfA as a "show of strength", getting praises from the community, and after becoming succesful, never (or rarely) touch the buttons. I have seen many such editors in the past, and am sure all of you would have. This is the reason I keep telling people that they should only go for RfA only when they need the tools. Guess I am a strong follower of Essjay's philosophy that: "If your edit doesn't make Wikipedia a better place, its better to not perform that edit". Consequently, I feel that people with no interest in sysop chores should think twice before submitting their RfA. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Aside from the minor grammatical change (would -> do), I am content with the current wording. It allows candidates to express a preference for not doing 'admin chores', which is their right, and perhaps also their downfall. I concur with the points made by Durin above. Jim182 11:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? 

message: There appears to be a recent trend toward users' putting "pop quiz" questions to candidates and then !voting or commenting based on the replies.  I'd welcome discussion on whether this is a desirable development.  Newyorkbrad 19:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's an example of a pop quiz question? Picaroon9288 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Questions 7-9 on NishKid64's pending RfA are examples. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no immediately apparent problem with most of them. Not specifically relating to Nishkid's rfa, but in general, these sorts of questions can help users verify that the candidate is knowledgeable enough to perform duty X that they listed in q1 by asking them to comment on a specific example of X, or making sure they generally understand task/area X. However, I have seen at least two such "out-of-nowhere" questions, which, when not answered perfectly, led to a somewhat questionable oppose.  Picaroon9288 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they are a good idea if a user wants to know more about the candidate, or a particular incident. --Alex | talk / review me | 19:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't really a recent trend, it happened a few months back. I disagree with 15 standard questions that people copy and paste onto every RfA, as was the case a while ago, but specific questions directed to a specific candidate should be encouraged. --Rory096 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I agree. Anybody should be free to ask questions - I recommend using the RfA's talkpage for this purpose. Rama's arrow 23:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think rely on an RfA as a process of interview is a very good way to solve its present issues. Rama's arrow 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as the ones I've added, I've caught 3 admins doing speedy deletes w/o realizing that the pages were vandalized into looking like attack pages.  If they hadn't been on my watchlists, those pages would have disappeared into the void forever - not on anyone's contribution lists or anything.  You can't even see what other pages an anon has vandalized similarly since they don't appear on the anon's contributions - only the negligent admins' deletion logs.  To me, the possibility of losing more viable articles forever to lazy future admins is enough reason to oppose.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pop quizzes" 

message: Can an admin delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ReyBrujo, please? Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Yanksox 05:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion request