Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 98

message: They are seen everywhere: Relcutant oppose, Strong support, apologetic oppose, neutral leaning towards support/oppose... The list goes on; The various descriptors for the three basic types of !votes are staggering in number and in variation. My question is do these descriptors have any effect whatsoever on the weight of the !vote? Does the closing 'crat note these descriptors when making the final decision? Or are these descriptors simply elements of emphasis that could be integrated into the !vote comment? Ultimately, I just want to know whether putting these descriptors in front (or behind) my !vote will have an impact or not. Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not much impact at all. Whether it is a reluctant oppose or not, it is still an oppose. These extra words added are used just for decoration, I guess. Sebi [talk] 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the time, in any sort of debate, I only use Support, Oppose or Neutral, because I think the qualifiers are worthless. Unless I'm trying to be funny . In a large scale system like RfA that takes tons of votes, the weighting people put behind them is meaningless, really. However, were an RfA to have two strong supports and a weak oppose... well, I personally think that'd be a pass. But with so many votes, I don't think it really matters. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 06:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone seemed to misunderstand what I had said here, and I think I worded this badly. I did not mean that the reason behind a vote is meaningless. "Oppose" is obviously less useful than "Oppose, candidate has x, y, z". I meant that there is very little practical difference between "Strong oppose candidate has x,y,z" and "Oppose candidate has x,y,z" because of the number of opinions that people put forth during an RfA. Like I said, they would make more of a difference if there were fewer opinions expressed, and would make more of a difference if all of the support was strong and all of the oppose was weak. Given that neither of these conditions happen more often than not, I don't think it makes a practical difference. --Deskana (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends... Personally, I feel it just makes users pay more attention to the comments that go with it. A STRONG SUPPORT!!! will have more emphasis than a s. Highly doubtful that it makes a real difference to a 'crats decision on a rfa though, but it does influence some users' judgement... If a reputable admin puts a strong oppose, it makes you think...  --Dark Falls talk 06:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: They're really only the result of people not confident of their argument against a person. And the utter, complete, absolute failure to understand what consensus is. ALTON .ıl 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... Seems like you have an utter, complete, absolute ignorance of the term nuance. Using "cautious support", "reluctant oppose" and such is actually more helpful to convey the subtlety of your position. That's what a discussion should be about. Pascal.Tesson 16:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Didnt say there was anything wrong with them. Just wanted to see if they had any impact. Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was in response to User:Alton Pedro |  Chat   07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of those markers is to headline the comment in a summary. If the argument is strong enough that person should not need those adjectives. It is much easier for whoever closes it to be able to read through the arguments and make his own decision, than be influenced by what weight a person believes his point should hold. Moral Support is given under different circumstances, as you mentioned, and doesn't fit under what I disprove of. To me, the most important part is the discussion, not the signature, as you also have said. ALTON .ıl 20:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Arguments are tallied, not votes. The difference between "Strong Oppose User ran over my cat" and "Weak Oppose User repeatedly applies incorrect db tags to articles" has nothing to do with the prefix. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that context, I think it makes sense. I still wonder -- does it actually make a difference to the crat? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to ask a bureaucrat. I should also mention that in this "STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE" case, not only did I modify the word "oppose", I also added to my comments, which ended up being about half the size of this section. --Kyoko 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When I add qualifiers to my comments, I don't expect that they will have a major effect on the bureaucrat's decision. They are, though, more communicative messages to the candidates, who definitely read every vote with as much or more interest than the closing 'crat. Dekimasuよ! 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (x emotion/weight/description) oppose/support !votes 

message: I had an RfA two months ago. Since then, I have had 300 edits, including 50 Wikipedia namespace. Should I selfnom again? ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple question: do you do any editing that would be easier if you were an administrator? Is not having administrator abilities dampening what you could do as an editor? If it isn't, There's little reason to apply again.Now, that said, 300 edits in two months isn't that much, and won't do anything to address the complaints that you weren't active enough. They're just numbers, but you averaged about 5 edits a day; in June, I was able to hit about 53. I'm not saying you should try to edit that much, but even if you didn't quite approach that level, it'd show some dedication. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EVula's right. Before requesting adminship, you have to think whether you have improved since your last rfa. And more importantly, you have to think whether the community realized the improvements. From a personal perspective, the amount of activity isn't enough for me to realize much change. --Dark Falls talk 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But 323 is? What about 417? 576? Where's the edge? --Durin 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what's important, as far as guaging activity goes, is that if you aren't sure if you're active, you're not. I realize how potentially unhelpful this may be (what with the vagueness and all), but that's generally how I see it. When you're dedicated to the project, you know it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really an edge... It's dependent on the quality of the edits basically... 20,000 edits might not be enough if it doesn't show enough improvement. I really should make that clear. Sorry. --Dark Falls talk 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit count really shouldn't be the deciding factor, here... – Luna Santin (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good grief, a discussion? What will they think of next on this wiki?? -- nae'blis 02:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Could someone look at this nom and tell me if its correctly filed or not? I have a feeling that it isnt, but I don't know how to fix it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I think it should be deleted and restarted, IMO. Клоун 22:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not done right. Just follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. Wizardman 01:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ive handled it now. I apreciate the help and the speedy result. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorectly filed?

message: On Wikipedia: Requests for adminship/Butseriouslyfolks, a sockpuppet of Molag Bal, Francisco Tevez, has said support. I removed it, but then I decided to revert myself, as I've never removed supports/opposes/neutrals from sockpuppets before, and not sure if I'm doing something wrong. Should the support from that user be removed? Acalamari 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could either remove it fully, or put a note under it, discounting the support comment. On the page, it states that "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets". --Dark Falls talk 02:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I should have read that; haven't read the page in a while and should have done that before posting. Acalamari 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be stricken right off (but not deleted). It would be helpful to add a link to the checkuser page or something. Majorly (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I indented the support and linked the checkuser case before I reverted myself. This is what I've done now. The support is there, just indented and not counted. Acalamari 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with both DarkFalls and Majorly. Comments from SPA's, socks, accounts that are blocked only shortly after the !vote and other such users are usually either struck, or tagged with a message noting the corrupted comment, or both. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Striking all comments of Francisco would be a good course of action. I took the liberty of doing so on Cometstyles' RFA. Banned == No editing. Period. Sean William  @ 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found them on two RfAs, Cometstyles and Butseriouslyfolks; both have been struck out now. Acalamari 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A banned user 

message: The recent ArbCom decision in the badlydrawnjeff case found that "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy... The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." The finding itself has been argued to death, and I don't intend to reopen that particular can of worms. My question is this: can we really continue to maintain that adminship is "no big deal" when admins are now empowered to unilaterally delete pages, based on fairly subjective and often contentious grounds and without the burden of proof? That's a significant expansion of power beyond the tightly-worded speedy-deletion criteria and the consensus-gauging role of AfD closure. Given that admins are now entrusted with that power, can we really say with a straight face that adminship is still "no big deal"? MastCell Talk 19:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "No big deal" quote does not relate to this. The tools themselves and how they are used are inherently a big deal, but the "aura of power" is the part that is no big deal. Adminship is important to the wiki, but it is not a trophy. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%; that's how I interpret the "no big deal" thing. But "no big deal" is often used as a justification for supporting an RfA by default, because of a lack of red flags, rather than because of clear positive qualifications. Which is fine, but I wonder whether it's appropriate to continue to use this rationale in the current milieu. MastCell Talk 19:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't like to support, just because of the no big deal thing, but I'd support if there were no red flags maybe. If I can see they won't be a problem, I really don't see why not. Majorly (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the deletion of BLPs if libelous is really a last resort thing if purging the POV from it is too convoluted. We can only hope this doesn't turn out to be a flame war between deletionists and inclusionists. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 19:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Admins have long been empowered to unilaterally delete pages, according to the policy of WP:CSD. Conscious 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "unilateral" has long been abused, but I've never seen WP:CSD called "unilateral". Please explain. Sean William  @ 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean nothing more than deletion on sight. Conscious 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then "unilateral" was a poor choice of words, I'm afraid. Sean William  @ 15:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Deleting an article which fits a speedy category is not unilateral. The community as a whole has decided that such articles are always unacceptable and may be purged on-sight, rather than wasting time by putting in an AfD where the outcome would be obvious. That's not unilateral action, it's supported by the community. (Deleting an article which does not specifically fit a speedy category could be considered unilateral, on the other hand). Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - CSD are very narrowly defined - "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion." On the other hand, it's now established that an individual admin's interpretation of WP:BLP, which is very broadly worded ("basic human dignity"?), can acquire the force of law and require a burden of proof to be met, by editors who can't view the deleted article, in order to be overturned. That's fundamentally different from CSD. MastCell Talk 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "deletion under BLP" a special case of application of WP:CSD#G10? Conscious 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; at least, not in the way it's used. G10 is restricted to pages that disparage their subjects. Deletion "per BLP" is based on personal interpretations of whether the content in an article violates any portion of the BLP policy or personal ethical conceptions of general and controversial concepts such as "human dignitiy". It is inherently very subjective. As you can probably tell, I don't hold a positive view of out-of-process "deletions under BLP". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a very argued point for which there is no answer as yet. I believe so, and am set to be shown anything anywhere else that permits speedy deletion of articles under BLP for any other reason, however freeqeuently cited is a vague "do no harm" principle that some admins are insisting on applying that basically amounts to deleting anything that someone might not like (overstatigng the case slightly, but not that much). ViridaeTalk 04:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it certainly appears so. I am not ready to give the delete buttons to just anyone, now that any admin can delete based on subjective criteria. I will not be so free in giving away support comments in the future. Which is unfortunate. - TwoOars 08:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If administrators did not have subjective criteria, then all we'd need are adminbots running around. Being an administrator requires judgment calls. If you suck at it, then ArbCom will take the bit away. No big deal. Sean William  @ 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see many admins who suck being desysopped. And maybe there were a lot of subjective criteria earlier too, but they seem to be increasing. We seem to be reaching a stage when there will be a new policy written somewhere, "Thou shalt not question an admin. An admin knows all." - TwoOars 16:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still "no big deal"? 

message: Rather then write a long essay here, I'd simply like to ask if anyone has any rebuttals other then  to the issues raised in this diff.  I'll end this rant with a simple quote; "this is madness!" G1ggy Talk/Contribs 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're linking to Captain panda's RfA. Captain panda points out, in his Q2 response, that he hardly does anything on Wikipedia except add tags and cast votes (in fact, he goes farther than that, saying that adding tags and casting votes are his "best contributions"). Suddenly he wants to branch out and block vandals, even though he's never so much as handled a content dispute before. Where should we look for evidence that he would use the mop responsibly, if we don't look for meaningful contributions? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  06:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And blocking vandals has what relation to content disputes?  I think Captain panda can recognise vandalism.  G1ggy (t|c|p) 07:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I can really see both sides of the argument here. I agree with G1ggy, in principle, that adminship itself is more about maintenance than article-writing, and that we shouldn't oppose someone based on the fact that most of their edits are maintenance-related. This is particularly important given the maintenance backlogs that build up. On the other hand, I do accept the view that an RfA candidate should have a significant editcount in the mainspace, which shouldn't be all automated vandal-fighting (some wikifying or copyediting work is always good to see, for instance). I also agree that a pure vandal-fighter or wikignome is unlikely to have enough experience interacting with other editors. Nonetheless, I think that someone who combines extensive mainspace maintenance work with active policy discussion (as with R and Captain panda) should not be opposed for adminship on the basis of inadequate article-writing - if everyone spent all their time writing articles rather than doing maintenance, the encyclopedia would quickly disintegrate. Waltontalk 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Reductio ad absurdum: If Wikipedia had started with a pool of volunteers, with all the volunteers focusing on fighting vandalism, applying maintenance tags, casting RFA and AFD votes, and doing other administrative tasks, but none of the volunteers writing articles, then there wouldn't actually be a pool of articles to maintain, delete, or unvandalize.  On the other hand, if nobody maintained articles, vandalism and crufty articles would accumulate over time.  Both of these branches of volunteerism are important.  You need to have the articles in the first place before you can start maintaining them.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. As such, at RfA, experience in either field should be valued equally, although the perfect candidate should have a balance of both. Waltontalk 16:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking only for myself, the reason I look for quality mainspace contributions is simple. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are very easy to cite and expound upon in the abstract, but quite difficult to apply in a practical sense, particularly in contentious areas. That goes for dispute resolution, but also for the deletion policy (both AfD's and speedys), page protection gray areas, and even blocking and dealing with vandalism. I want to see that an editor's been "in the trenches" enough to realize this. MastCell Talk 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainspace work.  For god sake! 

message: Hey, I am planning a series of surveys relating to RfA's, and I have prepared one already at http://wpsurvey.100webspace.net/index.php?sid=1. If you are reading this, you are most likely a RfA contributor, so I would be very grateful if you could fill out the survey.
This may be perceived as advertising, but it is wiki-related, and all results will be posted on-wiki when the survey completes. If this is consider inappropriate, feel free to remove, however I decided this was better than spamming the talk pages of heaps of people.
I would like to thank in advance anyone that completes the survey, and I will make all results available as soon as I get enough responses. Raw data will be available privately to users on request. No personal information is collected during the survey. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At quick glance, I think it is silly to believe that people can make judgments on the minimal amount of information that you have provided.  Support and Opposition is determined based on contributions, not in a vacuum based on just the numbers.  I suggest that you remove this, not because it is inappropriate, but rather, because it will add no value. --After Midnight 0001 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, This is not about the specific criteria! I could have used any criteria! The idea is the releationships between the answers. I do not care about the answers to some questions, just how they relate to others. The first screen is the only one based entirely on editcount anyway. Also, the DB server on my host is down, so it isn't up right now. Stupid free host. That was not a personal attack, just me merely expreessing hatred towards my host Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: DB server is back online, host got it up. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Early results are in! See User:TheFearow/Survey_Results#RfA_Survey. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: I've written an informal essay in userspace, User:Walton monarchist89/Adminship factions. Please take a look at it and add your comments on the talk page, or edit the essay. Waltontalk 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I fit the classification of the "article first faction", I'm going to elaborate on my RfA oppose reasons. I oppose due to lack of non-automated article work because I feel that a user learns a great deal about Wikipedia, and gains experience in discussion and handling disputes over articles. I sometimes oppose users for "bureaucratic" behavior. I also think that people who put Wikipedia namespace editing before article editing have their priorities all mixed up. Regardless of your writing skills, you should be here to help build an encyclopedia. For me personally, I'm just looking to see if a candidate has experience in handling himself in straightforward discussion. I sometimes see users who have demonstrated that in the Wikipedia namespace, and in those cases, I have supported them despite a lack of article work. Also, I don't think you need to be a genius to comprehend speedy deletion, but you should have a decent understanding of the whole process, and also be a good communicator. It's happened far too often that new users have left Wikipedia because they are frustrated with the speedy deletion treatment of their articles on Wikipedia. Some users are going to be stubborn when you explain Wikipedia policy to them, but there are others who clearly will listen to you if you explain policy and guidelines to them in a simple, civil and straightforward manner. This goes back to the communication/discussion skills that an editor learns while doing article writing and participating in disputes over articles. I think my RfA standards are not that high, but some users think otherwise. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough - I was trying to characterise each faction's views in a fairly balanced manner, so if you feel the essay's a little unfair, feel free to edit it. I myself fit more into the "no big deal" faction, so I may have unconsciously shown some bias in my description of different views. Waltontalk 17:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I fall into the no big deal faction as well as the trust faction. Adminship is no big deal, but I will only support if I trust the candidate (though I'm not really nit-picky if they do not have much experience in a certain area). Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten that bit somewhat, as it occurred to me that "trust" is too broad a term, and isn't necessarily antithetical to "no big deal". What I was referring to there is those who are extremely careful about RfA nominations. Waltontalk 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that essay is a fair observation, though as the essay suggests I am one of those that do not fall into any specific group - perhaps the "adminship is about a lot of things" group. I think adminship is no big deal - and I think hard before casting an oppose comment - but I always feel I need to trust the candidate before supporting, and like to see some evidence of article writing and experience but I do not consider either essential. Camaron1 | Chris 18:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: True. I was trying to stay out of the "vote vs discussion" thing with this essay, but I guess my strongly-held views probably show through. Feel free to rewrite it as required. Waltontalk 18:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote vs discussion is more of an RfB issue than an RfA one. Borisblue 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly, so let's stay out of it here. Waltontalk 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To an extent it's subjective, as are all essays (they're primarily opinion pieces). I kept this one in userspace because it is basically a personal set of observations, but I also thought it might be interesting to other editors, and is certainly relevant to some of the discussion taking place on this page. Waltontalk 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One faction I believe is missing is the "No good reason" faction. I've seen people opposed for "lack of portal talk edits". That certainly needs its own faction. Probably 75% or over of candidates have no portal talk edits, and probably at least half the crats dont have any either. I think it's a reason used when you just dont like the candidate, but want it to sound like you have a good reason. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TheFearow, those oppose reasons are supposed to be taken as jokes. That's why you sometimes see a user write Oppose lack of Portal talk edits.Support This guy rocks. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 34. Support --RainbowSigManPot 'o Gold 10:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of the "race to support" group would fit into the "no big deal" faction. There's nothing inherently wrong with casting a Support vote without a rationale; the implicit statement is "I believe adminship is no big deal, and that this candidate can be trusted with the tools". An Oppose vote, on the other hand, generally needs a rationale, because the presumption ought to be in favour of support. Waltontalk 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:AAAD may be of some interest here. Warofdreams talk 03:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This essay is intended to be completely different from WP:AAAD - AAAD lists arguments to avoid, while my essay outlines different valid points of view. I think the problem with AAAD is that it's a bit subjective; to one person, mainspace count might be a stupid reason to oppose, while another might see it as a good indicator of article-writing experience, for instance. Waltontalk 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the additions I've made to AAAD focus on the need to explain, preferably with examples, why the objection leads to the belief that the candidate cannot be trusted with adminship.  "Has only 100 mainspace edits, so cannot tell whether they can deal with disputes" is a decent reason; "Has only 2,990 mainspace edits and I don't support under 3,000" is not. Warofdreams talk 15:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay on factions

message: A very quick proposal I've created at the page above - please modify it and expand as required. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be a good idea, but might prove a little bureaucratic. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the "three users with the highest support percentages" score below 50 or 60% (maybe it's a bad season)? The kind of system proposed seems warranted only if we are in desperate need of more bureaucrats. I don't think that's the case (yet). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this might be more bureaucratic, but anything is better than the unpassable mess that RfB is now. Black Falcon, we are in dire need of new bureaucrats. The backlog at WP:CHU is (was) quite large. Sean William  @ 01:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are good and bad parts to this, I'd say. It would make sure that we have active bureaucrats, yes, but it may also make it feel more as a privilege. We could use a few more bcrats, however this system would have us have 9 at a time, fewer than what we have now. Wizardman 02:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that'd be 9 ones elected recently, increasing their chances of being active. --Deskana (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way to assure we have active bureaucrats isn't to keep making more until the job gets done, it's to have bureaucrats stand for affirmation annually (at least the new ones). Have a few people lose their bits for inactivity and see how participation improves among the sluggards. -- Cecropia 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But those losing their bits for real inactivity (not in and out situations when other work or real life intrudes) could be treated as vacancies, increasing the likelihood of new bureaucrats being chosen. But, as you say, they should be qualified, not warm bodies. -- Cecropia 02:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were it not for the Secretlondon example I would have agreed with you more. Prior to her performing renames from Apr '07 she has last promoted a user in July '04 and performed a rename in Jan '06 (see Bureaucrat statistics). I think most would see that as real inactivity. It doesn't take much for a few of the most active crats to be away for a while - having some extra users with those tools to step in isn't a bad thing. But it does result in an odd imbalance - we trust crats who were promoted back in 2004 even though we have little experience of them, but are reluctant to trust some of our most active admins now because we know them so well that we can find a flaw to make them less than ideal in our eyes. WjBscribe 02:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so that's the way it is! :) OK, I'll see your Secretlondon and raise you one Danny. No not Danny the RfA candidate, Danny the former bureaucrat. He became a bureaucrat in June '04 and made exactly one promotion in September '04 and then disappeared from the radar screen until March '06. when he swooped in out of nowhere to close a disputed RfB without explanation. In the remaining year of his 'cratship he made two more promotions. He also did four renames. I'm very glad Secretlondon returned and has done such outstanding work, but it would not have been terrible if she had stood for reaffirmation after a long period of inactivity. I had my bit removed voluntarily and submitted myself to a new RfB. Do you think that was a bad thing? -- Cecropia 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: New bureaucrats would still need to reach consensus. If a "vacancy" weren't filled by one or more RfBs, we could run more until one succeeded, 00 Cecropia 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not split up the renaming ability from the admin-promotion button? I think that the software would allow it. No one seems on RfB to be that concerned about giving too many people renaming rights and that's where the backlog is. Maybe either make it a new position or just give it to all admins? JoshuaZ 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the concerns about allowing any admin to do it is that it is a severe drain on the servers for each rename (the more edits, the worse it is). That said, I've repeatedly said that I'd be all for the rename ability being spun off onto its own. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so is there any reason we shouldn't spin it off? JoshuaZ 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Create another level of access?  editor, sysop, bcrat, changeuser, checkuser, steward, eh...  And a whole new process to grant the access?  I just don't even see the issue here.  Is it really some sort of crisis if somebody has to wait a couple days for a username change?  If anything there ought to be a waiting period anyways.  Besides, I think Deskana's RfB will pass, and maybe one of the others.  I think an RfB from WJBscribe would pass once he's been an admin for longer.  But if we had people changing usernames as often as they change sigs?  Gosh, it'd be impossible to even keep track of people. --JayHenry 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For a position that is guarded with so much trust I think it better to have a re-election/review time period (I would even support yearly reviews for administrators). A year and a half is a decent length of time for review. However, may I suggest having quarterly bureaucrat nominations with only one being promoted? It could help keep a healthy discussion and focus on the roles, duties and expectations of bureaucrats. --Ozgod 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrat elections]]

message: At the risk of restarting the whole !vote vs. vote discussion, I have seen what I believe to be an increase of the use of voting symbols, such as  appearing attached to comments on the RFA.  It is my opinion that the use of these is just silly.  The comments are already broken into support and oppose, so it is obvious which is intended by the commenter, as opposed to a standard conversation where each successive comment may alternate opinions.  Does anyone, other than me, support the depreciation of these symbols on the page?  Is it reasonable for us to restrict their use here or remove them when used? --After Midnight 0001 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They really are not necessary here. They have a purpose at voting processes at other Wikimedia projects (like RfAs on Meta-Wiki, for example), but they don't really have a purpose here. We already have split the sections into Support, Oppose and Neutral, so the symbols are not needed. I don't think it's necessary to remove the symbols, but it's probably best to advise users who do use the symbols that it really isn't needed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Those again? This has been discussed ad nauseam here: they're useful in Commons, Meta, or other multilinguistic projects, but here they just are a resource hog. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) As far as I'm aware, the only projects where the voting symbols are officially endorsed are multi-language projects where people may vote in their native langauge. There they are helpful, if not extremely important. On the English Wikipedia, I'm not sure they're necessary at all. This is irrespective of the "vote vs discussion" debate. --Deskana (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen them start cropping up. I tend to just ignore them and get on with life. Until the page is full of green and red symbols taking ages to load and hurting my eyes, there are more important things to be worried about. Majorly (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, the server only loads them once for all the times they appear on the page. So if there's fifty thousand, it'll only use the bandwidth of one but display them all. Still, I don't think they're necessary. --Deskana (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If they can't read English, they shouldn't be participating in the English Wikipedia's RfA process. :) I say remove them on sight in RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting images are a useless addition to our already overused "bold votes". We all speak English, so let's avoid them. Sean William  @ 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not needed. The only need for these is Commons, Meta and obscure language projects when a steward has to do the promotion. GDonato (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, these serve no useful purpose in an editor giving of their opinion and merely add to the page load time.  Their use should be discouraged as these policy pages are utilitarian and supposed to be practical rather than pretty. (aeropagitica) 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use them for various voting proccesses, usually on ones that have all mixed in (AfD's etc). I have some custom toolbar icons I use for voting, which automatically adds the symbols anyway. What is wrong with using the symbols? They don't wreck anything, and the bandwidth is only a tiny amount. If everyone used the same symbols, there would only be three images needing to be loaded, so there is not bandwidth issue. I think it is just personal preferrence. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong is that they are pointless, and we already have a lot of cruft floating around ;)  Seriously, you're welcome to use them, but they're likely to be removed, whilst the S/O/N headings survive.  The whole purpose of those sections is to determine your position without any fancy images/bold type. Giggy UCP 22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that they don't "wreck" anything and I don't have bandwidth concerns.  Still, I think consensus is towards not having the symbols rather than having a continuous column of identical green followed by a column of red icons on the pages.  There is no reason to use them, and RFA should be about judging the candidates, not about expressing personal preferences for icons. --After Midnight 0001 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, this issue does not warrant discussion. It is like discussing how many people simply start typing and do not actually specify in their comment whether they are support or oppose. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think they are necessary, as they just mark what is already clear - but I don't think they are that much of a big deal either. I have seen them in use and I have just treated them as a personal preference. They can be discouraged, but I think there are better things that can be done than police RfA comments over trivial issues. Camaron1 | Chris 11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Whilst I'm not bothered one way or the other on the images, I don't think it makes a huge difference to page load in this instance. The image will only be loaded once and then called each time in the html by your browser, so it will only be a few bytes each time. Of course there is also the issue that for partially sighted people the image will be meaningless, and some readers will just read the raw image description (as I don't think it has an <alt> tag) each time making it very irritating. Pedro |  Chat   14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the HTML calls, actually.  Check the source (HTML, not wikimarkup) for this page--the image call earlier in this section costs nearly 300 bytes.  At the moment there are about eight hundred !votes on the RfA page; that starts to add up.  I'd much prefer to see people use the extra 300 bytes to give a descriptive, useful comment.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I see, it's a monstrous call in raw html alone, and as I guessed the <alt> tag is empty. So for vision impaired people those icons are going to be a serious irritation. I've never used them, but I think it's clear their value is minimal at best. Pedro |  Chat   07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just removed a handful of these which TheFearow uses, I've asked him not to but he doesn't seem to want to stop so I've linked to a few discusions when using the vote images have cropped up. Rlest 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been watching the discussions, but it seemed like no consensus either way, and I believe they look good. I have now removed them from my scripts, although I object to removing them for AFD's where the D/K/C's are mixed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting symbols 

message: I came accross this orphaned, and rather futile RfA whcih isn't ranscluded to the main RfA page. Just thought you'd like to know. --Edokter (Talk) 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Batistadx]] 

message: Hats off to  for becoming the first bureaucrat promotion (Cecropia's was more of a re-confirmation) in over a year. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very happy and relieved. The pressure's off now. Andre (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's possible that there will be more bureaucrat promotions in the next day or two. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "today" -- in UTC time that is. Andre (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am estimating that we will at least have 1 more bcrat by the time these RFBs close (I am guessing it will be Andrevan or Ral315 if anyone else gets promoted). FunPika 00:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be funny if Deskana promoted! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Deskana but he said he won't close an RFB because he voted in most (but not Andrevan's I think). FunPika 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he didn't vote in mine. I'd be honored to have him perform his first closing on my RfB. Andre (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a message on his talk page about your statement Andrevan. Maybe now he will consider handling yours. FunPika 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, he may not want to, as my RfB might be close and potentially controversial. Andre (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given my n00bishness, I'd prefer to avoid closing any RfBs for the time being. --Deskana (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially after that incident at WP:CHU (check his talk). :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack! Such carelessness is unbecoming for a bureaucrat. De-'crat him! :P Borisblue 01:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats Deskana! -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Borisblue:That would be a record, surely! Giggy UCP 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of the admins who recently tried to get the crat tools should be congratulated. It is, in some cases, perhaps a little unfortunate that Deskana and Andrevan were the only people who got promoted. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true, so did Andrevan. Prodego talk 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Dear, sorry. I havent been around because of my holiday, so I'm not exactly "in the know" atm. Oh well, I'll change that. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you weren't that behind; Andrevan was promoted 6 minutes ago as of this post. —Kurykh 03:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you probably didn't know because it happened a few seconds ago.  Prodego talk 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, specifically 3600 seconds. Very few, huh? :) —Kurykh 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it depends how you look at it. Besides, Mediawiki stores lots of times in seconds, for example, you aren't auto-confirmed after 4 days, you are auto-confirmed after 4*24*3600 seconds. Prodego talk 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Well, I do try to keep an eagle eye on my watchlist, but maybe I just wasnt checking it every 30 seconds, as seems to be my usual custom. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Error! It would be 4*24*10*360 seconds, giving a grand total of 345,600 seconds. And I corrected my mathematical error above; it is supposed to be 360 seconds, not 3600. —Kurykh 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I had just noticed that myself. I think this clearly proves that we are both very bad at math. Prodego talk 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No wonder only two passed...I bet they aren't that great at maths easier.  Obviously it's the only criteria :P Giggy UCP 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously, when so much mathematical emphasis is placed on a detail as minor as the closing time. ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first "real" bureaucrat promotion in more than a year 

message: Just since I don't have the time to figure this out right now, I wonder if someone can go through and pull out posts to WT:RFA from June 16 to July 1, which are missing from the archives. Depending on the length, it seems it would be easiest just to add them to the end of Archive 96. It might also be helpful to remind whoever deleted the posts without archiving that we keep a record of what goes on here. Thanks in advance for some helpful detective work.... Dekimasuよ! 11:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming good faith doesn't mean thinking no one makes mistakes! I didn't think anyone did anything negative on purpose; I just failed to realize that the mistake was so minor, since Archive 96 was so short and the dates at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives also excluded the interim. Thanks for checking it out and balancing it. Dekimasuよ! 13:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure an assumption of good faith would allow the possibility that there was a simple mistake and helpfully reminded you of that in the spirit of your request for a friendly reminder. ;) Hiding Talk  13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A married couple wouldn't declare it as resolved though...they'd bicker for eternity :P Giggy UCP 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .... Dekimasuよ! 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving again 

message: Kurt Weber is still attacking self-noms.  See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ishikawa Minoru. Giggy UCP 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say ignore it. His opinion will not reflect the outcome of the request, but if anyone starts going "per Kurt..." then that will be a problem :P Majorly (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, he supported a self nom!  To bad it was a joke... Giggy UCP 05:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Support per Kurt. I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next time someone self-nominates, they should make sure to include: "I don't want power at all! I really don't care if I'm made an admin or if I believe that I could use the tools to benefit Wikipedia; I just hope you guys'll humor me for a week." GracenotesT § 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I actually tried this in the face of honesty (hey I must be so naive) Rfa Mike33 Rfa is broken no honesty will ever work.  (cram up on answers and supplementaries, its better than an oral) Mike33 14:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, if his comment at the recently closed request that is discussed in the following post, Kurt has finally decided to abandon what seems to be a vendetta against self-nominations. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The post below doesn't make the best example though... Giggy UCP 21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Try this: #Support — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of wanting to help better the encyclopedia. I used on carlossuarez46's RfA, which Kurt "attacked". Клоун 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's back.... 

message: Could someone else close this please?  It's being re-opened but is obviously a joke, or a snow closure in any case. Giggy UCP 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop closing it. You are absurdly abusing WP:SNOW. It has probably never before been used in such a ridiculously inapplicable situation. See "What the snowball clause is not." What you are doing is wrong and I can't even understand it. "Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness." I just don't understand this! Not Wikipedia Administrator 05:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just leave it be. If it gets opened again, I'd have to oppose for your lack of history. You have a handful of edits and a 2.5 year hiatus before your self-nom. --健次(derumi)talk 05:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, while this may not have reached SNOW proportions yet, there is absolutely no chance that it wont should it remain open. I promise you, you will not pass with only 50 edits to that account. ViridaeTalk 05:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We're sparing you the inevitable sledgehammer of opposition. More constructive efforts can be devoting to editing the encyclopedia. In case you didn't know, foresight is one of the most important requirements in being an administrator. —Kurykh 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those are good reasoned arguments. And their proper place to appear upon is on the RfA. Not Wikipedia Administrator 05:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it run through, it'll be SNOWed within a few hours. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was what I was going to suggest. ViridaeTalk 05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that this user is now indefinitely blocked. Chick Bowen 05:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! i was not aware of that special page. What a useful tool. Anyway - it seems good that this RFA has been closed, and this account blocked. The last thing we want is an account created for harassment, let alone an admin! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Strong oppose the RfBs of any editors who redirect to my mom. Dekimasuよ! 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo' momma's so fat, she has her own namespace. See also Dekimasu'smom: Main Page. Andre (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just how many accounts do you have? Dekimasuよ! 10:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, I have no idea how that account became unblocked to begin with. There's no record of the block in the log, but it does predate the block log's existence. Did indefinite blocks get wiped at some point in the past? Andre (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it was ever blocked.  In those days the practice was to try to convince people to change their username first, and it seems no one followed up in this case.  If this was DG, Andrevan, please let him know we're getting tired of his antics. Harmless he may be, but he has now committed pagemove vandalism, made inappropriate comments at your RfB, added and re-added several times a fake message bar to his userpage that links to a shock image, trolled RfA, and generally made of a nuisance of himself.  Is he, perhaps, interested in editing some articles? Chick Bowen 13:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it was blocked at one point, by Guanaco I think, and the block was active as recent as February when this happened: "20:49, February 7, 2007 Mets501 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Not Wikipedia Administrator" (userpage of an indefinitely blocked user)" At any rate, check the "Wikivacation" message on his user page, I spoke to him. Andre (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  I'd far rather he settled down and contributed than that he leave, of course. Chick Bowen 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Not Wikipedia Administrator]] 

message: Yes, it's time for a random unsolvable rant again.
People keep opposing RfAs for ideological differences. If someone is too inclusionist, oppose. If someone is too deletionist, oppose. If someone has the wrong opinion on some policy, oppose.
Now, to some extent, this is fine. If you think someone is going to cause serious additional damage to the project by having admin tools and this wrong interpretation of policy, fine, oppose. But keep in mind, most such opinions are not obtainable unless the user tells you, and there is no way to ascertain if they are lying. It hasn't been a big problem yet, but we're opposing for too many opinions, thus teaching everyone who joined less than a year ago to lie about their opinions on policies, and to act on no controversial opinion until they gain adminship. Because no matter what we force people to say if they wish any chance to pass, adminship is a trophy to some. -Amarkov moo! 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with you that this does happen and has happened before, I don't see it recently.  Hence the random rant? Giggy UCP 04:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. -Amarkov moo! 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that opposing for philosophy is usually a bad thing, but it can depend on circumstances.  For example, I'd have trouble supporting someone who didn't understand or accept IAR.  If someone was inclusionist to the point of rejecting the concept of verifiability, I couldn't support that either.   Friday (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is someone, as an administrator, going to do harm to the project if they do not understand or accept IAR?  --Iamunknown 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, yes? Remember one time when an admin deleted the entire VfD page without discussion, citing IAR? Borisblue 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. I'm not sure my question came out the right way. Your point is valid that if an administrator simply does not understand IAR and, as such, deletes a bunch of things citing IAR, that would do harm. I mean my question more as the following: Is someone, as an administrator, going to do harm to the project if they reject IAR? I think it is somewhat different than the question: Is someone ... if they do not understand IAR? --Iamunknown 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, there is a difference between "does not understand" IAR and "does not like" IAR. Hmm... but why abstractize it. I understand IAR, for example, yet I rarely apply it. Am I a risk to Wikipedia? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I suppose I should be less abstract about it.  :P  My point is that, to some extent (I am not sure how much), I agree with Amarkov.  I think that, generally, opposing based upon philosophy is silly (I admit that I have done it before :\).  I am not sure why I posed the IAR-related question.  What I should have said in response to Friday's post is that I disagree with her assessment that those who reject IAR should not become administrators.  That someone rejects IAR indicates that they will follow policy.  It also seems that most of the drama that happens around here happens when someone does not follow policy.  Reject IAR = no drama = good (in some respects) for Wikipedia.  (Though I do not endorse rejecting IAR.)  --Iamunknown 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to assume, however, that following policy to the most exacting detail possible will always, without fail, produce the very best result with the absolute minimum amount of drama. The true application is not in ignoring rules without cause, I would say, but in being able to recognize situations where current policy will produce a substantially suboptimal (or even negative) result, and to act accordingly. Or, in short, recognizing that written policy is not a suicide pact. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, true.  Following policy does not always equal "no drama"; it, in fact, sometimes equals "zomg drama".  (:P)  --Iamunknown 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  IAR is best applied in conjunction with another policy or guiding principle, like the Foundation issues. Otherwise, it doesn't have a leg to stand on, because IAR can be IAR'd itself. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ed Poor, yes. How could you forget that. But then, if your only argument is IAR, then you need a better argument. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  A question I usually end up asking myself is "are these opposes due to the candidate's weaknesses, or are they because he doesn't agree with others' view of WP:IAR/WP:CSD/WP:PRO/WP:RD/WP:ILIKEMONKEYS?" This is particularly poignant in RFB's; in both Andrevan's and Deskana's, we had several users ignoring the merits and flaws of the candidates, and opposing solely on the Danny question. I guess that is one of the elephants in the room Amarkov talks about. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposing for philosophy at RfB is not stupid. I supported or opposed candidates based solely on the Danny question, and I believe I was right in doing so. This is because, at RfB, it's not just about whether I trust the candidate as an admin; it's about whether I trust them to close RfBs according to the opinion of the community, expressed through a fair and equal vote, rather than according to their opinion. As such, even though I have the greatest personal respect for RyanGerbil and Andrevan, I opposed them because they advocated the "discussion not vote" model of RfA closure, which I believe is wrong. See :m:wikidemocratism for my thoughts on consensus; basically, every good-faith user's opinion should be treated equally, regardless of whether the closing bureaucrat agrees with their rationale. The only thing that counts in an RfB is whether the candidate is wikidemocratic or wikithoritarian. Experience and character are less important; if we're relying on bureaucrats to make the right decisions all the time, that just shows that they have too much power. WaltonOne 11:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait, is RfA/B governed by consensus, or is it not? Democracy is not based upon consensus, it is based upon majority and the polls. That said, I agree with you that bureaucrats should not summarily discount a specific editor's concerns (unless they say some patently wrong argument like, "Oppose based on block record", when the candidate has no blocks). What bureaucrats should do is, instead, note how many editors commented about that another's comment. For example, three editors comment, "Oppose based upon lack of experience", but twenty or more editors comment, "Support. Lack of experience is not a problem IMO.", then it appears that the consensus is that lack of experience is not a problem. On the contrary, if three editors say, "Support, good XFD contributor", but twenty editors say, "Oppose, uncivil and confrontational at XFD, does not understand CSD", then it is reasonable to assume that the consensus is that the consensus is that the candidate is not a good XFD contributor. These essential judgment calls would be totally lost in any "wikidemocratic" model. --Iamunknown 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Iamunknown, that's definitely what bureaucrats do, in many cases. Andre (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  " I opposed them because they advocated the "discussion not vote" model of RfA closure, which I believe is wrong." - but is that belief of yours shared by the majority of the community? If it is so, why do we have an increasing push for discussions to be decided less on votes, but more on arguments? Is it fundamentally fair for a candidate to be opposed simply because someone doesn't agree with what the rest of the community indicates it is their preference? Bureaucrats cannot decide whether they want to implement a wikidemocratic system. They only follow the community's mandate. As a result, it is not their prerogative to enact change, but it is yours, and opposing them accomplishes nothing. So, I stand by my original point. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing for philosophy is stupid 

message: When I first joined wikipedia (way back in Jan '05) 1000 edits was considered more than enough to evaluate a candidate. When I ran for adminship (Sept '06) my 3000 edit-count was considered barely acceptable. I'm a bit curious, are our newer admins better than our admins back when, who were judged only on hundreds of edits? Is there any objective measure we can use? Desysoppings, times tools were used, etc.?Borisblue 05:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether an admin is "good" or not is very subjective. Many good admins would be less popular because they come across trolls more often. Admins that barely use their tools and are otherwise good editors will be much more popular despite rarely using their tools. And how would you compare admins who solve dispute resolution with admins who only delete CSDs? GizzaDiscuss © 05:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I became admin in September 2004 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrevan. I started out with around 1300 edits, blankfaze (one of the earlier edit-counter RfA frequenters) said he would not support until 1800, so I just sat around editing for a few hours a day until I had enough. At that time Kate's tool didn't exist, and the edit counting method was to go into contributions, copy and paste every line, and count the number of lines in Notepad. At the time, blankfaze would routinely oppose for any user with under 2000 edits. So I'm not sure where you're getting that 1000 was always enough. Andre (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty certain that 1000 was always enough when I first started participating in RFA. You had one user with unusual standards, at least for that time. Borisblue 06:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: [Edit conflict] To continue my point, many non-admins have enough experience to delete speedies but most won't be considered patient or mature enough to handle disputes, especially controversial ones. Even comparing civility is difficult because many admins can be very kind when they perform trivial tasks. It is much harder for admins who do the dirty work to keep their cool. GizzaDiscuss © 05:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any one standard for "good" or "bad" admins. If an admin only rarely uses their tools, and only for uncontroversial tasks (vandalism cleanup, history merges, etc.), most everyone will probably agree they're a good one. If they wade into more controversial areas, even if they do so well, they'll probably find themself with some enemies—you just can't please everyone in a lot of those cases. Any admin that's ever made a 3RR block has at least one person who doesn't like them very well. And so on, and so on. There really isn't any one definable standard, not even popularity. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with what has been said. It would be very hard to evaluate an admin, especially when there are only two labells of either "good" or "bad". For such a narrow survey, a definition of what a "good" admin is, and in doing so, what "the perfect" admin is, would need to be made, and we can all imagine how hard that would be to do, and how much scrutiny and outrage the process would undoubtedly endure. No, one will have to make their own decisions on who they respect as admins, and who they feel uses the tools well, and who perhaps does not use them as well. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "good" admin would surely be one that benefits the community as a whole; it shouldn't matter how many admin edits they have as long as they do that. If everyone could be trusted, then we'd all have the tools even if we didn't use them. For example, there must be many admins who have not used a particular tool such as 'protect', 'delete', or 'block' but they still have the tools. An admin (in my opinion) is someone who can be trusted with the tools. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh. It's impossible to quantify how "good" an admin is. Much easier, though, to identify bad ones. Basically, there are two kinds of admins: those who use the tools with an adequate degree of responsibility and those who do not. It's difficult to define gradations within the "adequate" category, which is obviously by far the larger of the two. But if the question is whether higher edit count thresholds == better admins, then I have to agree with everyone else: no. MastCell Talk 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thing is, we don't offer annual performance review here. Unless you are stripped of your mop (which makes it obvious), it is really up to individuals' perspective on individual admins. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps to the extent of editor review? Reconfirmation was previously rejected. - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and I came up with the idea of admins being peer reviewed every 18 months about a month ago onthis very page, but it too was shot down.  New England 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that I wouldn't look forward to peer-reviewing 70+ admins every month. And there might be a high turnover on admins who are willing to do the thankless dirty work that needs to be done. --健次(derumi)talk 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's that.  The way I look at it is that admins are reviewed constantly- as they do their work, people may leave them feedback.  As long as an admin (and this goes for any editor, really) is reasonably responsive to feedback, no further review is necessary in my opinion.  If an admin is doing questionable things and is not responsive enough to other editor's concerns, we have dispute resolution for that.  Friday (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are our admins getting better?

message: RFA has many flaws — anyone with common sense knows that — but opposing based off of lack of content contributions seems a bit absurd after thinking about it. Administrative duties will call on RC and New page patrol, and while it may call on article-writing sometimes, it is not important enough to oppose. Sorry, I just wanted to get this off my chest; if you don't want to respond, please don't. —« ANIMUM » 04:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point, Animum, will swiftly become controversial, and I'm glad that I am able to comment first. Opposing for this reason is logical or illogical dependant on what exists as important to the person who casts their !vote. Many people believe different things, often independant on the policy which all users are supposed to interface with, and the various conceptions born of policy. The power for a user to administrate is not something which can be measured easily in a pure article writer, but perhaps more easily in someone who combats vandalism and maintains. However, people will oppose either depending on what is important to them in an administrator. Many feel that crucial administrative experience is gained through content contribs. And your assertion that a lack of article writing and mainspace contribs is not a reason to oppose is violently untrue to many editors, and does contradict the actual point of being here: to build an encyclopedia. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you know how I feel, Magnus.  And, no doubt, you'll soon find out how I feel when I say such things in public, because the onslaught is surely on its way. Giggy UCP 04:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is controversial... and I'm not sure where I stand on it totally, but I wouldn't dismiss the concern. People who want to administrate the writing of encyclopedia articles should know how to write encyclopedia articles. It's not something you can really fake. I'm sure some of us have had a boss who has never actually done the work we were doing, and makes poor decisions out of ignorance... I know I did at one point. I think there's some connection between that and admins who can't write articles. But then again in the recent case of Butseriouslyfolks his content contributions weren't all that impressive but he'd dealt with 1,000+ copyvios and it was pretty obvious he'd make a good admin. So I dunno. It'd be nice if all supposed editors knew how to make good content edits... sometimes it seems like some people forget we're writing an encyclopedia here, not just administrating some ginormous project because it's fun to administrate things. --W.marsh 09:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. i think for some it is hard to see over the hill of administration into the light of the reality that we are actually building an encylopedia here. Nothing more. If some things need administration, it should come as second priority, done just for the good of the encyclopedia, so you can start building it again. No-one should dedicate their whole time on wikipedia to that. Thats losing sight. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, keep in mind everyone that there's a difference between opposing per almost no article writing/mainspace edits at all, and opposing because they don't have enough well-written articles under their belt. It seems like people are starting to oppose per the latter, and that may be a problem down the line. Wizardman 15:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've said it before, I expect to say it again: in a general sense, we need a variety of contributors -- we need people generating and improving content, we need people organizing content, we need people protecting content from vandals and opportunists, we need people minding infrastructure and dispute resolution, we need people to calm down disputes and keep a sense of community going, at least enough that we don't fracture as a project. We need people working on communication. Especially with any project that reaches this scale, the notion of only one area becoming the sole important task seems patently absurd. Some may be more important than others, some may need more attention than others (and this will vary), but there's no end to the number of important things to be done, really, and our sense of community would do well to reflect that, in my opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree. Which is why I don't think voters should insist candidates be a Jack of all trades, master of none. --Android Mouse 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry if it feels like I keep repeating the same thing over and over but here goes any way. I have in certain cases opposed on grounds of insufficient experience in mainspace. My reasons for doing so is not as simple-minded as "article writing is what it's all about" and I suspect that most who criticize a candidate for lack in writing feel the same. You see the potential damage an admin can do is not as some may think in deleting the mainpage but rather in an accumulation of small mistakes that go unnoticed to most. The trickiest part in admin chores is more often than not in communicating about one's actions. Admins who have no experience in writing are likely to lack an understanding of how a content writer feels when the article he's working on is deleted or suddenly turns into a battlefield. And in turn he is likely to make poor decisions that are poorly motivated and based on blindly applying rules rather than common sense gained from his experience as a writer. Slowly but surely, this will drive away potential contributors. Pascal.Tesson 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points from both of you. One more thing to add, I've seen 1FA (and similar standards) toted as defenses against the Trojan admin; I don't know quite how much I buy into the idea, but I'm sure it's something a lot of people (myself included) consider when evaluating the amount of time and effort somebody's put into the project, before running for a position of trust. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree Luna. An editor dedicating his/her time (free of charge lest we all forget) to get an article up to FA standard would seem trustworthy. An editor banging away for seven months reverting vandalism would seem equally trustworthy. Good writers may well progress to using admin tools well. Good maintenance editors may well progress to be good writers. Either way, the issue is trust. Either way there is nothing an admin can do that cannot be undone. Pedro |  Chat   20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user plans to help by blocking vandals at AIV. Does he need article writing? No. A user plans to help by determining consensus. Does he need article writing? No. He needs common sense, and thats it. Other places may need some knowledge of article writing, but did he say he planned on helping out in those places? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would that theoretical admin recognize the difference between subtle vandalism and legitimate editing, if he didn't write articles? How would an admin evaluate arguments based on content policies, if he hasn't had hands-on experience with those policies? I'm not saying 1FA, but that hypothetical administrator should have at least some knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes to be able to do his !job properly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to reiterate. People need to realise that it doesnt matter what they think, as a singular. Everyone has their own opinion, which is coagulated with the rest of the !votes. Nothing said here will change anyones minds, its just repeating everyone's opinions to no avail. Those who are stubborn to the need of article writing will still oppose pure vandal fighters, and vice versa. Those who still oppose for low space edits will still oppose for low space edits. Its called freedom of speech, and no-one can regulate that, as decreed by the standards of RFA. Thats my 2c anyway. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem is that the standards are applied in a seemingly arbitrary way, however. I had a clearly deserving candidate voted down last week for "insufficient article writing," while a dozen admins with comparable records of writing have been promoted in the past few months and are doing fine jobs. I suppose I'll have more to say about this when I nominate the candidate again at the appropriate time, because for some reason he has become a lightning rod for this issue. In the meantime other administrators, who would prefer to be spending their time on tasks more suited for them, have to cover the admin tasks that would have been performed by candidates rejected on what I consider to be questionable grounds. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are refering to R, previously known as TechWiz. NYB, what would you deem 'the appropriate time', for this candidate to try again? I'm just wondering about something... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't given that too much thought yet, and I doubt that the candidate has either. Generally, unsuccessful candidates are advised to wait a couple of months before trying again, at a minimum, and those who have been rejected more than once are advised to wait longer, although it's also relevant whether the candidate's previous RfA came reasonably close to passing, as this one did. Newyorkbrad 06:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something peeving my insides 

message: If a nominator asks a user to "take a look" at the RFA of the candidate he nominated, does that violate WP:CANVASS.  New England 17:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on if the nominator knew you had a positive relationship with the candidate and would likely support. --Android Mouse 18:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking specific people or specific groups of people to participate in an RfA is typically viewed as canvassing. Either way, if a user is seen to be asking other users to vote on a specific RfA, that RfA is likely to get a lot of opposes because people will view it as canvassing. In short, don't mention RfAs to anyone or any group of people. --Deskana (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If he asks a large and unbalanced (mostly 'for') group, yes, but on average I'd say not. The more people are made aware of an issue,  the better the discussion will be. For example, I don't scan this page often, but I'd like to know whenever an editor I know is nominated, and I'd appreciate the info; sometimes I may be 'for', sometimes 'against' - but if somebody informs of the vote, to say he is 'canvassing' is simply offensive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh my...has anyone read Wikipedia:Canvassing lately?  Reasonable communication with someone is not canvassing.  Asking one person to look at an RfA, even if you are the nom or the person being considered, is not canvassing.  --Iamunknown 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I can see people flipping out about it. --Deskana (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Per Shalom.  Asking one or two person to view your RfA is not canvassing, especially if you don't say "vote for moi, yo." Giggy UCP 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Shalom, if someone asks a few people to look at their RfA, I'm not gonna get upset about canvassing, but when they ask a bunch of people, or their message is not nuetral (ex. "OMG vote for me!!") I would think of it as canvassing. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I'd be interested in the dividing line between keeping the community (and interested users) informed, and spamming. That's probably subjective, though. I think Shalom brings up a good point -- if we can recognize a strong pattern of mentioning the discussion where it may be entirely relevant, we're probably edging closer to canvassing. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not canvassing if it a neutral message and its only send to a few people, but don't do it some people will use anything as a good reason to oppose. --Chris g  05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While what everyone says is true, about the neutrality of a statement in question, it proves better to not take the risk of asking someone to participate, or even informing them of the RFA, because many people will automatically assume canvassing, regardless of the neutrality of the statement, and oppose the RFA. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to throw in my two cents, I don't consider anything canvassing if it is not aggressively cross-posted and the message is not asking for a specific vote to be cast. But that's just me. :-) —« ANIMUM » 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Canvassing