User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This was my archive for RFA related threads up until early 2011 when it got full. User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 16 succeeds it.

Re:Resignations

Thanks. I have heard many people say a week, but trust what you say. R.T. 13:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Arbitrary section break, I suspect a lot of RFA !voters will be reading that thread and adjacent ones. I certainly had a look at some of the final contribs of the 12 to see if there was a pattern - and because I'd met one at a wiki meetup. PS good luck in your RFA, hope to look at your contribs at the weekend. ϢereSpielChequers 13:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral I'm still pondering which category of admin to classify myself in per our telepathic agreement. (Yes people do read editnotice's sometimes). I'll let you know once I sort it out. Cheers! Nja247 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in at my RFA. And darn you for being quicker with your thankspam than I am with mine! :) Congrats on your RFA; it was a sure-thing to pass without the lolcat (although RFAs should still pass with lolcats, IMHO). And yes, I did read the message at the top of the page that says thankspam should go into the guestbook, but I haven't signed a guestbook yet and I'm not planning to start now. ;) Somno (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Somno, I'll try and rephrase that message as a suggestion. I appreciate the confidence though my recent rereading of my first RFA made me realise the various other flaws that were shown up, the Lolcat was not as big a factor as some people remember it to be. WereSpielChequers 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello WereSpielChequers! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kingpin13

Thanks for the participation and beer. Well if I ever end up as good as you I'll be lucky :). Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't underestimate yourself - that bot of yours is already something I can only admire from afar. ϢereSpielChequers 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ched Davis

Hey WSC, I'm going to call it a night pretty soon, but I did want to get out a thank you to a few very special people ... yep, you're one of em. I truly appreciate your help, advice, and insight in all things "admin". It's been a tremendous asset for me. I did a real facepalm thing when I missed the AGF item on the AI, and I really like where you're headed with the idea. Again, thank you for everything. — Ched :  ?  04:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab

Thank you. When a lot of people were loosing their heads, you calmly evaluated this situation. You can be proud of this, and I hope in the future more people will follow your example.Dave (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. I want you to know I do take pride in my work. The legitimate issues that were raised among the insanity will be addressed.Dave (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm sure there were some things in your hazing ceremony worth remembering, my respect for handling yourself through one of RFA's most bat shit insane weeks. I've done a few reviews at wp:FAC and consider myself one of the awkward squad there, in almost every FAC review I've done I've found errors, but nonetheless I believe that having an FA should be seen as a positive for an admin candidate. I take it as an indication that they are here to build the encyclopaedia; not an opportunity to pore over every flaw and thereby deter other RFA candidates from writing FAs. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Thanks, WereSpielChequers, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

As promised, I've added my statement to your upcoming special event. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, that's most generous, though I think its four months not five. WereSpielChequers 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd October, it's now 5th Febuary. October, november, december, january, febuary ^_^ —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nov, Dec & Jan = 3, +.9 of Oct and .16 of Feb = 4.06 months. WereSpielChequers 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oct 3 - Nov 3 1 month

Nov 3 - Dec 3 2 month

Dec 3 - Jan 3 3 month

Jan 3 - Feb 3 4 month---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm hideously embarrassed... haha —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Adminship???

(looks left and right) Chyeaa, right! Ceran^→//forge 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but are you serious? I don't think I would make a good admin. Ceran^→//forge 23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really are pushing for it, I guess I'd accept. Only with two noms, though. You'll have to search for someone willing, though. :) Ceranthor 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping. You have mail. Ceranthor 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping. Ceranthor 17:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping, again. Come online. Ceranthor 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, but make sure that you're still on so we can converse via normal email. Ceranthor 18:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Aah! Stay on!!! ;) Ceranthor 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1.) You have mail, and 2.) Can you !vote at the Nevado FAC (link)? Ceranthor 16:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ceranthor 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet again. Ceranthor 20:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

replied and good luck! WereSpielChequers 22:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've accepted. Tell me when to transclude, and don't we need to fix the timestamp? Ceranthor 22:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a small response

You stated at my RfA - "but that still leaves three blocks in the last twelve months from three different admins." According to my block log, there were only two blocks admin. Moreschi blocked without real consensus and the block was then shortened by DGG only to have Moreschi then shorten it even more. The other was by Nandesuka who can vouche for how it is working with me, as he has many times since then. The unwillingness to respond to "oppose" is simply because badgering is frowned upon at RFA and I have been involved in those discussions for a long time. Why would someone who is claimed to be argumentative then want to enter into drawn out discussions with people who wont change their minds regardless and then have the fact that I even discussed it characterized as fighting to justify more opposes? Then this seems to complete misconstrue anything I've said at the WT:RFA talk page - "the candidate is trying to move Wikipedia to having a small group of fulltime admins who disengage from the community and don't take part in its deliberations". No, I want the excess admin, the people who don't give a damn, and the abusive people gone. Most people want that. Now, the irony that you would oppose a new potential admin because he believes that there should be a smaller pool of more dedicated admin shouldn't be lost on anyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ottava, thanks for pointing out my error on your block history, I apologise for my misreading of the situation and have changed my post accordingly.

As for badgering at RFA, I have also been involved in RFA for quite a while and I don't agree with your analysis of RFA opposes. I regard persuasiveness and civil communication as core skills for a good admin, and conduct in an RFA as a good test of those skills. Perhaps idealistically I would like RFA to be less of a voting environment and more of a !voting environment; if you want to understand why I believe that one can have dialogue with opposes at RFA without being accused of badgering, or without it leading to a decline in your support percentage you could look at either of my RFAs. Though I'd agree that one can handle oneself in an RFA in a way that others construe as badgering, and also that it helps to identify which oppose votes are from editors who are amenable to such discussion. However my view that discussion with opposers is a useful part of the RFA process is based on experiences such as at my second RFA where ten editors opposed at varying points, of whom I responded to four. Three of those four struck their opposes during the RFA, and the fourth attempted to just after the RFA ended. As for responding to opposers prompting more opposition, in my second RFA the percentage support rose from the low 80s when I started to respond to opposers to the low 90s five days later.

I think I spelled out why I regard a smaller pool of dedicated admins who don't do non admin work as the wrong direction for us to go. My RFA !voting record does demonstrate that I rarely oppose, so I don't regard it as ironic that you are one of the very few that I have opposed. If we had the same definition of excess admins, people who don't give a damn or abusive admins then I would be much closer to your position.

I don't agree that we have an excess of admins, in fact my views are exactly the oposite of that. Yes there are hundreds of admins who have not edited for many months, and in my view if an admin has not edited for more than a year I believe that their sysop flag should lapse. However I would be happy to have a system whereby any crat could resysop them on request after a month of resumed activity that indicated they were once more active and presumably back up to speed with community norms. Admins who are active editors but only spend a minority of their wiki time using their sysop powers are in my view an asset and the ideal admins who we should all emulate.

I'm sure that everyone agrees that abusive admins and those who "don't give a damn" should be desysoped, the difficult thing will be getting everyone to agree what level of behaviour constitutes sufficient abuse or not giving a damn to merit a desysop, and which individual incidents and admins meet that threshold. Sorry for such a long answer, thanks for wading through it - if I've persuaded you to change your mind about responding to RFA opposers feel free to move this thread to being a response to my oppose at your RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 10:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I am quite willing to discuss issues that come up, but as shown above simple corrections of facts and dealing with underlying issues are two different things. There are value judgments that people have that cannot be changed in a few words. As predicted before and revealed in the oppose section, many of them are either old grudges or canvassed opposes from them (or from WR canvassing). Its not worth getting bogged down in such disputes. Any good faith concerns that I can address that seem to require more information or the rest I have. However, much of it is rather obvious baiting. Other RfAs could have a few challenges dealt with, could slip by by pointing out their FAs, their DYKs, their working with big name people, on big name pages, settling issues and the rest. Many of the supports have linked to such things and probably represent less than 5% of the positive accomplishments here. But I know, and I am sure you know, that people coming to the page wont care. Most people didn't even read it. Even Wizardman skipped over a lot of it because he knew the type of person I was. I was happy when he reversed the part stating that I planned on doing things like CSD or whatever. Its how RfAs go for people like me. If I did very little for 6 months but huggle, put together a handful of obscure pages, and copied and pasted the same answers, I would easily pass. During my time voting at RfA I have seen over 30 people do just that. Those are the people that can argue an oppose and overturn them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, if you have evidence of canvassing I suggest you take this up with the crats; if you don't have evidence I would ask that you cease to malign good faith !voters in your RFA. Yes there is one member of the Opposse who will oppose all without seriously considering them; but there are now over 100 opposes in your RFA, and I would strongly suggest that you read them carefully, try to understand why those editors don't think you should be an admin and hopefully thereby learn from this process. Some times that takes a little detachment, when I reread my first RFA in the run up to my second RFA I came to understand much that I hadn't understood last Autumn. Also I would suggest that you seriously reconsider whether having only a small number of admins who do nothing but admin work would really be the good idea that you think it is. ϢereSpielChequers 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This was linked in multiple places. It was even discussed on the RfA. This is not the only piece that verifies the canvassing, nor would it really matter. Is it surprising that WR members make up so many of the opposes, especially with Hipocrite prominently at the very top? Then, we have the groups that come in - Moreschi's circle of Folantin, Doug, Akhilleus, etc. along with others. Most of this is rather obvious. Even the two stray SPA accounts from no where and the multiple IPs just furthers verifying the extent some people would go to. But yes, if you want to oppose me because of my belief on how many admins should be about, then more power to you. I would like to see more dedicated people in a tighter circle that are more heavily controlled. Otherwise, we have people like Poetlister instantly gaming the system. You can ask Jimbo how he would feel if this comes true and the MyWikiBiz problem maker is able to game the system and become an admin. I have had a lot of experience dealing with people who sock and game the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I can see that trolling comment as a reason for alarm, but in my view its as likely to be a wind up as a true statement. IMHO if such bad faith sleeper accounts become common enough to be a problem, and I'm not yet convinced that they do exist then surely the solution is a better desysoping process. If we can't get that and we decide we need a better filter at RFA then I would suggest three alternative ways to prevent them becoming admins. Firstly go for long established accounts, a WR sleeper might edit productively for 6 months, but a whole year, or two? Secondly have a checkuser type system whereby admin candidates authenticate their identity via the office. Thirdly have informal identity verification, i.e. candidate has participated in skype or wikimeetups and doesn't sound or look like anyone familiar or banned. If I became convinced that we have a problem of infiltration by badfaith sleeper accounts I would regretfully support some combination of those three. But I do not want admins to become a separate select caste of users who only or even primarily do admin work, that I see as the route to a divided community with an inevitably out of touch group of admins. ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL

laughed my friggin but off. So direct, to the point, and relevant. When I was done laughing, I wasn't sure quite why I was laughing. Good form my friend. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, strange how the funniest things can also be the most serious. PS if you enjoyed that you might like to check out this edit summary ϢereSpielChequers 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL .. good one! — Ched :  ?  21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Spell

Thanks for your help. I saw on someone elses talk page that they thought my reply to you was rude or sarcastic or something. I was just joking around, but I guess my "spell checking is a dangerous business" comment might have been too reliant on in-the-know humor. I just got chewed out for an edit of that sort the other day. Anyway, I appreciate your help and I understand your suggestion about the language of the nom. I don't really know DougsT that well, so I kind of leave that up to him. :) My plan was always just to stand on my own two feet more or less. I wouldn't have it any other way and I thought Doug would be an interesting person to ask to be the nom (I was interested in what his answer would be for one thing) and I respect that he doesn't seem to mind standing on principle. That was important to me. Although I have to admit that being a focus of drama isn't a lot of fun. I'm very much looking forward to having it all die down so I can get back to the work I enjoy the most: improving the encyclopedia. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi ChildofMidnight, I've reread your replies to my comments on both your talk page and wt:RFA and I didn't take anything as rude or sarcastic. I'm well aware that my specialism in spell checking means that if I make a typo myself I'm fair game for a bit of joshing. As for spell checking being a dangerous business, well I only search in article space when I'm typo hunting, and I can do hundreds of edits there without any feedback at all. I recently patrolled solider and changed 90% of the 148 occurrences on wikipedia to soldier with maybe one comment; I've deleted over a thousand articles in the last couple of months and declined less than a hundred deletions but the declining generates far more discussion - mostly positive, though I have had someone ask me what my sources were. If there was a debate as to whether fixing typos in talkspace should be acceptable I'd be for that change, but I respect the current consensus.

I agree that Doug is an "interesting" person to have as a nominator, I had a lolcat nominate me in my first RFA and Doug is possibly the most controversial nominator since then. More seriously whilst I haven't yet reviewed your contributions sufficiently to !vote either way, I have seen from the counts that as well as vandalfighting you participate in AFDs. I would suggest that as Doug hasn't picked that up in your nomination statement you make sure you mention it yourself. If you also contribute to articles then that would be worth mentioning, if you haven't yet I would advise holding off on your RFA and doing a bit of writing/editing first as there is a faction at RFA that will !vote against the sort of vandal fighter only candidate that Doug has depicted you as.

I suspect that your "focus on drama" comment means that as well as vandal fighting and AFD you have been involved in one of our more contentious areas, if so remember that a lot of the regulars at RFA will not have been involved in your drama and will be looking at your conduct and that of your critics with fresh eyes. Check out Orlady's recent RFA to see how that sort of thing can go, and remember if it becomes a topic in your RFA, the floating !voters will be looking to see if you can stay cool and communicate clearly, ideally in a way that resolves what can be resolved. ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful comments and for treating me and my nom with respect. It was an interesting process and there were some very thoughtful comments made. I chose to approach the process a certain way, and I don't have any regrets. I think being straightforward and honest is important. Clearly the subtleties of humor are sometimes lost in translation, but that's okay. What is a lolcat? Thanks again and take care. If I see any obvious mistakes in "you're" text I'll be sure to fix them. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi COM, Lolcat gives you a good explanation. But it doesn't tell you that one of the sites involved in Lolcats had subsequently been involved in longterm attacks on the pedia - something I didn't know during my first RFA. Oh and you are dead right, humour is a risky thing here; I doubt if my RFA would have been so successful if I'd started it after April 1st this year rather than before. ϢereSpielChequers 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I got your email. Sorry, can't respond to your request. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 23:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from RfA

In response to this - There have been many ban proposals against Everyking before, officially and unofficially. Unless this actually moved towards one, then I wouldn't -need- to provide anything. Now, many of the Arbitrators have access to these forums and have the information that I stated that is there, so I feel certain that there is enough evidence known. Now, about the quote that I linked from WR about Everyking's use of a spouse is just to show that his behavior has not changed, and that he has only moved such attacks off Wikipedia. Such may not be enough to ban him in and of themselves, but they are enough to suggest that he shouldn't be trusted. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ottava, Everyking's last block was for 35 minutes in October 2007. I take the view that if an RFA candidate has been blocked in the last twelve months I'll oppose unless they give a very good explanation, but I will only consider the last 12 months of a candidates block log. I came to that view from a combination of pragmatism and idealism, idealism in that I believe in redemption, pragmatism because twelve months is just about long enough for an editor to start afresh and get to RFA, and I'd rather they tried to clear their name instead. However I'm conscious that this is a fairly arbitrary time period and I'm open to reviewing it as I get more experience of editors going rogue or otherwise off the rails. As for any past ban proposals against Everyking, well thats what they are - past. Whether they resulted in blocks that ended more than 18 months ago or in decisions not to ban him, in my view it is inappropriate to say that someone should be banned because you disagree with a previous decision not to ban them. To me it is a basic principle of justice that those who have been found guilty can appeal, but once you've been cleared or served a sentence you can't be tried again for the same offence. Hence my original comment that your statement "He should be banned" required diffs. ϢereSpielChequers 11:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Spiel

Hi WSC, how you doing these days? I noticed a recent post on WT:RfA, where you shared a bit of how your editing habits had changed since you picked up the mop. I found that a fascinating thought. Do you think the changes are out of "doing what you enjoy", or more toward a "sense of duty" you feel to the community? I do remember, from research during your RfA, that you do possess a talent for content contribution. If I understand your reflections, you've drifted away from that into maintenance tasks. Maybe we should desysop you to get you back to adding content ... lol. I'm just kidding of course, I think you're doing a fine job, and are a great asset regardless of how you choose to serve. Getting back to the changes in what you do - why do you think that has changed? I've never heard an admin. discuss that before, and my curiosity is eating at me now. — Ched :  ?  16:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched, I'm fine thanks and hope you are too. If you look at User:WereSpielChequers my admin stats include 1,879 pages deleted, 30 blocks and about a dozen other actions, which rather illustrates my current role as a wp:CSD specialist. I suspect there's a bit of both motivations as to what I do, yes deleting pages per user requests is my way of putting something back into the pedia, deleting attack pages is something I do because I empathise with the person out there being attacked. Deleting non notables, love letters and vandalism is some faff I sift out whilst looking for the articles that can be rescued, and I enjoy the challenge of salvaging an article that someone has tagged as no context. I'm spending less time sorting out redlinks and reviewing at FAC but I still do spells of patrolling easily confused words. Staring being the last big one. CSD is very different to new page patrol because you have to think about the patrollers as well as the authors, and being able to see deleted contributions makes a big difference at both CSD and RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 19:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My sides hurt from laughing

LMFAO — Ched :  ?  06:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, what time is it in your neck of the woods? On the rare occasions when I get up this early I usually find the Wiki at its quietest. ϢereSpielChequers 06:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the Eastern Time zone of the USA (PA). I believe that's either -4 or -5 UTC. I was having trouble sleeping, which is common for me with my aches and pains and such, and was just checking out some of the "fun factor" that I indulged in yesterday. I've noticed that the 2 am - 5 am (my time) does allow me to interact a bit more in real time with many of the UK adult editors. I enjoy learning about the culture of my forefathers, so it's not unusual to see posts from me in those time frames. I actually went back to bed very shortly after this post though. Hope all is well with you, Cheers ;) — Ched :  ?  13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched, I'm good thanks, though a little more busy in real life than I had been earlier this year. Its a wet weekend here in London and I'm at the PC in between showers. I've been digging through photos and posting some old ones up, but some of my stuff is on old PCs and much is pre-digital. Also I have some where I don't know who the photographer is (but I'm pretty sure that if I'm in the shot I didn't take the picture myself). ϢereSpielChequers 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re

No, my though was that the user would decide which one of their (however many) questions they want to ask.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you meant one question per !voter, not one per candidate. But my mind just ran away with the idea of a composite single question that put all the probing of an RFA question section behind one question mark. Are you a sane, mature responsible individual who will refrain from using or threatening to use the tools when drunk, angry or overtired, agrees to abide by all and any wiki policies even when they contradict each other, including an admin recall system if we can agree to implement one, and will disclose in this RFA your intended areas of RFA activity, any audited content you have and any reasons you can think of why your RFA might possibly fail. ϢereSpielChequers 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Awarded to WereSpielChequers for this. Enigmamsg 08:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Enigma, nice to be appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 08:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your two AI questions on Ched Davis' RfA

Just saw these. While I find the questions food for entertaining philosophical discussions (like "should an AI be self-aware enough to understand that it is artificial for the purpose of passing a Turing test" or "what happens if the AI judges find that while the AI passes the Turing test, the wikipedia community as a whole fails it?"), I'm a bit curious to understand what kind of insight you hope to gain for the purpose of establishing whether Ched is ready for the mop? MLauba (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As an admin you will sometimes get issues where you have to make judgement calls, and decide how existing policy meets a new situation; the difficult thing about the RFA process is that unlike say an interview all is publicly recorded and unless one continually comes up with new or tailored questions it is easy for candidates to rephrase answers that were successful in the past. I think these two questions are new with no previous answers to crib from, and they are relevant to this particular candidate because of his IT background. As it happens I've already supported this candidate and I'm confident that if he chooses to answer them he will do so well. But of course the RFA is still open and if the candidate were to be thrown by these googlys and mishandle them, I would sadly have to review my position. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bah, just realized the answer is much less outlandish than the questions appear since there's policy covering that, but I don't want to spoil these brand new questions by giving out my line of reasoning here :) Note that the question above was not meant to assume any kind of sinister motive but more genuine curiosity as I did fail to connect the dots. Much clearer now, thanks for humoring me. MLauba (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA nom

Thank you very much, WereSpielChequers. This was definitely unexpected. I of course accept. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 15:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeee-Hawwww! If this is what I think it is .. "It's about time!". Best of luck! — Ched :  ?  02:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi WereSpielChequers. As you probably know, my RfA isn't doing too well. I hope you don't regret nominating me; would you suggest I now withdraw? Timmeh 14:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timmeh, I'm really surprised and sorry at the way your RFA is currently going. As you may be aware I have long argued that RFA has broken and this only reinforces my view. RFA is a bit of a lottery and to be frank while your opposers are many, this sort of oppose gives you little grounds to know what you need to improve to get through RFA in the future. Your current RFA is about the numbers I had at the end of my first one, but whilst I could identify seven reasons why that failed, I really can't draw so much out of yours. So I would hang on in there until and unless you get more useful feedback, and perhaps if left undisturbed for a few days some of your opposers will find diffs or reconsider their votes. BTW if you fancy a break from that battleground have a look at Chris Gilmour - do you think it has the makings of a GA? ϢereSpielChequers 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait and see what happens. As for Chris Gilmour, sure, it could become a GA, but it needs a lot of work. It still lacks an infobox and only has one source. At least 95% of the article is completely unsourced right now. Depending on how popular the artist is, from about 20 up to 70+ sources may be needed for every statement of fact to be sourced and for the article to be promoted to GA. I'd be happy to clean it up for you, though, and deal with the style issues. Timmeh 14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Timmeh, one salutary statistic is to compare these two stats, I find it interesting both in terms of the number of hits compared to the number of RFA participants, and the relative importance that RFA regulars place on deletion vis a vis content contribution. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out this and this. My RFA seems to be spawning drama fests as well as turning into one. Timmeh 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

i've been asked

I've been asked to run again. I asked Julian, so I'll ask you too, two noms or one? ceranthor 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ceran, two noms are better than one, and you definitely have my support, but I'm not sure what help it would be for you to have the same nominator as last time. ϢereSpielChequers 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But who would you suggest? ceranthor 14:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

re:RFA

Thanks for notifying me on that. Forgot to notice it, you know. Oh, and don't worry about me if I fail the RFA, I can even make fun of myself regarding that, too. = ) Blake Gripling (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I responded to your question there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)`

Thanks. I'm not going to pile on, but you don't need to see a deleted edit to answer "What would you do now if you came across an article that was not in English? ϢereSpielChequers 17:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible RfA in the near future...

Hey, there, WereSpielChequers! It's been some time since my last RfA (3-4 months). While I'm not considering running in the very near future, I am preparing for one...so I would really appreciate any advice given for what I should do to improve, and what I'm doing wrong. To be frank, I believe I've confronted the major problem at my last RfA- namely, CSDing and, specifically, WP:G1ing. Since April 16th, I've had almost all of my CSD requests deleted for the stated reasons (except one that was Proded and later deleted). Other than that, I've been up to my usual tricks with more DYK articles and nominations, and a few more GANs. I've also become slightly more active in the AFD field (not that I wasn't before, but w/e) So...help? Thanks a ton, I'^mperator 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, I really don't intend on doing that much CSD work when I'm an admin; I prefer to hand around WP:AFD and such :P Cheers, I'^mperator 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think I was weak support on your last RFA because your CSD work needed improvement. I've had a look through the recent stuff and yes I'm happy with the improvement. ϢereSpielChequers 20:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So...what areas do you think I could work on some more? (Not that I'm prodding :P) Cheers, I'^mperator 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of the opposes and neutrals in your last RFA, that should give you a few pointers - I reread my first RFA three months afterwards and reckoned there were seven reasons why my first one failed. Now would be a good time to ask some of your opposers for advice as to how long you should wait or what they would want to see you learn before you run again. You could also try clerking in areas where you are considering working. Also whilst admin training is out of fashion at the moment I personally found it useful to go through User:Filll/WP Challenge. Lastly RFA is a stressfull and complex week, you can defuse that a little by making an RFA sandbox in your user space, copying questions that are currently fashionable at RFAs and might come in yours and drafting your own answers. Chances are that some of those questions will come up in your RFA and you'll have a ready prepared answer to copy in. ϢereSpielChequers 06:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do above :) Thanks for the advice and time! (BTW, I received your email, and will do) Cheers, I'^mperator 12:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hi WSC, just checking in. How are you? P.S. I mean to run at RfA sometime in the spring or even late winter, if that means anything to you. :) ceranthor 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ceran, I'm fine thanks, had a great time at Wikimania and got back home a few days ago. There are a few photos on commons:Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers from my trip. I'm glad to hear you are planning on another RFA, if I'm not around at the time (and I may take a wikibreak for much of early 2010) drop me an email when you run. ϢereSpielChequers 23:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey. As I noted, I couldn't attend first of all because I couldn't get to NYC, and it was my birthday. Glad to hear it was excitable, my birthday (putting it lightly) sucked. ceranthor 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your birthday (Hippo Birdy 2 Ewe) btw. I think we have some wires crossed, I wasn't talking about the big apple but a much bigger city. ϢereSpielChequers 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi WSC. I'm going to be away most of this weekend, including during the scheduled end time, and will most likely not have internet access. I was wondering if I'd be able to request an extension of maybe 24 hours on my RfA so that I'll be available in the few hours before it closes to answer any last minute questions. If so, do you know how would I go about doing that? Thanks. Timmeh 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timmeh, normally the last couple of days are relatively question free with just a trickle of votes coming in on one side or the other; The only exceptions I can think of are when something new emerged at the tail end of the process. Howabout I keep an eye on it for you and post a request for extension on the crats noticeboard if something new emerges that you need the opportunity to answer? PS Good luck and enjoy the break. ϢereSpielChequers 08:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that works for me. Thanks. Timmeh 11:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Query re WT:RFA

Salutations, Señor Chequers. I am considering rolling out another batch or two of potential RfA candidates at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#List_of_editors_who_should_be_considered_for_adminship. As you've voiced reservations about elements of the exercise, I was wondering if you had an objection to continuing. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Skomorokh, whilst I'm keen to both to get more admins and to make sure that suitably qualified candidates are approached to run; I have two concerns about the lists that have gone up so far. Firstly they included several users who have been inactive of late or even retired and at least one who last ran less than three months ago. Secondly I'm uncomfortable with discussing fellow users behind their backs in this way - the latter concern would of course be greatly diminished if the former was addressed by doing a few basic checks on recent contributions, RFAs and dare I say blocks before naming them; but one basic principle of an RFA is that the candidate has to agree to take part, and I see these lists as impinging on that. ϢereSpielChequers 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, WSC. I appreciate most of your concerns, and they could probably be worked around, but I haven't got time to go ahead with the exercise right now. It was perhaps cavalier to throw up all those names without first reviewing; the result's been a mixed bag, prompting some good editors to take the plunge and giving undue confidence to inappropriate candidates. Cheers,  Skomorokh  06:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you've been far more successful than my approach of doing a mini review and then emailing them! But I do think that a little more pre-screening would save everyone a bit of time. ϢereSpielChequers 13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Many, many thanks for going to the trouble of looking into my RfA more thoroughly. Your dedication in double-checking the facts is greatly appreciated. I assure you that, in the future, I will be ultra-careful in CSD-tagging.  Chzz  ►  18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your several really innovative ways to systematically examine the RfA process and improve it. Nice work. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou! Nice to be appreciated ϢereSpielChequers 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA talk - alt accounts

Hi Spiel, I'm just rereading here, your comment of 18:24 04Nov09 and it seems to me you're introducing an element of double jeopardy. You say If a candidate gave an answer that implied they thought crats were involved that would imply they hadn't read the policy - but I disagree. If I've never ever used an alt account and I never ever plan to use one, what does it matter how I answer? You could ask me if I would place a note in a bottle and throw it into the nearest body of water and I'd agree. I'm never going to have an alt account, so there's no need for me to read the policy to discover the rules on bottle-notes.

Now, if the question was "If you established an alternate account that you wished kept private, what would you do?" or "If you encountered an alternate account operated by an established editor, what would you do?" - those would be legitimate questions to assess the candidate's understanding of WP:SOCK. But asking me an indirect question about something I'll never do, then judging me on not giving the correct answer to a situation I know will never arise - yeah, that's a trick question. :)

As it turns out, for my own case, I can't guarantee that I've actually read the relevant policy. I probably have 'cause I've pretty much read 'em all over time. But it doesn't matter, I disclosed my alt account up front because it was the obviously right thing to do. I didn't need to read actual policy, it's easy enough to pick up from general reading. So reading of the policy doesn't really apply for myself. It certainly does apply to the way I would deal with other editors and is very relevant in that context, and if I ever had a plan to set up another account, it would matter too. Geez, maybe that proves I read the policy after all? But I don't think you can prove anything from a null hypothesis. Franamax (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Franamax, One of the differences between RFA and an exam is that candidates are welcome to read policy during their RFA. I'm not looking for candidates at RFA who already understand every jot and tittle of policy, but I do want admins who are aware of policy in the areas that they intend to use the tools and will check the relevant policy before using the tools in an unfamiliar area. This is one of the differences betwn admins and other editors; Editing based using your commonsense should be fine, but use of the tools should be policy based. So I recommend reading or rereading a policy before answering an RFA question on it - my first RFA might have scraped a pass if I'd done so.

I'm against asking the sock question at RFA, unless as at one recent RFA you can produce a diff that prompts that question. But if someone does ask a question at RFA then the answer may influence my !vote. If a candidate says in their nomination that they intent to use the tools at UAA and to edit protected the spam filter, but they are asked about blocking school IPs then I would be happy with an answer along the lines of "School IP issues don't often come up at either UAA or the spam filter, but if they did or if I started to help out at AIV I'd be sure to read the policy and proceed with caution". But they'd do much better if they did some homeweork and answered the question straight. Admins sometimes have to deal with bizarre off the wall scenarios, hence I support having the occasional googly amongst the RFA questions. ϢereSpielChequers 11:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ϢereSpielChequers 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Forensic RFAs

Saw your comment. Anecdotal evidence suggests that your skepticism is well founded. For my RFA, I spent some time creating a pretty exhaustive summary of my activities in administrative area. Take a look at the traffic stats at

• http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/User%3AKww/AFD
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/User%3AKww/ANI
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/User%3AKww/AIV
• http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/User%3AKww/RFPP

In the first couple of days, there was a small group that actually looked at them. Once the first three days were over, no one looked at them again. That would suggest that early voters researched, and later voters primarily responded to early votes.—Kww(talk) 21:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, its a longstanding problem. One of the mistakes I made in my first RFA was to link to positive things rather than extol them on the page.

My second RFa closed on the 12th Feb with over 100 participants.

• 13 looked at my barnstars
• 26 looked at my guestbook
• 266 looked at my talkpage, including at least 100 extras
• I think we can assume that most checked my userpage
• 10 viewed My Badz (and I suspect some off those may have been me)
• 46 looked at my 2007/2008 archives
• 9 looked at my 2009 talk archive
• 7 people looked at my userboxen
• 6 looked at my To Do list
• but 120 looked at my previous RFA
• about 30 extra hits on the FAC review I linked to in question 2

I doubt if I was entirely typical, and it would probably be salutary if we could link to Special:Contributions or deleted contributions. But one of the suggestions I made a while back was that when we !vote we say what we've checked, as I'm pretty sure from this that a lot of people check the same things and I fear that some stuff isn't looked at at all. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on RfA

Hi WereSpielChequers, I was wondering if you could please answer a question regarding my deleted contributions by User:Smithers7 here. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy to do so, hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

My RFA →→→

Dear WereSpielChequers, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Polargeo

Hi, thanks for being the first support on my RFA. Also I wondered when someone would delete Samson Walsh no admin seemed ready to pounce. Good job in blocking the username too (User talk:Samwalsh). I was in two minds on whether to highlight the username so I am pleased you took the action. I have been working on CSD as it is one of the main things that my RFA was opposed on (as well as my percieved incivility) :). Polargeo (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well we have a shortage of active admins and I'm sometimes the only admin active at CSD in the UK morning. As for your RFA, I don't think it was CSD so much as AFD that people were concerned about in your RFA - both are areas of deletion but the common mistakes are different. In the case of CSD they tend to involve a heavy hand on the tagging toggle. If you are going to be active there you might want to read some of the stuff at User:WereSpielChequers#We're Spiel Checkers - thoughts on deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Crat question

How long are crats and ArbCom members elected for? I remember reading it once upon a time, but cannot find it now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, how do you suggest we address the issue of a 'crat reconfirmation? They run RfA, and if a crat is being reconfirmed, they clearly cannot act in that capacity during the process. Clearly, we cannot have two crats running for reconfirmation at the same time, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne, Crats are currently appointed for indefinite terms in a modified RFA, it is a much steeper test on three grounds, the support percentage you have to achieve is higher, broadly if an RFA oppose balances three supports, at RFB it balances 6 (not that this is entirely a headcounting exercise); Most though possibly not all !voters have higher standards for crats than for admins; As one of the key things that crats do is judge consensus at RFA they are to an extent being judged on their actions as admins. Arbcom elections are a more complex subject, which I don't pay much attention to, but for the purposes of your proposal can be treated as elections for 1, 2 or 3 year terms. I consider that if we did have three year terms for admins, it would be perverse to expect a newish crat to run a reconfirmation RFA simply because their RFA was now three years ago - much better to say that the RFB served as an early reconfirmation of their RFA and started a new three year term. I see no problem in having multiple RFBs at the same time as long as you have enough crats to close them. Of course it is possible that as crats are a relatively small group who interact with each other in crat chats they might all want to recuse on an RFB confirmation..... There is an argument that RFA, RFB and arbcom are three very different processes, the first two are a bit like a driving tests or other qualifications where you demonstrate skill, experience or understanding in order to qualify to do something, whilst Arbs are a little more like politicians where one might expect that as well as trust and competence their priorities and wiki philosophy also count. - That's why I support fixed terms for the latter and periodic retraining for the former. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, playing devil's advocate for a moment, how do we structure reconfirmation for admins elected later as crats and arbs? The point of the term limits is that they apply to everyone - no one should get a pass, or have a period of non-reconfirmation longer than 3 years (four years in the case of crats). I'm n hte fence about arbs; they wield an enormous amount of power, and I think that reconfirmation must apply to them as well. That is the parity aspect of the proposal; everyone has to be reconfirmed. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you could simply ignore the RFB and ARBCOM elections and say that someone still had to go though a reconfirmation RFA at least once every three years, even if they had got 95% in an RFB two months before. Or you could say that the successful RFB was also a slightly early RFA reconfirmation; Or you could give the crats an extra choice at RFB - "reconfirmation but not promotion". I think the third would be the least worst option for several reasons:

1. It would marginally reduce the number of unnecessary reconfirmation RFAs.
2. It would allow people to !vote "great admin - not yet ready for crat" rather than make them choose between a RFB support that they think is unmerited and an RFA oppose that they are unwilling to give.

Incidentally I'm a fan of parity - but my vision of parity on the pedia is one where all the longterm, civil, clueful editors are admins, or could be if they wanted it, and I hope that my RFA !votes reflect that. I don't see how a smaller and smaller admin cadre who by default would be spending a larger and larger proportion of their wiki time doing admin stuff could do anything other than degenerate into a separate caste of editor. ϢereSpielChequers 15:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather agree with you, Chequers, that isn't what the proposal is intending, despite what some others had commented. this isn't an admin-killing program. All it seeks to do is to allow the editors a method of helping improve the ranks of all admins (they are pretty good as it is, but we all know one or two that could stand to respond to some positive feedback). Trimming them down is not the idea here; making them all better and more receptive is. There is no incentive to respond to input when there isn't repercussion for failing to do so.. You pay your electricity bill, or the power gets shut off.

I have a few more questions about the crat stuff, if I might impose upon you:

• The first choice isn't fair (read: equitable) to the admin just confirmed. However, the other extreme is the admin who waits intil a few months before they'd undergo reconfirmation and run for and be elected as a crat. How would we address this? We don't need any clever birds gaming the system and avoiding reconfirmation altogether. Maybe an absolute date of 4 years. Otherwise it would seem petty to call up a colossal screw-up 3 and a half years earlier. This is the reason for a shorter rather than longer date of reconfirmation.
• The second choice would seem equitable if the RfA was indeed a few months earlier. I think that becoming a crat means that the candidate has succeeded in gaining the community's trust, and add to the fact that they are often busy as hell, I think that taking time out for even a streamlined RfA more than once in three years seems inequitable.
• The third choice does indeed look promising. Is the instance you are using as example use a sitting crat? or an admin running for crat? The questions for crat tend to be a lot more involved and technical than those of a "typical" RfA. Could you explain the example in more detail? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently we don't have reconfirmations for sitting crats, but if we did I think it would be sensible to have the three possible outcomes - crat, admin or neither. As for your comment about gaming the system by running for crat, RFB is way harder than RFA so it wouldn't be gaming the system for an admin with two years experience to run for RFB. ϢereSpielChequers 01:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So a crat is a crat for life? Wow. I did not know that. Thanks for explaining further; you are right, the third choice seems more fair and practical.

What would you imagine are the next steps to take here? I know that some folk are dead set against any tampering with the admin term - too much fear and loathing out there. I'd like to get past it, but am unclear how to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA related change is not easy. Partly this is because there are several very different views on various contentious issues there, and our "consensus" system of weighted majorities means that clear majorities can be and are vetoed by minority views that just happen to have inertia on their side; and partly because there is such a humungous history of failed attempts to agree changes that "nothing ever changes at RFA" has become a self reinforcing meme. I think its probably about a year since some of us noticed what I consider to be evidence that the RFA process is broken, but we haven't yet even got consensus that the problem exists, let alone that something should be done about it. Incidentally, we now have records going back 82 months to March 2003 for the number of successful RFAs per month, how do you think Dec 2009 compares to the other 81 months? ϢereSpielChequers 01:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cyclonenim

Unfortunately I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Clear issues were brought up at my previous RfA and I don't think I'm anywhere near as active now as I was then due to real-life commitments. I am working on becoming more active, and returning to article work. I would very much like to run again soon, but I don't feel it's practical for me to do so. I need to be more active in administrative areas before I could consider it. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but if and when you want to run drop me an email if you'd like a nomination. ϢereSpielChequers 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

J04n

The discussion was just closed without a single oppose. Thanks again for nominating me. J04n(talk page) 02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to stand, and for being such a good candidate. Have a good time as an administrator, and may all your mistakes be easily rectified ones. ϢereSpielChequers 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherlleft

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the closest I can remember, you did much better than my first RFA. I'm sure you'll walk it if you come back in four months. PS What is it with kittens, adminship and the pedia? ϢereSpielChequers 22:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha good question! In case I ever do decide to request permission to mop again, let me be absolutely clear to anyone sifting through my contributions that I will sign that petition as soon as I'm informed that the community thinks I'm ready. No kitten shall find itself beneath the heel of my mop!

PS - didn't realize mine was so close. Makes me feel all warm inside!

PPS - you would have preferred this in your guest book, but I tend not to read edit notices. That's something which shall have to change!--otherlleft 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh but the kitten is cute, though if this section was at FAC someone would point out that the pictures are both on the wrong side and be swapped so they are facing into the page. As for the editnotice, I don't think anyone reads them and it's high time I revised it. BTW I think your RFA ended in the low 70s, which is the discretionary zone, so could have been called either way. ϢereSpielChequers 23:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I think the 'crat who closed it assessed it reasonably well and explained the reasoning, too. Thanks for the warning before I try to get myself a Featured Kitten!--otherlleft 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Cline

WereSpielChequers/Archive 8 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. ϢereSpellCheckers 14:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA statistics

Number of RfAs (green=successful, orange=total) showing % successful (blue)

Hi, just to say that I've graphed the RfA stats you discussed at ""The drought continues" – you might be interested in the trends. Best - Pointillist (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, great graph. I certainly have noticed it and am pondering a response. ϢereSpielChequers 20:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope I haven't given the wrong impression by posting on your talk page; I'm not holding my breath for a response. It was just that having done the investigation on Feb 2nd but only posted it eight days later, I thought you might never see the graph that your comments inspired, which would be a shame. On the substantive issue we seem to be in opposite camps. I think the idea of admins being a scarce resource should be helpful—in real life you'd probably want to fix the worst leaks before putting extra janitors on the payroll to mop up in perpetuity. - Pointillist (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(stalking) I also love the graph, but that analogy would make more sense to me if admins got paid.  ;)--otherlleft 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(aside to Otherlleft) Well, that was a courtesy comment to a respected colleague in the context of an established thread. There's a variety of more hard-line concerns about how to get the right balance between contributions, maintenance, policing and the opportunity cost of converting our best editors into janitors, but this talk page isn't the place to fight over them. - Pointillist (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was the specific role of janitor so much as the concept of cost, I prefer the analogy with a qualification, the more members of society have a basic first aid qualification the better. As for the graph, I may sleep on my answer rather than give an off the cuff response. PS hope you don't mind if I copy it to the Strategy wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the opportunity cost, I hope that more admins means less admin work in total, if only because people can do move without redirect and delete their own mistakes. So more admins should mean that all admins can do more non-admin stuff without feeling guilty if they don't check cat speedy every 20 minutes - I've only done one FA review in the last four months. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I was specifically referring to the exchange of money. No intention of hijacking a perfectly good debate elsewhere onto this talk page, but I agree that the opportunity cost question is a very good one - I'd rather that the best content creators not become admins if possible, because they'll be too busy doing admin stuff to contribute to the accumulation of human knowledge.

Okay, I'm done stalking for now!--otherlleft 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA by month

I posted a comment here ... I know it's not really a discussion page, but I thought it would be good to have my thoughts be there so that they won't get archived the way they would if they were on WT:RFA or on your main talk page. Reply if you feel like it; I won't be disappointed if you don't because I know similar discussions have been made in the past. —Soap— 16:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that talkpage - I've had it watchlisted a while. ϢereSpielChequers 12:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Marek69

Hi WereSpielChequers, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin promotion per month

Easier to digest as a graph YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point, I put the two colour scheme in to demonstrate the drought, but didn't anticipate things would deteriorate further. If the trend continues I'll see if I can convert the data into a graph, or maybe just add more colours on a hot cold spectrum. I think it will take months to get real change at RFA, stage one is simply to get agreement that we have a problem. I'm convinced that the current situation is unsustainable but perhaps we need a statistician to confirm that the current trend is statistically significant. Alternatively it would be great to graph this by year of adminship, with each year being a separate cumulative line.

If we do this it should be possible to work out the typical career length of an admin, and then extrapolate the curve. I'm hoping we have an initial high churn pattern with a significant proportion of admins going inactive in their first year and then a much smaller percentage lost each year thereafter, as this would enable us to limp on for many years with RFA still broken and a gradually dwindling admin cadre. But we could have a more even churn rate similar to radioactive halflives, if so the half life of an admin is probably only four to five years and numbers will continue to fall rapidly. Worse still there could be some tipping points in the system that start driving admins away once the pressure builds up to the point where things become tiresome. ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RFA Optin

Hi - thanks again for your feedback/changes here. I think we've got a pretty good consensus to implement these changes and before I do so in a single edit I wanted to confirm whether or not you would like your changes attributed to you, and if so - would you care to perform a histmerge on the two forks of the article. If the attribution is not important then just let me know and I'll make all the changes in a single edit referencing your name in the comments.  7  23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) (this message copied to all three admin who helped with the page).

Thanks, the latter is fine, thanks for asking. ϢereSpielChequers 06:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  7  06:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

Hey, you've probably already seen it, but since I contacted you for advice a while back, I feel it would be impolite for me not to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 2. Of course, you shouldn't feel obliged to participate, but your input (whichever column it goes in) would be quite welcome if you choose to. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting tactic, if it doesn't quite succeed, and you are currently in the low 80s so it might fail, I suggest you come back to newpage patrol and do some tagging with your new more cautious perspective. If so just remember that it is a team effort, so no one individual need try to keep up with the flow, and if in doubt leave good faith articles for others to judge. We have so many different worldviews amongst us that most new articles will be an obvious call for somebody.

ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ceranthor

I wanted to thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded at 134/4/0. I am truly amazed but equally elated by the result and I hope I am able to serve as a good administrator. It was a surreal experience to succeed, and I will strive to meet your expectations. More specifically, thank you for your support. Ever since this I have improved and I owe that largely to you. Since that RfA failed, you have been helping me to improve. I have a deep admiration for your wisdom and skill, which has guided me for a little over a year now. I owe this successful RfA to you and a few other people who really cared about me. Thanks! ceranthor 13:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I know what it feels like, and I'm delighted that you finally made it. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) RFA Hey there WereSpielChequers, you asked me in January to chat with you in three months. Sorry if I'm a bit late, but I've forgotten about that. So, do you have any suggestions on how I could succeed in a future RFA? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Hi MC10, nice to hear from you again. I've had a little trawl through your contributions and seen some sensible stuff like this. Three months after my first RFA I reread it and totted up 7 reasons why it failed, I'd suggest now is a good time to do something like that. ϢereSpielChequers 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Alright, sorry about the long wait, but I was looking through my RFA (as well as doing other things). I found that I was mainly lacking on policy knowledge. Will you be willing to help test my policy knowledge? That would be very helpful. (By the way, how did you make the "Hi MC10!" message in your editnotice?) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, no need to apologise for the interval, this is not something where haste is a virtue. There are three approaches to testing out policy knowledge; Admin coaching, which is currently so out of fashion that coachees get opposed at RFA Exploring new areas and especially getting involved in policy discussions (this can involve asking other editors for their feedback on things) Tests like User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2 Multiple Choice and User:I'm Spartacus!/CSD Survey I think the third in particular is an underrated option and am glad I did the AGF challenge before my first RFA, even though no-one paid seemed to notice. As for the "Hi MC10!" I'm afraid it was automated, guessing who will turn up on this page next is quite beyond me. If you look at User talk:WereSpielChequers/Editnotice, it's the {{REVISIONUSER}} bit that seems to do the trick. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) OK, thank you, WereSqielChequers! (And that {{REVISIONUSER}} business is confusing...) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC) tweaks of your user sub-page (Signpost story) Hi, important matter. I tweaked a bit of the formatting. I think the story needs fleshing out, though, and it's late in the day (publication due hours ago). The story won't age: have you thought of getting a few quotes from people? Comparing with other language WPs? Tony (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC) No problem to me if it slips into next week. I've updated the figures for wiki generations and will add more for that, I'll also ask Howie if he'd care to comment. ϢereSpielChequers 09:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC) It's just a thought that you might ask a few admins/crats, see if you can get a slight range of opinions, without at the time undertaking to quote them (but that you might)? Questions that might be interesting to readers are: is the RfA process tougher? Is the pass rate similar to the historical pass rate? Are editors more wary of applying? (I know a few who are wary.) I think WP.fr has very very few admins, and boy does it show ... they need more, desperately. Could make a bit-hit Signpost story. PS I really like your diagram. Tony (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I'm not yet happy with the darker colours. The process is tougher - many people won't run because the hassle isn't attractive. Also expectations have risen for both tenure and edits. Though I've heard that is worse on DE. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Just to let you know, per a discussion on the newsroom, I've slated the story from this week's issue and will put it back in next week's, once, like Tony says, it has been fleshed out a bit—but I've had a look and it's very interesting. Hope you don't mind. Regards, WackyWace converse | contribs 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC) No probs. Its given me an opportunity to flesh it out a bit and I doubt if many of the figures will change in the meantime. ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC) WSC, if you want suggestions for people who might provide quotable opinions, let me know. You might have your own methods established, though, which is fine. Tony (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Tony, thanks for your copy editing. As I prepared the stats I'm not sure it would be entirely appropriate for me to choose who else reviews what is essentially a press release submitted to the signpost - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin stats. But as this is a statistical exercise I have filed a request at Wikipedia_talk:Statistics#Signpost_article. ϢereSpielChequers 12:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Holy shit, only nine admins began in 2009? Granted, I didn't think that number was going to be extremely high, but nine seems ridiculously low. I think I'm in the 'class of 2006' in your analysis, but for all intents and purposes, I only became active in March 2008—it's difficult to believe that only 47 people who started with me are now admins.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Ed. glad to see someone else shares my reaction to this. I agree that the year people first edited is not ideal, but it is relatively easily measured - though with anomalies, as I think one or two of those nine are second accounts. I suppose it was 2008 when I started editing in project space as opposed to mainspace, but on this system I count as in the class of 2007 and you in 2006. It would be interesting to do this by when people had done their 1000th edit, or their first edit to project space. ϢereSpielChequers 08:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Hi WereSpielChequers, we're getting ready for publication, can you have a look at the newsroom discussion? For example, I would like to run this as an opinion article, which would mean enlarging the byline a bit. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Adminship Hello there. Just quietly, I thought I'd let you know that I was interested in running for an RFA at some point (as there are still the same amount, if not more) of the backlogs that there were since I ran for RFA last time, and I was wondering what you thought. Obviously it wouldn't be for a few months but I was wondering what you thought. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Steve, welcome back. Reading through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steve Crossin I think the community will have some reservations. That said there were few saying never, though I would suggest a few months renewed activity before an RFA. I've scarcely ever been to simple, are you still active there or any other wiki? ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I wasn't considering an Rfa for at least a few months, and I realize that the community might still have some reservations, but I've nought to lose by having another go. I've not been very active elsewhere. I need a brush up on policy cos s lot has changed recently. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Interesting, {{A10}} {{BLP prod}}, RFA continuing to get worse but otherwise I'm not sure much has really changed.But maybe I lack your detachment. I think the community has forgiven far worse in the past - time is a great healer. ϢereSpielChequers 23:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC) EXCELLENT Signpost report Congrats on a SUPERB report on RFA/Admins. See WT:RFA#Houston, we have a problem and WP:BN#Required reading — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks Rlevse. Getting reform at RFA by discussing things at WT:RFA is notoriously difficult, it has taken about two years simply to convince most people there that we currently have an unprecedented drought. I thought a signpost article would be a good way to reach a wider audience, and test my suspicion that the local consensus at RFA is dramatically different to the broader view of the community. I'm beginning to think that the best way to get major reform of the process would be an RFC on one or more of the more promising alternative options. WT RFA is a good place to test if a potential reform is flawed, but even if it isn't the combination of those who oppose any change to RFA and those who oppose any change other than their preferred option pretty much guarantees that major reform will require the wider input that an RFC can bring. ϢereSpielChequers 06:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC) The perpetual debate at RFA is the quintessential WP:PEREN. Yes, go outside it to get better results. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Second the kudos on an excellent report. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I third the congrats. A job well done! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC) It really isn't about community trust and simply being a helpful individual anymore. I went through admin coaching about a year and a half ago and at the conclusion was told in a nutshell "You'd make an excellent admin, but you need several FA's before we can even think about a nomination. If it were up to me, I'd promote you now, but without FA's or at least a lot of GA's and DYK's, a bid at adminship won't even last two days before being closed per WP:NOTNOW." I laud your report, and I truly hope it sparks some debate about reforming the current RfA process. 2 says you, says two 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Hi 2, Neither I nor my most recent successful nominee nor I think most admins have an FA, and if you look through Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship only 3 of the last 6 successful candidates had so much as a DYK. One of the things I've learned about the last few days is that the fear of RFA and perception of its standards is significantly worse even than the reality. So being frank about what is actually happening there might actually reduce the problem. ϢereSpielChequers 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Great report. This analysis is much needed and long overdue. I'm glad we finally have a solid quantitative basis for these trends in adminship. How difficult would it be to identify wikigenerations for admins that are promoted in a given year (e.g., for the admins that were promoted in 2010, how many started editing in 2009, 2008, etc.). This could help us get a handle on what's to come. I left a similar comment on the Signpost article, but thought I'd leave it here as well. Again, awesome job! Howief (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks guys, much appreciated. Howie I think we need someone with better ability to extract data from the wiki in order to create that sort of analysis. It's also complicated by needing to combine multiple variables and past conditions such as when people gained and lost admiship with whether or not they are now active. Also I'm still unsure to what extent we need to think of editors by wiki generation, and to what extent becoming an admin starts a whole new phase in people's wiki careers. My suspicion is that both models will be partially applicable and the best fit will be a complex hybrid. ϢereSpielChequers 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, I agree. Have you seen Erik M.'s recent Call for Volunteers for a Wikimedia Research Committee? I expect your issue is one that will be discussed. If you are interested, please sign up for the committee. If not, I'd still like to get your input on what would have been useful for you in terms of data extraction. Howief (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Howie, thanks I'll sign up for that. I'll have a think about the admin dataset that I would be interested in - I'm away for a week or so so may not get that this month. ϢereSpielChequers 08:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Edit to your Signpost report for accuracy Hi WereSpielChequers, I liked your Signpost report on the RFA drought. Its conclusions are quite alarming. I hope you don't mind the edit I've made to it to provide the real reason for the discrepancy between the number of admins and the number of people who have made an admin action according to User:JamesR/AdminStats. There are also people who were admins and made log actions who might not appear on that list, because Special:Log only goes back to December 2004. Graham87 11:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I've just reported this bug as issue #ET-28. Graham87 11:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks Graham, much appreciated, would you mind making the same change to User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month? as those are the stats I intend to keep maintaining. I think the central message is that the current list of all users who've made an admin action is greater than the number of admins appointed, but we would do best to trust in the figures for admin rights and admin appointees, Though at some point I might add a figure for "admins who gave up the mop voluntarily and could have it back on request" both because they frequently do come back and because when we do eventually hit the buffers one of our options is to ask them to pick up the mop again if only until we can renew the admin cadre. ϢereSpielChequers 12:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Done. Graham87 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC) WikiProjects go to RFA Hi WSC, I've been thinking about the RFA problem (great Signpost report), and I think that we need a more social effort to address this. In particular, I think that we need to have a scheduled event in which each of the larger WikiProjects identifies and pushes a handful of candidates into an RFA. I think it could be good for the WikiProjects, effective at producing more candidates, and might get a few more people to accept nominations (if you're going to be humiliated, at least you can do it in the company of your friends). WP:MED is probably willing to be a test case; we talked about it at the beginning of the summer, and had no trouble coming up with a list of half-a-dozen (IMO) high-quality candidates offhand. I assume that MILHIST and other large projects could do the same. In terms of logistics, I'm thinking that the WikiProject identifies candidates and sponsors, asks them to start drafting RFA materials, sets a particular week to be "WikiProject X goes to RFA week", and nominates everyone in turn. (Normal RFA work need not be suspended, of course, or even know that the project is making a push to provide candidates.) What do you (or any talk page stalkers) think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Hi WhatamIdoing, I think there is something really positive to nominations from people who have collaborated in the same project. But I fear there maybe some risks as well - aside from any concerns about canvassing there is also the risk of people feeling snubbed or overlooked, and the more you formalise things the more you risk not only that but you could even wind up with the inproject selection becomin an extra hurdle on the way to RFA. After not particularly being a project person I sort of wound up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons this year and both my successful nominations have been people I met through that. So I'd suggest keeping it fairly low key but ideally we want to recruit nominators in large and active projects - coordinators might be worth approaching. Also we need to find a way to trawl the smaller or less active projects and identify people who would be interested in adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC) == RfA == I said it would happen: Now that the GorillaWarfare has ended and X has zapped the proficiency bar, there is a veritable stampede at the admissions door! (Let's hope I don't get killed in the crush...) --Kudpung (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I wish there were a stampede, but five in the green doesn't even meet the one a day that historically was the norm at RFA. It is looking a little less unhealthy then it has for the last 28 months, but I would hope if anything has caused that it was my signpost article and the subsequent thread at WT RFA and elsewhere rather than one borderline call. The discretionary zone at RFA is 70-75% so it should only really be remarkable if a crat promotes someone with less than 70% or fails to promote someone with over 75%. As I opposed GW I suppose I could have been one of the discommoded ones in that RFA, but I was quite impressed at her behaviour under fire and came close to downgrading my oppose to weak. I think the potential is there but would have preferred her to improve her deletion tagging before getting the mop. However what's done is done - hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised by her adminning. ϢereSpielChequers 18:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Your RfA research ...is very good indeed, and unlike my BLP-PROD stats project has actually made something good happen. But looking back at some old RfAs, I'm finding some interesting stuff which could explain in part the recent decline. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keith D makes interesting reading: it passed in 2007 with 33 support !votes. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Postdlf passed with 24 in 2004. Just last month, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 failed with 88. I don't have any general figures to back it up, but the impression I get is that the number of users participating in the RfA process seems to have gone up dramatically. If more users with more different opinions are involved (and you have to impress more of them to get in), could this explain why so many RfAs are failing these days? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I'm quietly confident that this will be the best month so far this year at RFA with a result more typical of last year, though that itself was a drought..... I do seem to have tempted some extra candidates to come forth, the test will be to see whether that continues and whether any of the possible reforms work out. As for your examples and the more participants theory, I suspect that the small number of RFAs is concentrating the !votes on a smaller number of candidates, just as it does the questioning. It would be much easier for an active RFA !voter to participate in all or most of the RFAs that last 7 days than it would have been when there was a successful RFA per day. Also close calls attract extra participation, I'm sure I'm not the only one who often doesn't participate in RFAs that have over 90% support. My suspicion is that RFA is much more difficult for adolescent and teenage boys than it is for anyone else, and if we could allow for this in the stats then RFA is flawed but functional, though I fear that many good candidates are deterred because they don't realise that "maturity" is so often code for "teenage boy". Arbitrary standards especially for tenure and edit count are higher, but actual standards may well be lower, as many of the !voters focus on the questions and how the stats have analysed what the candidate has done rather than checking for themselves what the candidate has actually done. I think that as in the past a few diff supported opposes have a huge influence on the RFA crowd, provided the diffs demonstrate a clear reason for opposition. The RFA crowd is capable of forgiving borderline or old incivility, and even quite recent mistakes at speedy deletion. Bad faith problems such as sockpuppetry, vandalism and plagiarism take longer to forgive, but I see the RFA process as quite pragmatic - most !voters are well aware that anyone could "retire", come back and run at RFA 12 months later, so an incident from two years ago would have to be highly unusual to derail an RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Good points all round. I hadn't considered that the lower number of RfAs could be concetrating all the participants on to them. You're also right about high-support RfAs - I rarely !vote over about 85% unless it's someone I have a really strong opinion on. As a teenage boy hoping to run an RfA some time next year I very much hope you're wrong on that point...! Alzarian16 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that passing RFA is more difficult for teenage boys than for other editors, but I'm also confident that their opponents are almost entirely of the "not yet" variety, and different people have very different ideas as to what the age of responsibility should be. If its any consolation teenage boys are still passing RFA, and I suspect will continue to do so. Very few editors oppose all legal minors, but quite a few check them carefully and look for an unusual level of maturity. ϢereSpielChequers 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I'm in danger - along with a few others - of getting a reputation for complaining about 'the children that run this site'. However, I'm fairly sure that most editors are aware that I use children as a tongue-in-cheek synonym for people of reduced maturity. I've seen enough gross incivility and careless judgement calls by admins of all ages for me to insist that we should certainly not lower the bar. A significant number of the badly behaved editors (especially the cases where I have suffered PA myself) came from admins, or aspiring admins - a couple of them from genuine minors, and some from admins who got the bit in the days when 400 edits, being over 14, and 30 'Supports' was enough to pass (and who would certainly not pass by today's standards). The increase in RfA participation is possibly also consistent with the exponential increase in membership and new article submissions.The reaction following WSC's Signpost article seems to have supported my three theories, even the 'children' that pose their silly questions seem to have taken a (temporary?) break from RfA. -Kudpung (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Interesting view - not one I've heard before, but it makes a lot of sense indeed, and is quite reassuring in a way. Re the second part, I find it funny that even though more users are active and participation in each RfA has increased, there are in general fewer submissions per month than there were (at least until this month). Now we've hit a mini-peak and participation hasn't noticeably decreased, which undoubtedly lends some weight to your interpretation. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I'd guess that most if not all editors assume that when you say children you mean children, but wonder whether by children you mean those not yet of legal age or those who are not yet teenagers. I suspect that your sarcasm is totally lost on childish adults. Personally I'm careful not to call teenagers children unless they are behaving childishly. As for submissions per month I thought that the days of exponential increases are long behind us. whether you measure the gap between ten million edits, the number of new accounts created per month or the number of new articles per month the pedia is still growing, but not quite as fast as a couple of years ago. The odd thing to my mind is that as we are now in a phase of steady improvement we should be seeing the editing population getting steadily more experienced with a declining proportion of non-admins. Instead we seem to be getting a very different pattern with a growing proportion of editors who are longterm civil and experienced, but aren't admins. I would prefer to see the community in four groups, admins, IPs, newbies and a small proportion of editors who for whatever reason are unsuitable for Adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 10:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC) RfA thanks spam Hello WereSpielChequers, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks WereSpielChequers, your shifting your vote was one of the sweetest moves you could ever have done. I wanted to send you this message all along but thought I'll do it after the RfA is over. Thanks for the kind gesture; I know it mattered the most for this RfA changing course. My best wishes always. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC) CSD At my now–withdrawn AfD you said, "Notability is a matter for AFD, the test for speedy deletion via {{A7}} is the much lower hurdle of whether it lacks 'a credible assertion of importance or significance'." Could I get your reaction to the question and comment (and question) I've posed at User_talk:SoWhy#Query? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Hi TransporterMan, I've replied on SoWhy's page, but I'd just like to add, if we are still both active in three months and you are thinking of running again please ping me an Email - a nomination from a former Opposer usually goes down well at RFA, and I'm sure you can learn a little restraint at CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC) RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging Hello I see that you was making a research about admins. In Juli or August i see another research about that: there was some statistic about how change in time experience (in edits and time) people in moment when they are admins. There was quite many images about trends. Do you make it/you know who make it ? Sorry for interrupting, but I just check half of year of Wikimedia Planet and i didn`t found this, and I am looking for any help. PMG (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Hi PMG, the current version of the stats I maintain is at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month, it does include information on how much experience people now need to be an admin, or at least how few admins started editing in 2007, 8 and 9 - though I haven't updated that statistic for a couple of months and don't intend to for a while. I suspect most of the other stuff you are interested in would be in the talkpage archives of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and maybe a little in my own archive. I've been thinking of adding something to my stats about edits but it is difficult to measure and display. However my understanding is that we may not be as bad as DE wiki where I've been told 10,000 edits is now seen as a minimum for RFA - I wouldn't advise anyone running with fewer than 4,000 edits but I know people have sailed through on 6,000. The factor that I suspect skews everything is the different treatment that adolescent and teenage boys can expect as opposed to other editors, but I'm pretty sure no-one has yet released stats on that, and it would be difficult to do so because often nothing is said about age. ϢereSpielChequers 12:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC) It's raining thanks spam! Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum. There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself! If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redthoreau You might consider counselling your man to cool his jets a little in his RfA. I know he's copping some pretty heavy hits right now and his frustration is understandable but he's not doing himself any favours with his responses to his opponents. The world is a tough place and I appreciate that an enwiki RfA is even tougher. Nevertheless he should have known that when he got into it. MtD (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC) RfA I've been working on the RfA !voting pattern since Jan 2010 and I need some stats to posit a hypothesis. Would you have time over the next day or two?--Kudpung (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Everything I've got re RFA is at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month, what sort of stats were you thinking of? Also please remember that 2010 has been a bad time at RFA with far fewer admins appointed as ceasing to be active. ϢereSpielChequers 08:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, I know 2010 is a bad year, that's why I would like some special stats. It's more to do with demonstrating the height of the bar or the number of hoops to jump through to pass or fail. It's something that will be best represented in pie charts. It's just a one-off job but I think it's more the kind of data they extract at http://en.wikichecker.com/about/. It's all public information but it would take 100s of hours to compile manually. Let me know if you would like the details anyway of what needs doing. --Kudpung (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Well I don't have any automated way of getting stats, but I may be able to suggest someone who has or some information that already does part of the job. So I'd be happy to talk through the details of what you want to do. ϢereSpielChequers 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Note of reply I just recently saw your email and replied to it. Thanks, and nice to meet you :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC) RfA Ok, it's fixed. Περσεύς|Talk to me 14:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Ta Perseus. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Dead link Hi WSC, Just a heads-up that the link at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_criteria#My_voting_record seems to be dead. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Yes thanks I noticed but am hoping that tool comes back. ϢereSpielChequers 21:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you! Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! (Btw, I added myself as 'unclassifiable' seeing as my username is a nickname for a dead cat that translates into gibberish) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC) I'm a twit! Wrong page! (Well, right page, but wrong spam). Let's start again! Thank you for your nomination. Thank you for your kind words. Thank you for believing that I was ready to handle the tools. I owe you more than one pint and I can't begin to tell you how much it means to me that you took a chance on me after your last RfA went south. You will always be my symbolic turkey carver and I hope I'll see you at the next London meet-up for a very large hug. The last bit of the spam still counts though, if you ever need anything please drop me a line and I will do everything I can to help. You are a lovely, lovely man. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Hugs are always welcome, thanks for being such a star candidate. See you Sunday week. BTW Fae and I have been chewing the fat over this systemic bias issue, your perspective on this would be appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Hello WereSpielChequers, Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks Dlohcierekim. ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Fæ {{You've got mail}} Fæ (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Replied :) ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC) The Signpost on recent admin promotion stats Hi, we're planning to produce a couple of graphs next week or the week after in "Features and admins" on the fluctuations during the year. Will you be available to comment on them? It would be good to quote you. Tony (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Sure, and happy to have my graph reused. But would that stop us having an article in early 2011? I keep the hot/cold monthly diagram at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month updated monthly, but the stats on active admins and especially wiki generations are far more fiddly, and as I intend to calculate them as of the end of the year it would be a lot of work to also do them a couple of weeks earlier. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC) I was thinking only of graphing the monthly numbers, as displayed here: the total, the successful and the unsuccessful. Little more than what we treat every week at F and A. Would it be better to wait until yours? Tony (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I'd prefer it if you'd be willing to wait till January. Aside from everything else I have a couple of editors who I promised to assess and hope to nominate at least one of them, and I'd rather be involved in a signpost story about the RFA drought after I've done those nominations than immediately before... As I think that I should hold off from nominating people at RFA for a little while after I make a fuss about the drought. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Lear's Fool Here goes...  -- Lear's Fool 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure whether giving barnstars to those who nominate you is the done thing, but I'm going to to express my appreciation for your help and guidance before and during my RfA. I've been trying desperately not to use this cliché through the whole process, but your sage advice made me a better editor, and the fact that it helped me become an administrator is an added bonus. I am thankful for having had the opportunity to interact with you, and look forward to continuing working with you in the future.  -- Lear's Fool 02:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC) The Guidance Barnstar For your guidance and advice through my RfA.  -- Lear's Fool 02:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks, much appreciated. I was very impressed with the way you handled those ten days - I doubt you'll often find yourself in a similar situation. It would be a pleasure to collaborate with you in a less toxic venue than RFA! ϢereSpielChequers 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC) RfA Hey WSC, I wasn't suggesting you are the one that yells "'Totally incompetent!'" because of a couple of near miss CSD tags. --Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks Kudpung, my experience is that those of us who focus on deletion errors are rarely among the vitriolic opposers, but I've now remembered an exception who you might have been thinking of... However I'd take issue with the near miss bit, in my experience errors in CSD tagging need to be clear, recent and part of a pattern to justify an oppose at RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Ponyo Ping You've got mail...--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Enormous favour I've updated the RfA page, but am worried I may muck something up while transcluding it. Would it be possible for you to transclude it? WP:RFA/N notes that the nominator can transclude it on behalf of the nominee. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Yes happy to do that, but you might want to look at my last email first. - I'd suggest expanding your acceptance statement to include a statement about any alt accounts or IP edits for starters. I think User:Jezebel's Ponyo is a zero edit alt account, and you don't needto disclose any IPs if you've just had the odd edit whilst accidentally logged out. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Ah, I hadn't seen a new message from you when I last checked. I'll check now and update accordingly. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC) q2 would benefit from a sentence like "such as x or y" with links to articles that you've done a lot of work on. I know you've linked some from your userpage but some RFA voters won't venture that far. ϢereSpielChequers 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC) All done. I'm happy with my current responses - they're honest and sincere. Thank you again for your kindness and encouragement.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you My first bit of thank-spam! I truly appreciate not only the nomination, but also the kind words and guidance throughout my recent RfA. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC) You are most welcome, thanks for being such a star candidate. Feel free to nab code from my monobook.js - the dropdown menus for block messages are particularly useful. ϢereSpielChequers 00:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC) RfA revived? See [1]. 4 100% RfAs at once. Do you see revival in RfA? --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Well it is the healthiest it has looked for a few months, though we need rather more than four to be a blip (on a monthly basis our last blip was 13 last August). Also the newest of these four candidates has been editing for three years, one of my concerns is that we are failing to appoint the 2008, 2009 generation to adminship. BTW on the 17th to 20th Feb 2008 ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC) WP:NOTNOW Hi WSC - I responded on the talk page - ironically 28bytes (talk · contribs) has answered your request before you made it! Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Trying to improve RfA It really is a waste of time, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC) It's frustrating and progress is glacial. But the situation is such that change is inevitable, the only real questions are what that change will be and when will it happen. Other projects have run out of admins before, and it is not unusual on other Wikis, on Wikia it happens often enough that they have well established procedures to deal with it there. When we hit a point where EN wiki has insufficient admins to govern itself then either the community will reform or the foundation will step in as they recently did with the Aceh wiki. I suspect the most likely change is that we will eventually hit some sort of tipping point and appoint loads of poorly scrutinised admins in response. I would prefer that we steer gently away from that by appointing enough well scrutinised admins to stabilise the admin corps, but I'm not optimistic. My only reassurance is that talking to Wikipedians on other projects, I believe we could run Wikipedia with significantly fewer active admins than we currently believe we have. Though I don't like the implications for the status of our ever decreasing number of active admins. People who think that adminship should not be a big deal need to remember that it only avoids becoming a big deal if it is the norm for clueful longterm civil contributors, the scarcer our admins, the bigger a deal it is to be an admin. I also worry that our definition of an active admin is so low that we might run out of admins who actually do admin stuff rather sooner than we expect. There are many possible scenarios for RFA in the next few years, simply extrapolating the trends of 40% fewer successful RFAs each year, a 20% annual resignation/departure of active admins and a 1% monthly decline in active admins is one scenario that we know cannot continue indefinitely. ϢereSpielChequers 12:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I think the priorities are wrong. For a whle we were all getting close to agreeing that the silly, multiple, pile-on, and trick questions, and the pile-on opposes due to a single, old miscarriage of tagging, were parts of the reason why the established, reasonably clueful editors are not coming forward, and something needed to be changed. Suddenly we are told the discussion is wearing thin, and that we are acting like children in a school yard. So the topic hastily gets changed to how we are hurting the feelings of our tender teenage candidates by telling them to go away and come back later. That's the perennial cyclic pitch of the very special talk page that RfA is. we need to get our priorities right and either focus on one thing at a time, or split the talk page up into talk pages for each major issue to be discussed. Words of wisdom: ...if anything, fixing one problem would break the tradition that nothing changes at RFA and make it easier to fix other problems. — WereSpielChequers Kudpung (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC) The thing that makes fixing RFA so challenging is, yes, the community. We can't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. We can't force them to stop being so brutal at RFA, we can't stop the silly questions, look at User:Keepscases contributions, all they are is silly questions on RFA's, no content work, and people have cheered him/her on for it. The thing stopping us from fixing RFA is us ourselves. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Interesting replies, folks. I pretty much agree with WSC 100% here. Things will change, but not until a crisis is actually upon us, and I think there's pretty much zero chance of change happening any way other than by Foundation intervention. The problem is simply that management by community cannot work beyond a certain size, when there are too many people to ever get a consensus in any one direction - there are good reasons why most of the world's successful organizations are managed hierarchically. I am very impressed by how well community consensus has worked for many things round here, and it's fine as long as no real change is needed, but it's become moribund. I agree partly with Kudpung's suggestions, and I think the recent discussions have helped to tone down some of the excessive questions. But people's memories are short, and I think it's only temporary - I've been following RfA for a couple of years now, including the many talk page discussions, and I think it's cyclical but still on a general downward trend. (I really do like User:Kudpung/RfA criteria though - it's objective and factual without attacking anyone. Maybe if it's maintained and publicized at WT:RfA at intervals, it might help to lengthen memories?). But generally, I don't think RfA can be properly fixed without changes to the rules, and the community is incapable of that. Anyway, thanks for listening - I think I'm going to back away from WT:RfA and any thoughts of trying to help fix things, and just leave well alone until the inevitable happens. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I think it is possible to have different discussions going at the same time if they are in different sections, but yes there is a risk that people can distract attention from one proposal by restarting an old debate in a section about something else. I think the best response to that is to put in a section heading where the tread of discussion splits off. An alternative idea is to start an RFC about a particular major change and publicise it at the village pump. As for the problems of the question section, I don't fully share your concern about in silly questions, as I don't remember an RFA that they have altered. Trick questions and the general over emphasis of policy questions as opposed to looking at the candidate has certainly been a problem, but it is the sort of problem that WT:RFA discussion can affect, and looking at the current RFAs I think there has been some diminution of the question sections. As for opposes due to a single old miscarriage of tagging I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, my experience is that opposes for tagging errors have to be evidenced by multiple recent examples to have weight in RFA. As for userboxes there seems to be an issue about atheists and occasionally people with views on wikipolitics. Living in London it is easy to forget that large parts of the world are very intolerant of atheism, and I'd suggest that prospective admins cull their userboxes. Reform has been discussed for a longtime Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, but big changes like unbundling rollback have succeeded in the past. I think at some point I might write up my preferred solution for RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 16:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC) RfA WereSpielChequers, I'm considering nominating myself for RfA (again). I read the article on Signpost that you contributed and you seem to be well thought of in the community and an expert of RfA (obviously or you wouldn't have been asked to comment). I'm not asking for your support or nomination, but would you mind terribly looking over my contributions and seeing if anything stands out to you that would suggest I should just stay away from RfA for a little while longer? I've edited off and on for a couple years now, mostly off but I go through spurts of a lot of activity. I'd like to help out with the RfA and AfD process. My largest concern is the effect the WP:DRV I started yesterday might have on an RfA although (and perhaps because) I still agree with my reasons for doing it. If you'd just give me a "you might have a shot" or a "you might just want to avoid that", I'd greatly appreciate it.--v/r - TP 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Hi TParis, and congratulations for being bold. I normally hold these sort of discussions by email, both because one can be franker in criticism in private and because lots of on wiki discussion about an RFA can lead to some people thinking it has been canvassed. I don't have time to look at your edits today or probably this weekend, would it be OK if I got back to you next week? ϢereSpielChequers 19:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Absolutely, I'm in no rush and your opinion could end up saving me time (and personally) in the long run. For the record, I did have a username change, my old RfA is under my old username, TParis00ap--v/r - TP 19:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Hi. Hoping this doesn't sound pushy, but you haven't forgotten about me, have you?  :)--v/r - TP 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Certainly not, but I'm afraid events and a PC crash are distracting me. This could be a few more days. Sorry ϢereSpielChequers 09:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Ohh no problem at all. I'm in no rush, I just didn't want to get buried in your talk page ;). Thanks in advanced and good luck with your PC. If it's any consolation, I've been having PC issues too. Trying to set up a media center for my TV with an old computer from my garage. After buying 2 graphics cards, and a DVI -> HDMI adapter, two sticks of ram, 3 failed hard drives, and a shorted out modem, I finally gave up last night.--v/r - TP 14:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I gave up on getting my ubuntu desktop to show a certain TV program and used my netbook, forgetting that my home wireless had gone fut so my netbook uses a mobile broadband with only 2gb a month.... ϢereSpielChequers 16:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC) You don't seem to have email enabled, would you mind emailing me? ϢereSpielChequers 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC) {{YGM}} Kudpung {{talkback}} I've just noticed your reasons at 'Bureaucrat-ship?' above. It's almost identical to why I've procrastinated from RfA in spite of being badgered many times. Oh well, you'll be able to pray for my soul this week ;) --Kudpung (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC) If so remember it is an open book exam and even if you think you've spotted the trick part of the question it is worth rereading the relevant policy. Except for a certain type of totally irrelevant question where I'm waiting for someone to reply "I'm sorry I can't answer that because according to my hair stylist people of my star sign should avoid the number 6 this week. But my favourite colour is yellow if that helps". However a more chocolatey answer would probably work better. ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC) :) BTW, thanks for chiming in on Snotty's tp about the NPP backlog glitch. Looks as if one editor is clicking 'Mark this page as patrolled' a tad too fast. Suggestions as to how to handle this diplomatically would be most appreciated. --Kudpung (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Hi WSC! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for the mentoring that you didn't realise you were giving me on Wikipedia policies over the past 14 months, and for being the first to put the adminship flea in my ear. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks Kudpung, welcome to the madhouse! BTW if you are ever in London on a second Sunday do please join us for a beer. ϢereSpielChequers 18:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Slon02 RfA Hey, WereSpielChequers. I came extremely close to holding off my support until an admin reviewed their CSD tagging, but I decided to trust Fetchcomms's outstanding nomination and assume that no CSD issues would be brought up. Unfortunately, you brought up such issues rather quickly, and I'm now inclined to move to oppose. I can't support a candidate with CSD difficulties when they intend to work there, no matter what. This is the issue I will support or oppose based on, so I just wanted to ask you how serious this candidate's issue with CSD tagging is in your opinion. Your oppose rationale makes a very strong case, yet you only weakly oppose. I don't know what to make of that; my assumption would be that your oppose is 'weak' based on their other good contributions, is that correct? Are these mistakes isolated or are they just repeated too many times? I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Regards, Swarm X 13:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Yes. I hate opposing, especially if a candidate has their heart in the right place and is otherwise a good editor. I do hope that Slon02 responds by improving their CSD tagging, but I found those examples just by trawling their last fifty deleted contributions, if I was going to support I would have gone back further but with three different issues, two with multiple examples, I didn't see the point of checking older stuff. On the other hand none of those examples was particularly egregious, the A7s were deleted, even if not as quickly as if they'd been G10s, and the authors didn't get the same message as if they'd created G10s which can be a real issue. Weak was for various reasons including consistency - I'm not being as harsh on candidates with mistakes at deletion as I once was, if only because many of our existing admins would have been as quick if not quicker on the deletion button. So in this case weak means that if the candidate was an admin they be no worse than some we now have, but I think if they hold off and work on their CSD tagging they could be a very good admin in the future. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Alright, thanks for clearing that up. And in yet another instance where I feel bad about myself, I reluctantly oppose a great editor. Swarm X 15:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I have noticed your opposition to my RfA, and I'd like to let you know that I have made another comment on your comment there. Also, I'd like to direct you to User:Slon02/CSDlog, which includes the most recent (currently 40ish) speedy deletion tags, hence making it the most recent evidence of my ability to tag pages for speedy deletion. --Slon02 (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Stats question Re. User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month - I'd like to estimate how many admins are there, active, that became admin 6 years ago? (Lets say, prior to start of 2005) I'm not quite sure I am reading the tables right. I'm interested, due to the ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Time limits on adminship - and I suspect you might be able to give me a fair estimate, much quicker than I could figure it out myself. I'm wondering, if we decided to force admins >6 years to re-run, how many that would affect? It would also help to know how many more it would likely affect, next year - ie how many still-active admins passed in 2005. Is that 221? Or am I reading it wrong? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Hi Chzz, User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_by_month#Wikigenerations is looking at when our active admins started editing, so a few months ago we had 221 active admins who had started editing in 2005. Working out how long admins stay around for would need someone who can run a query, you might try CBM. If we can source it for this I'd be happy to maintain a table on my stats page . ϢereSpielChequers 22:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Ah, I see. No problem - I just thought you might already have the info, and thus it was worth asking. As for query - I can do that myself; I've got toolserv and basic SQL skills. Thanks for the prompt reply, no worries.  Chzz  ►  01:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC) User:Majorly/RfA/Stats/2008, etc. Querying when someone was promoted is difficult (or impossible, for really old users). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, but, that doesn't give the info I seek.  Chzz  ►  08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I'm not too fussed about collecting stats for the term limits discussion as I think there are enough major flaws in that proposal that we don't need to invest a lot of time collecting stats to rebut every aspect of it. But it would be interesting to have an admins database that allowed for this sort of research. ϢereSpielChequers 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I agree, regarding the proposal. But what I did notice was, within the discussion, quite high support for forcing renewal after some long time - e.g. 6 years. Not with any break, or anything - just that. Which is why I wondered how many that would affect. So yes...I'll have a look. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) One interesting thing about such a long term is that I'm pretty sure that a high proportion of our admins would have been appointed three to six years ago and relatively few more than six years ago. So introducing a six year cutoff would leave most of our existing admins in place at the start, but then lose them quite rapidly. I'm not convinced that such a change would be helpful, rather it falls into the sort of system change that works well enough to pass initial inspection, but leaves you completely screwed in the medium term. If my brand radiator is going to burst asunder I would rather it did so on the garage forecourt than at speed on the highway. ϢereSpielChequers 15:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC RfA stuff Hi WSC. You might be interested in this discussion on my tp. Feel free to chime in. --Kudpung (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC) MacMed {{YGM}} Again^ :p MacMedtalkstalk 23:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Endorsement Well, let's think about this. (Btw, my personal belief is that RFA would work better if the crats handed out a mop some time before the actual RFA, I think it would help to ground RFA in the realities of whether some does a good job as an admin. But I haven't heard any support for the idea yet.) If I'm considering endorsing someone and I see UAA mistakes, I'll say something like this on the relevant page: "I see things I like so I'd like to endorse, but if I endorse too many candidates who fail, I won't be able to endorse any more, and I see you made what look to me like some UAA mistakes. Can you tell me about those? Were you following someone else's lead who didn't know what they were doing? Can you go through your UAA contribs and show that you usually got them right?" Because we're having this conversation in the context of "I'd like to endorse, show me how I can do that with a reasonable margin of safety (to my ability to endorse in the future)", it's likely to feel more supportive to the candidate ... even if they never get to run for RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC) I think having the crats appoint people and screening candidates are two of the possibilities that might fly. But I'm not keen on the endorse program, if people can't vote there will be comments on talkpages etc. ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Tell me about "screening candidates". - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Hell Freezes Over When I saw you're not unless candidate, I was thinking "Not unless hell freezes over"...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Ah yes, not quite what I intended and petty much the opposite of how I hope it would work. But I see where you are coming from. ϢereSpielChequers 20:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Re: header I believe that a problem with Wikipedia in general, and RfA proposals specifically, is that by making proposals too early, the room for compromise decreases. If we start off with suggestions (with or without headers), people will say that it's a fantastic idea, say that it's a good concept but suggest tweaks, or say that it's a bad idea and usually explain why. If we start off with proposals, those that are fully behind it will support, those that are fundamentally against would obviously oppose anyway, but those who disagree tend to either make counter-proposals, or oppose because something that is important to them has been overlooked. As for the specific edit, I took the lack of opposition to my previous header-related edit first time as a signal that I could try being bold a second time. I now know this isn't the case, so will cease doing so. I have no objection to being reverted, alternatively you could move the second arbitrary header down (given that it is not arbitrarily placed). Apologies for any trouble my actions have caused. Regards, —WFC— 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC) No problem, I'll fix those headers. I think that the problem with general discussion threads is that a proposal on one thing gets sidetracked into other issues. I'm starting to organise something different at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform and would value your input. ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC) User_talk:Dank/RFA I'd like to ask some questions about the endorsements idea on this temporary talk page without distracting from the "Eureka" thread . Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC) OK happy to do so. ϢereSpielChequers 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Something to note {{tb}} Alzarian16 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks, good spot. ϢereSpielChequers 08:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Salvio giuliano Just stopping by to pay my compliments for your nomination of Salvio for adminship. I'm sure he'll be excellent in the role. Townlake (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks, RFA is an unpredictable place, and some candidates handle the questioning better than others but I'm rather pleased at how well he is doing - not many question but really good answers. Shame the board is otherwise empty. ϢereSpielChequers 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I'd just like to thank you for your support and for your very kind words! You've really been most patient, helpful and kind. So, again, thanks! And, by the way, I've raided your monobook Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC) You are most welcome - on both counts. ϢereSpielChequers 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15