Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 133

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

→

Archive 140

Unbundle The Tools

This has probably been addressed in the past. Before I was even a twinkle in Wikipedia’s eye. (No pun intended concerning Twinkle. However, a question I need to ask, for my own curiosity, have we ever considered unbundling the tools? And if so, why haven’t we? There are many candidates for Adminisreative positions that make excellent cases for specific needs for specific tools. The ability to protect or unprotect is a great example in cases of Template work. However, with a particular user, there may be legitimate concerns with regards that along with that specific button, they also get the ability to Block and Delete. Why can’t we just give that user that particular tool. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we, though? Surely if you cannot trust a user not to use the tools they don't need, they shouldn't be given any at all? Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several admins I could trust to protect a page but I could not trust to block anyone. I can think of several admins I could trust to block users but I could not trust to close an XfD. Some admins I could trust to protect pages, but I could not trust them to view deleted material. I really see no reason to give one user all 26 tools at once. Shoessss may be interested in looking over the recent Adminship poll for talk about unbundling the tools. --Pixelface (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very sensible idea, but let me be the first to draw your attention to perennial proposals. Expecting administrators to voluntary relinquish some of their powers to lesser beings sounds a bit like asking a turkey to vote for Thansgiving anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My first response is why wouldn’t we? Every individual has special talents! An individual who is exceptional talented in code, may have some maturity issues. Do we discourage that particular individual, who could be a great benefit to Wikipedia in working on Templates or other matters concerning code, by forcing them to go through the Rfa process to gain the tool to protect or unprotect? In turn, we force them to go trough with the Rfa, where they are shot down because they do not have “..enough main space edits – or that they are not a content builder” causing their Rfa to fail. Thereby, discouraging the candidate who moves on to greener pastures. To me this is not only a net loss to Wikipedia in that we lost this talent. But we now have one more opponent criticizing Wikipedia. Again, just a question. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address my issue particularly well there, i'm afriad. I'm aware there are several people who could benefit from using certain tools more than others but why do we need to split them up? Why can't they just have them all anyway? If you can't trust them with all of them, I believe you can't trust them with any of them. In the meantime, they still have the ability to ask an administrator to do the task for them. Perhaps that is just my opinion. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think un-bundleing the tools for each persons best area is sort of like the Army letting a guy with no legs join up because he's good with his hands.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose. There are plenty of admin powers that no-one in their right mind would bother going through a "Request for..." process for, but nonetheless are a valuable tool (WP:Requests for ability to hide bulk edits from RecentChanges, anyone?); plus, plenty of admins rarely use one or the other of the powers (I performed a grand total of four blocks between January and April this year), but there's no reason to deny the ability to do so. Of the two "big" powers, I find it impossible to picture the editor I'd trust with a delete but not a block button, or to delete but not to undelete articles. The only current admin power I'd be happy to see split off would be a separate WP:Requests for ability to edit through autoblocks process. — iridescent 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for the ability to see deleted pages because I'm a nosey person would be a little tough to pass.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You've perhaps never heard of Douglas Bader? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MF, While this is something that I think should be done, I don't see it happening... but not because of admins protecting their power... but because we are too big a beaucracy to get it to work. There's a reason why the founding fathers set us up as a republic and not a true democracy. But I would have no problem giving some of the tools to people... CapitalR, one of my former candidates, didn't need all of the tools. He only needed one or two. Take some of those tools and issue them piecemeal... and then have a full package for others.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikiworld didnt collapse when rollback was unbundled. Would it collapse if, say, the ability to see unwatched pages was also unbundled? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that is one ability (there may be others, like the ability to edit through autoblocks) that should probably just be bundled with rollback instead of the admin bit. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the thing about rollback is that it's just a faster way of "undoing" an edit. It's not an administrator function anymore than using Twinkle or Huggle. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a faster way of undoing a number of consecutive edits, as you obviously know. But I agree with you, so why was there such resistance to unbundling rollback do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Most likely not, but what would happen if the block button was unbundled? Just playing Devil's Advocate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd ask a different question. How many users would want to have access to the block button? Not me, for sure. A very good case can clearly be made for keeping some functions in the hands of a trusted priesthood. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an allure associated with the block button. It's arguably the most powerful. Unfortunately, Kurt is right about a few eggs who are power hungry I guess. Nevertheless, I myself have a different question. How easy would it be to unbundle the tools? technically I mean. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The most powerful and therefore potentially the most damaging. In my WikiUptopia an RfA would be all about trusting an editor with the power to block other users. All the rest is just housekeeping so far as I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, much much easier than it will be to firmly establish the consensus that doing so is a good idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I long ago gave up any hope of establishing a consensus to do anything on wikipedia. Other than to defend the staus quo that is, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me express what I am trying to get at in a different way. Here stateside, we have the term Doctor. With that term, there are certain perceived privileges and rights that go along with that title. One such privilege is the right that any individual with a PhD,, in any given field, has the right to be addressed by the term Doctor. The term Doctor, in and of itself bestows the impression of expert – knowledgeable – speaks with authority – counselor. However, in real life we qualify what that title of Doctor may mean in any given field. Medical – Judicial – English – Theology - Engineering – Education - Veterinary and so on and so on. In addition, within any given field we restrict the tools that are bestowed on any individual, with the term of Doctor, to tools that are appropriate to their field. The person with a Doctorate in Architectural Engineering may certify structural drawings on buildings, but not neuter your pet. Likewise, a Medical Doctor can prescribe medication to ease that pulled muscle but cannot argue a case before a court of law. However, here at Wikipedia, once bestowed with the term Administrator you get all the tools, to use as you see fit. My feelings, are that if we unbundle the tools – we would not need the expert -of – all –trades to be qualified for Administrator, but allow qualified individuals in a given field access to the tools that they may need to be more efficient and effective, without going through the process of a full blown Rfa. In my mind, a win-win to all parties. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. Think about how it would have to work: either we set an RFA type process for each of the unbundled rights, or we give them to autoconfirmed users, or users who have passed some other arbitrary milestone. With the first, the proposal is to set a whole set of new processes along the lines of this one, which most here agree that if not broken, is severely deficient. Like Iridescent, I couldn't really see where I could trust an editor to delete but not block, and the same goes for many of the other admin tools. I see the other choice as totally unworkable. Imagine User:Grawp being able to move to page delete vandalism, or being able to avoid the title blacklist. All this would do is dramatically increase the workload for the admins with the lot. And probably the rest of us also. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing suggests a bundle of weird scenario's. Q: "Hey, you're an admin! Could you take a look at the edit war that's going on over at Steve?" A: "Oh, sorry, I'm just a Delete and Un-Protect admin, I can't help." or Q: "Could you block for that guy that keeps vandalising Jim? Oh, and make it an auto-block, I think that IP might be his." A: "I would, but I only passed the un-block RfA. I'm going for the semi-protection RfA next week! Maybe even full protection, in a few months."--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Barring the sarcasm, no it doens't. We could select a few tools that people could use that would be helpful that don't require RfA's that we could trust Admins to authorize.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We could do that, seeing that requests for rollback seems to work smoothly. But which rights could we give that would be useful in reducing the overall workload of administrators? The ones that should absolutely not be handed out are for me: delete, block, and protect/edit protected. Unless templates etc are split off. What is left doesn't seem worth creating a process to give rights for. It would be interesting to know which tools people seeking adminship are most interested in. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but isn't it rather naive to suppose that all of the people seeking adminship care one whit about the tools? Wouldn't you agree that it's at least as likely that a significant number only care about the admin status? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly - hence my last statement. Kevin (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot think of one admin tool that needs less trust that others(other than rollback which is already separate). Lets keep them together. _{1 != 2} 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Judgment matters more than trust. Blocks, page protections and deletions all generate drama. Then there are tangential issue like the naming - we'd care far less about civility if admins were called janitors (and saw themselves that way). There are a few admin action that does require a higher level of trust than the others. Certain page deletions (like Ed Poor's deletion of VFD can crash Wikipedia). And then there's one admin action that could send us to the database dumps. Per BEANS, I'm not going to talk about it further. But yes, there are things that require a greater level of trust than others, IMO. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that most of the tools (blocks, protection, etc...) require trust but viewing unwatched pages? That seems like something beyond trivial in comparison. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

protected pages

Personally, IMHO, the number one tool that should be granted right now in the same mode that rollback is granted, is the ability to edit protected pages. The number one reason why I see people getting ALL of the tools when they only need one is to work on protected pages---this means people who work on templates or other places that are typically protected. This "power" doesn't grant any power to block/protect or otherwise endanger offending others.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But if you don't have enough trust in them to protect or block, why trust them to edit protected pages?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Either you trust someone to not abuse tools or your don't. Editing protected pages can do plenty of damage to NPOV, one of our primary goals. Rollback is an exception because it can't do anything that can't be done without rollback. _{1 != 2} 01:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that analagous to asking if you don't trust someone with a gun, why trust them with a spoon? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. I am saying that just because someone can be trusted with foam rubber(rollback) does not mean they should have sharp objects(protection, blocking, editing protected pages). _{1 != 2} 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman makes a good point. Yes, all of the tools carry with them some responsibility, but, let's face it, some tools are more "deleterious" to the project when misused than others. Editing protected pages is useful (and probably the less damaging in the general sense) for users who wish to do no harm. However, block, delete and protect can "do more harm" even if unintentional more often than not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is less harmful when abused. Editing protected pages gives a direct advantage over other users. Yes it can be reversed, but so can the other tools. Consider the fact that anyone with this tool in a bad mood can fuck with the main page or templates that appear in thousands of articles like {{fact}}. We should keep the tools together because we need trust and sense for all of them. _{1 != 2} 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is only one tool that can't be reversed, the block button. Everything else is just housekeeping. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We actually do have an unblock button which does reverse a block, very handy. _{1 != 2} 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment simply proves to me that you ought not to have access to the block button if you believe that the damage it causes can be so easily reversed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get my point, I am saying that any of the admin tools can cause damage the is not easily reversed, even if the action itself is reversed. _{1 != 2} 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a user for shoddy reasons is far more damaging than editing a protectrd page and screwing with it. Users are vital to Wikipedia. Blocking them and turning them off to the project should be avoided at all costs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting blocked for an unnecessary reason is indeed annoying, my block log isn't clean just because of that. I didn't leave Wikipedia because of it, but I'm sure many others have and careless blocks are something to be avoided at all costs. Useight (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The block can be undone, but the block summary and the fallout from a bad block are everlasting, indeed. The only admin ability I think should be bundled with rollback isn't a tool, rather the ability to edit through an auto-block. I was caught in an auto-block about a year ago, and while it didn't take long to get it taken care of, it seems like unnecessary process. Lara❤Love 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the ability to edit protected pages could be parcelled out to people who need it. The average joe doesn't need rollback---the only people who are going to show a need for rollback (generally) are the vandal fighters. Likewise, the average user won't have a need to edit a protected page---I don't think I've ever edited a protected page unless it was DYK's. That being said, there are several candidates who have come through here over the past year whose need for the tools are the ability to work on protected templates or other things that they've created but have since been protected. These people, whose ability to contribute to wikipedia, are getting all of the tools because they have a demonstrated need for one. This leaves us in a precarious position, what happens when a person who has an excellent history of working on Templates has a lack of policy knowledge? Do we deny him/her the ability to work in the area she/he is best qualified? Preventing that person from effectively work on things they may have originally designed? Or do we lower our standards elsewhere and give them the tools and hope that they don't block people inappropriately with them? As an admin, I wouldn't give the ability to edit protected pages to anybody, it would have to be a person who has a demonstrated need to do so. With that in mind, I do believe it should be unbundled from the package in a manner similar to rollback.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about Balloonman's idea too. Due to recent heavy and tricky vandalism, a set of templates appearing on several pages had to be protected indefinitely. The problem: The one person most familiar with these templates and having spent hours maintaining them is not a sysop. Editing via talk page >> admin >> template has the disadvantage that this editor won't be able to directly monitor how the changes affect the templated pages. I would support this unbundling, it just shouldn't be another badge people wish to stick on their lapel, but a precision tool reserved for cases such as the one I'm mentioning. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's me. I think this is a fantastic idea.. I don't want all the power to block people or whatever but not being able to edit protected pages is frustrating and surreal. I'm not going to vandalize them- I made them! .froth. (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this idea of being able to run for the ability to edit protected templates. I have suggested minor fixes using the edit-protected process, but that is tedious. I'm in the weird situation that I can't edit this template, which I created. Some of us computer geeks could do useful gnoming work, while not being particularly competent in dealing with the people issues. I frankly don't understand the dynamics of people's interaction on the Wiki at all, but I do understand ParserFunctions quite well. Merzul (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent over whether editprotected should be available separate from the 'sysop' bucket of permissions like block, protect and delete, but please, for the love of god, can we not make it into its own usergroup? We currently have three userrights ('rollbacker', 'ipblockexempt' and 'accountcreator') each of which conveys only one permission. Do we really need to be able to tailor our permissions that closely to the personality of the user? Would we ever have a reason to say "we trust you with rollback, but not with accountcreator"?? I've said it somewhere before: bundle these permissions together into one new usergroup, call it something other than "trusted" (my previous suggestion, carries the wrong connotations of "not trusted" for non-members), and hand it out like rollback (maybe with a one-week waiting period). That would fit fully into our existing hierarchy of user groups: the fact that they're based on trust, not ability or authority, and that we give the tools to those we trust not to abuse them, not those who have a desperate need of them. Happy‑melon 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

irc, or other forms of off-wiki communication

Just a general query to satisfy my own curiosity. If a potential nominee has little or no off-wiki communications, how is that weighed against them? The user does not have e-mail enabled in their profile, nor do they chat on the (seemingly bazillions of) irc channels. Yngvarr (c) 00:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that is rarely comes up unless there is drama involved off wiki. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me run something up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes, as David Brent probably said. Does it not seem odd that a few RfAs attract an initial feeding frenzy of supports/opposes, whereas others meander along at a more human pace? Coincidence? Perhaps the weighting against a potential nominee is the lack of opportunity for a little bit of "canvassing"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it depends on how well known the candidate is. People tend to have stronger opinions about those they have interacted with. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I was alluding to the speed at which certain nominations attract attention, not the opinions expressed one way or the other. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus. Enigma ^message 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MF may have a point, but, to be less cynical about the whole thing, bear in mind that a lot of RfAs are heavily anticipated, especially with candidates who are well known, hence the droves of users who come to support. The only time I notice a flurry of opposes is an obvious SNOW situation. I don't mean the final count, I mean instantaneous opposes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're talking about half a dozen or so early opposes in the case of snow candidates, so once again not quite the same thing. I'm also slightly puzzled by your skewed argument that this only applies to those candidates that other editors want to support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's my belief that the origin of inflated oppose votes (if this is what you're getting at) is non-comprehensive pile-ons. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed your point. Are you asking if we think that there is off-wiki canvassing going on on some RFAs? Kevin (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily intentional canvassing, but I think it's probably true that users who spend a lot of time socialising in IRC get a lot of support simply because people like chatting to them. I don't IRC so I don't know if RFAs ever get linked there, but presumably people mention it to each other. Off wiki contact is pretty much uncontrollable so there's nothing we can do about it, and neither would I want us to. naerii - talk 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is in fact the case, I doubt it's do to canvassing, but more people just talking about things, and since news tends to travel much faster on IRC (hence the "I" part), edits to the RfA happen faster, and people talk most about people they know or controversial things, so if they see someone that frequents IRC, they'll mention it in the channel. It's not canvassing, it's just simple discussion. For example, CSCWEM2 got several score supports before CSCWEM even accepted, just because people were talking about it, and since everyone knew CSCWEM, it was an easy decision to make, speeding up everything. I certainly wouldn't say this is necessarily a bad thing, like "canvassing" implies, however. --Rory096 01:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know in a particular recent instance I had been watching and waiting for a particular RfA for some time. If you keep track of people you view as approaching readiness, perhaps even watch listing their RfA, then you have the opportunity to vote pretty quick on it. This particular RfA was not up when I went to bed and was up when I got up the next morning. I partook as soon as I could as I was eager o do so.

Despite some of the finger pointing about canvassing in a recent RfA (from opposers and supporters), the last time I looked at Wikipedia:Canvassing, it was discouraged to the degree of disruption it caused. It is/was not forbidden. Since the things run several days, it shold not be a problem beyond the general reluctance some of us feel to be the first to oppose. I also would not be surprised if some opposers in a recent RfA had not watch listed it because they did not want to miss the opportunity of participating.

The question of the IRC Cabal goes bck at least two years. Maybe longer. I did not partake in RfA more than two yers ago. As I recall, there were outraged cries of cabalism and votestacking then. Dlohcierekim 05:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All admins should have email enabled in their profile, to allow discussion of blocks and other issues. Many will oppose if this is not the case. WP:TINC, IRC is not, has never been, and will never be a requirement for adminship, but is nonetheless convenient for coordination and socialization. Andre (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of it has to do with how well-known a candidate is. At this point, I generally only vote in RFAs for users I've interacted with. DHMO, for example, is active on other projects (Commons and Meta) and he's active in two of WP's largest Wikiprojects (GA and FA). I believe he's also a member of the Aussie Cabal, working on articles with that group and participating on that noticeboard, although I could be wrong on that one. Lastly, he participates in a lot of administrative areas and is on IRC, so he's a visible guy who's interacted with hordes of people. A lot of the RFAs that go with only 30-some supports a no to a couple opposes are, in my view, typically the gnomes who haven't interacted with many people, haven't really gotten into conflicts, aren't widely recognized. This RFA has also been widely anticipated, as is evidenced by the many nom offers he's received as of late. Lara❤Love 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd say one of the primary factors that determines how large a sampling an RfA gets is how "front-and-center" the editor is (other factors, like how often drama follows the candidate, can also play a role). Like Lara said, someone that's in the background garners less eyes than someone making strong pushes to improve numerous articles across different topics (someone working on a suite of related articles is more likely to keep running into the same people). There's nothing wrong with it, but the gnome just doesn't instill that "all fired up" feeling in someone idly perusing the open RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the speed at which so many of these "idle perusers" come out of the woodwork in some RfAs strike you as even remotely odd? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In general? No. I know that, for me, there are times where I actually pay attention the RfAs more often than other times, and I realize that many other people may work on similar cycles; every once and a while, those cycles match up. *shrug*
To use a personal example, my first RfB had 30+ supporters right out of the gate before it started to crash and burn, and I know for a fact that I didn't do any canvassing (I was on IRC when I transcluded it, and someone almost instantly made a comment about it). There are RSS feeds for every page; perhaps that's how there's such a huge number so quickly sometimes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really: the resposne rate is not out of line with other heavily-watched pages on the wiki like ANI. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There can be lots of reasons for the speed of reaction, people watch RFA, people may watch the edits of someone that's there (I know for a fact lots of people watch my talk page and my edits), RSS feeds, etc, and yes even canvassing (but hopefully not). — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's also those who watchlist in anticipation. I've had WP:RFA/DHMO_3 watchlisted for at least two months. Heavily anticipated RFAs are often spoken of in IRC. The candidate and various aspects of their candidacy (answers to questions, opposer concerns, etc) are discussed among a few editors and, of course, others see this and are drawn to the request. I wasn't online during the time this RFA went live, so I don't know about the first few hours, but I know an opposer joined #wikipedia-en-admins at one point to ask why so many people were supporting, wanting to know what they were missing. Lara❤Love 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think enabling e-mail should be a requirement for admins; I've received probably over 200 e-mails from people wondering about their blocks (many of whom I unblocked). · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any "requirements" of admins at all. They're nothing special, just volunteers like everyone else. If I perform an action on wiki, it can be discussed on wiki. Until I get a paycheck for adminning, I'll continue to not have email enabled. (I have a disclaimer on my userpagethat goes into more detail about my longstanding feelings about IRC and email. I agree Andonic that some things are sensitive however. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To provide a counter-argument, I've almost never received an admin-related email through Wikipedia (I think just one, but it was such an obvious vandalism-only account that it didn't warrant a response). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that, having placed upwards of 700 blocks, I've received somewhere between 10 and 20 block-related emails. Most were not particularly persuasive, though I see how calling someone an arrogant, power-mad fucktard might look like a winning argument to the sender. One bitter fella sent me a series of Harry Potter spoilers (around when the last book came out), though fortunately I'd already finished it. I think it's useful to have that line of communication open, but like Keeper I'm not a big fan of "mandatory" email for admins - if the blocking admin doesn't have email enabled, there are plenty of other means of appealing a block. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...wait, you seem to be insinuating that calling someone a fucktard isn't the best way of convincing people that you're right. That's crazy talk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the opposite side, I get admin related emails quite often, but if I take an on-wiki action therefrom, I make sure I can back it up with on wiki evidence. The only exception to this would be privacy matters which I am always willing to handle via normal privacy channels, such as OTRS, a CU, arbcom, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves that it's not just administrators who receive abusive emails. Failing someone's pride and joy at a GA review, for instance, can sometimes lead to a flurry of emails questioning everything from your parents' marital status to the IQ of your dog. I do have email enabled, and I always have had, but I don't see any reason why anyone, administrator or not, should be required to be available via email. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have e-mail enabled, but I rarely respond via e-mail. I respond on-wiki, or not at all. Only when the situation specifically calls for private communication do I keep to private channels. I don't consider the admin IRC a private venue, there are over 40 admins there usually, and lately the logs are leaked on a regular basis. _{1 != 2} 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be virtually impossible to make email mandatory for admins anyways. If it was, IAR could quickly be applied, and then what, we would block the admin for not enabling email? Desysop them? The only thing possible is reccomending admins use it, but given arguments by Keeper and others, it should really just be left as is now. If someone wants to use it, let them, otherwise, don't worry. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but having it enabled doesn't ensure antying; as Until(1==2) pointed out, it's quite easy to simply ignore stuff that comes through. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A nasty case of "antying" recently

And for everyone that has a better grasp of English than I do, I'd like to point out that having it enabled doesn't ensure anything, either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry EVula.... couldn't resist :) Pedro :  Chat  19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this an example of "typical English humour", Pedro? Darkspots (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Being rather "typically English" I guess so! Sorry, my edit was a bit silly, but after recent events on and off WP a little humour probably doesn't go amiss. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I thought it was funny, just having a little dig at the former colonial overlords. :) Darkspots (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

These can also be used for antying

Well then, please feel free to add you expression of interest to WIKIPROJECT:PENAL-COLONY... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, mine is WIKIPROJECT:WE'RE GOOD WITH THE TEA, OH LOOK, HANDY HARBOR OVER HERE. Darkspots (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)That is a lot of big letters for a very small joke. :)

OffWiki communication is, unforutnately, easy to deal with. We can't stop admins/users from conversing about OnWikipedia business. And I don't think we necessarily should. However, with this offwiki conversating policy and guidelines can be subverted such as canvassing for votes/consensus, shopping for a blocking admin, and the like. Think of it like we dealt with the CAMERA fiasco. If we have proof or find out for sure that anyone broke a wikipolicy offwiki they should be confronted regarding it. But other than that there's really nothing we can do other than stress that guidlines and wiki policy shouldn't be mangled offwiki or on wiki. Like all things Wiki, we'll just have to rely on good faith. It's not ideal, but it is what it is. Beam 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New global userright

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#New_global_userright on how our local policy should reflect changes to the global user rights policies at Meta. Please feel free to stop by and comment. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection level

I think the protection level for WP:RFA should be indef semi-protection. It would save us from the sock RFA noms and save newbies who don't know better from adding an RFA when they have 5 edits and getting badly bitten on opposes. And it wouldn't interfere with the normal functioning of the page or prevent IPs from editing individual RFAs already transcluded. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad idea at all. I don't see any real drawbacks in doing so. The individual RFAs themselves would still be business as usual, and there is no legitimate reason a new editor would need to edit the main RFA page. This was already proposed maybe two months ago I think. What became of that discussion? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Faded into oblivion or decided against most likely, I fail to recall which. I seem to remember an administrator actually protecting the page and it being immediately undone by another with some comments here at WT:RFA. Regardless, since this is once again a topic, I have absolutely no problems with the above proposal. RFA would be completely unaffected. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That particular discussion is here Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that in May, there were at least 4 RFAs by users with less than 10 edits at time of transclude. All were SNOW fails, so this would've prevented 4 newbie bitings. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I opposed it then, but have seen the errors of my ways... I think this is a good idea now.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think editing should be sprotected, and moving full protected. I can't see a need for non-autoconfirmed users to edit it, or for anyone to move the page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DHMO on this one, I think I too, may have been in error at the time (*GASP!*) SQL^{Query me!} 08:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. It would also prevent vandalism to the main RfA page such as this or this. Oh, and indef move protection would also be sensible. I see no reason for RfA being moved anytime soon. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:42, May 31, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. The only legitimate reason as to why a very new user is going to edit this page is to add an RfA nom, and if they don't have 10 edits and 4 days experience there is no way they're going to pass. And it doesn't prevent newbies commenting on RfAs. Hut 8.5 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What if they were trying to nominate someone else? Obviously they aren't supposed to be the one transcluding the RFA onto the main page if they aren't the candidate, but a brand new user wouldn't know that. However, that's just as well as that preventative measure would make sure that the actual candidate transcluded the RFA. Now I'm starting to ramble, sorry, I just woke up a few minutes ago, but I also support semi-protecting the page. Useight (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I supported this during the last discussion, I would still support it now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support edit semi prot, move full prot. In fact, I may be bold here and do it. Looks like a solid consensus so far. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do be so bold. I can't think of a true problem that this would create, while as Mbisanz has noted, it would certainly prevent some people from being bitten. Antelan^talk 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let the record show I was so bold just now upon popular request. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A good move as far as I'm concerned. Acalamari 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work. The previous set up reminded me of putting your hand in the cookie jar only to find a bear trap.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with this action, despite the obvious drawbacks of revoking the ability of anonymous accounts to edit the encyclopedia 'anybody can edit'. Whilst I have seen a few instances of helpful contributions from anonymous and new editors, the conclusions of a simple cost-benefit analysis are flagrantly obvious: preventing new editors from adding RfAs that are clearly going to be NOTNOWed will help guide them away from the pain associated with having a request slammed shut within an hour or two. Regrettable but good move all round. Anthøny 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose indefinitely semi-protecting this page from editing, but as I'm clearly in the minority here, I'll spend my time debating other things. ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this as well, as we recently discussed this same matter too. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As the one who proposed it last time, I can only say "congratulations" to Rlevse for getting semi-protection to actually stick! Full support for indefinite semi-protection. Happy‑melon 10:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is quite obviously general consensus for semiprotection to be applied. If no degree of substantial opposition arises over the next 24 or so hours, I think we can safely wrap up this discussion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Again? Per MZMcBride, I'm against this, but recognize I'm probably in the minority, so I won't comment further. I do, however, want to say I'm pretty disappointed that the much less clearcut discussion about this, less than about a month ago, was completely ignored discounted, and "consensus" was declared after a little over 16 hours. This looks like a "facts on the ground" game (or a game of wheel-war chicken); surely everyone here knows this has gone back and forth alot in the past? I'll live with semi-protection, based on a "pick your battles" philosophy, but this was done in poor form, IMHO, and leaves a sour taste. --barneca (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't protect pages just because they shouldn't be edited. It's the simple things, you know? ➪HiDrNick! 14:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys do realise that this makes the edit section links disappear and therefore means that most, if not all IPs won't know how to comment on/at an RfA? Way to go. 86.147.110.112 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You just click the link in the section name.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh, IPs aren't supposed to vote at RFAs anyway... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'd love to know whose registered account that IP belongs to, sadly a CU probably won't go to the ol' fishing hole for me. IPs can comment at RFA, but I really can't remember the last time a non-sock IP made a legitimate comment. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:RFA should be at least semi-protected. I personally think that only established users could vote one way or the other on an RFA. People who have been here for awhile and have an idea about how things are. -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 06:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that protecting RfA wouldn't preclude voting from unconfirmed users and IPs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not getting how this once again devolved into IPs commenting on individual RfAs. I don't see how protecting the main RfA page affects that at all. I fully support semi-protecting WP:RFA. Enigma ^message 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection doesn't entirely preclude logged-out users from commenting on RfAs, but it does make it more difficult. Now that the page has been semi-protected, there are no links next to the section names on WP:RFA unless you are logged in. This was a bad idea indeed. ➪HiDrNick! 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apollo1986 needs closing

Resolved

 – Thanks _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

it's from January 2008, I think it's finished its run. Beyonf a WP:NOTNOW at this point but I gather it wasn't ever transcluded. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. Andre (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good decision: if the RfA was never transcluded, then there's no point in it being closed as unsuccessful if it wasn't an RfA that ever ran in the first place. Acalamari 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't exactly sure what needed to be done in this case. Since s/he seems to have returned lately, I'd hate to have it bite them if s/he decides to do a future RfA. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All the candidates listing after The Big One...

198 supports. 1 oppose. Not sure what to make of it, other than the ol' AGF standard. The other response, is that this is some sort of reaction and not wanting to start up another mess. Thoughts? Quick addendum... this is saying nothing about the candidates, just about the overwhelming support trend. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Trends like this happen. The one thing that I've noticed never changing is that when RfA regulars feel like a candidate should be opposed, they oppose, no matter what the climate in the air is. Darkspots (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly how it should be. Candidates that are lacking shouldn't be passed just because their RfAs are going well; if there's a problem, it should be brought up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Darkspots (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All the candidates listing before the big one...149 supports. 48 oppose. For what it's worth. Kingturtle (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Big One was withdrawn. Enigma ^message 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that RFA was full of twists and turns until the end. Useight (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope that we can use this experience as a spur to try some new ideas for RfA. This RfA exposed a fair number of problems with the process, at least in my opinion. Maybe the community is ready to experiment with some new approaches, and test them out? I hope so anyway. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when/where you're doing this Filll. I have some ideas, and I know Gazimoff is (presumably) working on some stuff as well. This is all rather ridiculous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Gazimoff has indeed been working on some stuff, and has his initial thoughts on how to review the whole process at WP:RREV. Thoughts are welcome on the article's talk page. Feel free to share it around, it will probably be fairly comprehensive.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I think RfA works just fine. The flaws lie in human behaviour, and you're never going to change that, no matter how much you refine the process in an attempt to eliminate it. It's funny; I often see people complaining that RfA is broken because "qualified" candidates aren't passing - but no two of those complainers would ever agree on which candidates were qualified or not. People who think RfA is broken because people are failing "shouldn't fail" always seem to miss the fact that when those RfAs fail it means that a bunch of people disagree with you. Refining the process to make more people pass will never ever work because nobody will ever agree on which people exactly should pass. And I would be very hesistant about making changes because of what happened in DHMO's RfA - I think maybe 2-3 RfAs have been that acrimonious in history, and considering how long Wikipedia's been around, that's pretty good going. We shouldn't overhaul a system that usually works because of an anomaly. I like RfA. Everyone gets to have their say in as transparent a manner as can be. It's nice. naerii - talk 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are similar to Naerii's. I'm a little skeptical that this was process malfunction, rather than a very well-known user who draws very mixed sentiment. I'm having trouble imagining that any possible system, in which 400 people have such divergent opinions, is going to operate smoothly. Certainly new ideas are welcome, but I don't see any evidence that we actually have some sort of systemic problem with RFA rather than divergent ideas in the community about what we're looking for. --JayHenry (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe we should start a subpage here to collect some thoughts and discussion. Would anyone like to join me at /ReformDiscussion?--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Better idea - Wikipedia: RfA Review :) Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the talk page of Wikipedia: RfA Review would be more appropriate. Also, as a sidebar, I don't think "the big one" is an example of a broken system (even though I personally feel it is broken). We had a massive sample size and weighty opinions. That's all. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not like placing the blame on RFA, which has its flaws, when blame can equally, and perhaps more appropriately, be based on candidates who are equally flawed, and who have both rabid supporters with their own flaws, and rabid opposition with flaws as well. You have a system that is imperfect. You have a candidate that a great many people like and are friendly with, but has a checkered past when it comes to the actual trust needed for an admin. You have supporters who cannot abide any opposition to their e-friends, and cannot understand the concerns of others. You have opposition who cannot stand the candidate and will never ever until hell freezes over, admit any scenario under which he will be worthy of adminship. Oh, and then you have people who support or oppose because of the other 200 people that either supported or opposed, without even bothering to come up with an opinion. I think all of those latter flaws are MUCH greater concerns than the RFA process, and thankfully are unique to this particular candidate (and a very very slim minority of others).⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it negate the purpose of a process review. If we research every option, consider every prospect and cover everything exhaustively, yet come back and report that the current process is the most optimal despite it's flaws, then it's still an exercise worth undertaking. A review is just as much to validate that what we currently do is best practice as it is exploring alternatives and making recommendations. Hope this clears things up, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Naerii above. The problem isn't the process, it's the people. How do you chance how people act though? That would be awfully tough to do. Wizardman 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wiz is right. However we do it, RfA will be (as it is now and always has been) a way to reach consensus on wether a candidate can be trusted with the tools or not. The only way to get rid of all the problems it has now with the so-called over-reacting and the Bad Faith is to literally turn it into a vote. You will never, ever reach a consensus on a controversial issue without someone saying "no". And most of the time, that "no" becomes quite a bit of Wiki-drama. There's nothing you can do about it besides learn to live with the major fault of Wikipedia that is called discussion.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 02:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Update:It's now 273 supports against 2 opposes, by my count. The RfAs directly before it did not go very well, on the other hand. Enigma ^message 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The "big one" was a Three Ring Circus. The fault, if there was any, was not with the RFA process. Considering how strongly people felt one way or another, I think it went well. Cheera, Dlohcierekim 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester, you put it quite well. Dlohcierekim 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm clueless as to what's going on here. What's "the big one"? What do you mean by 273 supports against 2 opposes? Huh? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The big one: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3. The number of supports and opposes refers to the total number of supports and opposes across every RFA currently running previous to that RFA and the total number of supports and opposes across every RFA after it. The point (I think) is that "the big one" was so shitty people are supporting RFAs out of some sort of desire to have less drama for a while (or something, not sure what the reasoning is). naerii - talk 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then those who transcluded their RFA immediately after "the big one" have an fine-tuned sense of timing. :P Useight (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that seems a rather arcane topic to me, hence my confusion. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also an incredibly skewed/cynical perspective about RfA, even moreso than usual. Could it be that the last few candidates have been qualified? I think everybody needs to leave DMHO's last RfA in the past where it belongs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea why anyone would be cynical about the RfA process. Enigma ^message 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants me to ruin the "support" run, I could always go for bureaucrat again. Neıl 龱 07:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Neil's RFB. He has impeccable timing, what with opening it right after a disasterous RFA... (now doesn't that sound silly everyone?) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

336 Supports, 3 Opposes

Sure, trends do happen, but why do they happen? I can honestly say that after DHMO's finished, the last thing I wanted to do was shake up another RfA of a good-faith candidate. This is more of a sub-conscious thing, I don't think I'm handling RfAs in the last few days any differently than I normally do, but maybe I am. Maybe a lot of people who were involved in DHMOs are. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

336 Supports, 3 Opposes leaves out two SNOWs (1-9, 0-6), one NOTSNOW (0-1), and one consensus not reached (85-55) that all occured after H2O's RfA was closed. So I am not sure if the trend you've identified actually exists. Kingturtle (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be neccesary to mention the SNOWs here, but thanks for doing so ( a 50 edit candidate wont fall subject to a trend and pass an RfA). I'm not suggesting that anything is iron-clad here, but in the five "real-chance" RfAs to start after DHMOs really cemented itself as controversial, its 336-3. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

...because there are five good candidates. I don't see a trend, I see them as completely unrelated. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought maybe yesterday, but today I'm really thinking its backlash/trend. I think all five candidates are good and will likely pass, but forgive me for saying this, I am surprised to have so many 100% candidates one after the other. Not to say they should/shouldn't be 100%, but we have candidates all the time who are stellar and still finish in that 90-95% range. Furthermore, most legit candidates are good candidates, doesn't mean they will get 100%, doesn't even mean they will pass. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know though Gwynand. I studied each of the candidates that I'm supporting (and obviously, I'm a nominator on two of them so perhaps I'm blinded by my own judgment of two of the candidates), and came to the conclusion that they are excellent candidates with no overwhelming reason to do anything other than support. I think you may also be seeing a backlash of nominator's being extremely careful about who they nominate. Better nominations = better candidates = massive support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodpoint Keep, but then, aha! That's the trend maybe? Not nominating a possibly borderline candidate after such drama? That actually makes sense, the five current candidates all seem quite good to me. It is quite likely that voting has nothing to do with it, but maybe nominating, someting else. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets name that something else "Keepers three blind mice". ;p — _Maggot^Syn 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two then, one for each nomination. — _Maggot^Syn 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) re to gwynanadI just recently turned down nominating an extremely viable candidate. 7000+ edits, lots of mainspace, good civil user, been here 2+ years active, clean block log. But two failed RFAs (in the distant past), a lot of reverting/automated tool use/vandy-patrol. No GA/FA. Someone I would support for sure, but not nominate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwynand, "gwynanad" is about the worst butchering of your name that I've done yet. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of RfAs since 1 May that had 30 or more opinions cast.

Date closed - tally - result
 1 May - 100/0/0 - successful
 1 May - 59/9/5 - successful
 2 May - 60/3/4 - successful
 4 May - 17/32/11 - unsuccessful
 5 May - 92/20/2 - successful
11 May - 88/11/5 - successful
12 May - 100/0/1 - successful
13 May - 8/25/7 - unsuccessful
13 May - 114/10/4 - successful
13 May - 8/34/9 - unsuccessful
14 May - 68/44/28 - unsuccessful
14 May - 128/10/9 - successful
15 May - 112/2/1 - successful
17 May - 161/1/2 - successful
19 May - 64/34/19 - unsuccessful
21 May - 19/37/13 - unsuccessful
21 May - 46/40/8 - unsuccessful
21 May - 83/4/2 - successful
21 May - 19/13/13 - unsuccessful
21 May - 23/18/3 - unsuccessful
22 May - 90/2/4 - successful
23 May - 67/28/5 - unsuccessful
23 May - 66/27/6 - unsuccessful
24 May - 7/25/6 - unsuccessful
24 May - 73/0/1 - successful
24 May - 48/31/4 - unsuccessful
24 May - 93/12/5 - successful
27 May - 69/10/3 - successful
27 May - 186/5/3 - successful
27 May - 3/24/4 - unsuccessful
2 June - 92/0/0 - successful
3 June - 300/83/17 - unsuccessful
4 June - 72/13/2 - successful
4 June - 84/39/2 - unsuccessful

Just to help you look for trends :) Kingturtle (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How did you get that... did you make it? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Magic 'crat pixie dust I reckon..... :) Pedro :  Chat  16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Old school. Pen and paper. ;) Kingturtle (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well I realized this morning that If I actually did some sort of analysis as opposed to just saying "Hey, look at these numbers!" then there might have been more substance for discussion. Thanks for putting that together. I'm going to keep the current 5 noms together, then maybe do a further analysis after all 5 are done. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, there was a string of six consecutive no-oppose successes on and around 26 January 2008. Kingturtle (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And I see that Mongo's 200+ vote right-down-the-middle RfA was right at that time... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. Seems there really might be a pattern. Useight (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Two occurences could be a pattern, but also equally designatable as a coincidence. I'm not convinced yet. I am convinced that RFA sucks the life out of good editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I admit that I'm feeling a bit like David Duchovny here, but also look at at the 6 in a row that passed... only a total of 220 supports, 0 opposes. Only about 37 votes on average. Mongo had more than 220 votes in that RfA alone. Might be something there. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may make a comment here, wearing my statistical advisor and consultant's hat (last worn about 9 years ago, but still fitting, if I may delude myself a little)? At the moment, there isn't enough data to make even a very worthwhile informal assessment. One of the reasons why is the following: around the "key event RfA", there are nominations that are unsuitable to be included in an analysis, as their "causal history" in the ways one thinks relevant, are mixed. The essence of what is being sought for is whether the "key event RfA" had any particular effect on the RfA nominations after it had happened compared with before it happened. But there are nominations that took place in such a way that parts of them were in operation during the key event RfA. So, these RfAs had a potentially mixed causal history in the ways we are interested in detecting and analyzing. A better way to detemine whether any effect can be seen would to be use only RfA nominations that were not in operation during any of the time the "key event RfA" was in operation. So, one needs to include RfAs that had already finished by the time the "key event RfA", as well as including RfAs that started only after the key event RfA had finished. Any casual influence the "key event RfA" had can then be investigated by carrying out comparisons of the RfAs before and the RfAs after. The first set is no problem, but there aren't yet enough of the second set (the "only after" ones) to begin to draw any sensible conclusion. An additional problem is that any causal effect one is interested in may well have a time-limited or decaying effect. (I'm ignoring the effects of unknown size associated with the dependencies of permitting the same editors giving opinions in numerous RfAs when there are differences amongst the editors about their tendency to prefer an opinion of a particular value (support, oppose, or neutral). Ignoring these dependencies will affect the actual validity and reliability of the conclusions one can draw, but to an unknown degree. If one is prepared to still carry on with the analysis, then some kind of Log linear analysis, much like Logistic regression would be the correct formal statistical procedure to use, but it does assume that the dependencies I mentioned are absent. Any informal procedure may well deceive one because it is informal and not constructed to remove various potential cognitive illusions brought about by our psychology. It still might be entertaining to do, however. Do I hear the gentle sound of snoring now?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not snoring. Just heads exploding. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding the DMHO RFA - why was it disastrous? Not what happened in it to make it go the way it did, I know that ... rather, why is the way it went (high participation RFA, failed when the candidate withdrew) considered "disastrous"? Neıl 龱 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not neccesarily "disastrous". I think something to be said is that it upset a lot of people, including myself, and I opposed. It really felt like a war more than trying to build consensus, something that supporters and opposers both agreed with (at least some of us), and DHMO was in the middle. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant "disasterous" as in "train wreck". Highly visible, highly contended, and impossible for some to look away. Like a trainwreck. I was only referring to the "what happened in it to make it go the way it did", nothing more. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The string of six in a row in January were simultaneous to the Mongo RfA, not after. Also, you're excluding from that string a 27 Jan unsucessful result of 19/18/5 and one soon after on 28 Jan at 13/13/7. Kingturtle (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, and that's why I think I might be moving into "I saw a UFO!" territory, seeing what I want to. One might consider 13/13 or 19/18 RfAs has not really ever having a legit chance of passing. It's tough for me to find an "answer" on any of this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now, Gwynand, everyone knows UFOs are real, we have several referenced, fact based article right here on Wikipedia to prove it! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Real Test

The real test will come in about a week or two after I get back from vacation... I have a coachee and a half (not a true coachee) who are about to transclude their RfA's... I've warned both of them off of accepting noms from me, but both of them are following in Tan's footsteps... They want me despite some potential backlash.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully your self-admitted missteps will not weigh heavily against the candidate, if at all. I couldn't think of anything more unfair, although anything is possible. We've seen criticism in all forms. Word of advice, add a caveat to your noms : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In the RFA, the !voters should be looking at the merits of the candidate, not the recent out-of-character chapter in the history of the nominator. Hopefully that's what they'll do. Useight (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While I have a feeling I came under some greater scrutiny after the elephant was revealed, my RFA still went through. If the candidates are qualified, they'll be fine. In order words - I agree with Useight. xenocidic (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

H20's Rfa

I've been putting this off for long enough. I owe the community (and H20) an explanation for my behavior last week and to beg their forgiveness. I honestly don't know if I can do the former

When I first met H20, I was convinced that he was already an admin and my impression was that he was a damn good one. When he told me otherwise, I was shocked. He told me that he wasn't an admin and asked me to coach him. I investigated his edits and read his previous RfA's and decided that I could help him. Maybe it was pride, but I thought I could help him overcome what the community saw as faults. I saw his problems at his previous RfA's as centering around the issues of Civility, Maturity, and Responsibility. I agreed to coach him under the condition that we wait until August before running. I put that stipulation in our agreement because I wanted him to prove his maturity and wait---he had 4 RfA's in less than a year and needed to distance himself from the community's belief that he was power hungry.

In our coaching I did run through some of the standard coaching excercises, but I focused on Civility, Maturity, and Responsibility. I felt that he was making progress in all three of those areas. Over the past month I received a few emails from people stating that they thought H20 was ready to run for adminship and wanted to know why I was holding him to his original agreement when he was ready. I explained to those people that I was asking him to wait until August as a sign of his improved maturity. That I wasn't stopping him from running, but that I would probably oppose if he ran. I also knew that I had the ammunition to kill an RfA---reading the coaching page, you could easily see most of it.

About a month ago, H20 emailed me asking me to run. Now, as far as I am concerned, he had earned the tools. He is one of the most committed and knowledgeable users on Wikipedia. He has the best interest of wikipedia at heart. I didn't respond to his email. He then made the request on his coaching page--I couldn't ignore that.

At this point I am caught between a rock and a hard place. As his coach, I have seen significant improvement in his Civility/Maturity/Responsibility... but I've also seen some major gaffs. Namely his comments off wiki---which despite being off wiki resulted in on-wiki drama. As his coach, I believed he needed to wait until the agreed upon time period of August. He also needed to improve his off-wiki conduct.

As his friend (and his coach) I have always been convinced that he is ready to be an admin and should be an admin. He knows wikipedia well enough to be my coach---and 90% of the people who are admins can learn from him. I've felt that way before I became his coach.

So here I am caught between the belief that he should wait, and the belief that he should be an admin already. To make matters worse, I had just nomed Xenocidic. In Xenocidic's RfA, I wrote, that despite Xenocidic's not having six months of edit history, it's not fair to him to force him to wait when he's ready now. How could I deny H20 the right to run for RfA based upon some arbitrary requirement when I just nom'ed a candidate saying that the arbitrary requirement should be ignored?

Due to my friendship with H20, my belief that he should be an admin, and peer pressure I decide to acquiesce and nom him. I know that if I (as his coach) don't nom him, his RfA would probably fail. I thought his nom was in enough danger without me putting an obstacle in it's path, but I didn't want it to fail. I cannot emphasize enough my personal belief that H20 SHOULD be an admin already and that we were merely jumping through hoops to reach something that should be a fait acompli. Who am I to stand in the way of somebody who, IMHO, should have been an admin already?

I didn't think his RfA was going to pass. On the one hand, *I* saw too many problems/issues that hadn't been fully addressed since his last RfA... on the other hand everybody else thought it would. Please note, I didn't want him to fail, I expected him to fail. That is why I told him in the one email I sent him that it would be easier to write an oppose than a nom. I expected others to see the elephant in the living room that I saw and oppose him for obvious reasons. (Remember, being a good admin and passing an RfA are two different things---I was confident about the former but doubted the later.)

Despite believing that his RfA was going to fail, I nom'd him any way. Which is a violation of what I've said previously... I've prided myself on noming only those candidates who I believe are A) ready to be an admin and B) who I believe can pass the RfA process. I then violated another one of my principles when I ignored what I felt were his weaknesses---in the past, I've always been upfront with the weaknesses of my nom's and then explained why those weaknesses shouldn't be used against the candidate. With H20, I chose to ignore mentioning his weaknesses because I couldn't explain why we should over look them. I couldn't explain why we should ignore his blog posts or insistence on moving his RfA to June rather than wait til August (or even July.) I was able to do so, but I couldn't explain why.

Thus, due to omission, I deceived the community.

Then we experienced the greatest RfA of all time... at first, I was incredibly proud of H20... but as the RfA progressed and nobody mentioned the elephant in the living room, my sins started to weigh on me. Then, for some inexplicable reason, I did what I did. It was very poorly thought and and executed even worse. I know that if I had given it an iota more thought, I could have raised my concerns and come clean in a much better manner. In a manner which wouldn't have resulted in all of the drama and pain that I caused. This is one of those actions that will probably haunt me for a long time.

This is not intended to exonerate me... what I did in the RfA was despicable. I handled it very poorly. Again, while I am asking for forgiveness, I don't expect it... maybe a little understanding, but not forgiveness... what I did to H20 and to this community is deplorable. Despite his shortcomings, and my belief that this RfA should have failed, I believe H20 SHOULD be an admin. I should not have nom'd him and if I did so, I shouldn't have hidden the elephants. For that I apologize to this community and to H20. I blew it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm acknowledging this, and not holding it against you, as I never did. You realized the mistake, and took corrective action. But thats just my opinion. — _Maggot^Syn 06:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make the following observation Balloonman. The encyclopedia has not been harmed. The vast majority of visitors to this website are our Most Important Thing ^TM - our readership - and they wouldn't have known a thing. Nothing got broke, for sure there was acrimony and internal upset, but that's Wikipedia.

Yes, you made mistakes in the way you handled things. But that's the way it goes. I understand, believe me I do, how hard it can be to balance on-wiki friendship with doing the right thing. And although I've never ever met a single Wikipedian in real life there are many editors who I would count as friends. So I know how these situations can develop.

I respect your candid admission, but I think the time has come to stop beating yourself up over it. Let's move on, heads held high, in the knowledge that everyone's work here - writing, taking photos, vandal whacking, deleting attack pages, discussing and commenting on the work and, yes, opining at RFA is both valued and essential in our common goal.

And let's all retain the pride that I personally believe we owe ourselves in being Wikipedians. Pedro :  Chat  07:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do plan on moving on... and re-establishing the trust/respect that I felt I had here before that incident. But I felt that I needed to clear the air and explain some things first.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're sorry for the wrong things. I don't see anything automatically wrong with nominating a candidate you don't think will pass. If you're trying to do what's best for the project, this does not always involve playing your cards face up. In general it should, but there might be exceptions. Where I think you went wrong was in having unbelievably bad judgement. When I look at this editor, I see a poorly-behaved kid, yet you somehow see some wonderful admin candidate. The most likely explanation I can think of is that your friendship has severely clouded your judgement.

Now I know, people will jump up and down and scream if I say that Wikipedia is not social networking and thus editors should not seek to make friends with other editors. So, forget the generalities- in your specific case, you have demonstrated that such friendships do interfere with your judgement, and thus they are harmful to the project. So, if you're really sorry and want to do something to make it better, stop trying to make friends with other editors. Or, if you must, don't participate in any RFA-related activities which involve your friends. We're here at RFA to honestly evaluate candidates, not cheer for our friends. Friday (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Friday, this isn't DHMO RFA#4. Why was this post necessary, may I ask? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I want him to change his behavior so a bad thing like this doesn't happen again. This goes for anyone who makes friends and then tries to get them promoted to admin. Everyone should stop it; it's harmful. Friday (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The nom was made in part because of friendship, but the beleif that he should be an admin existed before I ever talked to him. I have always believed that DHMO would be a fine admin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how bizarre. I guess that blows away my theory. Nevermind. Friday (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with nominating someone you don't think will pass. Such an act can be highly constructive. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't get it. To me, it looks like you've cut off your nose to spite your face (I'm not sure whether I've used this in the right context however, so don't quote me on it). If you really didn't think he'd pass because his coach didn't nominate him: did you not at least look towards the alternatives? Telling him to wait a little longer, for example? Rudget (Help?) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I still can't understand that particular example. One idea I'd considered tho, when we see myspacers who come in and treat Wikipedia like a MMORPG, is to go ahead and nominate them fairly quickly for adminship. When they fail, they may find that this makes Wikipedia less of a fun game for them, and they may get bored and wander off. This would save us lots of time and effort we otherwise spend babysitting them. Friday (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a teenager, am I sensible as an administrator? Rudget (Help?) 16:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously want me to answer that question? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. --Irpen 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's a rather (insert appropriate word here) question. Rudget (Help?) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a good idea on any level, but if people do it, please don't in any way misrepresent the nature of your nomination to the sucker^W"candidate", when making the offer, or to the community, in composing the nomination. Alai (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WRT immature teens, it's not that natural consequences are the best teacher; they're sometimes the only teacher. And why is it that anyone raising the points raised by Friday is squashed in all these discussions, as if it's somehow taboo to point out the immaturity and how much it took this particular RfA to overcome the social networking that had occurred? In fact, why are we still discussing this perfect storm? RfA worked in this case (where I suspect it fails in most others); in spite of the social networking and opposition to some of the opposition that led to a high support tally, the issues and concerns eventually came to light. The bigger question is how much of RfA is a popularity contest, fueled by admin coaching, participation in off-Wiki social networking, and supporting other editors at RfA, GAN and FAC without engaging critical faculties. RfA is a problem: we need a better means of desysopping to counteract this problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much right. If it was easier to desysop then there wouldn't be the same need for the popularity contest cum trial by fire that RfA has degenerated into. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, with respect to the latter half of that statement, would it be better to see a set FAC team which is initially set up by you or Raul to evaluate articles candidates and possibly eliminate all traces of off-wiki communication which could compromise the quality of articles being passed? This 'set team' could then be used to evaluate any other potential reviewers who wish to help out and know MOS, images etc. Clearly there are problems at FAC, I can see that myself sometimes. Rudget (Help?) 16:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Latter half of which statement, who is SK, and FAC has FAR: FAC mistakes can be fixed via FAR, but RfA mistakes have no fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant SG. Leaving it here now, this is slightly off-topic. Rudget (Help?) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, while I can appreciate the predicament you were in, I would have made a decision on how to proceed and stuck to it once the RFA was filed. However, you've explained your views and feelings here, are making amends, and I for one am content to accept your apology. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am speechless... but not as the result of any kind of emotional response here. I honestly don't care. I propose that before being allowed to nominate someone we all now must pass Wikipedia:Request for Right to Nominate. This goes for self-noms too, just to kill two birds with one stone. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I harbor no ill-will. But boy did this get out of hand. It was painful to watch. And my heart goes out to Dihydrogen Monoxide for having to suffer through the rollercoaster. You seemed more concerned about yourself and your reputation during this RfA than your coachee. I am sure you've reflected a lot on what transpired. Learn from what happened, and go forth. We all are learning our own lessons in this world. You are not alone :)

As I reflect on this RfA I'd like to offer up three considerations, not to you alone, but to the entire community.

Do not nominating someone you think is going to fail. That is unfair to the feelings of the nominee, and to the process; it also wastes the community's time. Do not set someone up for failure like that, especially in such a public forum. Having someone fail in front of their peers is not a useful teaching tool.

Also, a Coach consciously or unconsciously as a vested interest in the success of a coachee's RfA. There is also the potential that an RfA could become a referendum on the coach, not the coachee. Therefore, it might be healthy for an Admin Coach to let someone else make the coachee nomination and for the Admin Coach to be recused completely, or for the Admin Coach to make the nomination, and then let it ride without making anymore comments, fixes, tally adjustments, general maintenance, etc., unless answering a specific question directed at the Admin Coach. I'd prefer the former. Even if it isn't a Coach/Coachie situation, I really think nominators should refrain from general maintenance and tally adjustment edits.

Lastly, I suggest also that anticipation, speculation and celebration of tally milestones (i.e. "will this be at 200 tomorrow?") should be avoided (maybe at all costs). That makes it into an event, a contest.

See you in wikispace, always, Kingturtle (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, wouldn't it be better to just drop this subject altogether? All you're doing is engaging in self-flagellation, just as the community is starting its healing process. You Fucked Up™, anyone who saw your comments on your talk page knows that you know you Fucked Up™, and right now, all you're doing is adding fuel to a subsiding fire, which doesn't clear the air, it poisons it further. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm glad he's discussing this and should be commended for doing so. Your comments here and your edit summary are both not helpful, which is ironic as you're accusing BM of being anti helpful. Beam 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, we should all be glad. That's the thought process you've got when you blank your own RfA; hopefully, now that it's blanked, people will talk about it on WT:RFA for weeks! That'll help me live it down!--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad he's addressing this too, that is part of healing, not hiding things. I also have to agree with many of Kingturtle's comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who read the various discussions at the talk pages should have been well aware that this verbose explanation was coming, so I find it a tad silly and illogical to complain about it when it's suddenly made public. I respect Balloonman's apology and feel that it is sincere. That's all I need. Now, perhaps he (and the rest of us) can move past it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo most of what Wisdom says, although I will say that this post by Balloonman could be seen as unhelpful/unneeded. I also expected Bman to make such a post, and despite the fact that I don't think we really needed it, he wrote it in good faith and in good intention, and in wikipedia, I wont ask for more. I will continue to disagree with Bman that altering his nomination a few days in made any sense, or his belief that an oppose by him was really neccesary for the community to see. However, I admit that most of this was unchartered waters and to further lambaste him over what he saw as the best course of action doesn't make much sense. I would hope people would think twice before making any other threads like this under the thought that it will add to the "healing" process. For me, seeing Giggy back to his old usual self doing good work is all the healing I need, not more arguing on WT:RfA. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)