Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:10, 28 February 2008

• ]

Archives

For discussions from June 2003 till just before what's in this page, see /Archives. RFA discussions before June 2003 took place on a mailing list. RFA-related discussions may also be found at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

On track/off track

The thread above got pretty off track. Does that happen off here? Do we need moderators to keep posts on track? {Don's fish proof armor and ducks.) Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

*throws fish* I'm going to say no to the idea of moderators; the original question got answered and there's nothing wrong with people branching off into side conversations, unless they're disruptive (and I don't see any of the above being disruptive). -- tariqabjotu 01:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. We can never have fun under any circumstances. This place is for writing an encyclopedia. It should not be enjoyable in any way, shape, or form. NEVER!! нмŵוτнτ 02:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Where else can us admins set up our secret cabal plots conversations? bibliomaniac15 02:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let us have a little fun every once and again :P. You didn't happen to see that lolcat RFA that took place on this very page, did you? Useight's Public Sock (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, my favorite part about that (besides its cuteness) was how upset people started getting. By the way, I wasn't being serious earlier, if it wasn't apparent. нмŵוτнτ 17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The one that was pi microseconds ago? Dlohcierekim Deleted? 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's about right. Useight (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, make that pi nano seconds. Nah, never heard of it <<grin>> Dlohcierekim Deleted? 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nanoseconds, who uses time increments that large? I use picoseconds for all my measurements. Useight (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pi is now the official motto of RfA, eh? *wins again* dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Except it is pi not 42. Prodego 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. We've already had a quid pro quo offer this week @ Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Kim_Dent-Brown#Neutral. Sorry. No. <<grin>>04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Floating RfA

Could someone close/delete Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/jaytur1 which is a non-transcluded RfA by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Iamandrewrice per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jay Turner. MBisanz 07:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank spam and (re)hashed browns

What's the current temperature of this particular cup of tea? I like the pictures and the social contact. Others seem to hate/dread it. In real world politics, they are sometimes an absolute must. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think most people don't see any problem with it, but I don't think it's to the point where it's considered a "supposed to" -- nor should it be. As long as someone hasn't expressed that they do not want to get thanks, there should be no problem if you choose to do it. - Revolving Bugbear 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I'll state that I didn't send out a single thank-spam after my RfA, including my noms. (I did thank them, just not a pretty-picture-thank-spam) Did anyone notice? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a notice on my userpage for a few days thanking those who participated my discussion. Personally, I enjoy thank-spam, it's nice to know I'm doing a service. bibliomaniac15 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't send any out, I only thanked my nominator. And in case I forgot to do that and only thought I did, "Thanks" to the editor above this comment. Useight (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

lol - Just great. Regardless of how people voted and what my RfA's outcome turns out to be, I've been working on my message to thank them for participating, and now I have to worry about whether anybody views it as spam. (I really like getting those notes.) Doczilla (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't call them spam, either. And I enjoy getting them, too, because it makes a little orange "New Message" bar appear on my screen. You know, I've been editing for so long now that whenever I see an orange bar (sometimes not even online, but anywhere), I think I have a message. Send 'em out if you want. Useight (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it's hard to keep up with discussion here, might it be a good idea to put a notice on one's talk page? Or maybe a "yes, please" or a "no thanks" at the end of ones !vote if one thinks it matters? Dlohcierekim Deleted? 02:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the thanks, and I collect it. It's nice to see the friendly, oragne "you have new messages" bar appear, and it's someone thanking you for participating in their RfA, rather than the bar appearing and it's someone vandalizing my talk page, trolling, or complaining. Acalamari 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if given a thank you, I give the person who gave the thanks this in return. Acalamari 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with these messages, unless you had to thank a lot of people. By the time you end you will have to start a wikibreak or go mad. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Mwa ha ha ha. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, does commenting in an RfA establish a relationship (business or otherwise) with the nominee, or perhaps the nominator? Will I receive other offers from said parties? Mackensen (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. We've already had a quid pro quo offer this week @ Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Kim_Dent-Brown#Neutral. Sorry. No. <<grin>>04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't refer to them as spam, although I must admit that regaular RfA participators do find their talkpages becoming overloaded with them. I don't mind them too much, as it is only other users expressing their gratitude, but I didn't send any out after mine, thinking that people get enough of them as it is and chose instead to put a thankyou notice on my talkpage. Lradrama 10:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sending out thank you's after a successful RfA is prima facie evidence of....nah. Can't do it. Great example of DIYDDIYD. Speaking of that, I need to go delete something. Or include something. Or perhaps barter it against one of my own pet projects being kept...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the whole dislikes side, hell it's one of the reasons I don't usually voice my supports(bullet 3 and yes it is true, I lurk[REDACTED] way too much :P) not that I would consider it spam, I just don't feel the need for them in this format, the candidate is judged based on certain history of that candidate(or hell even peoples preconceived notions of that persons abilities/ability to be trusted.) I don't see a need for the candidates to thank us as a community for committing to support/oppose for them. Dureo (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the above idea (a "no thanks!" message) would be a good one for people who don't want the messages. Another option, especially for frequent participants, would be a flag/banner on their talk page.

I think it's fun to see what people come up with. (And I, like someone mentioned above, like the orange banner. Maybe that makes me kind of a nerd, but whatever.) I personally had fun drafting my themed thanks (and loved bibliomaniac's clutch themed congrats). - Revolving Bugbear 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with a banner is that a lot of time, people just hit the + button without looking at the rest of the page. As you can see on my public accoun't talk page, people sending RFA spam ignore the message at the top, and give me it here anyway. Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of you fixing that font at the top of your public account talk page? The text overlaps and is unreadable on IE. And please don't suggest FF - bear in mind that ~80% of our visitors will be using the dreaded MS product and we should fix it for them, not the other way round. Pedro :  Chat  20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It didn't work in safari temporarily, so I put </br> </br> to clear it up, but if it doesn't work in IE...then down in size it goes. Malinaccier (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool - fixed in lousy old IE - thanks! Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to thank an old "friend" who you might not have talked to for a while and another to go down the list and thank everyone on it. I like the idea of thanking everyone as a group on your own talk page or maybe the RFA needs to have a final comment section before it is closed where they can say "thanks" or "ok, I hope you will consider me again after I have more main space contributions" Gtstricky 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I do enjoy thankspam; however, I firmly believe that it should be done correctly. If one goes and looks at Acalamari's collection page, you'll see my big problem with thankspam: several of them are addressed to "Acalamari/Rfa-related awards." The whole {{PAGENAME}} thing, while convenient, is incredibly impersonal, and makes me personally feel as if the candidate believes that a supporter (or an opposer) of his or her own RfA is not worth more than a quick copy-paste. I don't need a HTML-encrusted behemoth, all I need is a note that says "Hey GC, thanks for supporting. It meant a lot to me and I won't let you down." GlassCobra 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The thanking of my collection page is quite amusing though. :) Acalamari 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Participating in RfA while currently nominated

What are people's opinions on participating in the RfAs of others while you are currently running? John Reaves 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. The more the merrier. I've seen RFA candidates !vote support and !vote oppose concurrently with their own RfA. Why are you asking? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious what others think. I have no strong opinion either way though I do understand how people could view it as inappropriate (but I also see how it's fine). John Reaves 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally didn't participate in anyone else's during mine, but I don't see a problem with it in theory ... although I would strongly recommend not going above your normal level of participation. - Revolving Bugbear 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why its a problem either. Especially if people oppose! Avruch 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think generally speaking, most candidates to out to support their fellow candidates, but I've actually seen a couple of candidates get opposed based solely on opposing a few people whilst their RfA is running. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly open to quid pro quo abuse, and should at the very least be strongly discouraged. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I asked this exact question during my first RfA :) (too lazy to find the diff - sorry). Consensus then (indeed overwhelming agreement) was that it is a good thing to carry on commenting as you would normally. In fact, should a candidate lean to comment oppose or neutral on another RfA (assuming with good reasoning of course!) demonstrates many positive qualities, and helps throw out this rubbish we've seen recently about "tit-for-tat" and the "RfA crowd" Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It should only be strongly discouraged if someone were to actually have the nads to say: Support because I'm also running for admin at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/User:Foo and I hope this candidate also supports me." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On my first RfA (Oct 2006) I opposed two other users running. In one, I had an argument with them (not like me, I know!) and in the other I accused him (falsely) of socking. Yet, I somehow passed. Hmm. Majorly (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well. You are obviously a horrible admin. I'm opening an RfC right now. </sarcasm> Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the distinct impression that things have changed a little since October 2006. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. I think we now have a higher proportion of people who are angry and cynical and willing to infer bias, nefarious conspiracies and foul play in any situation on first glance. Avruch 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sticks and stones. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - did you think I was referring to you? Avruch 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Were you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Avruch 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

<-- It's not an assumption of bad faith to recognize that people are people. People support their friends. It's also obvious to a casual observer that sure, plenty of tit-for-tat goes on. Assuming good faith does not demand that we turn off our brains or stop making basic observations. We should look for ways to ensure that people are supporting or opposing for the right reasons, because a great many people are not. Friday (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Thank God for a rational voice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not an assumption of good faith to assume that people vote on a tit-for-tat basis. This really is silly. If a candidate asked someone else to support on a reciprcoal basis that's one thing. We are not vaguely discussing that here, The thread is, in a nut shell;

• Q. "Can I comment on other RfA's while mine is in progress?"
• A. "Yes"

Done. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And it's not an assumption of bad faith to remove that temptation,

So not done, simply ignored. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, would you both just stop? I respect Pedro and Malleus. Both fine contributors. I mean it! But good grief. Take it to talk. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

• Problem solved Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was talk. I will simply say that I am deeply unhappy about what has happened here, and the absolution once again given to an administrator that would not have been offered to a regular editor who had conducted a similar campaign of abuse. Still, nobody ever claimed that[REDACTED] was fair. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, look we disagree okay. No-one wants the discussion here. If you feel that in some way "absolution" has been given to me then take it to WP:RFC. If I'm hindering not helping, I'll happily get rid of +sysop if that's what you and the community want. Wkipedia is not fair, but we can all try to make it fairer. Starting with good faith. And I admit my good faith with you is low, and that is very wrong of me and unbecoming of a Wikipedian. However let's leave it away from this thread as it's not relevant. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just low? Then it's a lot higher than my faith in in your good faith. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Over. User Talk Pages. Not here. Pedro :  Chat  23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguousness. I meant, take it to user talk. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Keeper. Pedro :  Chat  22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To return to the original question

Just to go in and comment anyway, to answer the original question, hasn't been a problem here to fore. Any quid pro quo-ing could-and-may-be-how-would-we-know-anyway be done via email, IRC, whatever. Not allowing people to comment on other noms while there's is running would not stop deal making. Wikipoliticing is not something I'm into. Making a rule would just be one more meaningless instruction that would change nothing. Whether or not political deal making goes on or not, I don't know. I assume there are political managers behind the scenes, though I've not felt like political pressure was being brought to bare on me since before my hiatus. And it was just that one time. There have been complaints about the "IRC cabal" lining up votes in the past. Don't know. I rarely IRC. Hope that helps Dlohcierekim Deleted? 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that made everything clear, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, man. Anytime. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Won't abuse the tools" cliché

I haven't be on this website as long as some of you have. What is the origin of the idea that simply because a user seems unlikely to "abuse the tools," that makes him/her a suitable candidate for admin (I am aware of WP:NOBIGDEAL, so there's no need to point me to that other cliché)? I see the phrase over and over again, but I'm curious if it emerged as consensus in some previous discussion of adminship criteria.

Personally, I believe that some admins who never technically "abuse the tools" are nevertheless unresponsive, foul-tempered bullies who generate more detriment than good to the project. On the other hand, there are rare cases where an otherwise productive, helpful and gentle admin might abuse his/her powers for the sake of an ill-adivsed, pointy experiment. I'd like to see more focus on character, temperament, common sense, common courtesy, editing and dispute resolution skill and whatever the wiki-equivalent of customer service is and less focus on whether a candidate is likely to run amok with his/her new buttons.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, you've answered your own question, TFMWNCB. "Abusing the tools" isn't deleting the mainpage. That's not abuse, that's stupid. I consider someone who is an "unresponsive, foul-tempered bully", to use your words, is someone who is abusing the tools, I don't care how many FAs they've done. So if I sayin an RfA, "Support, won't abuse the tools" I type it to mean they have character, temperament, common sense, and common courtesy, or to put it in one pillar, WP:CIVIL. Everything else about the "tools" can be learned. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Righty-O. As keeper says. I see "unresponsive, foul-tempered bullies" as abusing the tools in a bad way. I have and will oppose adminship for the very reason you mention. I also mention this as a disqualifier in my standards. We just had an RfA where the nominee appeared to have the technical knowledge but not the interpersonal skills. This is the reason for Q3. The community has historically opposed giving the mop to those with demonstrated incivility. Some have gone so far as to oppose because the nominee had not been in any conflicts because their conflict resolution skills were unknown. I review the user talk pages. That can reveal a lot, though it is not perfect. I'm no expert on ARBCOM, but I suspect that many of the cases there are due not to technical inexpertise, but to a lack of people skills. There is an RfA reconfirmation running right now where the main oppose rationale seems to be the nominee's interactions with others. So yes, incivility is a problem, it's hard to know in advance, and we may need a better way of screening for it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PSEverything old is new again. Two years ago we had Misplaced Pages:Concordia, an effort to deal with civility issues. It has apparently fallen by the wayside. Before that, we had Misplaced Pages:Esperanza. Some felt it made Concordia redundant. It to seems to have fallen by the wayside. Some saw these as Cabals. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Things do not fall off the wayside until they are pushed. bibliomaniac15 18:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know I won't use that as my basis for supporting an RFA. To me, that pretty much means, "This editor is not a vandal." Useight (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The criterion should be "won't misuse the tools", that includes intentional abuse and mistakes due to incompetence. If someone is competent and can be reasonably expected to act in good faith, there is no reason not to allow them to be an admin. --Tango (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When I say that, I mean that the editor has my trust to be a good admin and not abuse the tools, which includes a full history of civility and consistent editing throughout a significant amount of time (no specific time/edits, but case by case). If the user has gained my trust, I feel that he or she should have the tools. No editor needs the tools. I don't need them, and Fat Man, you don't need them either. It comes down, in my opinion, to whether or not this user would harm the project. If he or she won't abuse the tools, then let's give him or her the tools. For further elaboration, see User:Hmwith/rfa. нмŵוτнτ 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you answered your own question. You asked where the idea originated, but said there's no need to point out WP:NOBIGDEAL. Well, that's it. If it's not a big deal, then any editor with the community's trust should gain the tools. нмŵוτнτ 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Dlohcierekim 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But, to bring up the tirelessly debated point, for most people, it is a big deal, ergo why everyone isn't running around with the tools. To refactor back to the original topic, though, I agree that "wont abuse the tools" is generally a poor reason for support, but I also agree with Keeper76 that generally, you don't have bad-tempered arses who don't misuse the tools to boot. --David Fuchs 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A fun new essay for y'all

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Passing RfA for fun and profit!

I should get in contact with some publishing houses. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry beans! Majoreditor (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope PeeWee Hurman doesn't see it. However, I'm already on step 5 It's a terrible idea, and I, for one, am not already on step 5. Justin_(u) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed the essay. I'm not sure how passing RFA will get you a profit, unless you start selling admin accounts to vandals over PayPal. Useight (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to buy my admin account, it's available for a cool US 1 Million. I would be happy to sell for that amount, nothing less. Please notify me on my talkpage (for transparency) if interested. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mine's available for $999,999, and it has less wear and tear on it than Keeper's does. --barneca (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

$999,998. Going once...going twice....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

<joke>I'll buy both!!!! Muhahahahaha...</joke> ~ Dreamy 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! Mine is on eBay for $100,000. Comes with one Main Page deletion, one Jimbo block, and a car. :P   jj137 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mines retails for $250,000 and comes with one main page deletion, one mass crat-block, and a sandbox deletion. bibliomaniac15 03:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good deal... I'll take it for $200,000.   jj137 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

$235,000 minimum. bibliomaniac15 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

$225,000   jj137 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you rogue/rouge. bibliomaniac15 05:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now with images! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now it's amazing. Useight (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Darn, somehow I get the feeling I'd never pass RFA anymore these days. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to pass! Just buy one! (Several priced above) Remember, you get quality by buying quality..Ignore those "cheap, throwaway 200K offers." You need the $999,998 high quality, platinum grade account. That one's a real keeper. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you want a fresh admin account, mine was only sysopped in December. Useight (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

HA! I've got you beat! Even fresher!!!! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not fresh, that's still in beta version. Ha! Useight (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look at the kitty! Oh, rolling around with a sock HE'S SO CUTE!!!! Justin_(u) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't fall for it. It's how the rouge admins bait unsuspecting young users actually concerned about the encyclopedia for assimilation ... oops, did I just divulge that? bibliomaniac15 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OH, BUT LOOK HOW CUTE!!! Justin_(u) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a Barnstar for funniest user subpage? Dlohcierekim 05:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor should suffice. Although if you want, you could make a contest... bibliomaniac15 05:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dammit! I was going to give him the barnstar and claim all the credit! Well, on to step 6 Beware step six. Justin_(u) 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I wouldn't seriously object to getting more than one barnstar. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar? For that? I was going to indef block. Shrug. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you settle for adminship without RfA? Justin_(u) 18:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he already has the Good Humor barnstar. Dlohcierekim 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Article building

I'm trying to adopt an article building criterion to bring my RfA standards into greater alignment with the community. I'd appreciate some feedback as to how others evaluate for this. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel that "article building" includes things like copyediting, fixing things up? Or do you feel that "article building" means DYK, GA, and FA? Or is that what you're asking....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! What do others think? I see things like GA and FA as big bonuses. Copyedting and fix up seem to be wikignome tasks. I've created tiny stubs. I've improved articles by winnowing rather than adding. Most of my article improvements have been on a small scale per article. I've seen others not support based on "lack of article building experience". I'm trying to decide how to quantify that for myself. Dlohcierekim

Of courses peoples opinions differ, but I think the current "mood" at RfA is that main space editing consisting entirely of vandalism reverts does not quite cut the mustard. Some evidence of article building is essential. I take "article building" as;

• DYK's - either brand new or moving articles out of stub status
• GA's FA's
• Talk page evidence showing collaboration
• Fixing up to bring articles in line with WP:MOS
• Well referenced additions to existing articles

and I'm sure there's plenty more. The key is that mainspace work needs to be more than clean up of vandalism and fixing the odd wikilink to demonstrate "encyclopedia building". How much more is probably up to the indivudal when commenting on a candidate. But please don't look for much of the above in my last 2,000+ contributions - so really I'm talking out the back of my head! Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to have no standards, and ask yourself one question: "Will this user be a good admin?" If yes, support. If no, oppose and say why. Nothing else actually matters. Majorly (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, of course, because there will always be the exception that breaks the rule by setting defined standards. One can, of course, throw the onus on oneself instead ... Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Compared to some standards I've seen, those are pretty sound. Majorly (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If we don't stop agreeing on stuff pretty fast people will talk.... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. :) Acalamari 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Call for more bureaucrats

This is a general request for all admins: if you think you can take on the role of a bureaucrat, please nominate yourself for bureaucratship today! At the moment, there's only (I think) 3 really active bureaucrats, and I believe that a new face or two would be a good thing at this time. Thanks everyone. Majorly (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of the frying pan into the fire! Oh, Ow! Dlohcierekim 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I just wet myself... bibliomaniac15 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This really is what we need now. There's occasions when bureaucrats need to discuss things, and if there's non active then this simply won't work. For very controversial discussions we need well respected, active bureaucrats who are willing to discuss any concerns with the decisions they make - some fresh faces would certainly help when we need a consensus between the 'crats. It wouldn't hurt to share the workload as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of the three or four people I'd like to see stand, you Majorly would seem to be a front runner IMHO. Even after opposing last time. WP:SOFIXIT ?!?! Pedro :  Chat  23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think some more bureaucrats would be a very good idea. The trouble is finding some people to run. Acalamari 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, I promised myself never again. I'm rude, controversial, have many enemies, etc etc. I also dislike the process. I'm happy as an bcrat on Meta. If no one does run in the end, or no one passes, I'll consider it in the summer. But it's so unlikely. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know you made that promise to yourself. Ah well, I'll have to persuade Ryan then.... Pedro :  Chat  23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think someone like, say, User:Newyorkbrad would be an awesome candidate. bibliomaniac15 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see prior experience as a big plus. :) Dlohcierekim 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support him, but I have the feeling he'd say no, due to being busy on ArbCom. Also, there's never been an active arbitrator pass an RfB. ArbCom takes up a lot of time. Majorly (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is an excellent candidate, but I think ArbCom duties would be a priority in his case. Also, I believe that some people are uncomfortable with someone holding both the arbitrator position and the bureaucrat flag at the same time. Acalamari 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Who would willingly take on a responsibility to promote admins, knowing they cannot even fix their own mistakes? It seems a rather bad position to try to put someone in. Fix this problem and we may see more volunteers. Friday (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To let everyone know, I've recently proposed the idea to User:DerHexer. Shot down. Now, we should pick someone who really has a great chance of passing. Now, Ryan P rocks, I'd strongly support, but are we sure everyone's over the Durova/Mercury CF? Justin_(u) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the community that really promotes them, we just use the crat as the means to enforce our will. And I also think Ryan P would make a good crat. *wink* *nudge* *cough* Malinaccier (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ECX2Crat's determine consensus. They don't decide whether or not to promote. In any even, the community promotes and the community has remedies for those who do not work out. Maybe we should draft Pedro? If we all rush him, it'll done before he knows what hit 'm. :)_ Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

already discussed ! Pedro :  Chat  23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Who could really pass one? I really can't think of someone off the top of my head. It is extremely hard to pass an RfB, and harder for those who would pass to tell they would. Prodego 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All of which actually identifies another issue - RFB has a high "pass mark" and if you've done more than a modicum of treading on toes then you won't attain it. Knowing that just 5 or 6 users is all it make take to sink your RfB puts people off running. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Friday) Well, the two dozen or so users who are bureaucrats obviously did. And more will too. It's a matter of what is defined as "mistake" really. Bureaucrats don't make mistakes - it's kind of an unwritten rule. Majorly (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the support ratio for superadmins? I ask because that's one of the reasons why I asked DH. If it's the same, we should try someone who has recently been stewardized. Lar, perhaps? Justin_(u) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apx. 90% - i.e. "clear consensus" Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, we kinda need Lar at Commons (he's an admin, b'crat, checkuser, oversight, unofficial co-ruler there :-D). I'm not sure it's best to have him be a b'crat here. --Agüeybaná 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It looks like it won't work, but look at how many people are supporting the idea here. If we all work together to support a candidate, we can probably force one through =). Malinaccier (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect we may see a new trend. I for one would be part of it: before voting for a crat, I want them to explain under what circumstances they would promote. People don't like surprising results in RFA. Given it's one of the few actions on-wiki that's not reversible, it makes sense for crats to be very conservative in using their promotion abilities. When they've departed from this, they get lots of flak. Friday (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can say they will be an 80% robot though, do we really want that? Prodego 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I think they should stick to 75%. That way there will never be controversy. Majorly (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A robot would be better than a controversial close. It would remove the drama for sure surrounding not normal closes. Majorly (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. There is one sensible rule for crats to follow: promote anyone who's RFA lacks objection for good reason. Even a single objection for good cause should be enough to prevent promotion. This may sound crazy, but promotion is not reversible. It pays to get it right. Friday (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What is "good reason" then? Majorly (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We depend on the crat's judgment for that. We choose (or, should choose) them for their good judgment. Let's take that next step and give them explicit go-ahead to use it, instead of waving our hands and pretending they merely interpret community consensus, as we currently tend to do. Friday (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I'm most certainly active, but I have other things on my plate. If you need something done, though, give me a poke. Raul654 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have done in the past :) Majorly (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm here too. --Deskana (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollcall! Hey, how about teh giggy? :) Justin_(u) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There would be the slight lack of +sysop that may hinder him at RFB. Pedro :  Chat  23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the +sysop specifically required for Cratship? Malinaccier (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically no. In reality yes. Pedro :  Chat  23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if the RfA regulars discussed who they'd like to see become a 'crat here before any RfBs go up it would save some drama and help to prevent people from being scared away from nomming themselves. John Reaves 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some names have been put forward here already. Majorly (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If everyone participating in this discussion agreed on someone, then got a nom going it would probably pass. There are some pretty big and respected RFA names here: Biblio, Pedro, Majorly, etc. If these people supported one person's RFB, it would help to convince others. Malinaccier (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like last years July rush! Let's put all the names through! Someone has to pass! Justin_(u) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted) You listed me?! If I happen to pass RFB, hell, Earth, purgatory, heaven, and the entire universe as we know it would plunge into absolute zero. Apparently it was a misreading, but I don't take any of my words back. bibliomaniac15 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you would make a fine bureaucrat actually, Bibliomaniac15. Acalamari 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of an essay I wrote back in May 2007: Misplaced Pages:We need more bureaucrats. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, the fact we have so few crats actually makes them somewhat invisible, which is a good thing in some respects (as far as I know, there haven't be "relist my RfA" comments based on a 'crat's discussion at RfA.) David Fuchs 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of bureaucrats really doesn't matter, as the Spanish Misplaced Pages has shown. There is no reason why having many bureaucrats would be a problem. However, we are extremely selective here, maybe we should think about why. Prodego 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but a few more couldn't hurt. I think if a potential crat promised to perhaps extend an RFA that they believe should go the other way, they would be supported more easily. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we give bcrats leeway. If they closed it as a vote, then we could trust every admin who wanted to do the job. Majorly (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl seems like a reasonable candidate. Perhaps her relativeness newness as an admin means she hasn't collected enough detractors to sink her. Ronnotel (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's nom the next passer of an RFA with 100 % support! </sarc> Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh. A few people told me they'd like to see me stand. I'd like to know what other people think first, before going through a huge RfB smackdown. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We should try a new "Be a crat for a day" program and see who gets the least amount of objection. =) Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly endorse you, Riana, but I can't guarantee a dzasta wouldn't happen. bibliomaniac15 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I could support Moonridden or Riana. Dlohcierekim 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Riana is a very good choice. Acalamari 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I really think we need some new crats now, so I urge people to run, but I'll probably consider it in a few months time - I do a lot of work with the username policy so could certainly lend a hand to WP:CHU. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, please do run if you think you can devote the time. You'd be great in the position. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since RfB is discussion, not head-counting, I would expect we could separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of legitimate beef and grudge editors for any candidate. Worries about your nemesis shouldn’t stop admins from taking the plunge. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to inturrupt or be rude or anything like that but has anybody been selected to become an beaucrat yet or are you still deciding?--Sunny910910 00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurray! Go Z-Man! :D ~ Riana ⁂ 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Malinaccier beat me to it. or Yes. Dlohcierekim 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is running. :) Acalamari 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've got the answer I've needed.--Sunny910910 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else want to go? Good luck to Zman btw. Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads up! Malinaccier (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to run, but i dont see a user with <5000 edits passing. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm available to run, if I'm a viable option. Useight (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TPE, it's more how long you've been an admin than how many edits. Edit counting is for RfAs :P Majorly (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, 4.5 months is still too short. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then my 2.5 months must be waay too short. Useight (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dang, this mass rfb wave made me unretire. Nice going. :P Wizardman 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Wizardman is back.   jj137 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this a smart semi-recruitment drive for bureaucratship. Though I do not think too many users should possess crat powers, there is a truly desperate need for them and there has been for some time. Thanks for posting this Majorly :).¤~Persian Poet Gal 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I don't know if I've ever seen four admins up for cratship at once.   jj137 (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there were as many when Essjay left, and suddenly everyone wanted his position. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of initiative is a bad trait

Personal rant: I don't like these "Hey! Go request bureaucratship now, it is open season!" threads. If an administrator does not know when is the best moment to apply for bureaucratship and even needs a push to do so, I don't see him taking the initiative when dealing with controversies. If they didn't know bureaucrats were needed until someone asks for them, they didn't care about bureaucratship enough until someone else asked for them. Sure, you don't reject a blood donor who has arrived because there was a request for them on TV. But will such donors come regularly, or instead wait until the next time they are needed? In this aspect, I would trust Majorly more as a bureaucrat, not because he is an example of Wikipedian (he has had his problems, just like I have had), but because he is apparently the only one who cares enough about bureaucratship. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There could be some instances where it never crossed their mind, or maybe they were wondering whether they'd have the communities support. I don't think that it's an open season thing, I just think RfBs come in chunks, and seeing other users there who certain users have been working with for a while is inspiring to some. Justin_(u) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is another problem. Piling requests for bureaucratship is another thing I complained about in the past when Essjay left: it reaches a point where you wonder whether a candidate applied because he thinks he is qualified, or just because there is general "feeling" that a new bureaucrat is required and therefore subconsciously he thinks it is the right time (increasing his chances of becoming one), just like when you wait for your mom to be happy to tell her you want to go to a friend's house, or wait until you are ill to tell her you broke a pot ;-) Nobody applies when the discussion is that we have too many bureaucrats, but everyone does when the discussion is that we have too few of them. I just get this "opportunism" feeling, and I don't like it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree I like the idea of a few more. The more there are the more everyone can share the work around and more crats can write articles, participate in AfD, FAC, GAN etc. My idea was editors who were able to think in shades of grey (rather than black and white) and had been active in enough areas to really get a feel for what helps the 'pedia progress and what doesn't WRT overall flow, in order to best adjudicate in marginal pass/fails. The editors I had in mind were Bearian, Carcharoth, and possibly DGG though DGG hasn't been an admin too long (?). I mused on nominating myself but recent wiki-mud-wrestling in AfD and the TV episode wars have probably schmeared my reputation somewhat (and possibly justifiably so :) ) ] (] · ]) 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)