Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:54, 20 December 2006

Archives

RFA discussions prior to June 2003 took place on a mailing list Archived RFA votes Archived unsuccessful applications since April 2004 Archived successful applications Archived discussion about RFA For discussions from June 2003 to present see /Archives Rfa discussions may also be at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard Rejected proposal for Misplaced Pages:Early Close of Requests for Adminship

• ]

Misplaced Pages Admin vs. Wiki-X Admin - transferable skills?

Seed for a discussion: This contains reference to a current RfA - therefore, if you feel it is inappropriate to discuss this matter until that RfA has run its course, please let me know.

There is a current RfA in which a candidate for Misplaced Pages adminship has experience as a Wikinews admin. The question I have is what the general thought is on the transferability of skills between Wikimedia projects with respect to adminship. The only other Wikimedia project I've worked on to any degree is Wiktionary, so my experience is too limited to have an inkling of what being an admin in other Wikimedia projects might entail.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember a RFA where the user had relatively little experience here (3k or 5k edits, can't remember now), and many were refusing his request, until someone pointed he was an admin in another Misplaced Pages language with over 20k, and then most negative opinions turned positive. Personally, I think administrator status in other Misplaced Pages languages can be used to demonstrate experience in dealing with users and responsibility, but unless the user also demonstrates knowledge about our "local" policies and guidelines, it should not be "transferable". -- ReyBrujo 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know why many people call 5k edits "not a lot". To me, that's definatly enough edits to support, as long as the user is knowledgeable and in good standing. TeckWizContribs_@ 22:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another data point, from my analysis of November 2006 RfAs: the only candidate with less than 2000 edits who was successful had been an admin on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. John Broughton | Talk 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ReyBrujo, I think you mean Kpjas. Titoxd 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to add an optional section to the RfA format entitled something like 'Prior Admin Experience' in which a candidate (or nominator or anyone so knowledgable) could summarize experience in adminship on another Wikimedia project if such experience exists. That would help to encapsulate input from that axis upfront rather than having it come out during the discussion period. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Users should most certainly mention that they're admins on other wikis. However, I don't think we need to add another RfA section to denote this; there's already a "General Comments" faux-heading that it could go under quite easily (and is used as such in the linked example). As for whether those skills are directly interchangeable, I think ReyBrujo summed up my opinion very well; a knowledge of the MediaWiki system is shown by being an admin (well, ideally...), as is the trust of the community, but there still needs to be evidence that the editor is familiar with Misplaced Pages's... quirks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO this comes up infrequently enough that an additional section is unnecessary; most candidates who have relevant previous experience do point it out. A 'previous experience' section is only going to get people talking about that one time they were on Student Council for a semester, no matter how clearly it's worded. Opabinia regalis 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin on another project goes to trust, ability to remain calm, and presence of common sense not to policy knowledge. While being an admin on another project can be a positive the candidates must have understand .en policy. JoshuaZ 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly benefits from being an admin on another project: You already know what you're doing, know many of the "tricks of the trade" (that is, how to handle some of the stranger aspects of the software), gnerally have experience dealing with other users in an admin role, and you aren't as likely to succumb to the "Ooh! Shiny buttons!" problem. (Kidding!) There are, however, vast differences between most projects and en.wp, so demonstration of local-policy/proceedure knowledge is essential. I'm an admin on four wikis (En.wp, En.wq, Meta, & Commons) and each is it's own uniqute community and has it's own way of doing things; I find every once-in-a-while that I step on a toe or two over on Wikiquote because of my "en.wp" way of doing things. So, certainly, adminship elsewhere speaks to a certain familiarity with the role, but a demonstration of *local* understanding is very, very important. Essjay (Talk) 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As Essjay said, it removes their need to "test" the new tools because they have experience but it is important that they know the[REDACTED] policies on blocking/deletion/protection etc. I think I would be more likely to support a user if he/she were an admin on another project, it shows they are trustworthy for a start. James086 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think in general transfer of trust works well the other way. We are the largest Wikiproject out there with the most evolved (one might say convoluted) procedures and guidelines and such, and to my knowledge the most stringent standards for admins. Although it is not for us to decide, I believe that any capable admin here would also be capable on most of the other projects, except of course for language barriers, and excluding Meta itself. On the contrary, I would consider adminship in another project to count for much only if it was one of the other large projects, such as dewiki. (Radiant) 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As an admin on the English language Misplaced Pages, I oppose automatic adminship on other Wiki-X projects, and vice versa. All Wikis have their own community standards, and if someone has little experience on a particular site, they shouldn't be granted adminship without having the proper experience on that site. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Titoxd, it is Kpjas's RfA. I remember Firsfron made a push in the middle of the RfA and contacted all the people who opposed Kpjas (such as myself) and we all ended up changing our votes to support. Anyway, back to the topic...I believe that if a candidate is an admin on another WikiProject, that shows that he/she clearly has the qualities as an admin. However, all WikiProjects are different, and like Zoe said, if they don't have a sufficient amount of experience here, then I don't think they can truly handle the responsibility on the English language wikipedia. Also, take in account that the English language Misplaced Pages is the most popular and most-visited WikiProject, and the experiences a user may experience at another wiki may be totally different than the ones he/she may experience at en.wiki. Nishkid64 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Adminship is not transferrable, have never been, should never be. We don't even accept adminship from other language Misplaced Pages projects as a reason to obtain one here. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • People are not advocating transferable adminships. They are talking about the notion of tranferable skills. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Make it skills then, I'm referring to that as well. - Mailer Diablo 22:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about RfA standards

are you supposed to have a special amount of contributions to be requested for Adminship? IWishIWasASuperstar 9:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there are no official standards, but no one with less than 1,000 edits has made it in a long time. 2,000 is a more common minimum, and 3,000 puts all the edit counters to rest. That said, there are other factors that are more important than an edit count.--Kchase T 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading here some time ago that once a user had 2000 edits, whether they succeeded or not on RfA was unaffected by their edit count, statistically speaking. --ais523 11:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That was one of the conclusions from Durin's stats. There was no correlation between edits and success rate once you got over 2000 edits. --Tango 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: see Image:SuccessRatevsEditsatRfA.png--Tango 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My number crunching (above) for November 2006 found that the success rate for those with under 2000 edits was 7% (one out of 15 candidates), and even that was a special case of sorts - the person had been an admin at the Simple English Misplaced Pages (that would be you, Tango). Above 2000 edits, the sample size was too small to draw much of a conclusion, except that it appeared that edit counts weren't a factor (for example, 3 of the 5 candidates with between 2000 and 2500 edits were successful). Certainly, as KChase says, once you hit 3000, people focus on what you've edited (AfDs, CfDs, user pages , etc.), not how much in total.

My sense, both from reading RfAs and the charts that Tango has pointed out, is that the number of edits that successful candidates have is rising. In November, the average (mean) number of edits for the 33 successful candidates was almost 9,000; the median was 6,880 (the mean was pulled up by a candidate with 22,000 edits and another with 30,000). That compares to an average of around 6,000 for February and March 2006. (Durin charted these figures by week, which increases the fluctuation, but the trend is clear.)

To me the most surprising thing about Durin's figures (for June 2005 through March 2006) is that candidates with between 900 and 1500 edits had a success rate of around 40% (around 30% at the low end, near 50% at the high end), compared to 0% in November 2006 (my figures). That's quite a difference, so perhaps November was unusual in some way. But I do think that as the average edit count rises, the minimal expecatation rises, at least for a sufficiently large number of editors who will prevent lower-count candidate from getting anywhere near the 80% or so support that is considered (admittedly, not in concrete) to be a benchmark of consensus here. John Broughton | Talk 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If November was unusual it was in that people were more willing to support borderline candidates (how else could a user with less than 2000 edits (ie. me) pass unanimously? Even with the adminship on simple.). 40% does sound quite high, but not enormously - once you get over 1000 edits, you stand a good chance. Maybe it's just a difference in who's standing during the different time periods - we used to get good candidates with low edit counts, we don't any more. Maybe we've scared them all off with the strict standards (I almost didn't stand because I expected my edit count to stop me succeeding). --Tango 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not "scared them off" as much as "delayed their candidacy"? Eight edits per day is 250 per month; four months equals 1000 edits at that rate. Someone who wants to be an admin should certainly have enough time to do 8 edits a day; they'll get to 2000 edits soon enough that way. John Broughton | Talk 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to template text

Initial discussion

The boiler plate RfA text the introduces the standard questions reads:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

Since we're always pointing out that this isn't a vote, how about we change the language to something like:

Dear applicant, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for evaluation:

—Doug Bell  16:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I currently like the way it stands. I think applicant sounds too much like I am applying for a job, or appling to grad school or an internship. That is not what being an administator is. According to wiktionary, candidate means

1. A person who is running in an election or who is applying to a position for a job.
2. A participant in an examination.

I see RFA as kind of an examiniation of somebodys intentions, experience and capabilities should they be promoted. (I do think the term promoted is improperly used but that is a conversation for another day). I think in this case, the 2nd defintion fits the process perfectly and overall, I think candidate is a well chosen word and should stay. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Voters → Evaluation is fine, but Candidate should stay. -- Renesis (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I will agree with the changing Voters → Evaluation, I missed that change when looking at it the first time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed with changing "voters" but not "candidate". --Durin 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're tinkering with wording, may I suggest "standard" rather than "generic"? Or even dropping the adjective entirely; "few questions" might be fine. (One reason for suggesting "standard questions" is that perhaps we can go to a section for "Standard questions" and a section for "Additional questions".) John Broughton | Talk 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with getting rid of "generic". Either suggested alternative is fine with me. —Doug Bell  19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we just drop the qualifier entirely? Clarifying the sentence further: Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide some guidance for evaluating your request: - jc37 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also approve Jc37's wording, seems to best state what the process will involve without envoking it too much as a vote.¤~Persian Poet Gal 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Me three on Jc37's wording. —Doug Bell  21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with getting rid of "generic" and switching "voters" to something less... well, !vote-based. Candidate seems fine, though. -- nae'blis 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem replacing generic with standard. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, with have consensus, except on one word - I've put a new subsection heading in, below, to separate that discussion from this one. To recapitulate, we're at:

• Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide some guidance for evaluating your request:

And if consensus wishes to retain the word voter(s), then simply:

• Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide voters some guidance for evaluating your request:

We can substitute just about any noun clause for "voters", such as "your fellow Wikipedians":

• Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please spend some time and answer the following questions to help provide your fellow Wikipedians some guidance for evaluating your request:

I'm fairly neutral on what the actual noun clause should be. - jc37 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion got a bit split. I added a suggestion below: Dear fellow Wikipedian. Thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. The evaluation process is now open. Please spend some time and answer the following basic questions. These will give editors evaluating your request a starting point to your views, interests, contributions, and understandings of Misplaced Pages.

This seems to cover most of the points raised, and also is more direct about what is being asked for, and why, in a friendly manner. See below. FT2 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"voters" - in, out, or other?

Not that it matters but I continue to oppose changing "vote/voters" to more confusing and awkward terms for the sake of political correctness. --W.marsh 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Why do you feel "voters" is the best option, though? In real-life settings I've used "participants" and "members of the group" for consensus discussion, though that's a bit of a misnomer here. -- nae'blis 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Because RfA is very vote-like and what we do when we comment corresponds very closely to any definition of voting. Expunging any use of the word "vote" does more to confuse new users than it does to make RfA not vote-like, despite popular opinion. --W.marsh 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's face the truth: without any codified standards or process to becoming an admin, an RfA is a popularity contest and Support or Oppose is a vote. We might as well drop all pretenses about voting being bad and be honest about the current process. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, why not just drop the last five words? If a candidate thinks he/she has the option of not answering the generic/standard questions, then he/she is virtually by definition unqualified to become an admin, due to lack of understanding of the process, as I'm sure one of the first evaluators/voters/commentators/whatever will be sure to say. We could even consider it a little test. John Broughton | Talk 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree they may be unqualified, but I do not think it would be proper to make it, "a test", I think we want the instructions to be clear as possible and removing the last 5 words would not help with that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The answers aren't so much "guidance", they're a starting point and some standard basic questions, for others to get insight into the would-be administrator's understanding and hopes, especially for those people who would like to participate and express a view but don't know them yet.

Maybe a better wording is: Dear fellow Wikipedian. Thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. The evaluation process is now open. Please spend some time and answer the following basic questions. These will give editors evaluating your request a starting point to your views, interests, contributions, and understandings of Misplaced Pages.

(I'm sure the language could be improved a bit, that's what collaboration's for.) FT2 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The flow of this discussion is almost impossible to follow, so I'm not sure where to reply, but I disagree with making the intro statement longer. It doesn't offer anything else, and it was simple and to the point before. We only needed some minor changes, and I think the original proposal of changing "voters" to "evaluation" is enough. I also dislike the phrase "spend some time and answer" as opposed to "take the time to answer". The second one is less colloquial and makes more sense. -- Renesis (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

("Take your time" can sound a bit like "you are being judged on this"; "spend your time" doesn't have quite that flavor. Its a minor difference though. That's why, anyhow.) FT2 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I didn't realize the purpose in the change. I can see what you mean if it did say "Take your time", but with "Please take the time..." it doesn't seem to have that connotation to me (it just seems like a simple request). But that's just me. Either way, I think we need to back up and not inflate this introduction unnecessarily. -- Renesis (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Practice Vs. Policy

The RfA instructions read:

Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may de-list a nomination, but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.

This is clearly not practice, obviously failing RfAs are removed somewhat often by non-b'crats. I count 4 times in the past 2 weeks alone, , , , . None were particularly controversial as far as I know. So my question is, should practice change? E.g. more actively encourage admins to wait for b'crats like the page says to do? Or should we change the RfA page to specifically allow non-b'crats to close discussions in some cases? Or just keep it the way it is, and continue to allow admins to ignore what the page says in the spirit of IAR? --W.marsh 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's not causing any problems, leave it as is to avoid Misplaced Pages:Instruction creep. --tjstrf talk 01:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess... but a policy that needs to be ignored a 4 times out of 100 edits to a page might be due for review (I looked at the past 100 edits to find the examples). --W.marsh 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about instruction creep, tjstrf, but leaving the wording this way has the potential to cause problems. All we need is for a (0/6/2) candidate revert a non-crat's closure, defend his/her re-opening with some wikilawyering, and we have a problem that could be pre-emptively defused if only the rules were modified. Because of this possibility, I support changing it to reflect practice. (And if anyone asks for firm guidelines about when non-crats can perform speedy closes, I'd say simply direct him/her to Misplaced Pages:use common sense, as opposed to actually setting guidelines about when this can happen.) Þicaroon 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Until that happens, this sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Most of the candidates who get removed by admins can see the writing on the wall. I think the more experienced admins who do this discourage them from relisting the noms, as well, which implicitly tells them they're not forbidden from doing so.--Kchase T 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

All the candidates above had less than 50 edits. Unless they were posting FAs in one edit, I'm not seeing a problem.--Kchase T 02:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Solution looking for a problem" isn't all that persuasive. If the problem is likely to come up, then if there are no bad results of the solution, it should just be implemented so that there doesn't have to be a problem. -Amarkov _edits 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if someone did use wikilawyering to reopen an obviously doomed nomination, all that would happen would be a crat coming along and closing it per the previous admin's decision. Or at worst, someone getting a few extra piled on opposes while it ran the full week. No major harm done. Making a note that says "except when common sense dictates otherwise" is unnecessary, because that caveat applies to every policy in existence (except maybe some of the foundational and legal ones).

Explicitly detailing what are meant to be universal exceptions to process is exactly the sort of thing WP:CREEP is against. This suggestion is effectively a policy disclaimer, and I believe all the normal arguments against disclaimers apply here as well. --tjstrf talk 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I neglected to check... if all of these people had fewer than 50 edits it shouldn't be that big of a deal. But the best policy is still one that we don't really find ourselves needing to ignore much in the first place. --W.marsh 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with non 'crats closing obviously failed RFA, (but not *failing*). They should, however at least keep us informed either here or on WP:BN so we can verify the decision and give our approval. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding a section here or at WP:BN to notify you guys of every close would clutter up these discussion pages significantly. A good edit summary when removing an RfA from WP:RFA should be enough, the history is not so active there that you can't easily see what has happened. Only if someone thinks an RfA was removed improperly should they bring it here, so it can be discussed - such instances are quite rare. NoSeptember 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too much of a clutter to add a small note on BN. That page is anyways archived weekly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been following RfA for about 5 months and recall only one instance (Everyking) when a closure by a non-bureaucrat threatened to become controversial. Lately though we have had non-administrators doing closures; that ought to be (and pretty much has) been reserved for clearly unhappy situations. Newyorkbrad 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's generally a good idea for non-bureaucrats to close failing RfAs. In particular, I recall Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Leotolstoy where the candidate repeatedly stated their desire to keep their failing RfA open, but which was closed early by Steel359. The user was not happy about the closing given their repeated request to keep it open. —Doug Bell  05:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rare cases are not the thing to base a general practice upon. If a user strongly objects, then it is certainly proper to bring it to the attention of a bureaucrat, even in a snowball case like the one you cited. I have seen Raul reopen an RfA at the request of the candidate, but this is a rare thing. The closing you cited was not unreasonable, it was open for more than a day and the result was clear. NoSeptember 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Closing RfAs early for being doomed to fail has been controversial for quite a while. Many arguments pro/con have been put forth before. User:Durin/Withdraw policy has some more information about this. Feel free to edit that if you like. --Durin 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• That final suggestion on that sub-page, leaving a message on the user's talk page suggesting they withdraw, has worked well in my experience. Most RfA's that fail due to the contributor being "too new" or "inexperienced" have little to do with their actions indicating inexperience or lack of policy knowledge, but rather that they are simply unjudgeable.If you kindly explain this to them and suggest they wait a month or two, a mature user will probably see the truth behind it and withdraw themselves, saving a potentially difficult argument and a bit of the community's time. As an additional positive factor, any subsequent RfA's they go through can have an opening of "I recognized that I was too early and withdrew my own nomination" rather than "an administrator was forced to close my nomination due to my inexperience", so it's good for them as well. --tjstrf talk 07:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, some of the community is much too quick to say "Insufficient Experience" but there are admins out there with just 2 or 3 months experience of being a regular editor, and there is no way to prove any admin who has been about for 2 years is any better suited to the job than someone with 2 months experience. Just another case of Misplaced Pages shooting itself in the foot. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there is not admin with just 2 or 3 months of being a "regular editor", whatever that means. Extended time on Misplaced Pages is good for allowing enough time for a person to flame out or trust issues to otherwise be revealed, and a certain amount of time on Misplaced Pages is necessary in order to gain experience and understanding of Misplaced Pages. Editors who have been on Misplaced Pages for 6 months may still not have that understanding just by reason of their time on Misplaced Pages, but editors who have been on Misplaced Pages for only a month certainly do not have that understanding. —Centrx→talk • 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain what I mean and I'm going to go away from the 2-3 months bit for a moment. There is far too much emphasis placed on numbers, numbers can be manipulated and it's at the expense of Misplaced Pages. Just recently it's AfD experience, now if I wanted to go for another RfA again tomorrow, I could go through every single AfD from the last 5 days not already closed, and just merrily vote away and that would keep quite a few people quite happy and bag me a few more votes, going by my last RfA, quite possibly enough to pass an RfA. Sadly, to do this, it would mean not actually researching whether the AfD is in good faith, whether the article does meet Misplaced Pages guidelines for notability and/or references and therefore voting accordingly. That's why every single candidate needs to be assessed on their ability to help run Misplaced Pages rather than just numbers and I'd much rather have an admin with 100 AfD contributions where they've shown they've looked through evidence and voted for a good reason rather than just voting for the sakes of it, than someone with 1000 AfD contributions where they've not shown once that they've checked the evidence, and are just voting in agreement with the nomination, what's worse is that AfD regulars can often fall into two distinct categories, each voting the same way 95% of the time. At present RfA is encouraging potential candidates to take part in AfDs purely to bulk up one type of edit as a pre-requisite to becoming a admin, rather than encouraging and training potential admins to actually review items on a case by case basis. It's working contrary to the requirements of Misplaced Pages, rather than generating users who will be able to use the tools, we're creating users who can't use the tools. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be determined by numbers, and one needs to look at what the person says in those AfDs—whether they are mindless empty votes or show that the person considered the article and demonstrates their thinking on the issue. Note though: you can reasonably say that someone who has 0 contributions to AfD does not have experience at AfD, but for people who do have the edits, the evaluation must go beyond that. I think a larger problem is that people are voting "support" without having evaluated the user's contribs at all or having much of an idea of what adminship is. Someone may be opposed on edit count, but should not be supported on it. —Centrx→talk • 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, it's OK to Oppose when there is a tiny number of edits which, unless there are mitigating factors such as experience on a sister project, are likely to show inexperience, but when users start getting upto 100+ edits in a particular namespace (and it does appear to be Misplaced Pages namespace that is the be all and end all of RfAs, perhaps quite understandably) then nobody should Support or Oppose based on edit count at all, but wholly on the quality of the edits. From personal experience you could vote 10 times without checking stuff properly, or you could go through Google, Google News, the newspaper sites and Internet Archive and vote properly and correctly. Sure, there's a lot of crap that doesn't require much in the way of research, stuff like original research, defamation stuff dragged through to AfD but they don't really need to be voted on unless, a good admin should be deleting anyway because they should be doing research before closing. What really needs editor attention is stuff claimed to be non notable or non verifiable because often stuff like this is brought to AfD as part of a grudge or through laziness and inexperience and can quite easily be deleted. And I'd much rather have admins that have experience in this field, than admins with the common sense to delete the crap needing deleted but an inability to check that decent stuff or stuff with potential isn't being trashed. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WIkiProject Requests for adminship?

Given the fact that there is a lot of material related to RfAs (mainly essays but other things as well like Esperanza) I propose a WikiProject to better maintain the process. We could maintain WP:GRFA and maybe (if it's practical) suggest a formal standard for requests for adminship (similar WP:WIAFA, for example) Perhaps we could go as far as writing a page on how to do an RfA thanks.

Thoughts? -- Selmo 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, but keep in mind that every discussion on the subject has determined that formal standards don't work. -Amarkov _edits 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's this: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on Adminship.--Kchase T 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty much what I had in mind. Thanks. -- Selmo 05:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikiproject on Adminship had a goal of revising the RfA process, not maintaining it status quo. --Durin 16:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Consolidating things like Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Statistics, which is simple, factual information, and Esperanza's admin pages into one page would, in my opinion, be rather a bad idea. That material does not have the support of the full community, and should not be presented as if it does. If you have thoughts about RFA or links you want to compile, the best thing is to put them in user space, as NoSeptember has done. Chick Bowen 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber's age question

is totally inappropriate. We cannot be asking candidates to reveal personal information. I attempted to talk sense into him before, but no response was ever received. Do people agree that asking this question is reprehensible? If so, does anyone have any ideas on how to stop this behavior? - crz crztalk 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... why can't we? It's not as if anyone is required to answer. -Amarkov _edits 15:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NVM... I see there's been discussion of this previously... No, they're not required to answer. But that doesn't make it appropriate to ask. - crz crztalk 15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in asking to be honest. Most other factors will be taken into consideration before the age issue (if there is one) - you don't tick all the boxes and then suddenly change to "oppose" because they reveal their age. Bubba hotep 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'd be pretty tempted to !vote "oppose" if they said they were a fetus... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'd be inclined to concur. However, they haven't made a fetus-friendly keyboard yet. The placenta sticks the function keys... nevermind! Bubba hotep 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Age is not a restriction on adminship. The question is irrelevant. It is akin to asking what eye color the nominee has. --Durin 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion too. So if it's irrelevant, why bother restricting it? -Amarkov _edits 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think age is plenty relevant, but it's not appropriate to request its disclosure. - crz crztalk 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What? If it is indeed relevant to adminship, then not knowing it would make a judgement ill-informed. So why is it appropriate to not request its disclosure? -Amarkov _edits 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        • What is so hard to understand? I think ageism is appropriate in RfA's. Age could have been disclosed on the user page or apparent from other disclosure. However, I think that requesting personal info such as name, age, address, sex, HIV status, social security number, and sexual orientation is not appropriate. - crz crztalk 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • So, if someone chooses not to disclose their age on their own, people have to make uninformed decisions? Huh? -Amarkov _edits 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I think that age is largely irrelevant; an editor who is 15 can be more mature than an editor who is 25 (I'm assuming that some vandals are adults). I think that the truly immature who seek an RfA will get weeded out, either through their answers or their edits, making the question unimportant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • This is what I was trying to say. If someone is a prolific vandal-fighter, holds themselves well in general discussions, contributes well to XfD and all kinds of policy talk: finding out they are 16, say, should not then count against them. I suppose it is the context in which the question is being asked. Bubba hotep 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • {edit conflict} IMO personal questions such as age have no place in RFAs and even though the question is considered optional many others will oppose since it wasn't answered. — Seadog 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no restrictions on adminship. There are no standards. So by that logic, all questions are irrelevant and it's just a popularity contest. However, the one standard we have is consensus and since everyone is allowed to develop their own standards on what qualities make a good administrator, any question is relevant. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an employer to ask a prospective employee what their age is. The prospective employee can choose not to answer the question if it is asked, but it is STILL wildly inappropriate to ask in the first place. Above, I see a number of fine editors asserting that _because_ the candidate can choose not to answer the question, the fact that the question is inappropriate in the first place is somehow resolved. It isn't. Frankly, asking the question in an RfA places an implied obligation to answer. Just as a teacher cannot proselytize in a public school because they operate in a position of authority, a question about age in an RfA is imbued with an implied authority and places an implied burden on the candidate to answer, whether or not the burden is real. The question is inappropriate and the community should clearly state such and be undivided on the matter. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's irrelevant, but IMO it's due to privacy issues. An editor should never be chastised or treated to any negative backlash for not revealing personal information. For some editors, the disclosure of age could be the final piece of info that enables RL to intersect with Wikilife in ways they don't want, and, in the case of underage editors, it could put them at risk. Anchoress 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (signing in agreement with Anchoress: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

The inappropriateness is another issue I have with it. I mean, sure, I can walk up to a random woman and ask for a blowjob, but that would be very inappropriate (and, worse yet, probably wouldn't work). But, between appropriateness and relevance, the fact that an editor's age is irrelevant is, in my opinion, the stronger reason to oppose the question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you may have killed the conversation whilst people digest that piece of information (with pictures!) ;) Bubba hotep 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The previous discussion that Crz recalls seeing can be found here. Malber uses a template for his de facto standard questions. As it is user space, rather than delete the last question I've asked Malber to remove the last question. I see that Malber applied the template to Asterion's RfA and left off the age question, but it's still in the template. While I've spilled a few electrons on the topic, the two main reasons I find the question unacceptable are privacy and that it is ageist. If a person wants to volunteer this info without prompting, that's their choice, but they ought not feel any pressure to do so. I'm somewhat concerned that one nominee may have felt so (see here). Agent 86 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was there, Crz removed it. -Amarkov _edits 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I just found that now in the edit history. Thanks!Agent 86 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Crz is right. One thing wiki has taught me is that very young editors are still sometimes capable of leadership roles. RfA candidates should be judged by their on-wiki (and wiki-related) actions, nothing else. I think "optional questions" are not really "optional" in the eyes of many as well. Grandmasterka 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just responding to a couple of points made above: (1) "I'm assuming that some vandals are adults" - no need to make an assumption like that. Vandalism is not correlated with age. All ages carry out vandalism, though it does seem to be more prevalent among younger people. Vandalism might help here. (2) "in the case of underage editors, it could put them at risk" - revealing personal information can put editors of any age at risk if someone targets them. No need to emphasise younger editors over older editors.

As for asking the age question, I don't think it is needed. There are times when I am discussing something with someone on-wiki, and they don't quite seem to get something, or they seem to be persistently flippant and immature, and I find myself wondering (how old are you?). As a principle I always try to avoid saying that, as it doesn't help. Judge the actions and the words, not the man (or woman, or boy, or girl). Carcharoth 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber's response

There are no restrictions on adminship. There are no standards. So by that logic, all questions are irrelevant and it's just a popularity contest. However, the one standard we have is consensus and since everyone is allowed to develop their own standards on what qualities make a good administrator, any question is relevant.

Is this an invasion of privacy? No, because no one is actively investigating this information without the nominee's consent. The nominee can simply decline to answer or come up with some pithy answer. Or they can answer truthfully if they are not bashful.

Is it illegal? I don't think so. Someone stated that a potential employer asking for the same information is inappropriate which is, at least in the United States, incorrect. Any job application will ask for an applicant's date of birth and any HR department records this information. Using this as a basis for making an employment decision is also generally in many circumstances not against the law, at least in the US. Besides, this is a volunteer project and not subject to employment law. And anyone voting Oppose or Support can choose whether or not this question has any relevance on their decision. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't ask the question, but I will defend your right to ask it. Do you add a disclaimer making clear that people really, really don't have to answer the question? Carcharoth 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Still the problem with the question is that it has nothing to do with administrative action, I would rather support an eleven year old wikipedian who is a very clever vandal fighter and all around good candidate than a 30 year old who isn't. In my opinion it doesn't help and it puts the younger editor in a little bit of a worry that he has to answer this personal question or his/her RFA will fail. I do not support asking personal questions on an RFA at all. — Seadog 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this would shed some light on Malber's views on teenagers – . — Nearly Headless Nick 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)