This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I noticed that the current number of admins is 1531. But from what I remember there were over 2000 admins last year or so. Is the number of admins falling or is my memory failing me?

-- David Göthberg ( talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest your memory David! The number of editors with the admin bit is rising. How many are using the bit is another thing again! Pedro :  Chat  11:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, okay. I was kind of worried there for a while. Thought something made admins leave in great numbers. So it was just a case of my bad memory for numbers.

-- David Göthberg ( talk) 11:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this [1] tells me that the number of active administrators has after an increase in 2007 rather fallen over the last weeks.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we easily create a list of the ~550 non-active admins so we can do so research as to why they are inactive? Kingturtle ( talk) 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough to create, but what value will it serve? They reasons for inactivity will be variously carved up into "pissed of with WP in gerneral", "pissed off with the abuse" "pissed of with the politics" "got a new boy/girlfriend (maybe both?)" "doing my exams" "busy at work" etc. etc. etc. We can't force people to edit, and we can't force admins to use the tools. We have to recognise that we have less than 1,000 active admins and just live with it (or create more admins, obviously!). Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that if they can't be bothered to edit at all, they should have their admin flag removed, so that we have a more accurate number of actual admins. Majorly ( talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two such lists that I know of: Wikipedia:List of administrators, mentioned above, and User:BetacommandBot/Admin edits, which βC mentioned on WP:BN a few days ago.

Really, for a project like this, I take a contrarian view: I'm impressed that (based on βC's list) approx. 50% of admins have edited in the last day, 2/3 in the last week, and 4/5 since March 1st. Don't have data on frequency of admin actions, but as far as participation is concerned, that's a pretty good participation rate in a voluntary project, isn't it? -- barneca ( talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the raw data on admin actions, timestamps only(but all of them) in my SQL server... I could answer any specific questions if presented in a form that such a DB can answer. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly above, that if admins disappear for 3+ months, they should have their tools removed. Many of these admins are never coming back (some haven't edited Wikipedia in years). Apparently, though, it's a perennial proposal that has been rejected. Enigma ^message Review 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the point? In the case that the admin does not comes back, stripping them of their tools will have no effect on our articles. If they come back for one single admin action, that is a net benefit to the encyclopedia that stripping would remove. If you want better stats, write better programs, don't disable our valuable contributors. Skomorokh 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a year at least rather than a few months. The way I see it, why have a false number of admins? Wizardman 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. If we know an admin isn't coming back, I'd prefer their account not have the tools, that's all. Look at the number of admins that haven't edited in well over a year. It's staggering. I personally don't feel anyone gone for a year or more is suited to come back and resume administrative actions anyway. Enigma ^message Review 15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed views with removing the tools after a period of time, say a year: on one hand, there is a chance that they may not be familiar with policy when they return, but recently, Gator1 has come back after almost two years of inactivity, and he seems to be doing fine. Would removing the tools due to inactivity have been a good idea in his case? I don't think so. That's why I'm not sure removing the tools after some time is a good idea. Acalamari 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, or at least something worth exploring. If an admin comes back after a year, there could be a simple expedient way to re-sysop them, instead of having to do an RfA again. Tan | 39 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone is de-sysopped for inactivity, that would qualify as a non-controversial demotion in my opinion, meaning that any 'crat could restore the bit. Personally, I'd be fine with a system that removed the bit after a year (give or take) of inactivity, and would restore it to any editor who was active again for a month's time (giving them an opportunity to get reacquainted with the site) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Look at the number of admins that haven't edited in well over a year. It's staggering." Eh? Doing a quick count at User:BetacommandBot/Admin edits, I get about 90 admins that haven't edited in one year. That's hardly staggering. That's an impressively low number, actually. :) -- Conti| ✉ 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity should not be grounds for adminship removal. Having to re-activate admin tools later only adds to the remedial task lists that we should be working on thinning out. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone has gone for a year, it'll be very unlikely they'll return (some have, but a tiny amount). Considering the number of bureaucrats, and the tiny amount of users that may return, it's hardly a difficult task. Additionally, there are several users who have gone for more than a year who have specifically said they were not coming back, or were retired. I don't see it as an issue. We're just keeping admins for the sake of keeping them, and I don't see any point in doing that. Majorly ( talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. How many admins in the history of this site have been gone for over a year and then returned? I'd bet it's less than 10. And if someone leaves the site and says they're sick of it, they're retiring, they're never coming back, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume they're not lying. :) I would fully support this, and saying it's adding more work is not a very good reason. It's very quick, and it's something that very rarely happens. Enigma ^message Review 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if for no other reason than that I find it strange that we don't have an inactivity policy, whereas several other projects do (most notably, in my mind, being Commons and Meta). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as they don't have to go through another RFA if they do come back, I don't see a problem with this. -- Kbdank71 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A simpler version could be that inactive admins (who haven't edited in three months or so) are removed from the active list but still retain the bit. That way we don't have the worrying that the admins might come back and then start asking for their bit back (which is already relatively simple, unless in exceptional cases) but the list is more up to date? (Apologies if this has been proposed before). Rudget ( review) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Inactive admins are removed from the active list and retain the bit currently. 30 edits in last 3 months required to be "Active. Enigma ^message Review 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rudget just proposed the current system...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

:) Apologies. I don't spend that much time monitoring the list so I don't how that refreshes itself and whatnot. Rudget ( review) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed time and time again if we should de-sysop admins for not editing for a period of time and it has been rejected each time. Now I know consensus can change, but that usually coincides with some other sort of change, and I have not seen that yet. For the record, I am opposed to desysoping anyone who has not abused their tools. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OK then, let's look at this. The main reason folks don't want an inactive account with sysop status lingering around is in case someone hacks it (right?) and does something like delete the mainpage etc. Therefore past history should reflect this. Now as far as I am aware, most of the shenanigans have occurred with accounts that have been more or less active until the time they went 'rogue' (?). Ultimately I am not in favour of removing sysop rights from inactive admins as I think it is an extremely rare occurrence. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Other than the minor niggle of having to do a bit of mental arithmetic to workout how many active admins we have, I'm failing utterly to see the value in desysopping. Desysopping for inactivity = more process as a steward will have to check that the admin has indeed not edited and then push a button (yeah, we could get a bot to check the times, but the steward would still need to double check the bot). In the (albeit unlikely) event the admin comes back 'crats have to waste time checking the desysop was non-controversial before pressing the button. Given that the developers have stated that an inactive account is a far lower risk than an active one for being compromised the only vague reason for desysopping due to inactivy is that the admin will no longer be "in touch" with current policy. Given that we select admins for their judgement one would assume a long inactive admin would have the judgement to reacquaint themselves with policy. Essentialy, to argue for a desysopping procedure for this reason seems to me to just add process with exactly zero net benefit, so why even bother? This is all perenial anyway, as noted above Pedro :  Chat  20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Must admit that I cannot see the point in "removing the bit" from inactive admins. They will have their reasons for inactivity, and quite often I'd imagine will come back. I say that as somebody who was inactive for at least 8 months. If an admin truly has had enough and wants to revoke the status then it's trivial for them to do so. There is no harm done whatsoever by an inactive admin bit. Thanks/ wangi ( talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. From what I gather from the discussion above: The benefit of doing this is to make the number of admins posted places more accurate. Well, technically, the number of admins we have posted is perfectly accurate. Leaving doesn't make you not an admin, at least not unless this system is implemented. What you want is the number of active admins, which is easily available anyway. The cost of doing this is extra work, even if minimal, for the stewards and 'crats. I don't see how this makes any sense at all. It is more work for a very tangential benefit that is not particularly helpful. I'm not going to bother refuting the assertion that more admin accounts equals a greater probability that one will get hacked as it is utterly nonsensical.-- Dycedarg ж 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead, why not have someone who knows what they're doing create an accurate {{NUMBEROFACTIVEADMINS}}, and then the one benefit to this idea would be provided. -- barneca ( talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for joining the conversation so late (it's been a busy day), but I'd also have to agree that it would serve no purpose to remove the tools from inactive admins, it's not like we have a limited number of permitted sysops. However, a list of active admins, as compiled by BetaCommandbot, is quite useful. Useight ( talk) 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it was not necessarily intended, but this conversation is now being cited as a reason to oppose an adminship candidate who does not plan to be very active. This is a very counterproductive result. Antandrus has observed: "Many people, leaving the project, blame either the project or the people working on it for their departure, rather than recognizing that it is normal in life for one's enthusiasm to wane. It does with all things that we once found exciting. This is neither pessimistic nor tragic: one needs always to find new exciting things to do. All things in life change and end, and this includes one's involvement with Wikipedia. "He who kisses the joy as it flies/lives in eternity's sunrise." (William Blake, "Eternity") Enjoy it while you are here, and enjoy what you do after you are gone." There's nothing more that needs to be said, really, but please don't allow a good candidate to be scuppered for some illogical desire to increase a meaningless percentage of activity. -- JayHenry ( talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this conversation could be cited for that, and please link to what you're referring to. Enigma ^message Review 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly not make this up!  :) See here -- JayHenry ( talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone (e.g Majorly) contacted inactive admins and asked them to consider a voluntary desysop? I'd say chances are some would be willing if you explained to them the situation about numbers and that they could be resysopped anytime, etc. John Reaves 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start on it right away. Contacting Clifford. LC doesn't have an e-mail on record, so can't reach him. Enigma ^message Review 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of them don't even have an e-mail address on file, making it difficult to contact them. Enigma ^message Review 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

None of them have valid e-mails on file. Must've been a different system back then. I tried the ones who've been inactive since 2006 and earlier, and any e-mail attempt results in a "no email address" message. Enigma ^message Review 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Clifford agreed to desysop. He didn't know he still had an account. I guess I'll e-mail a 'crat? Enigma ^message Review 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, and I realized that I've often seen RfAs opposed because the candidate didn't give good reasons why they need the tools. Shouldn't this apply doubly so to admins who aren't even on Wikipedia? I guess we're making it a high bar to jump in the first place, but once you hurdle it, you never have to worry again. IMO, if you don't even edit Wikipedia, let alone use the tools, you obviously have no use for them. Enigma ^message Review 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

During a lot of failed RFAs there are a lot of pat on the backs, go and get some mainspace or experience. Editor assistance/Requests is a sadly forgotten part of Wikipedia. It is often a first (or last) port of call for editors with a wide range of problems. It always has a backlog despite its aim to assist within 6 - 8 days.

If editors fail Rfa wouldn't it be a good thing to ask them to review some of the posts at EAR? Some of the issues are complex, they involve diplomacy, correct use of policy and guidelines and explaining, referring to relevant noticeboards and sometimes acting as an advocate. These are all vital skills for sysops. The advice an editor gives can always be checked if it is wrong and it gives editors an excuse to re-refer to policy, guidelines and dem essays. -- Bp Eps - t@lk 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think I ever saw WP:EAR, and it does look like a useful place. Why is it so un-easy to find? I looked at links here, but it's not really prominent. Yngvarr (c) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, how do a lot of new editors find it? That said, I think there's far too many avenues for newcomers to find help - although whether that is a bad thing or not is up for debate. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from the Admin Coacing point of view: PLEASE SEND FAILED RFAs TO EAR. We don't have the number of coaches to mentor all the people who want coaching to begin with, and sending someone from a failed RFA to wait in line for 6 months, tends to demotivate them. Now telling them to help at EAR, they might gain enough experience to not even need coaching. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a fan of this - sounds like punishment! That said, what about this, this, this or this? I wouldn't like to single out a single noticeboard. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please I cringe everytime I see someone say "I'd reccomend you go get some admin coaching" and the person only have 500 edits and doesn't know WP:AN exists. They should be adopted or work on backlogs. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, the cheatsheet exists for a reason, but things are getting a little over the top. The origin for this discussion is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King, and this is a copy of my post in the "Discussion" section:

The number of questions as of now, a day into the RfA stands at 27. You can call questions "optional", but then people will oppose if they are not answered. People will oppose if they are not all or individually answered correctly. It is hard for a prospective admin to answer many of the question with 100% accuracy each time off the top of the head. I compare it to going to law school or business school, and then going into the practice of law or business. It is not the same at all, and places candidacies in peril.

I wanted to gather opinions here as my issue stands with not this particular RfA but the trend in questioning the candidate relentlessly, which is fairly new in the process. So I didn't want to divert the discussion in Gary King's RfA, which is why I am centralizing discussion here. Keegan ^talk 05:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this trend where the number of optional questions asked has gradually escalated with time to the point of absurdity. I'm not entirely sure why editors feel such a compulsion to ask so many questions. Perhaps it's the perception that RfA should be exceedingly difficult. What makes matters worse is that half the time the questions are mixtures of rehashings of previous RfAs and personalized queries meant to satisfy a few particulars. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, yes the tools are a "big" deal, but RfA is not a rigorous exam, hence why I endorse the existence of Majorly's cheat sheet. I'd endorse (although I'm not convinced much would change) either an expansion of the main questions, or setting a limit to the number of optionals put forth. It's ridiculous that some editors receive 7 or 8 while others get peppered with 25+. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually 21 on that RfA, but it's 18 too many still. I think users should be limited to a maximum of one question each, and all stock questions that don't have anything to do with that candidate should be banned. Majorly ( talk) 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

21 postings, ArcAngel asked 6 questions, making 27 The part a, b, ect. by SunCreators is what I was counting. That particular number of questions from ArcAngel has already been resolved on the page, thankfully so. I'm counting raw number of questions. Keegan ^talk 07:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to ban anything from RfA, ever. It is a discussion and weight of opinions. Ask all the questions you want, oppose for the same reason you want. It is discretionary. I'm talking about working with the community in coming to an idea of what the questions are all about, and limiting excess by knowledge of the process itself. It has taken about eight months, but the community has finally come around to Kmweber's RfA opposition. This will take time, but it takes discussion and recognition of a need to reform this particular part of the process. Polls and whatnot for this kind of environment creation won't help a thing. Just talk about it. My humble opinion, and what got me started on this in the first place. Keegan ^talk 07:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed the significant rise in the amount of optional questions on RfAs, and this has only been a recent trend. In my first RfA, back in July 2007, only 3 optional questions were present, and at the time, this was the norm. In my successful attempt, in November 2007, there were no optional questions. Again, at this time, optional questions on RfAs averaged only about 4-6. Now they've escalated, and I'm sure it can't be a good thing from the candidate's point of view. Lra drama 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of questions is frankly getting ridiculous. On more than one occasion I've seen the person asking the question never return to the actual RFA. One question per user sounds reasonable. Rudget ( review) 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I feel the same way. Limit the question to one per user. And ditto on editors not returning after asking 4-5 questions. It's mind boggling. The same thing goes (mostly) for users who are "on the fence". Frankly speaking, I don't see a reason to even !vote neutral if they're not even going to come back. But, that's another matter altogether. My question is this though: Can we actually enforce the one question per user recommendation? Or could it be made official rubric? Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 16:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think one OPTIONAL (if it doesn't get answered, the candidate doesn't get "dinged" for it) question per editor is a good compromise - or perhaps we could agree on adding three "stock" questions that have to do with policy. But here's the thing - most of my questions were policy related, and weighed in my decision whether to support, oppose, or go neutral. Not asking policy questions may make it more difficult to gauge a candidate's policy knowledge, and I know that's a big bug with some. ArcAngel ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, we now have the cheatsheet, so your questions are kinda meaningless. So can you please not just go and ask different questions that aren't on the cheatsheet. We don't ask questions to candidates to make ourselves feel good, or to probe around for possible issues ({{ fishing}}...)...we ask questions if we seek clarification on a major screwup a candidate made, or if we have a darn good suspicion they don't know a policy. RfA additional questions are not for fishing. Please think about the fish in future RfAs, ArcAngel. Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 00:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Limiting questions sounds good but I do agree with what Majorly appears to have been stressing lately - and that's regarding the pointlessness of stock questions. Any prospective admin who hasn't the ability to lift answers from elsewhere, with a minor tweak, wouldn't be able to turn their computer on in the first place. Perhaps the questions should be scrapped altogether. It's easy to give the answer people want most of the time, anyway George The Dragon ( talk) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: Being that three of the most common admin-tasks are (in no particular order) blocking, deletion, and, of course, prima facie power-hunger, admins are much more likely than the average non-admin to find themselves sucked into a fast-moving, heated conversation. (see, for instance, the latest shindig over at AN/I) Admins who aren't very good at explaining their motivations, admins who aren't good at handling a lot of questions, and admins who easily "stress out" over silly shit like questions are not beneficial to the project. I think it's therefore important for an admin to be able to handle the occasional "press conference", and the barrage of !optional questions does help give us an idea of whether or not the candidate is readily capable of expressing him/her/itself. This is, of course, in addition to the fact that the answers themselves can prove to be helpful. Nobody's forcing anybody to become admins. -- Badger Drink ( talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Limiting things to one question per user is the least we should do I think. That can still amount to a lot of questions. As ArcAngel has suggested, the questions asked should only have something to do with policy. After-all, the purpose of these questions is to help determine whether a candidate is suitable for adminship. Lra drama 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If people are asking excessive questions, or stupid questions.. they can be ignored. A stupid question left unanswered will reflect poorly on the questioner, and well on the candidate who chooses not to respond. It's useful for us to be able to see, in an RFA, how the candidate responds to unreasonableness. Friday (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But I think most candidates will feel obliged to answer any questions thrown at them, to make it look as though everything is taken into consideration by them and they are able to face anything. Under pressure, candidates will feel every question must be answered to show that they're capable of doing a thorough job. Lra drama 16:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone considering the candidate will make of this what they will. In my book, knowing when to stop is a highly useful skill for an admin. Friday (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly support a limit on questions of some sort. I mean, when you're asking 25 questions, and you're opposing for 1 of them, you're basically trying to find something to oppose the candidate on, which is rather disturbing in itself. No one should need to ask even more than a couple questions of their own to determine suitability. If someone has to ask questions on top of 20 more, try looking at the candidate and his/her work again. Wizardman 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman. Opposing based on one question's answer is frivolous, and strikes me as lazy (not wanting to look at contribs/talk/archives him/herself). I would support a "cap" on the number of "optional questions" at a given number, either per editor (1 or 2), or per RfA (call it 10, maybe 15). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't support a maximum number of questions per RFA, but a cap on the number of questions a single editor can ask, I think that could be a good idea. Useight ( talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a cap. We should just use common sense and only ask questions when they're needed. (see also User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Fishing.) dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is people seem to be increasingly fishing. If one fishes two much, then they can't complain when there's no fish later. Wizardman 04:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the questions asked in RfA's are asinine. I don't even think limiting questions to "policy" questions is going to help much. I mean, anybody who has half a clue will know how to research issues. The only type of question that I see as value added is when somebody does their homework and asks a question based upon the candidate's history and can provide links as to why the specific question is relevant. Other than that, most of the questions are busy work for the candidate. I mean, what's the difference between a block and a ban? If you don't know how to look it up in the policy/guidelines, just look at another RfA. Balloonman ( talk) 07:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet some people get that question -- and many of the other "homework" questions -- wrong. It shows that they're not willing to do the legwork, which is a good reason to oppose. But two or three such questions will succeed in uncovering that fault, and a dozen aren't necessary. - Revolving Bugbear 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is just Good Faith. The requirments of being an admin have gotten more strict, so people think by adding these questions they're helping out. People seem to assume these days that admins should be able to handle it. All you really need to do is make it clear that too many optional questions does harm. Don't enforce it as a rule, but as a suggestion/guideline. If the problem is brought to light on a large scale, it will be toned down on a large scale.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 03:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask 5 of Filll's questions, score the candidate, if they get better than 55% of the questions correct, they get promotoed. I might get support for that much, but possibly I won't get too much support for making all current admins take the exam as well though. ;-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC) <very innocent look>

Not all of those have a totally unambiguous answer. That's the advantage actually of ad hoc user provided questions--the point is to see how someone deals with a situation that make them actually think about something with a preset response. DGG ( talk) 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would not be surprising, as I believe they were intended to illustrate ambiguous situations. O:-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim: [2]. :) dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

\o/ -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the number of questions is becoming ridiculous. I've seen users hampered by the RfA process because they were answering questions after questions, some of which had no relation to being an administrator or a user at Wikipedia. Some questions revolved around a person's personal tastes or beliefs. And many are never followed up by the original poster of the question. Limit one question per individual, or create a question bank that can be used in place of the optional questions. seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, have already started. Stop trying to be stupid, it makes you look clever. Wait... Splash - tk 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Was that really necessary? They are innocuous and bring levity to an otherwise rigorous process. Also, WP:SARCASM. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 14:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply troubled by the idea of someone redacting someone else's post like that. Just because one person does not see the value of a question does not mean it lacks value. You may simply not understand the underlying meta logic. Dloh cierekim 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Though in this instance, I would certainly discuss the matter with the poster. This candidate is having a hard time and flippancy is just cruel at this point. Dloh cierekim

(e/c, and then the server hiccupped, then e/c again. last attempt.) I'm all for levity, but the RfA candidate is under a lot of stress here, and I wonder if this is levity at their expense (or, more accurately, if he/she might interpret it that way; I'm sure it wasn't intended that way). If they had been added to an RfA that was doing well, I can see levity; being added to an RfA not doing well seems a little mean and piling-on-ish. That said, I wonder if a brief mention of this to Sceptre, rather than reverting someone else's questions, would have been better. -- barneca ( talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say, with an apparently straight face, that there was "underlying meta logic" to the stand-up routine that I removed. These particular so-called 'questions' were not innocuous for the reasons detailed in my edit summary, and elsewhere in this section. If Sceptre has a theme he wishes to pursue, I am certain that he can find a more constructive route. Making points (of the kind dangerously near to a blue link) at a candidate's expense is unreasonable and unnecessary. Splash - tk 15:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the questions are jokes, I don't see a problem removing them. Most RfA candidates are not regulars of RfA or WT:RfA - its unlikely they are approaching the process as a time for games, and they won't connect joke questions to a running commentary on too many questions in general. The questions were joking, ill-advised, and well removed. Avruch ^T 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Avruch. Dloh cierekim 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was definitely well said. I don't particularly agree, as I mostly see those questions as benign. Although, granted, the candidate may not have seen it that way. They probably shouldn't have been so prolific. Nevertheless, Sceptre doesn't need an accusation of "trying to be stupid". Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note letting Sceptre know about this thread. Dloh cierekim 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The optional-but-mandatory questions are lame and require no brainpower to answer - you either cutpaste an answer or fail your RFA. These questions aren't automatically useless; seeing the light side of things sometimes should be required in an admin. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 15:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the questions were hilarious. I may start removing non-joke questions if they are just as lame (What is IAR? and Are cool down blocks allowed? come to mind here). Majorly ( talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I might be more inclined to support someone with enough sense to ignore stupid questions. John Reaves 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Majorly. Given answering the standard RFA questions requires nothing but the ability to rehash the same answer from the previous hundreds of RFA, these questions might, God forbid, allow us to find something useful out about the candidate George The Dragon ( talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked the questions as well, especially the Roman one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps between us, we will be able to reach a more sensible equilibrium, Majorly! Incidentally, from reading the novel questions that people have asked (rather than the copy-pasted ones) I get the impression that some questioners are thinking more deeply themselves, which I suppose is a good thing. It's a pity that the only outlet for their Deeper Thoughts are pseudo-braindumps to RfAs (and I'm all for improvements on the original 3, just not some of the weakling stuff that's turned up lately). Otoh, so far my removal of the Jongleurs efforts has stood; I wonder if removal of the more serious questions would or not. Splash - tk 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of questions currently being asked at RfA is widely cited as a reason why candidates view the process with trepidation at the moment. We do seem to be very short of RfA candidates at the moment. I would like to see about 30-50 new admins each month (and ideally a lot more than that). We will be lucky if we get 20 this month. WjB scribe 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasons of why the questions are being asked (to bring a slight bit of humour to this particular part of Wikipedia) but just not why (hopefully, that'll make sense). A line can be drawn on what sort of questions are asked, and most commonly, those are the ones that are asked at RFA. On the other hand, candidates can choose whether or not to answer the questions. If its a stupid question, then it deserves either no or a similar response (I think I may have seen Friday publish something like that the other day. Hmm.) It all depends on what floats your boat. Rudget ( review) 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't laugh, you're in trouble. I recommend that Splash should seek treatment for acute Wikipedia:Adminitis. Has someone reverted already?

In any case, these questions seem to be predicated on: [3]

This was discussed earlier on this page, and did seem to have at least some support. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me as if Sceptre was doing this to be mock the excessive number of questions asked these days, and how there's not always an obvious point to them. I don't mind them, and I do agree with his statement that a positive trait in an admin is seeing "the light side of things" & knowing how to deal with unprofessional situations, in which he or she will definitely be caught. hmwith τ 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know even a fraction of what goes on, and can't laugh at it, I figure you burn out way too quickly :-P -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I mulled this over for a little while and settled upon the idea that laughter is universal, and an admin candidate who can laugh at a situation is probably a good thing. However, one's sense of humor is not universal, and thus a simple joke can easily be missed by someone who's culture is different than the person making the joke. Wikipedia is an international project so we should, to some extent, avoid turning someone else's RfA into a piece of performance art, and then judge said individual on whether or not they "get it". If you have an established relationship with the nom, I really don't see this as a problem... just in those cases where you do not have a good sense of what the nom finds funny. Hiberniantears ( talk) 12:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with joke questions is that they can be taken far too seriously by people who have little or no sense of humor. Several of the above commenters note that they can be (and possibly should be) ignored, but how many people here have opposed nominees because they failed to answer questions? I for one would be really irked if anyone voted against me because I failed to answer a question such as "Boxers or briefs?" at an RfA. Horologium (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, I know I've been away for a week or so - but there is something conspicuously missing from the RfA process... the candidates! Much as people seem to be trying to compensate by asking more questions of the few candidates they can get their hands on, I don't think that's going to work longterm. I don't think we can say that a candidate asked 50 questions about everything from their precise views on what constitutes a legal threat through to how they like their eggs in the morning is a substitute for a greater number of (less thoroughly probed) new admins. So come on guys - thumbscrews out, get more people running. Otherwise we may need to restrict question asking to "one question per candidate nominated".

More sensible suggestions for curing the overabundance of questions vs. dearth of candidates problem also welcome... WjB scribe 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think some nominators are scared of a candidate failing, which could inturn look worse on them–which is utter nonsense. If you believe someone is good enough, nominate them. Rudget ( review) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A few of my admin coachees may be ready in a week or two... Malinaccier Public ( talk) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a few in the works, hopefully at least one in the next couple of weeks. -- Avi ( talk) 16:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to lean on a given party who might get 200 votes if he ran. I honestly don't see why he doesn't, getting repeatedly elected lead coordinator of the film project is probably just as hard(sorry, must preserve subject's anonymity). If there are any other obvious candidates out there, maybe we can try some concerted leaning on them? John Carter ( talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaning on qualified candidates sounds good. Also, we probably have to do more to stamp out the utterly misguided notion that you have to use the tools some certain minimum amount in order to get them. If some responsible, qualified editor wants the buttons so he can use them once a year, give them to him. We're all volunteers; it's not reasonable to demand some minimum level of contributions. Friday (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The increased volume of questions and the increasing over time stress of an RfA probably scare off a number of candidates, or at least make them wait a lot longer than they otherwise would. Mine might go up at some point in the next few weeks, but I'm not excited about the prospect of being the only one! Avruch ^T 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait,your not an admin? Wah? When you transclude Avruch, feel free to copy paste this: "#Support per Duh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)"

Holy $*!&, he isn't. While you're at it, add #Support - based on opposition to silly questions. John Carter ( talk) 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional question, back in third grade you called Mary Sue dumb, can you explain how your civility skills have improved since then? MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I scared them off? Rawwwwrrrr. -- Deskana (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back, btw... WjB scribe 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

heehee. Enigma ^message Review 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know in my case, it's part that I can't really find anymore, but mostly that RfA has gotten pretty ridiculous. It's a game of 20 questions that I don't want to put any candidate through, and it's making it a lot harder for speciailists to pass, with people opposing for lack of block knowledge when the candidate has no intention to use the tool. Wizardman 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for there to be no RFA's at all, as I believe this to be prime time to launch my RfB. With no other distractions, not only will I enjoy maximum community exposure and fine toothcombing of my edits, I can look forward to an almost unending selection of questions, of which almost 90% will have no correct answer. So to prevent this whole misguided plan happening, I hope we can all find some more punters candidates who will be WP:BOLD enough to throw their hat in the ring. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In case I miss your RfB Pedro, please copy/paste "#Support per Duh" to yours as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss that for the world. No need to cut and paste anything from me, however. I'll beat all you guys with my Unwavering support that it's ridiculous !vote. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the reason so few step up as admin candidates is the way candidates are treated here. I was nominated for adminship with the assurance that adminship isn't a big deal. Some time ago, I nominated Benjah-bmm27 on the same basis. However, his adminship was dogged by comments like "doesn't need the tools" and "not enough projectspace experience". If I were in his shoes, I'd feel a tad demoralized, and will be reluctant to be nominated again. Perhaps we should look in the mirror when we ask why there aren't any candidates around. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't RfA just become a revenge forum? As in: "You disagreed with me a few months ago, so of course I'm going to oppose your RfA." Why would anyone want to put themselves through that, and for what exactly? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At times, Malleus, sadly yes. One can only hope that it is rare. And Rifleman, I agree that a failed RfA can deter and demoralise editors, and in no way is that a good thing (though I've seen comments here to the exact opposite - that it is a good thing as if they were demoralised after a failed RfA it proved they weren't cut out to be admins - utter nonsense). Wether it's a vote or not is one matter but it's not an election, and we're not in the business of driving away contributors - or we shouldn't be. An election is a yes / no. Here we have yes / no / neutral and a whole bunch of comments. Editors should take time to add value (particularly when opposing). A huge number of admins failed on their first / second etc. RFA - so what? It's like this rubbish of hitting WP:100 - you're not a better admin for getting more votes than someone else. In summary, let's try to remember that whilst this is not light hearted we better serve our end product (the readership) by retaining valued contributors even if they don't have a couple of extra buttons, a couple of buttons that really aren't the proverbial big deal. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've raised elsewhere the issue of the duty of care that nominators have towards those they nominate at RfA. What's more important, another administrator or the potential loss of a good editor? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that there is, in a sense, a duty of care not to nominate someone who would fail RFA and may take it badly. Of course. I'm fairly certain, Malleus, that you would agree there is no inherent difference between the loss of an editor with admin tools or the loss of an editor without admin tools. Assuming equality in contributions, to argue that the loss of an admin is worse than the loss of an editor simply reinforces this ludicrous view (that I don't believe you have, and certainly I do not) that admins are in some way "better" or "more valued" than non-admins. The loss of any editor is a bad thing. Full stop. Pedro :  Chat  22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't quite agree. (Damn, there goes my next RfA down the pan.) My perception is that once having being given the power of "the bit" too many administrators forget why we're all here, to write an encyclopedia, and stop editing. And too many only edited in the first place just to get "the power of the bit". -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, in case I miss it, Malleus feel free to copy/paste "#Support per Duh" on your RfA. Or maybe I should just nominate you. That outta get your blood boiling... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have my next RfA scheduled for the first anniversary of Hell feeezing over. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

*Malleus - my hurt feelings* I did write a DYK only the other day! Mind you, only 'cause I was talking about booze with Keeper and I couldn't believe we didn't have an article on the particular vineyard :) Seriously, as I said, assuming equality in contributions there is no difference between an admin editor and a non-admin editor in terms of loss - we don't want to loose anyone. I'd also say that people that edit and write articles just for the "bit" will be deeply disapointed when they get it. Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't pointing a finger at you, or any other admin, it was a general point, but I stand by it. How many administrators continue to contribute to the encyclopedia once elevated? Not that many it seems to me, or, to put it another way, many seem to consider their policing duties more important than their editorial duties. But what are we short of? Police, or productive editors? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. May I follow WP:PEDRO Pedro? MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:) - WP:BEANS (sorry to cut in above you as well - happened whilst editing) Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to immediately nominate my admin coachees after the process. I would rather have them incorporate what they've learned for a few weeks, see how they're learning, then nominated them. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't get me started on admin coaching. If I was to say what I think about that, then I'd have to wait for the second anniversary of Hell freezing over before my next RfA. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a reason for the dearth in RfAs is that there is currently a fear of nominating a less-than-perfect candidate. We need more RfAs like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MilborneOne, where candidates are nothing spectacular—no FAs, no admin coaching, not well-known at AfD—but they know the basics. Most of the current admins where not ideal candidates during there RfAs. Epbr123 ( talk) 11:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing about MilborneOne that I like is that he has shown the need for the tools and a willingness to work in an area not often investigated by others (Images.) This helps Milborne stand out above the other run-of-the-mill "I want to fight vandalism" admin candidates. Or I want the tools to do everything, but have shown no background in those areas. I like seeing candidates like Milborne with a passion for a specialty. Balloonman ( talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know a prime candidate for admin: CapitalR. He's the one who cleaned up all the different navboxes last year and standardised them down to a single very versatile {{ navbox}}. And now he is hard at work making the next even better version. I have worked with him in some places and he certainly got what it takes. And he needs the tools to be able to maintain and update the templates he made. (They are locked as high-risk.) I just haven't got around to nominate him. I asked him long ago and he said he would like the tools so he can handle the templates he made. Anyone with more experience in nominating people feel free to check with him and check him out and nominate him.

-- David Göthberg ( talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread is rather encouraging :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I implore you all to be gentler and kinder with your oppositions. Some comments are simply lambasting. Please, if an editor isn't adminship worthy, give advice to help that editor improve for next time. Thrashing an editor is mean. Being constructive is useful and adds to the sense of community. Please think twice when you explain your opposition. Kingturtle ( talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason the oppositions sound mean is because their oppositions. Naturally we read them expecting a negative tone. It's just a mental thing. Most Opposes I see give fair reasoning behind their "vote". I would say that Supports should be further elaborated upon. Most people don't even give a reason for support, and some just put their names (or "per above").-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Most opposes are fine, I think, but we do have to be extra careful when commenting on a new editor's far premature RFA; remember WP:BITE. Useight ( talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree - it's simply inherent to the nature of the opposition. The candidate, and everybody else for that matter, should expect criticism and feedback, albeit constructive. Let's be candid here for a moment. When a user opposes, they are doing so (ordinarily) for a good reason, which they expound on. It's inevitable that it would carry with it a negative tone. It can be frustrating to the user running, however, everyone who comments needs to be mindful of WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE and WP:SARCASM. Make sure your comments are critical, yet exceedingly helpful. Think of RfA as an in depth analysis of a candidate's progress. It could only serve to benefit the user under scrutiny. Goodness knows I've learned from my previous RfAs. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, candidates can get croaky when they start getting opposes. It works both ways in my view. Rudget 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the most constructive thing for the project would be in fact to suggest the candidate not rerun for RfA in the future as they don't appear to have the proper temperament (or for other reasons). I'm all for constructive criticism, and totally believe in being civil in all circumstances, but I don't think this neccesarily means we all have to go overboard explaining how candidate X can be an admin next time and all the caveats of how much we still enjoy their work. I feel like sometimes I want to oppose and further make a statement that the "net positive" for the project would be for the candidate to never become involved in admin duties and the inherent drama in that status. Kingturtle, I do see what you are saying, but on the other hand I wish some of these RfA's would just get real with the admin applying requesting. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Obviously, all selfnoms and accepted noms have a candidate that, on some level, finds the thought of the extra tools potentially useful, on some level. Telling them they'll never make a good candidate, while quite possibly true, is quite possibly extremely damaging. I would strongly recommend never saying you should never be an admin, civil or not, and I never say never. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true that we could be a little more harsh on users for the sake of truth, but you should never say never. Anydody can become an admin at any time, all they need to do is practice and do alot (alot) of reading.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, in that you are probably right in that such "never" terminology will only serve to inflame. Maybe I am just trying to make a point. If you don't believe a candidate currently qualified (assuming this is for good reaons)... you should be able to vote oppose, give a direct but civil reason why, (diffs are always good) and that should be it. Or even give tons of reasons and tons of diffs if you feel neccesary. I think I'm saying that constructively commenting on how a specific candidate can work to improve isn't a requirement of RfA. An editor shouldn't comment that the candidate will never be ready, or tell them they should never run again, but on the flipside that editor doesn't need to go into constructive criticism that they may or may not really believe in. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the onus should be on the opposer to provide the constructive criticism, regardless of whether he/she believes the candidate will heed it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just throwing it out there, but alot of times I've been put in a situation where I want to oppose, but any constructive critisim I could have given has already been said.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, there's been the odd one or two that I've wanted to oppose, but, the issue I had with the user was already mentioned (Note: According to my tool, I've never opposed anyone, ever). In those cases, I've usually just not commented, or, gone neutral. I'd probably oppose, if I thought that argument was so gravely serious, that it demanded extra weight. Usually for me, the run of the mill stuff ("Tagged 2 out of 927 pages this week wrong for CSD", "Was mean to a puppy in primary school", etc) generally aren't that gravely serious that they warrant the extra (ofttimes borderline excessive) weight on that argument, and, often times are either easily explainable, or are within a reasonable margin of error. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the many things my parents did right was to raise me with a thick skin (metaphorically--they didn't beat me!). A thick skin lets you accept and learn from legitimate criticism, rather than fear it. It's what enabled me to enjoy and appreciate my experiences in marching band and drum & bugle corps, with excellent instructors who had no intention of letting me get away with accepting crap from myself and so immediately pointed out every mistake I made that I did not discover myself (and whose example I currently try to emulate with my own band kids). So no, I'm really not bothered by people commenting when I oppose a self-nomination at RfA. Either they're asking a legitimate question, which I can learn from, or they're just being childish and immature, in which case they're giving me a great warning for future interactions. I'm not interested in drama. Perhaps at one point I was, but I've grown past that. I have some thoughts on what's best for the project, and I act on them. Most people are reasonable enough to realize that, even when we differ on specifics, we share the same ultimate goal--those are the ones who politely try to engage me. The rest...well, the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand put it best: "Those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. Leave them alone." I have better things to do with my time.

Are the more immature responses to my opposes incivil? Probably. But I don't care. To be perfectly honest, even apart from my general disdain for the idea of "rules" on Wikipedia I think just about everyone enforces WP:CIVIL much too strictly anyway. Intelligent people tend to be passionate people. If you're engaged in a dispute with someone, instead of whining to ANI about it like a little child I say let it go for a bit. As long as he calms down himself (which I think most intelligent, reasonable people, will do), you don't need to do anything. He's just blowing off steam. Let him do it--it keeps it from building up into something big. There's a reason the NHL doesn't penalize players for fighting on the rink, as long as it doesn't get too out of hand. I think we could learn from that.

Contrary to what a few have asserted above, when I first began opposing all self-nominations on principle, I did in fact respond to all the honest questions and comments--either on the RfA itself, on my own talk page, or on the RfCs that some of the more unreasonable individuals filed. I generally don't do it anymore because, frankly, no one has raised a novel point about them in the last several months. It's just the same questions over and over again, and understandably I get tired of answering them when with a little bit of poking around they can find my answers themselves. I used to point people to my talk page archives (just about EVERYTHING has been raised there at one point or another), but now I don't even do that because, frankly, it's getting old. So I don't worry about. When someone starts to harass me on a significant scale (such as Fredrick day) I may report it, but if it's just a one-off I don't worry about it. I may consider responding if I can do so without too much work and if it's necessary to correct a blatant falsehood (see my response to a comment of Transhumanist on his own RfA), but even then no guarantees. For the most part, I'm sick and tired of it.

If you have a new thought that no one's ever brought up before, yeah, I'll probably reply as soon as I can. You may even change my mind. But it's not that I'm ignoring everyone (although some people I am)--it's just that everything everyone's saying has already been brought up, and I've already considered it and rejected it. It's not prejudice; it's postjudice. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That should be converted into a Wikipedia essay as your personal manifesto. Well said. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Wisdom stated, well said Kurt. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, very well said. I don't personally agree with your stance on RFA, I don't think Kurt should have to take all the flack he gets for voicing his opinion. Would I still be editing if everyone ragged on me all the time? I don't know. But Kurt is resilient and I respect that. Useight ( talk) 05:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, please take heed to the advice here convert this into an essay, that way you have an easy response for every time you are questioned after voting on an RfA. - MBK ₀₀₄ 05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict}Nobody agrees with his stance </sarcasm> Only a few believe that it is alright to disparage him because of his stance. But to echo the above, well said. Balloonman ( talk) 05:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to oppose a candidate for whatever reason you want without having to contend with sarcasm, incivility, or assumptions of bad faith from any supporters. The bureaucrats probably have enough experience to determine if an oppose rationale or valid or not. Specifically in this case, I suppose some who self-nominate probably really do just want to be admins to help the project out, but who knows? Maybe there are instances where some are "power hungry" as Kurt believes. In any event, imagine if someone opposed because he or she saw that someone else was supporting! Also, I don't see Kurt using swear words or other extreme language in those rationales that candidates or supporters should interpret as overly insulting (I have seen far worse on this project). If being an admin is really "no big deal" then whatever reasons people oppose or support should also be "no big deal." If a candidate feels he or she can and should defend his or herself to an opposer, then fine, but those supporting and opposing should not use any incivil means to discredit or ridicule either side. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 05:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well-spoken (written?) and I agree that it is essay-worthy. May I suggest an addition to WP:POWER? Adam McCormick ( talk) 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reposting a response I made to Kurt's power hungry oppose vote in a recent RfA:

Comment: I support Kurt's viewpoint, as I think it's a valid point to raise. As much as possible, given the lack of face-to-face contact, we should know the motivations of anyone we trust with the buttons. My father used to say that anyone that wanted the job, (of US president) should not get it. Can we honesty say that every single admin didn't start out with some sense that it was a promotion and a position of some power? I've been an admin (not here) and it's a royal pain in the neck. You often piss off one side or the other, sometimes both, and the pay is lousy. And damn stressful if you really try to do the right thing all the time. So why would someone want to become an admin? Yes, having the tools to help keep WP going and develop is an obvious answer, and I think the main reason for almost all successful canidates, but I think occasionally, not the only one. But we often only learn that after getting and doing the job (not just here), when we really find out what it's like. If I thought it would do any good at all, I would strongly oppose self noms, and support nomination and seconding before being considered. IMHO. No, this is NOT an oppose opinion for this candidate in any way.

I guess I should have posted this comment here, but I couldn't remember where here was. I still think it's valid point to raise, and I respect Kurt for sticking to his guns despite opposition. And I think his essay above is articulate and well thought out and shows that it's not a knee jerk response to self noms. And he is totally right about criticism. ... He considers those that point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers. - Lao Tsu. Regards. — Becksguy ( talk) 06:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Over on the Village Pump a discussion took place about if IAR was appropriate for Admin actions. Without rehashing the whole discussion one gem came out of it:

I think this is a very important question to ask prospective admins. I would go farther and ask them to expound on all 5 Pillars in the same way. -- Low Sea ( talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This question used to be frequently asked to admins in some form, but seems to have tapered off. Definitely a far more useful question then half this recent stuff. Wizardman 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm very curious to find out what those Romans have done lately. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

O:-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) perhaps they've been busy ignoring all rules? ;-)

I love that question. Answers could go to the heart of how an admin will handle a very difficult, perhaps uncommon situation. I also don't see it as a trap question much, but at the same time could weed out a candidate who lets slip some unwholesome aspiration that concerns the community. Most importantly, it is totally wide open and we could get different responses from most candidates, and all could be great. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I suppose not answering would be just as fitting. A good example of Ignoring all questions...... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was always waiting for a prospective candidate to invoke WP:IAR and delete the question from the RfA :) Black Kite 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I always ask prospective admins about WP:TRI (a 5P prototype, which I actually prefer) when I get the chance.-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, now it is possible to be "over-prepared" for RfA. If one has learnt too much about the admin process, they are dubbed a "manufactured" candidate... the mental image now conjured up about a viable candidate is someone walking down the street, mostly oblivious to the RfA process but well-versed in all policies. Make sure they don't see you coming! Tap them on the shoulder as they go about their article-building business; they should act surprised that someone thought of them for admin candidacy but completely innocent of any preparation work. "Well, I'll be a son of a gun! I never thought of adminship before, but if you think I'm adequate, by gosh, I'll humbly accept your nomination!" I'm waiting for the era of RfA where a candidate can have too many edits. Tan | 39 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote up a new essay, WP:GOLDENTICKET. Feel free to expand the page or comment to me, the talk page, or if relevant on here. Crossposting to the Village Pump. Keegan ^talk 06:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A well written essay there. It's needed as well, because I find a lot of people still take this sort of opinion. (You don't have to laugh, it's just my attempt at creating humour). Lra drama 07:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Keegan, your idea is great. I agree with it. The problem is that it doesn't describe reality. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh come one. What does describe reality? <grin> (grin on loan from Kim Bruning) SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with it. But its redundant with about 200 other pages. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it is redundant. An essay attempting to tackle the issue of sysops having de facto or perceived higher status might be interesting. Also "Though rights may grant certain technical privileges, there is no golden ticket that will grant any actual authority to an individual user." isn't exactly right. The ability to block and unblock is certainly a type of authority, although not a "golden ticket". Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with redundancy. That's why we have categories and lists. (smile on loan from Avi. ) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This one's better , -- Avi ( talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree its ueful but I do recommend it be exapnded to include perhaps some examples of how the Golden Ticket persona has been used in the past or could be used inapproriately.-- Kumioko ( talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful there, Kumioko. You keep posting to Wikipedia pages, you might end up cursed with admin buttons, and we'd lose one of our good content writers...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They did say I didn't have enough Wikispace edits..-- Kumioko ( talk) 18:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad this is Wikipedia Talk instead of the Wikipedia namespace... :P Useight ( talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with it. The general conclusion is correct, obviously (no-one [openly] disputes it), but the rest is just using odd definitions of words. The groups are special in that only a select few have membership, the sysop bit is a measure of status - whether or not your are a admin is a state of being. Sysops do have authority. They don't have unlimited authority, but policy does grant them the authority to make certain decisions - the key authority admins don't have is over content matters, on procedural and behavioural matters, admins have significant authority. Adminship may be no big deal (I'm not sure I agree with that these days), but it certainly is a deal of some kind. It's not a meaningless bit in a database. -- Tango ( talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way: If an admin and a non-admin disagree on an issue (whether it be content, policy, or whatever), is the admin correct because they have the admin bit? Surely the non-admin could be correct, depending on what they actually say. This is what WP:GOLDEDENTICKET aims to express, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, admins are always right, no matter what. Did I miss the memo? oh, and before you reply to this, please understand that this is a completely sarcastic, useless comment. It is not how I really feel. If you think this is how I really feel, then you have my administrative permission to troutslap yourself Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If they disagree on something which policy gives the admin authority over, then the admin is assumed to be right (there are usually appeal procedures in that event that the admin is wrong). For example, if an admin closes and AfD as "delete" and the author of the article disagrees, we assume the admin is correct, at least until a DRV is complete. -- Tango ( talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not yet aware of a policy which gives admins absolute authority over anything. The exception would be ArbCom sanctions, and in my humble opinion (and with due respect) now wouldn't be the best time for you to discussing that sort of thing. I understand your AfD example, but even then they don't have completely authority (eg. they still need to read consensus). dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about complete authority. They have the authority to determine the consensus and act on it - that is an authority. -- Tango ( talk) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem lies with the word "authority". Admins certainly have more permissions, more technical abilities if you prefer, but their contributions do not have more intrinsic merit (except those of EVula, as noted above). SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I love scanning a topic and seeing this sort of statement without knowing what's actually being discussed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to expand the essay, feel free. It's why I put in the Wikipedia: space and not my userspace. I think the fundamental idea of there being no golden ticket is a topic touched on in several other pages. I've always felt that those pages dealt with exclusives to situations, such as the cabal pages and the No Big Deal page. The essay is meant to be a focus all of those sorts of thoughts into a fine tuned idea. I encourage others who are interested to work on the page, and perhaps discuss this more at the essay's talk page. Keegan ^talk 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, what has "Golden Ticket" to do with authority? I always thought it's like the ticket to enter a fantastic place (such as a certain chocolate factory). Time to change the title, I must say.-- Alasdair 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that, had Charlie not found the Golden Ticket, he would have been poor and lived a sucky life forever. So the Golden Ticket changed him from dud to stud. But UserRights don't change Wikipedia users from dud to stud. That's the point (complete with analogy! :) dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 08:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, don't be knocking the title - Golden Ticket is an apt title methinks - afterall, a user's status doesn't make one "golden" or give them a free pass to act differently than any other editor. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the time of the year again. I've started a survey on adminship and its procedures, to find out the general sentiment on our UserRight procedure or precedent. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated! And yes, this time round it has got less questions on the table (possibly a good sign?). - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Its about time you showed up. ;) SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You've been missed. Dloh cierekim 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking in the history of RfA on an unrelated matter, I was very surprised to note how much vandalism this page receives, usually from anon or new editors. I further note that an anon or new editor would have absolutely no reason to edit RfA, as all candidates and nominators are going to be much more than four days old (and an account is required), and all comments are posted on subpages. I can see no reason why this page cannot be semi-protected indefinitely. I would have been bold and done it, but the protection log suggests that this has been attempted before, albeit almost a year ago. Comments? Happy‑ melon 19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea... I'm not completely sold, but I could be persuaded. My concern is that it might prevent some people from making legitimate comments. Right now anon accounts can't !vote, but that simply means somebody has to create an account to contribute or their participation doesn't get an !vote. They can still participate. With semi-protection, they might not be able to add crucial information to the discussion. Balloonman ( talk) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman here, while a lot of the more recent IPs have "contributed" in memorable ways, I don't see a prolificness to it, and IPs are usually good editors that are allowed to contribution to the discussion section. They have a unique perspective on this place, and could perhaps provide valuable insight. Although, I see your point, as the individual RfAs are in fact subpages that wouldn't automatically be protected.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I don't disagree with Happy-melon, the thought occurs that WP:RFA is heavily watchlisted. So any vandalism quickly goes, and it really doesn't seem there is that much to warrant IP dis-enfranchisement. I'm generally against protection unless it's to keep the encyclopedia clean for our readers - and I suspect few readers peruse non mainspace areas like RFA! Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against protection because I've seen a few times where IPs brought up valuable points in RfAs. Maybe they were users with accounts who didn't want it traced to them, but still. Enigma ^message Review 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what Happy-melon is getting at is protecting WP:RFA, not any of the sub-pages, just the main page. I agree that anon and new editors should never have to edit the main WP:RFA page and agree with semi-protecting it indefinitely. (I could be misinterpreting what HM said, but that's what I got out of it) « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman, you do realise that the RFA's would still be unprotected? They are transcluded in to the RFA page so IP's could still edit them. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, seems clear Happy-melon is talking about WP:RFA, not the individual RfA's themselves. I doubt anyone supports protection of the individual RfA's, and I agree with Pedro's reasoning for not protecting the WP:RFA page. Protect if it ever becomes a problem, otherwise default is don't protect. The page is already move protected. Also, this sems to indicate there's no consensus for protection. -- barneca ( talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the main page would essentially prevent self-noms as only admins would be able to nominate candidates... not a good idea. Balloonman ( talk) 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was most definitely talking only about protecting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship - maximum participation in individual RfAs, including comments from IPs and new accounts, should be fully encouraged. The watchlisting comment is fair, but that doesn't obviate the fact that we have the opportunity to remove a drain on editors' time with no negative consequences. I'm generally an "openist" when it comes to page protection (I don't think we have protection equivalents to "deletionist"/"inclusionist" but you know what I'm getting at) but here I can see absolutely no circumstances where semi-protecting WP:RFA would prevent a constructive edit being made. Vandalism anywhere is a "problem", no matter how quickly it's corrected; this seems (to me) to be an effective way of freeing up a few minutes' editing time for more constructive purposes, with no side effects. Happy‑ melon 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also mention that Wikipedia does not work on precedent, and we certainly shouldn't consider ourselves bound by an 11-month old log summary. consensus can change. Happy‑ melon 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Think of it as a honeypot. If someone tries to vandalize WP:RFA, and can't, they are unlikely to give up. They're gonna vandalize something, and waste somebody's time. Might as well be here, which is widely watchlisted and will be reverted quickly, and which is outside of article space. If anything, we should somehow, thru reverse psychology or something, try to sneakily encourage a vandal to hit WP:RFA rather than anywhere else. -- barneca ( talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, didn't mean to imply we were bound by that; but a look at the back and forth in the log seems to show this is a perennial issue that always seems to end up back at unprotected. useful info, even if we aren't bound by it. -- barneca ( talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't buy that: what's to say that they wouldn't happily vandalise RfA and somewhere else if given the chance? This page doesn't suffer the run-of-the-mill "evolution-is-only-a-theory" or "joe-is-teh-best" vandalism, it's the target of vandals knowledgeable in Wikipedia process (otherwise how would they even find it?), most of whom I expect are on a campaign. Protecting any individual page won't stop that campaign, but it stops a vandal edit which would otherwise have occurred. How can that be a bad thing? Happy‑ melon 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is this. If someone launches a multi-IP attack on WP:RFA, it should be protected. But if it's a vandal who, as you say, is on a campaign, I don't think they're going to stop their campaign because RfA is protected (unless it's a very specific, and unlikely, anti-RFA campaign, instead of an anti-Wikipedia campaign). So, if they're going to vandalize something 2-4 times and get blocked, why not here? Protecting WP:RFA doesn't stop a vandal edit that would otherwise have occured, it just relocates it to another page. Being able to vandalize WP:RFA isn't "free", it gets you noticed and ultimately likely blocked sooner.

Plus, on a whole other issue, pre-emptively protecting pages goes against the "spirit" of WP. What if someone has transcluded their RFA incorrectly (f.ex. forgotten the damn "----" for the 10,000th time); why can't an IP editor fix it? I think the guiding philosophy behind protection of any page is protect if necessary, unprotect as soon as it isn't.

Anyway, I'm mostly bored; I don't actually feel strongly about this, I jsut think protection isn't warranted, and unprotected is actually better. -- barneca ( talk) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not something I feel particularly strongly about either, it was just a "hmn, vandalism... hmn, no reason not to semi... hmn, log says it's already been tried and reverted... hmn, better ask on talk" set of musings. Happy‑ melon 13:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood. Actually, I don't see why the main RfA main page should be unprotected. I understand what Pedro is saying, but we wouldn't be losing much by protecting it. Enigma ^message Review 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I came into this wanting to support it, and came out nodding at barneca.... I kept a certain group of small children busy for hours a while back at WP:RFA, where they got pissed that their revisions weren't sticking, and eventually caught the interest of a checkuser, whom blocked the lot. I'd rather have the 10-20 socks hitting RFA then 10-20 articles, where it's harder to find them. And yes -- they were experienced vandals (even had an off site page bragging about it). I believe the RfA incident wound up with parents being contacted or something, and a stop being brought to the problem. So, anyhow, my bizarre and rambling comment could quickly summed up as: "Good idea, but, it's actually better in the long run to leave WP:RFA unprotected". SQL ^{Query me!} 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't think the reasoning behind this request is wrong. However, we would not accept such a reasoning on any other page. For example, templates. We could safely semiprotect every template. It's highly unlikely anons will need to edit them. But that's just not what the core ethos of the project is about. The levels of vandalism are minimal and plenty of people watch this page and deal with it, so I don't think we really need to protect it. -- Deskana (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, User:John Reaves semiproted the page. I don't think he should have ignored this discussion, so I wrote something about it on WP:ANI. -- Yooden  ☮

I think it should be unprotected since the edits new users make can always be removed. John has behaved badly over this entire incident... "John, could you reverse the protection and join the discussion?" "No." - from his talkpage. Unimpressive. — TreasuryTag— t— c 12:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're definition of bad behavior is saying no? That's a bit perplexing to me. Sean William @ 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised. — TreasuryTag— t— c 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support the RfA protection. It keeps brand new users from trying, failing, and then leaving, plus there's really no reason for IPs to need to post here since they can't vote anyway. Wizardman 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the protection. There is too much time spent reverting vandalism on it, and as mentioned above and elsewhere, there is no reason for new users or anonymous users to edit it. To note, there are multiple instances of vandalism to this page every day...any other page would be protected and this one isn't special. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I don't believe protecting this page will prevent one single instance of vandalism. It will relocate it to less heavily monitored pages, where it will last longer. Any other page with this level of vandalism would likely be declined at WP:RFPP. -- barneca ( talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't decline it. And if what you say is true, we shouldn't protect any pages because that will cause people to vandalize other pages anyways. I don't buy it. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. We generally protect pages only to prevent disruption to the project; highly visible pages like George W. Bush or the main page, or other articles being targeted and hit so heavily that other editors cannot edit contructively. If that was happening here on a regular basis, I'd support long term protection. But it isn't; it isn't highly visible, and it isn't being targetted heavily. The fact that it's a good thing a few vandals hit this page instead of another one is icing on the cake. -- barneca ( talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the protection of this page. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I admittedly don't know how most vandals work, but I still don't agree with barneca's logic. I don't think it's the case that protecting pages will only shift vandalism, not reduce it. I think protection reduces vandalism in general. Would be hard to prove, but it seems logical to me. I assure you that there are vandals that come here to vandalize specific pages, and one example is WP:RFA. If they can't vandalize it, I think it's more likely they leave than to vandalize a different page instead. Enigma ^message Review 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just slightly off-subject, WP:WPVS asks some of these same questions. Who knew there was a whole project to the study of vandalism? Yngvarr (c) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to semi-protect the main page indefinitely. Established editors can edit it, and IPs can join individual discussions. I just don't follow the "keep the vandalism here" argument, as it implies vandals are desperate to vandalize one page and one page only before they head out to the mall. Key pages which can be legitimately edited by IPs are heavily watchlisted too, and I don't see someone desperate to vandalize RFA (or any project page in particular) and being thwarted hitting random page to find a quiet corner of WP to get their fix. Deiz talk 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don't see anything wrong with this protection. Stifle ( talk) 14:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have protected it. BUT, I have no problem with the main page being so protected. Anons and new users can still edit on the subpages (the pages with the discussion.) I would have serious problems with full protection or protecting the sub-pages, but not the main page. Balloonman ( talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since WP:RFA is a forum where established users are to add their noms to the page, it truly isn't a place meant for the new user who created an account within the past 24 hours to use as a sandbox. Barneca makes a valid point about the honeypot effect but in my opinion the RFA page is not a place where it would be safe to allow such an effect. It is rather disruptive that we repeatedly have to clean up after people who believe they are qualified for adminship when they just came off the boat or trolls who want to bomb this page with hit and runs. It also gives new users false hope when they see how easily they can set up and nom and transclude it only to have their hopes politely (or at times bite-ly) crushed. The only place I would draw the line is instating automatic sprotection of RFA noms themselves. At that point it would become a waste of the tools. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeating here what I've said about this issue: All pages fall under our protection policy. I remember this well from past discussions about semi-protecting all policy pages with similar logic. As long as there is no requirement that a user be auto-confirmed before making a nomination, then the page should not be protected as such. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. You want it protected, change the protection policy. Until then it is neither a high risk target for vandalism (like templates) nor is it receiving anything like enough vandalism to warrant indefinite semi protection. Stopping newbies bombing in RfA is an admirable thing to attempt, but is neither covered by the protection policy or is it paticuarly sensible because most accounts will be autoconfirmed anyway. Viridae ^Talk 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

IAR anyone? I can only see advantages in protecting, and no disadvantages. Sticking by policy to the letter isn't the best way forward here. Majorly ( talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Majorly here. A number of sensible reasons for protecting this page have been put forwards. The only argument against is "policy says". That's not good enough. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and we don't decide not to do things just because the right form hasn't been filled out in triplicate. Protecting the main RfA page (a) stops vandalism and (b) stops nominations from very new users who are likely to put off by the experience of a premature nomination. What harm does it do? If it's "an admirable thing to attempt", why not do it? WjB scribe 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I never once said "policy says", or anything resembling "policy says". Disagree if you wish, but please don't ignore. -- barneca ( talk) 22:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to apply IAR, to me. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Absoloutely not. We do not apply page protection pre-emptively. It should be use sparringly in cases of vandalism or BLP problems etc. Viridae ^Talk 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there is more to gain than lose in having auto-conf protection, but what a lot of us are worried about is more about stuff like.. the mentality that we might create, or the slippery slope, for a lack of better words (I just got off work, forgive me if I'm not making a lot of sense). I'm seeing people say that only established users should nominate other users, which really shouldn't be the case. It's almost as if we're ok with some of these things because we know that us "hard core" wikipedians will always be included. However, it seems we step more and more away from allowing input from the outside world.

This is part of the logic behind the protection policy. Wikipedia, and not just the article space, is something we want everyone to be able to edit. That doesn't mean we'll accept every edit, obviously, but the idea that it really is possible has long since been something that draws people to this site.

But this isn't a slippery slope, or a statement about who can edit, nor is this individual page going to realistically impact people's attraction to Wikipedia, right? If it was only this page, probably. One of the things that's upsetting is that this change was made despite opposition to it, by editors (while meaning well) who believe that they don't need to consult the community if they don't see the action as important. If individual or small groups of admins are going to be making our choices for us, and there's nothing we can do about it, then that fear of this getting out of hand doesn't seem as silly. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

looks like wheel warring to me. 06:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect any less from Viridae. John Reaves 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't communicate how shocked and appalled I am at the semi-protection of such a community-oriented page. If there is ANY page, ANY PAGE AT ALL that EVERYBODY needs to be able to edit, it is the page where we choose those people that we entrust to read consensus. In days like this, when A7 i vastly overused, wheel warring is common, deletion is rampant and administrators go on crusades, there is NOTHING more important than the ability of users (not just editors, but the lurkers as well), to express concerns about someone entrusted with some of the most powerful tools available. Protection should be used in cases of extreme vandalism to common articles such as the main page and possibly BLP articles if slanderous/libellous material continually gets inserted. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you even know how the page works? It's a technical page where RfA subpages are transcluded. Protecting it does nothing to hinder the RfA process. John Reaves 07:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes the fallacious assumption that all editors edit by section rather than by page. New editors especially, or editors who haven't contributed much, may not realize that functionality. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You still obviously don't understand the technical side of subpages being trancluded. My protection didn't prevent anyone from editing anyone's RfA. John Reaves 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly how transclusions work. I run 3 different installations of MediaWiki, 2 of which get at least a thousand unique hits a day. However, many users, especially new ones, don't have the MediaWiki experience I do and may not realize how to properly access the RfA subpages, get confused as a result, and give up. You should never trust in the ability of a user to figure out a UI. I guess the "voice your opinion" thing is viable, but to someone who is used to buttons labelled "edit", its iffy, and I think the marginal gains that you get by having a page watchlisted by a large number of people protected is small compared to the loss of potential contributions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact alone that this was done without obtaining consensus first and went without any repercussions at all to the admin makes me ashamed at the lack of transparency and oversight on the actions of admins. Doing this leads down a slippery, dangerous slope. What's next? XfDs? ANI? The pump? Articles themselves? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? As John pointed out, you seem to lack any understanding of how this page works. We weren't in anyway stopping anyone from voicing their opinion of admins.

See my reply to the above comment. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And read up on WP:BOLD, waiting for consensus to do everything would make Wikipedia a chaotic charade. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with BOLD. You may want to read up on CONSENSUS and PROCESS. Being bold is good for the project when it comes to articles where changes can be easily reverted by anyone with the initiative to do so. Being bold is not good for clear-cut cases of things that should be discussed first, such as page protections whose damage can only be repaired by other admins. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor, please do something for me. Go to WP:RFA, click the "edit this page" button at the top of the WP:RFA page and try and edit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3. Do you see what happens, when you go to edit Wisdom89's RFA by clicking on the edit button on this page, all you see is {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3}}. That is because this page is transcluded onto WP:RFA, think of it as a page on top of the page. Please, please understand that John's protection affected absolutely nothing, no one had to do anything out of the ordinary to edit and RFA. No offense Celarnor, but you are arguing with a couple of admins about how an administrative tool works, how bout you give us the benefit of the doubt that we know how protecting pages works. Go and give Wikipedia:Transclusion a good read and hopefully you will understand how this page works. To address your other points, John followed WP:BRD, he was bold, someone reverted him, and now we discuss. Admin actions can be reverted just as easily as any edit. Oh, and page protection does not need to be discussed beforehand, see WP:RFPP where usually just one admin at a time makes a decision on whether a page should be protected or not. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RFPP is centrally documented and requires that at least two people interact somehow. It also requires that a good reason be provided for page protection. This is some guy deciding that a very important community page needed to be protected and did it without giving it a second thought. Please don't lecture me about the administrative functionalities of MediaWiki; I'm well-acquainted with them, and have edited the source for most of them for our on-campus wiki-farm's implementation. I don't need to be told how page protection works. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't lecturing you, you just seem to not understand page transclusion and protection of pages with transclusions, and you came here YELLING AT HIM about something that made no sense and something he didn't do. Ignoring the dispute at hand, do you at least understand that John's protection did not affect the RFA system whatsoever? That's all I really want to get out of this. If you now understand that, then I can say cheers and good luck editing and you can continue with this discussion on whether you agree with what he did or not. I just want to make sure that you are objecting for reasons that make sense (i.e. your argument that he shouldn't do it without consensus) and make it clear that John shouldn't be criticized for stopping people from editing the page "that EVERYBODY needs to be able to edit" because that's not what he did. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it happening on pretty much any other page; however, this is one of the most vital points of interaction between the users and potential administrators and the the only thing I can see this doing is alienating new and inexperienced users (if you don't believe this is happening, see the talkpage of the protecting user). From a practical standpoint, it simply isn't necessary; plenty of people have this on their watchlist, and we shouldn't go around wantonly protecting pages that don't really, really need it. I've understood how RfA has worked from the beginning; it's obvious that each individual RfA is a subpage, any idiot can see that. However, to newer users, it may not be clear how they're supposed to go about editing them. Some of them may figure out to copy and paste the subpage's title from the source of the RfA page, and some of them may figure out the "voice your concern" link, but most new people understand 'edit the wiki' as 'click the edit button'. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, so what does the quote "I can't communicate how shocked and appalled I am at the semi-protection of such a community-oriented page. If there is ANY page, ANY PAGE AT ALL that EVERYBODY needss [ sic] to be able to edit, it is the page where we choose those people that we entrust to read consensus" mean?? Cause it surely sounded like you didn't understand the fact that the protection did not affect the RFA process whatsoever. What you said even strengthens the viewpoints of those protecting the page. If a new user goes and clicks "edit this page," they aren't going to find anything to edit, so how is it any easier for a new user if this page isn't semi-protected. You can still view the source text, its not like the text goes invisible when a page is protected. If anything this will keep new users from making test edits on WP:RFA and force them to go to the talk page or figure it out themselves. Your arguments are not making any sense. If you want to argue that protecting this page was wrong because we dont protect pages unless there is a lot of vandalism, then be my guest, but please stop arguing that John made it harder for new users to vote on an RFA, because he didn't. Its that simple. But whatever, this argument is getting annoying, and as I promised, cheers and good luck editing. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) 17:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. If you log out and try to edit the page, you'll see realize that there is no "edit button" for each section. Obviously, yeah, the transclusion links are going to be the only thing if they try to edit the whole page, but obviously, that's going to happen whether its protected or not. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion is coming from the fact that there's no longer an [edit] button to the right of each RfA's section when the page is protected. Still, all you have to do is click on the RfA section, or follow the bolded "Voice you opinion" link and then edit, but (I think) Celarnor's point is maybe someone won't know that. I don't think this is a big problem; anyone able to find WP:RFA should be able to get to the individual pages fairly easily. I'm still against protection, but this isn't a good argument against it. -- barneca ( talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm realizing that I misunderstood this issue in my only post in this section. Just in case this comes down to some silly straw poll in the near future, I support protection of the RFA page, as the nominee's pages are transcluded and not affected by the protection. There has not been presented, IMO, a valid reason not to protect the RFA page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor there has been a reason to protect it either. The claim that "a lot of anons and new accounts vandalize it" is true for all pages; I don't see what makes WP:RFA special in this case. In fact, this page is heavily watched, and vandalism has never been an unmanageable problem. I don't see how this page qualifies under any of the three special cases allowed in the protection policy. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)