Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Mathbot gone wonky? 2 Why I don't !vote early on my own noms 3 13 RfAs going at the moment 4 Durin's graphs 5 How I vote/review candidates 6 Pink unsuccessful RFA template 7 Question 3 8 "rush of candidates" 9 Huggle - distorting the RfA picture? 9.1 Script assisted edits make it harder to judge a candidate during RFA 9.2 A totally separate point about Huggle 10 RfA is a discussion 10.1 Let's turn it around 11 Problem 11.1 arbitrary section break 1

Mathbot gone wonky?

The edit count simply isn't accurate. Enigma ^message 02:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xp54321‎ and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueking12. I hope I wasn't being too premature with my premature closings, but both were basically new editors and they were headed down a bad path. Enigma ^message 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you made the right call. I advocated a WP:NOTNOW on one of them. I think it's a fair essay and details premature RfA closings better than WP:SNOW. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As for apparent bot malfunction/loopiness, perhaps notify User:Oleg Alexandrov? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't dig deeper at the moment, but I reviewed the talk page again and the bot was generating it for User:Blueking, not Blueking12. Probably because Blueking12 did something wrong, although I can't say right now what specifically caused the problem. The bot thought it was for Blueking. Enigma ^message 02:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the issue is that the first section was ===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueking12|Blueking]]=== and the bot read the Link text. Maybe something needs to be added in the instructions. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See the original RfA page. The user did not follow the instructions, and presented himself as User:Blueking (an obvious redlink) instead of User:Blueking12. The bot, well, then found the edit summary usage for Blueking without the 12. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why we preview, Kids. Would an accurate count have changed anything here? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have most likely, but some of us aren't technically savvy : ), hence why we thought something might be afoot. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And of course by "technically savvy" I mean "observant", at least in this case. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have made the outcome much different, but I was misled into thinking the user only had 4 edits. :) Enigma ^message 04:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why I don't !vote early on my own noms

I suspect that some of you are wondering why I don't !vote on my noms until the end. It comes down to the practice of "Beat the Nom Support." I think beat the nom support's are one of the dumbest objectives people have in !voting. While I know that a person can be familiar with a candidate alreay, I find it disrespectful to the candidate. I mean, if a nom is transcluded on the hour, you really have to wonder how much research a person put into a candidate before supporting if they support at one minute after the nom is transcluded. I think some people TRY to "beat the nom" simply so that they can make that claim. Thus, I've decided to wait as a passive aggressive means of making a point. Even candidates that I am familiar with, I do some due dilligence in investigating. The only way I'll beat a nom is if the nom doesn't support early on.Balloonman (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well said. I've also had that concern. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always interpretted "beat the nom" support to mean "beat the nom" support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If I've seen on a talkpage that someone I know is setting up an RFA, I'll quite often do the contrib-reviewing and write the support/oppose etc before it goes live, and then paste it in once I see that the RFA's been transcluded, and I imagine a lot of others do the same. (I can assure you, it took longer than three minutes to write this, for example.) — iridescent 17:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note re above - I haven't chosen the above as an example to pick on E., it's just that she raised an identical "how did you write that so quickly" concern at the time so it's the first example to come to mind. — iridescent 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the Beat the Nom tag on a support is a little snarky - and I'm guilty of it as well - I usually review and evaluate candidate as soon as possible, either before the nom as Iridescent does, or right after transclusion. I do this because, if I let it go a few days, the chances of me remembering to come back and !vote are slim to none; doing it right then means that I know it'll get done. I always looked at the "Beat the Nom" bit as a dig on the nominator for not being on the ball as to when the candidate planned to transclude the nom, sort of a "pay attention" sort of thing. It's obvious that the nom supports. I don't think this practice is "First Post"-ish enough to end altogether, though I agree with you on a lot of what you say. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone actually supports just because they want to beat the nominator to it. naerii - talk 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And there are plenty of RfA's that I've supported seconds after transclusion, usually because I've seen them around a lot and have already formed an opinion or because I've had their talk page/their RfA page watchlisted. naerii - talk 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are sometimes where additional review and further consideration are not needed; there are a handful of people that I'd knee-jerk support the second I saw their RfA. I'll still watch the RfA to see if any surprises pop up, but if I'm already familiar with them, why use a fine-tooth comb? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

EVula makes a good point here: if one has heavy experience with the community, a substantial proportion of RfA candidates will not require candidate evaluation, in that the reviewing editor is already fully acquainted with the candidate. This factor manifests itself in the trends of "beat the nom" supporting: by and large, it is mostly only visible in especially-strong candidates (i.e., WP:100 material), where the name itself is evaluation enough.

I don't hold beat the nom voting as a significant problem, so long as it does not become a flag for mindless, "knee jerk" commenting–or, in other words, a highlight of editors blind voting without duly considering the candidate's merits. Anthøny 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-- outdent) My personal take is that "beat the nom" used to imply that a given editor was so aware of the candidate and their abilities that they were giving the upmost support i.e. "my supports even stronger than the nominators, that's how good this editor is". It has recently become less than that. As many are aware, I have a personal bug-bear with pre-transclusion comments in support (and oppose but they are unlikely! except those by the nominators which are given). If editors want to add "beat the nom" that's up to them. Just do it after the RfX goes "live". In general this seems to happen and I believe RfX's neither suffer nor benefit from these "beat the nom" comments - so in essence they do no harm. I do agree with Anthony above that "knee-jerk" commenting is a bad thing, self-evidently, but I personally find it fairly rare, certainly not to the point of skewing any individual request. Pedro :  Chat  19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Used to imply that a given editor was so aware of the candidate and their abilities that they were giving the upmost support, isn't that the truth. I don't mind beat the nom support on super strong candidates, it's the ones where the candidate has 3000 edits and has been around for four months that it bothers me. Now "beat the nom support" almost carries the implication of "I didn't do my homework." I know that there have been a few candidates that I've supported based solely on their "name recognition" that I've later had to withdraw the support because I hadn't done my homework.Balloonman (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask, what is wrong with a candidate who has 3000 edits but is otherwise trustworthy? bibliomaniac15 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that no one has done that at my RfA, even though one of the noms hasn't supported (VirtualSteve). Heh. Enigma ^message 17:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

13 RfAs going at the moment

There was much wailing and gnashing of the teeth about the paucity of successful candidacies in April (and the lack of candidates stepping forward), so this definitely merits a post! Enigma ^message 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing! Malinaccier (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Heck, we'll probably have ~20 promotions this month, as contrasted to 12 last month. Expect it to continue into June. Enigma ^message 23:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed: the amount of candidates running at the moment is encouraging. Last month was one of the worst months (if not the worst) of RfA I've seen in my time here. Acalamari 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we just had to wait for school to get out for summer, and some are still in (I'm not). -MBK₀₀₄ 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But we wanted you in school... Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah man, am I the only one going to school year round? Oh well. I'll have my Bachelor's degree in Business Management in December. Useight (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one going to school year-round for a respectable reason.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a 'non-respectable' [sp?] reason? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 05:58, May 21, 2008 (UTC)

(out-dent) Yes there is. You failed a course/class, and must take summer school to catch up. Dreamafter (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

End result: 16 candidates were promoted, and another two that started in May but will end in June (Xenocidic and Huntster) look like they'll pass. Enigma ^message 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Durin's graphs

Some of you might remember Durin creating some fascinating graphs on RfA statistics a few years back. I and probably quite a few others would be very interested to see updated versions of those, if any tech-savvy editors would care to create them. They'd shed quite a bit of light on the current status of RfA. --Rory096 06:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be interesting - I'll get to work on making them for the last ~12 months or so :) naerii - talk 12:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You might like to take a look at User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project. naerii - talk 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How I vote/review candidates

How I vote/review candidates Any comments?Balloonman (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just logistical. If number 6 is your most important criteria (which I agree, for you, it is), it should probably be listed as number 1. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Saving the best for last!Balloonman (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A year since the last block? That seems like kind of a stretch for 'learning your lesson'.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are in the "other area." Blocks may or may not have any actual impact on an !vote. If the candidate had been blocked in the past year, I would want to explore why. Was the block justified? How has the candidate changed since then? How did the candidate respond to the block? etc. As I believe the review period for candidates can be up to a year, I'll look for that. Anything older than a year, I will ignore--even vandalism blocks! But I added rationale to the comment.Balloonman (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty comprehensive! Not sure if I could find the time to spend several hours reviewing a candidate. Just one comment your first bullet point under "How I review..." ends in a question mark, should that be an exclamation? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty impressive and quite comprehensive, but the page could use some cleanup. Useight (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

clean up... yeah... that's why I don't contribute to articles as much any more. I'm not one for clean up ;-) Balloonman (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It takes all kinds... Enigma ^message 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pink unsuccessful RFA template

Question 3

Question 3 states:

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

If this was me answering, I would be sort of confused of what to say. Yes, I have had conflicts with a few users, but one is now blocked indefinitely. Me and Cowboycaleb1 had a dispute, to cut a long story short, after providing a SSP, he was blocked indef. Since then, he's created about 30 socks which have been aimed at attacking me. Would I for question 3 need to go into a lot of detail about this matter? I'm asking, because I don't which to see things like this:

1. Oppose - I would prefer the candidate to state how the dispute was started, and why he thinks socks are being aimed at him.

This seems to be a black area. I wouldn't wish to fail an RFA, because I don't want to go into detail on this matter. Besides I wouldn't call it a "conflict" when one half of the argument is blocked indefinitely. D.M.N. (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the type of conflicts that are being asked about here are conflicts between two users who are both acting in good faith, but still become involved in an edit war nonetheless. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic has it. Also, anything that might have resulted in a warning from a neutral/outside party, or even a short temporary block, say for 3RR or incivility. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, perhaps there was a dispute or a request for comment regarding an issue on an article's talk page where you clashed with another editor. That should qualify. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I just hope no one now goes "Oppose, you mention nothing about the dispute with Cowboycaleb1". D.M.N. (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think that comment might come up, then I'd suggest that you preempt it by clearly and succintly stating what the conflict was between you and Cowboycaleb1, how you handled it, and what the result was. I think people are more concerned to see how you've handled conflict more than the nitty-gritty details. Make your disagreement a plus for your RfA campaign. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) There's a difference between a conflict and a problem. Vandalism is a problem. You undo the vandalism and if necessary report the vandal to AIV. In contrast, a good-faith content dispute is a conflict. You talk to the other editors and try to work out a compromise. Your situation sounds more like a problem than a real conflict. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, a "good faith content dispute" is very far from a conflict. Wikispeak has gone far enough, without now labelling content discussions as conflicts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a variety of "conflicts" that can be used to answer this question. On my successful RFA I used the example of when I was confused for a vandal and blocked and then had to get everything straightened out. Useight (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Something else to keep in mind: a secondary purpose to this question is to allow a candidate to present a situation on their terms. If Mr. X mentions a dispute, it is more readily accepted than if someone "reveals" an otherwise-unmentioned dispute (ie: the appearance of impropriety is more damning than actual impropriety). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what EVula and Malleus Fatuarum mentioned, I've always figured a key purpose of the question is to demonstrate two things about yourself: first, that you keep cool under pressure, and second, that you're capable of working well with others (perhaps even if they're not). Those are probably connected. The wording is intentionally a bit vague because there are so many ways in which that can be challenged or expressed. By all means, mention multiple incidents and elaborate a bit on each, offering some background and letting us see that you've handled yourself well or learned a bit from any mistakes made. When the going got tough, how did you handle yourself, and what do you think about that handling? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"rush of candidates"

Well, one of the opposers to a current candidate has done so in part because of a rush of candidates and went on (on my talk page) to state seems that it has become a contest of “who can nominate” the most individuals or who has the “most successful” candidates. I couldn't disagree with this notion and "does not take into account the candidates disposition to the process." Personally, I couldn't disagree with this notion more, while I have nom'd 3 or 4 candidates already this month (and have 3 or 4 more lined up for the next 6 weeks) I do believe that I am looking closely at the candidates. Keeper, the other person with multiple noms, has likewise been very dilligent in noming candidates of quality (despite my jab at him earlier today.) (Although I do question Mal's nom---not because Mal isn't a quality candidate, but rather because his nom was doomed from the start.) Yes, there has been a wave of candidates, but this is more a result of last month having such a dearth of candidates. Last month was the worst month in about 4 years when it comes to RfAs!

I did want to note, because more than one person misinterpreted my edit summary on this edit. I saw Shoe's edit and immediately realized that his first reason to object might generate a lot of discussion that shouldn't occur on the RfA, but rather here on the Talk pages. To head off the discussion, I suggested moving said discussion here. When I used the edit summary, of "Baby Crying" it was because my five month old was crying and needed to be fed. At least two people misinterpreted that to mean that I was calling Shoe a baby.Balloonman (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While I've noticed candidates appearing in droves, I don't link that in anyway to bad faith nominations. All of the nominations have been sincere, and the non-self nominations have been done by respected users of the community. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is in fact a contest to see who can nom the most successful, you guys all lost already :) But in all seriousness, I do see your point. Since a bad run in January each candidate I have nominated I have done so carefully, and the end voting results hopefully have shown that. But yeah, if you nom 100 people that you have looked at very carefully, what's wrong with that? Nothing. Wizardman 03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agree, I'm not seeing any bad faith noms. At the same time, I hope most of the noms aren't too surprised at the reasons that several of these current RfAs are (likely) going to fail. This is of course OK, noms aren't about being 100% sure that the candidate will pass, just the nom being confident that said candidate will make a good admin. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The rush may be just the result of the end of the academic year in the US :) People are cramming for exams, but also spend a lot of time on the Internet... This is my guess anyway, if there is any other explanation than just a coincidence. No reason to assume bad faith. Pundit|utter 03:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand's comments alerted me to something. If one were to simply look at the current number of candidates and take into account their percentages, and the number of SNOW closes recently and finally extrapolating, I'd say roughly 50% are succeeding. For something that isn't a big deal, it sure seems like it. : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

50% are succeedng, but if you look at the serious noms (eg discount the self-noms) I'd say the number is closer to 2/3 are passing.Balloonman (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

2/3 of serious noms isn't really that great when you think about it though. Wizardman 04:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to start a debate or anything, but I think self-noms are serious, too. Useight (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I mistyped, I meant to write, "newb noms." You are entirely correct, self-noms can be serious noms with legit qualifications.Balloonman (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, makes more sense when in the context of editors with a couple hundred edits instead of the self-noms. Useight (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you to Balloonman for notifying me about this thread, and to you Balloonman I did not question or take offence to your edit summary, I chalked it up, to worse case, having a bad day, more likely, as you explained, a legitimate reason! Now, let me step-up on my soapbox again. Recently I have noticed that there has been a rash of nominations for candidates that are just lacking in the fundamentals regarding Policy and experience. Discounting self-nominations. Typically, this would be no big deal, if the average user and participate of Wikipedia was someone my age. However, and this is strictly a personal observation, it seems to me that a vast majority of the nominations are younger individuals, who may take the Rfa process to heart when the oppose comments are made. A vast majority are well read – well-intentioned – extremely talented writers and I feel by pushing them to run for Administrator before they are ready may be discouraging these individuals after the process. They are not only discouraged with the process, they are disgusted with Wikipedia. I believe we are doing no favors to the individuals, nominating before there time, but more importantly we are doing a disservice to the project. At this point, I am going to kiss my wife – hug the kids – and kick the dog. Good night all, for what it’s worth. By the way, I do believe that an overwhelming majority of you guys do a great job. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Self nomination does not mean a nom isn't serious or viable. These ridiculous standards are precisely what's causing RfA to be so crappy (and probably why we have those abysmal passing rates). --Rory096 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this has already been clarified above. It was a mis-typing. Almost universally, users treat both equally. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please read the above threads completely. It wasn't self-noms, but noob noms.Balloonman (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally did not think that my nomination was doomed from the start, and feel slightly offended at the thought. There is another candidate whose RFA is successfully going on right now with only 4 months of activity, and Scetoaux has been here about that long and had admin coaching. This, coupled with the fact that I believed Scetoaux to be completely capable (it was his own thought to go into an RFA) led me to think he would have a chance at RFA. The problem with this oppose from shoessss is that to have avoided this I would have had to almost game the system by coaching for an RFA, rather than coaching for adminship. In shory, I view the comments at his RFA rather pointy because there have been multiple candidates with as much--or less--experience than Scetoaux. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there's a nomination-race that's somehow leading to a rush of doomed RFAs, which seems to be the thrust here. As the (co) nominator of the highest-profile failed RFA of the current batch, this is only my second ever nom (and both were for the same candidate), although there are a couple more possibly in the pipeline. Further, at least one of the RFAs that's currently heading for fail was at one point winning 13-0 so was hardly an inappropriate nom. Given the rate at which admins are becoming inactive (we all know how many familiar faces are no longer around), I think we need a flood of new admins to prevent what I view as an unhealthy alliance of Jimbo's Alte Kämpfers and the policy-for-the-sake-of-policy brigade from getting even more of an unhealthy stranglehold on Wikipedia policy than they already have; I'll freely admit that I'm actively searching through the contrib histories of editors I deal with looking for potential new-admin material, and I think as many people as possible need to do the same. — iridescent 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Malinaccier, as I pointed out on your talk page, I was not singling you out personally. In addition, if you look at my contributions with regards to Rfa’s, I believe you will find that I am consistent with my opinion when it does involve lower edit counts, However, I believe this point is distracting from the view I was trying to make. Let’s face it, Wikipedia is attracting more and more attention. One of the main areas that a majority of the negative attention placed on Wikipedia has been is our handling of the newbie’s. Moreover, this reflects directly on our Aministrative staff. When neophytes, and to be honest I view anyone with less than 9-12 months service and a minimum of 6-10,000 edits as neophytes, hold the ability to Block – Ban- Delete or any other ability to control what a new editor contributes, as wrong. An individual with less edits, and more important to me, less time, has not had the opportunity to fully gauge the consensus and fundamental concept behind Wikipedia. In other words, maybe it is time to start placing minimum requirements on editors, before they can even apply for the extra buttons. This would eliminate individuals, who are not qualified by any standards from applying, there by saving their feelings and the communities’ time and effort. On the other hand, when an individual comes before the community requesting the privileges we would know they have been vented, at least to a minimum standard. Again, thanks for listening all. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but that's not my own belief. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :). Malinaccier (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA and noms thereto should not be a contest, but I also think the more admins the better, as long as they meet the RFA standard; consider all the backlogs we have for admin work. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle - distorting the RfA picture?

A number of points were raised in Aitias's RfA, which is due to close today. It is about the stance we should all take when an admin candidate uses the Huggle tool when on RC Patrol. Does it signify a hard working editor, or a way of cheating to get a high edit count in a short space of time? I've drawn up my argument at User:Lradrama/Huggle. I just think it needs some consideration. Thanks, Lradrama 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Three points. First, when huggle is used this much, it makes it extremely hard to properly review a candidate. Second, and I hope this isn't a controversial statement, but the great majority of huggle edits are virtually meaningless when it comes to deciding whether or not a candidate is eligible for adminship. Third, if the candidate has several thousand non-huggle edits interspersed between many more huggle edits, it's not their fault and that reason alone shouldn't be grounds for opposition. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs

As has been, and as will probably always be, it's up to people to make a judgment, case by case. Forming a common opinion isn't going to happen, no matter how many essays you write. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a significant issue with your essay, Lradrama, is that you state that your main work is vandal fighting. Sure, reverting vandalism is important, but when it's "my main occupation" you know there's a problem. And the problem isn't with the anti-vandal tool. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec - sorry xenocidic) Not that I'm a massive huggle fan. I don't use the tool, never have, never will. And you're allowed to have an opinion regardless of what you do, I respect that. But the real problems with huggle aren't that it takes other people's work, their jobs, their occupations—the fact that vandals are reverted faster is a good thing. The fact that clueless noobs use huggle is a bad thing, and the fact that clueless noobs then run for adminship with "zOMG 3 months of huggle" is a bad thing (for their self esteem if nothing else). But I'm not sold by your arguments for why huggle is bad. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the essay - is that your premises aren't following from what I've seen the last few weeks watching RfA. People have long since abandoned "editcountmatters" in supporting and opposing and are looking at the breadth of a users contributions, and often opposing when the majority of those are simply vandalism-reversion. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In response mainly to Dihydrogen Monoxide, I explain in the essay that the fact I am a vandal fighter has nothing to do with the point I am making. My concern is for RfA, not the area of work in general. Lradrama 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec - didn't get to wipe out my comments...) I just re-read the essay and had a wtf moment. New, revised, hopefully more relevant comment. Huggle is great for reverting vandalism. In the right hands it does really good things. In the wrong hands it does really bad things. This is generally irrelevant to adminship though; the recent trend (if not always) has been to look for the bigger picture, eloquently hidden outside the 6000 vandal reverts. Huggle or no huggle, this judgement isn't going to present itself.
I'm still not sure what I'm getting at. I don't particularly like Huggle, but I'm defending it here, because I think a lot of RfA (and other) commentary on it has been misguided, and just plain wrong at times. Only the incompetent builder blames his hammer. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blaming any sort of hammer :-S. Lradrama 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you're not one of the noob huggle users. That's what I was referring to (gosh, it's late)—Huggle in the wrong hands can do lots of bad stuff (reverting good faith edits and the like) and these people, when questioned at RfA about it, will say "yeah, but it's so fast". Like that's a good thing—I'm not convinced it is.

Anyway, to try and clear things up. Huggle is a good tool. Vandal reverting is important. Judging someone on whether or not they use Huggle is bad, but judging someone on the way in which they use Huggle is good. Am I agreeing with you? You work it out ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 14:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, Huggle is not making or breaking candidates, their other contributions are. Just look at my first attempt at nomination, the huggle edit count was a complete peripheral issue. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I knew releasing a personal project was a bad idea... -- Gurchzilla (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bad idea ;> xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

Right. Goodness me. Gurch, your tool is FANTASTIC. Got that? It's brilliant, and you are a genious for creating it.

BUT

It distorts (that means it makes it unclear) when it comes to RfA. A high edit count is good. A high edit count when users use Huggle and do a lot of other things on Wikipedia is good. A high edit count when users use Huggle and nothing else is, in my opinion, bad.Lradrama 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why releasing it was a bad idea; I should have kept it to myself :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is that huggle makes it harder to judge candidates, but that doesn't make it huggle's fault. a way to filter the contributions to eliminate script-assited edits may be a worthwhile tool to solve your problem. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it might. Lradrama 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

<ec x2>I feel like edit count has never been a useful way to judge a candidate or any Wikipedian. Vandal fighting has always gotten you more edits than, for example, creating articles. That's one thing I like about Huggle: it makes it clearer that editcountitis is a bad idea. Maybe it'll force us to look at a candidate in more ways, e.g. reading their talk page. delldot talk 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the real solution - edit counts are a horrible horrible way to judge if someone will be a good admin. Heck, I'd argue that editing articles does not necessarily make one a good admin. Talk pages is how we can see how someone resolves disputes and works. But then again, I'm on record of wanting to scrap RFA w/ some sort of admin arbcom - too many silly arguments on RfA as of late. -- Tawker (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tools may accentuate an editor's contributions, but they don't make the decisions behind the edits. If an editor puts a good tool to good use, they shouldn't be penalized because they favored efficiency. If voters are just looking at edit counts, that's also not the fault of the tools. --Onorem♠Dil 14:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal fighting is a key and important area of an admins work. Sifting through tens of thousands of Huggle edits in an RFA voting process is the point I'm getting at. I thought some people would twig that sooner than this Lradrama 14:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with the e/c)I think we've got that, and I still don't see how that is Huggle's fault and why it should be dreaded. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)When all you have is a hammer, then all problems start to look like nails. The problem with this analogy (and bear with me, there are more to come) is that Huggle isn't a hammer; it's a chainsaw. If I were fighting off waves of zombies I know which one I would prefer. However, if we're going to be handing out chainsaw then we shouldn't be too surprised if (a) occasionally people's houses fall down because some newbie got a bit too enthusiastic, and (b) RfA candidates show up who are in the habit of making snap judgments, using automated tools to implement the results, and moving on. No solutions here, just observations. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure why it's a problem that RfA candidates show up who are not qualified to be administrators. Isn't that inevitable, and the whole point of RfA? Gurchzilla (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Repeating a comment I made elsewhere but it seems the best analogy; I view tools like this in the same way I view firearms. They're very useful when used by people who are properly trained, but we don't hand them out to all-comers because of the potential for damage if they're misused. To save repeating myself, my thoughts on the matter (and Gurch's replies) are here. — iridescent 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit count isn't what makes or breaks an RfA these days. Assuming you have a few thousand edits, most people ignore it and focus on other things. I guess the idea is it could help someone who would've had 500 edits otherwise, achieve 3,000 more easily. But I don't view that as a big problem. The problem is that there isn't a way to filter out anti-vandalism edits from the rest. You can see that a candidate is familiar and experienced enough with anti-vandalism with only a few hundred edits. However, when someone spends hours on Huggle, those edits can drown out everything else in the contribs, and it makes it more difficult for people who are trying to judge the candidate. It's an ancillary effect of having such a great tool. By the way, we're all in debt to Gurch for this, whether we realize it or not. Enigma ^message 15:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a way to filter out anti-vandalism edits from the rest; make a separate account for those. This becomes difficult if minimum requirements to use tools are put in place, though, since the new account will not meet them -- Gurchzilla (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that could be easily solved by pointing to the "main non-vandal fighting account" as meeting the requirements. I still think it would be best to create a tool to filter out the script-assisted edits if this is a major problem for judging RFA candidates. Does huggle identify itself in the edit summary? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, just write a perl script to query the API and filter out huggle edits. _{1 != 2} 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OK, but I don't like the idea of a vandal fighting account tbh. All we need is something that removes automatic edit summaries from the candidate's contribs that anyone can use if they want to see what the contrib list looks like without them. The reason I don't like a separate 'vandal-fighting account' is that vandal fighting is an important area of work on this encyclopedia. An important admin-area of work too. It shouldn't be the only area of work though, hence the post. Lradrama 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually just go through the users talk page history looking for any indication of trouble, and any threads that may have been removed without archiving. Any editor who has even just wikignomed long enough will be difficult to do an edit by edit audit. I don't think there really is a problem here. _{1 != 2} 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not strictly speaking an RFA issue, but I believe there's a huge amount of over reliance on these automated tools. I do new page patrol, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone come by and slap yet-more templated warnings on some user talk page when the issue is already being discussed in plain English by people who are actually using their own words. People's eyes gloss over with these templated messages. I suspect the people using these tools are focused more on going fast than on paying attention to particulars. Friday (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone swings a hammer about blindly that does not mean the hammer is faulty. Same goes here, if someone blindly tosses warnings about with the tool that does not mean it is the tools problem, it is the use of the tool. I would say that without automated vandal fighting tools we would not be able to keep up. _{1 != 2} 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's the incompetent manner of using the tool that I object to, not the tool itself. Some fool may use a chainsaw to cut his morning waffles but this does not mean chainsaws are bad. Maybe more should be done to control who can use these tools? I'm completely technically incompetent when it comes to such things- some of these tools are client-side software and some are scripts that run on the server, right? So I'm not real sure what can be easily controlled or not. Maybe in the long-term these tools can be worked into mediawiki itself, so we have some ability to control them, just like turning on and off rollback. Friday (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lra, your essay is based upon a false premise. The premise is that edit counts matter. While a low edit count can tell you something about the individuals experience, a high edit count tells you absolutely nothing about the candidate---this is particularly true in the day of bots/tools. The tools hurt the candidate in that you don't get to see how they reason---and a high edit count (6K edits in 4 days) is a strong indicator of a person who isn't thinking, but serving as an automaton.Balloonman (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As we've been discussing at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback‎, we can simply restrict its use to people who have already been granted rollback. Also, as I was saying earlier, Balloonman is right. Enigma ^message 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great way to resolve the abuse issues without forcing Gurch to come up with an approval method, but there may still be some use for a tool which can filter out automatic edit summaries in judging an RFA candidate. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I already came up with an approval method – which you can enable now by going here and changing "approval:false" to "approval:true" if you so wish – but it simply turns the user list into an approval list, and some people seem not to be convinced that this would be worth the extra work that it would make for administrators -- Gurchzilla (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be to our advantage to mark automated tool edits and bot edits differently from manual edits. For a variety of reasons. However, I suspect this might be difficult to implement.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I use Huggle, not because it's fast, but because it automates the housekeeping, and I'm a slow hunt and peck typist. I don't make snap judgments unless it's very obvious, so if there is any question, I either take the time to research it, or just pass it by. If Huggle is a hammer, then it's up to the user to hit nails and not foreheads or fingers. In other words, personal responsibility. As far as using Huggle to increase an edit count, that is a pattern that can be spotted. Huggle could also tag it's self, much like WP:Twinkle does in the edit summary: (TW). But if the edits are good edits done manually, then they are also good edits done with Huggle, as far as a RfA goes, or anywhere else. And, BTW, I don't have 500 mainspace edits, although I've been active for about a year. I think decisions primarily based on Editcountitis is wrong, maybe even more evil than voting, whether for a RfA, or determining qualifications anywhere else, including the upcoming Surveyor user rights. So thank you Gurch for releasing Huggle, a wonderful tool. — Becksguy (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, for goodness SAKE I am NOT saying that a high edit count or a low edit count should determine the outcome of an RfA. This seems like the umpteenth time I have said this, and I'm now getting tired of people seemingly unable to get their head round what I think is a simple statement. I've already had to dumb it down once, and I can't make it any simpler than it is now.

Read it again. Sifting through a vast amount of automatic edits to search for sporadic manual ones is a hindrance. What in that essay of mine suggests I base my RfA votes on an edit count size?Lradrama 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You did mention that it can lead to a high edit count, thus paving the way to RfA more easily (if you're concerned about not having enough edits). That was one of the two concerns, the other being the difficulty in sorting. The discussion branched out a little bit. It's not a knock on you or your essay. Sometimes discussions go on tangents that don't seem to totally address the original point. Enigma ^message 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I just point something out? Reviewing the contributions of users who make many minor edits is and always has been a problem. Surely, though, it is equally problematic regardless of the nature of the edits, or the care with which they were made? Thus it would seem to be an issue separate from the issue of misuse of Huggle by inexperienced contributors; these two distinct issues seem to be being lumped together here which is a little confusing -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Gurch. Two different issues are being lumped together here and they should be separate ones. — Becksguy (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Huggle tagging edit summaries like Twinkle does? — Becksguy (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that it seems to use native rollback a lot of the time (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps a tag similar to "m" that would be "s" - script-assisted edit. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, yes. I see what you mean. I only used Huggle as an example because it makes such a lot of automated edit summaries, which make RfA more difficult. All edit summary tools do this. Being handed out to inexperienced users isn't a good idea, as people like Irediscent have discovered. The nature of the edits is of no matter - they're all automatic.Lradrama 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't tagging the edit with an s require developer resources, although I like it. Tagging the edit summary could be done within the Huggle application. — Becksguy (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Set an arbitrary time limit. Any editor who has been here for less than that amount of time is simply not granted the option of using such a tool. Give admins the discretion to grant the use to editors who show they know what they are doing and request such tools prior to the time limit. Boom. Problem. Solved. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We've never been able to set an arbritrary minimum edit count, I don't think we'll see consensus for an arbritrary time, say of 6 months or something. Useight (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Oops, you were referring to a minimum time to use Huggle, not to run an RFA. My bad. Useight (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If we can't get a consensus of 6 months for RfA's why would we have it for a tool like huggle?Balloonman (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be extremely useful though? Why not? Lradrama 17:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When Gurch was on leave, there was a subpage of Wikipedia:Huggle set up for editors applying for Huggle; I think one of the criteria was 2 months editing experience. EJF (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We had to set it up on the fly. I was working with User:Equazcion on it, and this is what we ended up with. Enigma ^message 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Script assisted edits make it harder to judge a candidate during RFA

← We're straying again from the topic of this thread which is not whether Huggle can be/is abused - it's that script-assisted edits make it harder to wade through a user's contribs when judging RFA candidates. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha thats the point I was initially making before we strayed off an about 4 different points. ;-) Lradrama 18:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not initiate a thread at the Village Pump to attempt to have a "script-assited" flag instituted? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As one of the strayers (in part), I agree. Or do it Twinkle style, as that will make filtering edits easier. — Becksguy (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for those of you whom only care about stats and numbers, see my tool. I just added *some limited* script detection for users with less than 25,001 edits. SQL^{Query me!} 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not picking up my twinkle edits for some reason. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! :) At some point TW changed from using WP:TWINKLE to WP:TW... SQL^{Query me!} 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but... so what? Editors shouldn't use scripts to edit because it'll make things harder for us when (if?) they run an RfA? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be the point of the discussion. I think that's why we went off on so many different paths with this. I think we want to avoid a situation where someone who has been using script-assisted editing for the majority of their recent activities is not prevented from passing RfA because of it. Establishing some general guideline that weeds out established editors using scripts versus editors who use scripts from day one purely to rack up an edit count that cannot be easily perused in an RfA would behoove us. Likewise, there even needs to be some discussion on the legitimacy of an editor who may be here for a year, only uses scripts, and puts up an RfA in good faith. So long as they have not abused the script there would be limited reason to oppose someone like that. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My TW edits show 62 now (before it was 2). I really like the tool, SQL. Nice, especially the percentages. EVula, but scripts help with the editing process, especially the housekeeping aspects. — Becksguy (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, I never suggested that people not use them. I, personally, don't like them (and with 27k total edits under my belt, I've established that I don't really need them), but I hold no ill will from those that are productive with them. I was only pointing out that the initial point of discussion was more a general statement than a "call for action" that it seemed like it should be. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the use of scrip tools make it difficult to examine user contributions? Perhaps. Honestly though, what are you going to do? If you're unilling to peruse the edits of a candidate for this reason alone, then simply don't !vote in the RfA. It wouldn't be fair anyway. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If use of a script makes it harder for you to judge a candidate's contributions, then whose problem is it? The candidate shouldn't have to suffer. If they have used the tool in good faith, it shows just as much as a candidate performing reverts with no tool at all, except with greater volume. It is not and will never be true that we have too many administrators dedicated to fighting vandalism. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A totally separate point about Huggle

I am now depressed. I had never heard of Huggle until I ran across this discussion. I knew that there are other vandalism fighting tools out there—I had signed up for one once; either Twinkle or VandalProof, I can't remember which, but I could never figure out how to use it—but long ago resigned myself to leaving these things to you young technophiles out there. But now, as I read about this, it just depresses me. I literally can have fun doing RC patrol (my MO is to use one of the warmer and more welcoming messages to anon vandals), even though I am beat to the punch by a bot 80% of the time. But now I read about this Huggle, and how it is so fast that it distorts edit count figures (not that I care about that), and I'm left to feeling like a farmer using an ox-pulled stone plow in a field fertilized only by same ox who is told about these hunking huge John Deere tractors pulling plows that do 16 furrows simultaneously. It's like, I feel so stupid that I've been taking pride in my work, while someone using these new tools is probably literally doing 16 times the work I'm doing, in less time, and with fewer rocks in their field. I mean, is there even a point to doing what I've been doing? Unschool (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There's still a point, cowpoke. But you should try out Huggle. I checked it out today just to see what all the fuss was about. It's extremely intuitive (I didn't even read the instructions). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 01:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Users not reading the instruction is I think part of the problem here, so I would recommend you do even if you think you know what to do -- Gurchzilla (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to be quick when doing RC patrol, so I can understand the allure of Huggle as it is useful for quickly undoing blatant vandalism or page blanking. Here's where the accidental errors come into play. You see a page blanked, you click the revert/warn button to the left and boom, right before you do, cluebot undoes it (or somebody else) and you inadvertently revert back to the vandalized version. That will happen numerous times (I personally tried Huggle out for a few nights and I have since been turned off). There's always nobility when patrolling and combating vandalism. Give Huggle a chance. If you like it, stay with it. If not, get rid of it. No one will hold it against you. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This should no longer happen; Huggle asks for confirmation when reverting a whitelisted user (which includes ClueBot, of course) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel depressed. I use Huggle to help with the housekeeping, not to go fast, as going fast can lead to snap decisions that may be incorrect. And yes, there is very much a point in doing what you are doing. Every bit helps in vandal fighting, and collectively we make a difference. — Becksguy (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've used Huggle a little, thought I'd give it a try after I surpassed the 10,000 edit mark. I have made a couple mistakes, but I was able to just undo my edit and fix it. The trick is paying very close attention. Blatant vandalism will be reverted by someone (or a bot) within a matter of seconds. What I do is, if I know I was too slow, I wait a bit longer. If it doesn't revert, that means nobody is going to, so I can safely hit the button without chancing it. Plus, the revert button washes out when someone else is reverting. So, all in all, it's not really all that error prone if you just pay real close attention to what you're doing. However, I've only used it for a couple hundred edits or something, so I might not have taken a large enough sample. Useight (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though Huggle is indeed the most efficient tool out there, I do still find that a standard rollback tool is still highly capable when patrolling the RC. Unschool, are you doing it the old school way? Lradrama 19:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget rollback wasn't available to non-administrators until January -- Gurchzilla (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I really am old school. I revert by first, hitting the diff to identify potential vandalism, then I hit "undo", it shows me the comparison, and then I save my undo. Most of the time when I do this and then look at the history I see that someone else has beaten me to it; sometimes it's already been reverted when I hit the diff! But when I do get the revert, I then go to the user page and place a welcome anon greeting. So are you all laughing at me? Hey, what can I say? I'm just not a technophile, I guess. Unschool (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

When I first started Wikipedia, I didn't notice the 'undo' button, so when reverting vandalism I would open the edit page, open the previous revision in another tab, and copy and paste the unvandalised version over - and before THAT I used to scroll through the edit text to locate the vandalism and remove it by hand :P naerii - talk 23:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unschool, you do have rollback. You don't need to add any software or anything to use rollback. Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback has an okay walk through of how rollback works. Rollback is super fast and, once you get used to it, much faster than the way you're doing it. Please let me know if you have any questions Darkspots (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Okay, if I'd looked at your talk page instead of just checking your user rights, I would have seen that you got rollback a couple hours ago, after your last post. Good luck with it! Darkspots (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I made more than 6000 or so edits, 99% of them manual revision (with a few undo's when they were introduced) before getting sysopped and getting rollback along with the whole kaboodle. Sort of like moving from a fire-sharpened spear to a bronze sword. I tried Popups, but the yellow boxes popping up everytime my mouse hit something was absolutely aggravating. I don't mind users primarily being vandal fighters or using automated tools to do so, as long as they are rarely wrong. bibliomaniac15 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, thanks for sharing your tales of ignorance; it certainly made me smile. Well, User:Gonzo_fan2007 has thrown Rollback my way. By total coincidence, my first edit with Rollback was my 7000th edit, which was kinda cool. I've played with it a while now; in a way, it makes me a bit more nervous—I could always hit "undo" immediately and then think for a moment before saving it, and with this you have to have it right the first time. Anyway, it is pretty cool. Only thing that would make it better would be if it automatically left the message of my choice on the vandal's talk page—that I'm still doing manually, but even that's quicker with this. So I'm good, thanks for all the comments, and happy editing, everyone. Unschool (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Only problem? I've always felt that, even if it was fun, RC patrol was like a duty. I did it as "payment" for the time I get to spend actually writing. But this is so easy, I can actually see that some people could let their brains rot and do nothing else but RC patrol. Unschool (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Unschool, I could not agree more with your last statement. Vandalism reversions are vital to the integrity of the encyclopedia, but if that is 100% of your time here, then by definition, the only thing you're doing here is making Wikipedia smaller. Huggle users/RCP's and VPs need to think about possible adding to the encyclopedia as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) Whilst I respect your opinion Wikipedia has/had the problem of vandalism occurring faster than an RC/new page patroller could revert it. Whilst this has been largely helped by bots and technical addition's (semi protection, soft blocking etc) there will always be a need for manual RC patrollers. But whilst we are also here to build an encyclopaedia an article that says "jo bloggs sucks *****" sets a bad experience for the reader and damages the wiki. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort written by an inclusive community. If someone helps to create/protect a finished Wikipedia be it content writing, RC patroller image licensing it all helps to reach the end goal and that's the important thing, A Free Encyclopaedia :) Benon (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I will simply speak for myself and state that for my own satisfaction, that I need to do more than RC patrol. Unschool (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, there's no reason for us to value the contributions of an editor who only reverts vandalism any less than someone who gnomes. Vandalism reversion is vital. If they don't care to write or gnome, this is a great way to help improve the 'pedia. It's all volunteer, and no one is required to do anything. We're not lacking articles, so as long as they're being constructive, we should all be pleased. Lara❤Love 15:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lara. Users should be able to contribute however they want, without being made to feel inferior if they don't contribute to certain areas. Wikipedia can currently survive without article writers, but it can't survive without vandal fighters. Epbr123 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that's only true because the article writers already wrote a couple million articles. But, true, there are plenty of different places where an editor can work using different techniques and different styles. All specialities (except trolling and vandalizing) are a net positive. Useight (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Though, even if we were in need of articles, people always naturally go to different areas and pick up different interests. You may not think much of the janitor at your place of employment, or the garbage man, or the driver of your kid's school bus, but they're all doing vital jobs, and they should be respected for it. Same goes for vandal fighters. They're doing a job a lot of us hate doing (I hate it, anyway), so they should be appreciated respected for it. Lara❤Love 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How high use of automated tools, not just huggle, affects one's edit count needs to be taken into consideration on any RFA and each case judged on its own merits, with this issue as a factor. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA is a discussion

We all know that RfA is a discussion and not a !vote (!). Then why don't we make it appear as such? Right now, half of the process is indeed a vote (the support section), and the other half is a discussion (the oppose section). When supporting, we generally give a brief reason such as "great editor" or "i trust him/her". Why not "I trust them + dif"? Or, I trust them because....(add reason(s))? And sometimes we only just put our name and timestamp (I've done this many times before, just wanted to get that out of the way)! But heaven forbid we do this in the oppose section (there has to be a logical reason to do so right?). So why don't we do it with the supports? Wouldn't this turn the whole process into a discussion, like we often tell everyone? It might even alleviate a few of the past issues we've had with failing to reform. I'm aware that this has traditionally been how we confirm adminship, but it strikes me as contrary to a discussion. So I propose we change the standard. When supporting, we not only give reasons for doing so, but we show everyone else how we came to this conclusion. I'd like to see more reasons why a candidate is trusted, or ready for the role, and less Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. Although, typically, when you see a '''Support''' --~~~~, it is the 60th or so support, and it would be slightly redundant to what was already said above. The first support !vote in an RfA usually gives a long reason. But I agree that if we were to just put '''Oppose''' --~~~~ in the oppose section, our !vote would most likely be disregarded. I think just a general heads-up at the top of the RfA page that stated something similar to "when you participate in an RfA, please give your reason as to why you believe an editor would or would not do well as an admin" would be a good idea. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always seen the support section as a place to concur with the nominators or, in the case of self-noms, agree with the candidate that they would make a good admin. Since the discussion starts off with what amounts to a strong support as the nomination itself (and, indeed, cannot start without it), the comments under support can call back to that. Oppose, however, has to start from scratch, which also explains why the oppose !votes are so much longer - they must provide more depth. I concur that I'd like more reasons to support, but in many cases my reasons have already been stated; supporting per my more eloquent colleagues is perfectly fine (if a little lazy on my part). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the case of a self-nom, it can start without the aforementioned Strong Support. As to what SM said, RfA has always had this apparent contradiction. It's generally been explained away as WP:NBD, because since adminship isn't supposed to be a big deal, only opposes should require a rationale. I agree that it would only improve the process if more people did their homework and gave a rationale. Enigma ^message 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe having a Devil's Advocate system, where someone official tries to poke holes in a candidacy, would even the playing field. But that feels too much like Sainthood, and flies in the face of adminship being no big deal. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What you just described is only a teensy bit away from how some people look at RfA questions. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sainthood" made me laugh. It's just like that. . .btw, where do I go to pick up my halo? Or is that just for those angels? <grouse>they get all the perks. . .stupid angels.</end grouse> R. Baley (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The presumptive position is AGF which equate to support. One should support a candidate unless there are reasons to oppose. Thus, while I don't have to give a reason to support, I do have to give a reason to oppose because opposing isn't AGF.Balloonman (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman's got it exactly right. The default position for an RfA is support; because the consensus percentage for RfA is around 75%, each oppose is worth 3 supports, thus requiring more justification. GlassCobra 16:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. I don't see much point in every supporter waxing poetic about their rationale; in the end, it boils down to "I agree with the nomination", and there are only so many ways one can do that. Opposers, on the other hand, should explain why they disagree, but asking someone why they agree doesn't make as much sense. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree... Balloonman (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF we must support unless we have reason otherwise, so support votes do not need resons opposes do. Zginder 2008-05-28T16:14Z (UTC)

• I always thought that the best explanation regarding supports and opposes was made by Dorftrottel here. Acalamari 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's turn it around

Ok, SM, you propose requiring supports to justify their support because right now only opposes have to do so. Are you also prepared to have people challenge every support? Right now, there are some RfA's where just about every single oppose is challenged. If I had to justify my supports against the hostility that opposes sometimes gets, then I just might never contribute to RfA again.Balloonman (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related "turn it around" note, I find the "please don't heckle the opposes," "User:___ has a right to his/her/their opinion," etc. extremely annoying. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as the response to the oppose is related to the content, I too agree. I do, however, have a problem when people attack the opposer---ala snide comments towards Kurt. Attack the idea, not the person.Balloonman (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not Balloonman. This is supposed to be a discussion after all. But this should not be akin to heckling. Just a polite comment, possibly saying something like I said in EVulas RfB. Which would or should look like: Hello (followed like the editors username). This has caught my eye. Would you please be so kind as to elaborate?

I don't think this would have an apparent negative effect on any RfA/B, only a positive one. I can't see this as a reason to stop participating though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that type of comment is a lot better than "omg stfu"-type comments. (though I have to admit that I'd laugh pretty hard if I ever saw that in an RfA) As long as a comment is taking umbrage with the specifics of the argument and not the editor (like Balloonman said, the best example of this is Kurt), the comments should stay. If someone can't defend their argument, it shouldn't be used to oppose a candidate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I meant what SynergeticMaggot said. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem

We need more admins. We need more experienced admins. We need more capable admins. How do we get them? Well a bit more training leading up to RfA would help. And a different system for picking the successful candidates from those trying for RfA would help. Just insisting we do more of what we are currently doing, which is to look only for the safest cleanest lily white candidates with as little experience as possible and absolutely no controversy in their backgrounds might not be serving our interests very well.

So...maybe some slight changes are needed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Training leads to opposes for being "cookie cutter" and "coached". :) Enigma ^message 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yuppers, that certainly describes the candidates that I've nominated... 3 of my last four have broken 100 supports... and I have one that currently might break 200. But yes, we do need to get more candidates, and we do need to prepare candidates better (of course, there is a rash lately of "opposes because of admin training." Which is the dumbest oppose rationale I've ever seen... even worse than "self nom.") But I do not believe your questions help with that. In fact, I think they would hinder getting qualified candidates. 20 Questions is NOT the way to encourage qualified candidates to run.Balloonman (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• With respect, I don't feel that the "coached" opposes are the dumbest ones ever. Certainly I think they're wrong, but new records have been recently set in the book... Enigma ^message 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that no matter how we phrase it..coached..mentored..trained..it will always garner said opposes, which I agree, are some of the absolute worst I've seen. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, perhaps it would help if you, OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch and Raymond arritt didn't all oppose the same people who happen to edit in the subject of intelligent design who don't follow the same views as you... Al Tally ^talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if the three of us don't vote for McCain, but voite for Obama or Clinton, then that'll mean ...??? Most oppose or support votes in trhese tings are based on experience with the user in question: often, negative experiences in one topic will carry more weight than any other experiences elsewhere. It's called Human nature. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question to Al, do you believe that there is in fact a scientific controversy surrounding ID? I'm curious to know where people are coming from. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[Facepalm] Its obvious he does. Because he was responding to a "concern" of Fillls that people with "controversy" in their backgrounds don't pass RfA. To which he responded that more would if there weren't bloc opposes, to some of which some of you - he implies in dastardly manner - might have contributed. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did there - you dropped "scientific" in - if he agreed, it could be pronounced from the four cardinal directions at every opportunity that he's a creationist. It explains an otherwise puzzlingly unnecessary question.

No, I suspect he knows that there's no scientific controversy, but that politically it is controversial. Happy? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not the subject, but the ganging up. See Dihydrogen Monoxide's RfA, Coppertwig's, Thumperward and probably loads more. See a similarity with the opposers. And it's obvious there's been canvassing going on (OrangeMarlin has done his part on-wiki, Filll off-wiki). Quite dismaying, and considering there's about half of the ID wikiproject opposing DHMO, there is something very corrupt going on. Al Tally ^talk 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty to say on this subject. But this is not the appropriate time or place for it. Have you actually looked at the DHMO situation? I suspect you have not from your post.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good training is a good thing. But, what we generally have now is not good training, it's the "No child left behind" of the Wikipedia world (apologies to non-Americans who may not know what that is- see the link.) If you want to teach people to be clueful Wikipedians, I'm with you. If you want to teach them how to pass an RFA, I'm against you. The weird thing is, we already have well-known conventional Wikipedian wisdom about gaming the system and it's widely recognized as harmful. Yet, we have people actively trying to teach others how to game RFA. If you say "I want to get sensible editors to pass RFA, and RFA is so fucked up that admin coaching is the only way I know to do this" then I agree with your intent but not your methods. If RFA is fucked up, teaching people how to game it merely perpetuates the problem. Fix people's standards instead, and then no gaming is needed. Hell, I'm far from convinced that gaming is needed now, and I think people's standards have many common problems that need fixed.

As for useful training, well, people learn by doing. We all learned how to edit by actually editing. Admins learn to use the admin tools by actually using the admin tools. Mistakes are part of the process, too. If anyone ever wants practical advice on what to do in real situations, there are plenty of other editors willing to help out. Coaching people on tools they can't use yet is.. not a good use of anyone's time. Friday (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, that's the criticism of the Admin coach program, and Balloonman has addressed this a few times in the past. I'm sure there are a few cases of people teaching candidates to WP:GAME the system, but with most of the coaches, that's simply not the case. It's not the goal of admin coaching to game the process, and most of the coaches are very responsible people who realize that. If you have specific cases of coaches teaching candidates to game RfA rather than to train them to become better potential admins, maybe you should bring it up with the individual coaches, or with the Wikipedia:Admin coaching coordinators, namely User:MBisanz and User:Balloonman. I'm sure they would be willing to listen, whether via e-mail or via their talk pages. Enigma ^message 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly am a tougher critic on people who have gone through coaching... and unfortunately, there have been some people who I felt were not coached well. It's why I wrote my essay The Coach. But I strongly oppose the assumption that coaching is bad or designed to game the system. I take great pride in the effort that I put out to improve the quality of people I work with---and I know others do so as well. I've refused candidates who I felt were ready for adminship. I look for people who I think have potential, but need help. I have a candidate who will be transcluding tomorrow that I've been working with for over 3 months, the person he is today is vastly different from who/what I started with. I worked with H2O to change his image via Maturity, responsibility, and civility. I'm currently working with a candidate (who under normal circumstances I probably would have rejected as he is very close to being ready) but has definite gaps. I don't seek the "drive by" but rather "establish a footprint" mentality because by establishing footprints you get feedback on your contributions and learn from your mistakes. You also get a sense that there is more to an area when you establish a footprint than you do on drive bys. Similarly, there are other admin coaches who work hard and try their damnest with people who work hard and are sincere in their desire who run into these idiotic assume bad faith opposes. If the candidate didn't get good coaching or still has holes, then oppose. But the assumption that coaching is prima facia evidence a bad thing, I'm sorry, but if you have that attitude, then I put that opinion up with other arguments that are prima facia.Balloonman (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This further explanation tells me that my reservations about coaching are well founded. H2O is a great example. Plenty of opposers cite maturity concerns, but some of the supporters have remarked that he seems surprisingly more mature now. If H2O's remarkable change of appearance is the result of you actively helping him do this.. that's no good. I don't doubt he can do the job, under ideal circumstances, with you telling him what to do. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in how he will do the job in real life, which often involves stressful or non-ideal circumstances. I'm willing to believe your coaching can actually help him act differently in the short term. I'm way less willing to believe your coaching can actually change his fundamental temperament. Are you teaching him to be a good admin or to have the appearance of someone who would be a good admin? These are two very different things. Friday (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As this is an ongoing RfA, I'm not going to limit my comments directly related to H20's case. But behavior modification is the most difficult challenge. And behavior issues are the most difficult one to convince others is real. It is easier to get somebody to learn policies that they are unfamiliar with (which I've done.) It is easier to get people to work in other areas such as article building or "adminly areas" (which I've done.) It is a lot riskier to take the challenge of behavior modification. Even if they are real, people will doubt them---which is why I did so... I honestly don't know if there is another admin coach who would even tackle it! Again, I'm not going to comment on specifics, but any endeavor into coaching/training has risks. I would be surprised if any of his opposer's will ignore the potential that H2O has as an admin or the contributions he has made to wikpedia. So let me ask you this. Is H2O better off having been worked with for 3 months on his civility/maturity/responsibility or the same? Is he better off having somebody tell him the bone headed things he's done and how they might be perceived or left to his own devices? Even if he doesn't fully embrace change, do you not think that having somebody he respects drill into him the message of civility/maturity/responsibility won't have any positive effects in the future? I suspect that they have---and thus, I like to think that I might have had some permanent long term impact on him---not just here but in his real life. (If you read his coaching, I was pretty critical of some of his actions---but if you saw some of the emails that I sent him where I didn't hold back any punches...) Are the changes permanent? I would like to think so, otherwise I would not have nom'd him. As for your question, Are you teaching him to be a good admin or to have the appearance of someone who would be a good admin? I can tell you categorically, that I like to think I was encouraging him be a better person... which will serve him positively as an admin. Read my coaching (any of my coaching) and I am very clear about not "making appearance" but real change. If that isn't the aspiration of good training, then I'd like to hear what you think would be?Balloonman (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, your comments above show your prima facia perspective coming out again. You assume the worst and condemn the process not because of what it does or aspires for, but because you want to make an assertion. You judged it without seeing what was said or how it was said. You assume that I'm baby-sitting him, when in reality, he's baby-sitting himself. He had regular reviews, where I tried to review his edits, but at no point did I or anybody tell him what to say or how to say it. We challenged him on what he said and often asked him to reflect on his actions. But you decided that you don't like H2O, therefore anything associated with him making any progress must be bad. I'm sorry if this sounds a little rude, but your prima facia assumptions are simply without basis or merit... they carry all of the objectivity of other prima facia arguments I've heard.Balloonman (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to clear a couple things up.. I don't doubt that you're doing what you think is best. I doubt whether you've accomplished what you think you have accomplished. Also, it's not about like or dislike. I try to never like nor dislike any editor- it would cloud my judgment. And, who I like is irrelevant anyway. I don't care who is a nice guy, or who tries very hard. I care who is competent. Anyway, I'm not a mind reader, so I can't know what's in a candidate's mind. I can only go on things I have observed. The behavior I've seen from H2O includes many instances of immaturity. I'm not willing to believe this is somehow all behind him after a few months of coaching. It's not realistic. Friday (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Then oppose based on what you see/don't see in the candidate. Don't use a straw man prima facia argument that coaching is evil and wrong. That's just ludicrous. Opposing somebody by default because they took the time and effort to try to improve themselves? You are attacking both the coach and coachee without having ANY basis. Many coaches put a lot of effort into helping coachees learn and improve, but you discount it because you think coaching is by definition wrong. That's a bigger insult than saying somebody who self-noms is power hungry.Balloonman (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 1

I would favor a probationary period for new admins even, with some training requirements.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Give me some reasonable way of implementing probationary new admins and suddenly I'll have a much lower bar on who I'll support. As long as hot-headed or otherwise incompetent admins waste so much volunteer effort before they can be deposed, I'll continue to have very high standards. Friday (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That, I think, lies at the heart of the problem with the present RfA process. A bit of coaching, keeping your nose clean for a few months, you're an administrator for life. Almost no matter how unsuitable you subsequently turn out to be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA is not the problem. Blame lies with the community's inability to implement an effective WP:RfDA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not an inability, it's an unwillingness. Therefore RfA remains the problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think there's plenty of willingness to get rid of bad apples (at least on the part of non-admins; self-interested admins are naturally resistant to such suggestions)--but meaningful changes to such policies are all but impossible to execute. Meanwhile, admins enjoy the impunity of answering only to an arbitration committee that rarely acts. How would tweaking or overhauling the RfA process address this reality?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you consider the boundaries of the "RfA process" to be. The voting part should be just the start, not the end. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll above said that we need more capable and experienced admins, and I agree with that. So then we have to look at how to get such a person. Obviously a new admin cannot be experienced, so that rules them out. So our pool of capable and experienced admins needs to come from the new admins (after some time), who come from the experienced editors. I'm an engineering employer in RL, and that's basically what we do. I employ lower skilled people, who over time move on to more advanced skills and then on to management (for some). We don't have a process in the middle of all this that measures people against a standard set by comparison with those who have much more experience. A probationary system is one way of enforcing this kind of natural learning of new skills. If a new admin was restricted either by policy or guideline or whatever to certain areas of work or actions, while being encouraged to have input into the more complex and contentious areas, they could gain experience without the potential pitfalls, both for themselves and the project as a whole. Once a certain time had passed, then we accept them as a full admin like all the rest. By doing this, we could lower the bar for new candidates without the danger that they will damage the project or themselves.

For issues with longer term admins, perhaps the Arbcom needs to have the power to pre-emptively warn those whose actions stray close to the line. A step below a formal arbitration, if you like. Kevin (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say, Kevin. Very sensibly put. I'm not sure that restriction from action is the key, though; I myself am rather more in favor of a mentoring process. I'm not talking admin coaching, here; I'm talking about after the fact. When I first became an admin, I was not shy about seeking out existing administrators to ask for feedback on new or complex situations (I'm still not) or asking review of my decisions. But I more than once wished I had one person I could approach. Mentoring is also valuable in that new admins won't necessarily realize that they need feedback if they don't know that they're doing something wrong. I recently noticed in the deletion log a page that had been speedied as WP:CSD#G4 by a new admin although no deletion discussion had taken place. I looked back through deletions to see that this was a pattern of G4ing articles that had been previously speedied. If I had not happened to notice this and investigate, this admin's misunderstanding of this criteria could have continued much longer. A mentor would help protect new admins from continuing their own mistakes. And I'd hazard that even very well prepared admins are going to make them. It's a complex project.

Which leads me to another point. :) The current RfA process seems to demand generalists. Generalists are fabulous, yes. It's nice to have superadmins who can do everything. But specialists add value, too. It seems to me that if a contributors shows great skill in a certain area and raises no red flags otherwise that it might be a good idea to assume good faith...and it would be a lot easier to do if there were somebody to occasionally check up on the new admin and be sure that everything's going well.

And there's the final point, which does line up with what you're saying, Kevin--the current systems for handling admin error are much too difficult and fraught with drama. I've often tried to think how to address this in some communally agreeable fashion and haven't had any better luck than I've seen from other quarters. :) Explaining to anyone—admin or not—that he's messing up requires great diplomacy. A positive outcome is easier to achieve, also, with a certain degree of discretion. Not every contributor is equipped to present complaints diplomatically and discretely, and there's no real avenue for them to get help doing so. All too often they head over to ANI and the situation blows up, with everyone entrenching and no one willing to compromise. I think it would be nice to implement some kind of intervention system so that a potentially good admin might be salvaged before we reach the point of needing the tools taken away. I'd like to think a more specific noticeboard could help with this, but I really don't think it will. Community backlash against WP:WQA suggests to me that it wouldn't be well-received. :/ Where's Human resources? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mentorship would achieve the same end that I would like to see, that is making it harder for a new admin the make a serious error. The problem then is who could become a mentor? It needs to be someone experienced, and those people tend to come with baggage (whether justified or not). I can foresee the perceived sins of the mentor becoming mixed up in the actions of the mentored. Perhaps I'm too cynical though. A mentorship definately avoids adding some sort of extra bureaucracy that the community already has problems in dealing with and maintaining. It sometines feels like the project is becoming too large and unwieldy to manage by consensus, and yet to move to any other system would require a consensus that could probably never be achieved. Like you, I've noticed lately a definite tendency to go to ANI first, and start talking later. Maybe admins should be restricted to 1 major and 2 minor dramas per year, or else you get sent to patrol fair use images for penance. ;) Kevin (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I believe you've hit the nail squarely on the head. The project is too large and unwieldy to manage by consensus, and so it's becoming impossible to achieve a consensus to change anything. The inevitable result is that frustrated editors abandon wikipedia to the vandals. One possible solution to the RfA problem is to look at the administrator toolkit, which may once have looked like a sensible package, but which is now just hindering the project. Why should, for instance, an editor who creates a page in error have to flag it for speedy deletion instead of just being able to delete it? Why is so much valuable editor time spent in watchlisting pages, but only administrators can see which pages are not watchlisted? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

←And it seems that the problem at RFA is just a subset of the overall problem, ie it is more and more difficult to find a consensus, and yet there is no other way that is acceptable. So, if we can find a solution for RFA perhaps that might be a solution for the project as a whole. I'm not aware of any other large group who try to manage themselves this way, so it's reasonable to expect that it won't work here. At the moment it's just a problem, but as the project grows larger it may eventually become a crisis. At RFA we have 2 problems: how do we ensure that the new admins don't make serious errors or burn out; and how do we determine those in the community who are suitable to be admins. I've talked about some kind of restriction on activity, and Moodriddengirl talked about mentorship, which could go a long way to solving the first problem. The second I think is caused by a whole host of issues, but I think they boil down to everybody having very different ideas about what they want in an admin. The idea that we can continue to find editors who we all agree should be admins is starting to seem almost utopian. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but maybe an RFA election group who are randomly selected from some subset of the community, akin to jury duty. I don't want to make anyone read much more, so I'll add more thoughts later. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution to this dilemma is, I think, blindingly obvious. Give everyone the administrator tools (excluding the block weapon, and perhaps a few other buttons), and take them away if they're ever abused, just like with rollback. Then the RfA process can focus on who the community believes can be trusted to use those few critical tools judicially. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have come to a cunclusion: We are never going to have a pitch perfect list of Admins. Why? Well two reasons. First because the people that would make great admins do not want to be admins on account of they don't want the drama and are here to build an encyclopedia and not climb the wiki-ladder. Second, there is always going to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Now, as for the AGFC, it is not the absolute beat-all solution to the RfA problems. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill says "We need more admins. We need more experienced admins. We need more capable admins". Whilst I agree, he missed one important point. We need more people do become admins and then actually use the tools. </rant> Pedro :  Chat  07:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, we need admins willing to use the tools. However, given the risks associated with using the tools, who could blame them for not wanting to use them? It is just too dangerous in many instances.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually received an e-mail from someone who mentioned various cases of serious threats against administrators (and stalking of admins) as a result of their actions. All recent ones, too. Enigma ^message 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know of several cases. So losing out on an RfA might actually be a blessing in disguise. The situation is so ugly at the moment it is a bit outrageous. Just even look at the nastiness in this thread. Over what? I feel like just making a blanket announcement I will never participate in another vote or another poll ever again on Wikipedia. It just is not worth the agony. I would even favor a boycott. --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but people go too far with this thinking also. I've actually seen opposes because "I don't think they'll use the tools very often". This is as misguided as any RFA rationale I've ever seen. If someone is mature and competent and wants the tools because they have need to delete an article once a year, give them the tools already. It's not reasonable, in a volunteer project, to demand some minimum level of participation. Friday (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

... and six months down the line they get caught up in drama and make an inappropriate block because they aren't really knowledgable of the tools they have. This outweighs whatever minor admin-tool work they were doing, a net-negative. Also, it's virtually impossible for the community to ever desysop them, regardless of evidence, adding further reasons to not take risks on candidates that have very little activity in the wikipedia space and don't even really show need for the tools elsewhere. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an admin who would foolishly operate in areas where they're not competent. I'm talking about someone who is, you know, reasonable and mature. Such a person would know better. This is why I require good judgment in a candidate. A huge part of good judgment is knowing when to simply give your opinion, versus when to enforce your opinion through action. Friday (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good judgment is my mantra as well for admin candidates, but there are simply too many candidates now that really haven't shown that, recently or in the long run. Regardless, the support section still fills up (regardless of the RfAs failure) with all this mention of "net positive", I guess not really agreeing that a few wikidramas with poor admin interaction will do much more harm then another guy that can semi-protect a page. We agree there... if a candidates is "reasonable and mature", and this means it has been previously measurable and with respect to various wikipedia policies, they should always pass, regardless of need for the tools. It's just that the whole reasonable and mature thing is becoming tougher to find. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not hard to find at all, just hard to get them to submit to RfA. Proof positive that they are reasonable and mature. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I am "reasonable and mature". But given the difficulties and even personal dangers of being an admin, I think anyone who wants to be an admin really does not understand the terrible downsides associated with it. I mean, is it worth putting your life at risk? What the heck? Who wants to do that? Over a website? Give me a break here... In time, I am pretty sure we will see an admin killed just for being an admin, eventually. Maybe regular editors as well. --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So the problem may not be the RfA process, but the candidates, which leads me to my next rant. We're all sitting here saying our some of our admins aren't living up to expectations, but let's stop and think. Who let them become admins? We did. Why? Why did we let them become admins? They must have done some good things, right? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm starting to think that some people simply established there place here and made a lot of friends and consequently had 3 out of 4 people support them. In reality, in terms of the temperament and policy understanding, it just wasn't there. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Well, I'll take a shot in the dark and throw out the first two ideas that comes to mind (note I never said they'd be good, I said they were the first two). We could have admins go through an editor review every six months. Here's another one: Make admins go through the RfA process every year or so, to see if they should be put on probation, desysoped, etc. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

With about 1000 active admins, and only 365 days in a year, that'd be 2.7 re-confirmations, on average, per day (with each lasting a week). That's on top of the regular RFAs already happening. We're decidedly shorthanded on bureaucrats. I don't think adding an extra 1000 RFAs a year would be really feasible, unless the reconfirmation ones were done with some other process. Useight (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

<Outdent> (To useight and rest), right that would be a huge mess. All we need is a simpler way to desysop that is effective and without all the drama. Easier said than done, as I imagine any admin that needs to lose the tools will take this action as a slap in the face, and supporters will be right there behind him. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Like I said, I didn't think they were good, but they were the first two that popped in my head. I don't doubt we can find other options several times better. Perhaps probation? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, sorry to say this, but this thread seems to be heading right towards WP:PEREN. No one doubts there's a big problem in that it's nigh on imposible to de-sysop, and that when it occurs it's with mucho OMG drama. But no-one has ever come up with a solution. That's not to say we stop looking for one, of course. Pedro :  Chat  15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not that there's never been a solution, it's that its virtually impossible to implement any real change here, regardless of benefit. I was thinking of proposing something called Community Desysoping, which would function almost identically to community banning. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why I even have to discuss this. If the community were to bring up a request to desysop an admin and got some overwhelming support, it should be done, regardless of some prior implementation. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My big problem with a formal venue for desysopping (that I noted during my RfA in response to a question) is that it creates drama, and has the potential to turn into a lynching exercise that can echo the same problems with WP:CSN. Per the answer I gave to the admin recall question in my RfA, I think ArbCom can adequately sort out bad admins, as really, the "OMG drama" Pedro is referring to is ultimately what we dysop people for, and ultimately makes such a process redundant. If an admin is using his or her tools so inappropriately that dysopping is warranted, then that's a legitimate ArbCom case. Yes, I realize this doesn't cover all the cases where we would want to dysop people, but I don't see any centralized venue for dysopping escaping the same problems CSN had, although I'm certainly open to ideas. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If we have drama with the current process for making an admin, then any process for desysopping by the community is likely to have much more drama, given that it is much more contentious. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading Gwynand's post, I thought he was saying that community desysopping would/could occur primarily at WP:AN, like community bans of editors. Darkspots (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

More admin coaches would help. User:MBisanz head up that program. Contact him to help. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)