User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Attacking and biting

Attacked by everybody (Archive 6)
I don't know if this page has always been this way, but it seems to have turned into a page where people attack each other. I just made a request for adminship. I thought it would be nice to serve wikipedia on a higher level. I had no idea that I would be attacked by everybody and I wouldn't have applied for this privilage if I had that idea. I assumed that wikipedians wouldn't be low enough to turn a "request to better serve wikipedia" into an "accuse greenmountain" forum. Green Mountain 19:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the current debate, this page has been fairly cordial. Most people who are nominated are accepted, I think, and when they aren't, it's usually a pretty clear consensus not to.  Aside from the de-admining Cunc debate, there's been very little vitriol that I've seen before the current discussion regarding you.  You and your brother may be different people, but you must be able to understand why the concerns being presented are a major issue that can't be simply ignored.  Perhaps you could provide proof that you are a different individual (e.g. by getting your brother to make edits from one computer while you do the same at another in a different location, like a public library -- a developer could confirm that both accounts were being used from a different computer, and that might mollify some people, though it wouldn't be foolproof). Tuf-Kat 21:36, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Vitriol: "fierce hate and anger expressed through severe criticism". I can't find any comments that could be conceived as vitriolic? I'd suggest waiting 5 months and then nominating yourself again. Provided, of course, that noone else nominates you in the mean time. --snoyes 21:55, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, currently, the majority of those who expressed opinions on the matter, supported the request, so I don't see why I would need to wait. I was just commenting on the excessive conflict that has come out of this simple request.  Anyway, it isn't fair that since I have a brother who uses the same computer that I should be banned.  Green Mountain 22:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Nobody is talking about banning you. Morwen 22:27, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nobody ^except Wik
 * , but one person isn't enough to ban someone (with the possible exception of Jimbo the Great). &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp    00:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "one person isn't enough to ban someone" - least of all Wik the human pinata. -- Finlay McWalter 00:41, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * ROFL Green Mountain 00:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Removing comments claimed offensive (Archive 15)
Should we be doing this? It seems very dubious to me. At the very least, a note should be placed that information was redacted. Anthony DiPierro 03:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologize for my actions, should they offend anyone... wait, that's Wik's line! :-) I won't revert again, I promise. ugen64 03:12, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my actions should they offend anyone... wait, that's Wik's line! I won't revert again, I promise. Perl 03:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks on oppose votes? (Archive 29)
I nominated User:Zappaz, and as I expected, the vote has generated very nasty comments by some opposing editors, that IMO are way over the top, some of which are acussations bordering on personal attacks. Is refactoring permitted in these cases? And if so, who should do the refactoring? Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 03:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The harsher side of RfA (Archive 65)
I'm not being a moaner here, I'm serious, RfA has turned from a "friendly discussion" into a hate camp. Candidates either get humiliated, or have their egos groomed. Most candidates which aren't landslides, get pulled because they either -


 * 1) Get extremely unfairly treated, such as Moe Epsilon's RfA
 * 2) Get a pile of Oppose votes all "per Whatshisface" at once
 * 3) Receive several pointless votes, such as "no AfD participation", when the nominee is a vandal fighter
 * 4) Receive harassing votes because of definite lack of experience
 * 5) Realise their RfA is premature

Now, except for the last one, this really shouldn't be allowed to fly on RfA, candidates are starting to pull their hair out. We all know the tag lines, "RfA isn't a big deal", but I think that RfA has moved one step from "tough love", to "how far can we push candidates". H ig hway Return to Oz...  22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustrations, but I'm not sure that this is the proper forum to vent. I suggest revising your header and comments a bit, as a slight change could significantly alter how this discussion unravels.  I imagine you're wishing for a constructive discussion on how better to go about the RfA process, so perhaps word your comments to reflect your desires.  As an aside, if you do wish to vent, I'd be happy to lend an ear on my talk page.  Cheers  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. SynergeticMaggot 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully cleaned up. H ig hway Return to Oz...  22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * RfA is the first time most people here get a chance to receive criticism from strangers. It's like going into an exam without knowing the syllabus. And today we're going to test you on... Your contributions to the Help pages. There does seem to be a supply of very good experienced candidates this week though, so some of the newer candidates are getting rejected mostly for being not perfect. Stephen B Streater 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the RfA can be harsh, having seen some very angry/aggressive comments. People cast votes on a whim in many situations.  Another thing is that with everyone having different criteria, there are problems in regards to various people analyzing and criticizing every detail of your existence of Wikipedia and perhaps tearing apart one minor detail where perhaps you were new and did not know a rule or obviously have poor communication skills since their Wikipedia space edits are not large in number.  Two of the same candidates may be treated entirely differently.  It definitely has the potential to be a bad experience for some, and I agree with you, but what else could be done? Michael 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not the rejection, I'm referring to, its the users that take it a step too far and scare or pester users into pulling their RfA or even leaving the 'pedia. People have too high standards, and when people fall short, then can come down fast and hard. H ig hway Return to Oz...  22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of whats being said is true here. I've noticed alot of inacurate decisions in RfA's. Some are small and petty, while others would make the next user decide to oppose so fast the nom has no chance. See the above header for discussion on what can in fact be done. SynergeticMaggot 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that those that fail by a landslide often get criticed heavily for one particular issue. This can look like "Get a pile of Oppose votes all "per Whatshisface" at once" mentality but usually reflects an issue that many users sees as a big flaw. It is possible that there are many other flaws but most people will not dig more to further humuilate a candidate. I believe this is the real reason for many oppose votes being quite similar.

If a candidate is really getting harsh treatment then they do have an opportunity to put out the fire and sway the voters opinion with good counter arguments. However, i have rarely seen this type of constructive (admin material like) reply. More often the candidate gets overly defensive, or worse has a tantrum. This then leads to everyone to consider that the user is NOT ready to be an admin (rightly so too). How users respond to the oppose opinions is as key to the success of an RfA as their past editing history.

In general, it seems that the right candidates get selected. For those that try again, i think they are vastly improved next time around and this is good for wikipedia whether they are doing admin duties or not. While adminship is apparently no big deal, I don't think the bar should be so low that it becomes a wikipedians 'right' and it is definitely wrong to kick candidates when they are down. It is also wrong, however, to humor a candidate when there are clear flaws in the candidates editing patterns or behavior.

Nevertheless, if we really want to change RfA to be be a kinder place we should just lower the bar and let all candidates with 3000 edits become admins. Those that then abuse the tools should be desysopped and encouraged to change their ways and reapply later. Is it possible that everyone will rise to the responsability? I believe that is possible and I would be interested to see if wikipedia is willing to experiment and be more liberal with handing out the tools, so liberal that RfA could become redundant and replaced with RfD (request for desysop), that would hardly ever be used. David D. (Talk) 23:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with any experiment that makes the RfA process more lenient is that it's very difficult to desysop an admin. Yes, it does happen in extreme cases, but the process is very time-consuming and almost always causes huge amounts of ill will. Therefore, changing the RfA procedure may well require a change in the desysop procedure. While RfA certainly isn't a perfect system, it does work "well enough" that changing multiple processes isn't a task many would like to undertake. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say I am of the opinion RfA works well and those that fail do learn something constructive about themselves. My extreme suggestion of every 3000 edit user has the 'right' to be an admin was more an observation of an alternative model. I don't agree with it, but I do think it is possible it would not be the total disaster than some might imagine. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that RfA generally works well and even failures can be useful to candidates. I also think that an experiment such as the one you described might not be a total disaster...at first. However, any system that's set up so that you gain adminship by achieving certain metrics is bound to be abused by trolls/vandals/POV pushers, etc... Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 00:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mnade a good point below about the desysop criteria would need to be relaxed. Initially this would probably be OK but you're right about the trolls.  It would not take them long to realise that they can game the system and bait admins into losing their admin tools.  This would be an unacceptable handicap for admin and a very strong rationale for maintaining the current status guo with respect to RfA nominations. David D. (Talk) 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I stumbled across Requests for de-adminship. Who knew? H ig hway Return to Oz...  23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gets many RfAs from users who just aren't ready for adminship yet. Is having an RfA stressful? Certainly: the potential of having your every edit scrutinized and every bit of dirty laundry dragged into the open is daunting. But a candidate who can't handle the stress of an RfA is, in my opinion, not ready to handle the greater stress of dealing with vandals, blocking users, etc. There is a growing trend of some strange "standards" from people who appear to be unfamiliar with the RfA process (oppose !votes based on strict percentages ("7/24ths"), help space edits, etc). Those just don't make any sense to me, but at the same time, I don't feel the RfA system is failing. I agree with David that it's wrong to give a candidate false hope, or humor a candidate who doesn't exhibit basic admin skills. If the user isn't ready, it's just better to say so, even though it may seem harsh. I've tried to stick the word "reluctant" in there when I oppose a nom, and give several reasons why; I tend to shy away from "per above" in those cases. I'd rather give reasons so the candidate can improve for the next time. -- Firsfron of Ronchester  23:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, it currently is possible to desysop an admin, but this requires intervention of the ArbCom or Jimbo himself. While this system can deal with a few (4-5 a year) rogue admins, it's not very scalable and would collapse if we implemented a scheme such as "all candidates with X edits are made admins." Thus, the desysop process would have to be made more lenient, which has its own problems, such as encouraging trolls to harass admins who block them. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 23:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, a system where "all candidates with X edits are made admins" could be easily gamed. Vandals could amass X edits of any quality and then would get shiny new tools. The possibilities are chilling.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is actually quite surprising they do not already try to game the system. How hard is it to act a model user for a while? I hope this is not a case of WP:BEANS. I suppose the reality is that it rarely happens suggesting the vandals don't have the patience. David D. (Talk) 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have some very patient (dedicated?) vandals on WP. I mean the ones who keep coming back, like CapnCrack. I wouldn't put it past these types, though their temptation to vandalize might be be too hard to resist.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg once remarked (roughly, this is from memory) that he could create a new account and spend a half-hour a day on it for six months, and become an admin by a landslide. This is, I think, quite true, but I'm not aware that anyone's tried it.  freestylefrappe did, but of course he failed.  I think the key would be to make yourself look knowledgeable, be friendly, but remain totally uncontroversial (e.g., avoiding issues of copyright where possible and taking a moderate stance on notability).  However, you would have to know the process quite well to have a chance at pulling this off, whereas a simple standard would be very easy to game. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is too big now for a "one-size-fits-all" requests for adminship system. It is like trying to have one court room for every legal case. We could have one requests for adminship page that specializes in editors who have mainly done vandalism patrol and others that are suited to other types of editors. We need admins who cover the whole spectrum of editor types. --JWSchmidt 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A similar proposal for piecemeal power assignment was discussed (but is labeled as "rejected" in the archives TOC) here. There are, of course, other failed proposals in the archives and at User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform.--Kchase T 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to suggest giving different powers to different admins. I was suggesting that there are different types of Wikipedians and they do not all have to be measured by the same criteria. --JWSchmidt 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you suggested. They're similar but distinct approaches.--Kchase T 04:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The flip side is that as a regular contributor to RfAs, I have seen some fairly significant failures to assume good faith on the part of some of the critics of the present system. To suggest, as some have, that oppose opinions are left without adequate thought or consideration is pretty insulting to those who are contributing here in order to make Wikipedia better. Just because you disagree with someone does not give you the right to question their motives and the quality of their contributions like this. For example, suggesting that editors are trying to see "how far can we push candidates" is pretty hard to justify, in my opinion. Just a thought... Gwernol 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gwernol. While I readily grant that some contributors to RfA may in fact be making trivial oppose votes, there are certainly those that feel "X" quality is important in a potential admin and like to see that quality. Others think that quality is a silly requirement. Neither is right, and neither is wrong. RfA is NOT objective.
 * Any objective measure that we attempt to apply to RfA will fail. Edits, for example, are very easy to accumulate these days, with a number of editing tools available that make it easy to rack up edits. RfA by its very nature needs to remain subjective. It isn't about numbers, it's about trust.
 * Something else to consider; we've heard various comments essentially asserting that we're not promoting enough admins. These assertions are based on a number of factors, including the declining acceptance rate of admins, the rise in standards at RfA, and a perceived decline in the number of admins promoted per month.
 * I disagree with the last of these assertions. While the number of admins promoted per month is lower than it has been in the past, it is well within the first standard deviation of the results over the last year. Thus, this can easily be ascribed to normal distribution of data over the time period; note as others have that we've had a recent increase in the number of generally acceptable nominees. Perturbations in the rates are to be expected, and I don't see a reason to fear a problem as yet.
 * Secondly, there's a dizzying array of ways in which to evaluate whether we're promoting enough admins or not. How backed up are processes at Wikipedia? Are they more backed up than typical? What is typical? Are we keeping vandalism in check? And on and on and on. One way in which to look at the data is the number of articles per admin. Some of you may be surprised to know that the number of articles per admin has risen just 11% in the last 1 1/2 years; virtually static, and given the increase in the presence of vandal fighting tools, we're probably doing a *better* job finding and fighting vandalism than we were in the Spring of 2005.
 * In short, I think we need to be more careful in our assertions that we aren't promoting people fast enough. Perhaps we're doing a better job of filtering than ever before? Just a possibility, and one that hasn't been discussed in great depth. --Durin 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the oppose per above or support per above point. I wonder if it ought to say on the RFA page - no per above votes, try to give an individual reason... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So if a candidate is found to have moved a page or two to "...on wheels", only one person is allowed to use that as grounds for opposing? -- Steel 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well no thats not what I meant but rather than saying oppose per userx people should say oppose due to moving pages to "...on wheels". It doesn't take much to type and clarifies exactly what they are opposing - which is kind of useful. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If user x identifies the pagemoves, then it makes absolutely no difference whether people oppose "per user x" or oppose "per pagemoves". -- Steel 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly feel that RfA is not a one size fits all. It is also nearly impossible to change the reasons for which people !vote. As a suggestion, shouldn't we rather insist that candidates/nominees go through the logs of RfA to find out what lies in the future. Also, for those who aren't sure, Editor review should be publicised. Though ER rarely gets the "enemies", issues like low edits in certain namespaces, experience, etc. are handled well in it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about publicising editor review, I added a sentence and link to it in the About RFA section (under Decision Process section where it says you can self nominate). What do you reckon? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A brief look at Editor review suggests it to be rather useless. Users seem to be recieving very few comments. The user currently at the top of the list seems to be getting laudatory reviews, yet is about to be banned for a year by the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps this sample is distorted but it is not looking like a process that will help people prepare for RfA. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Receive several pointless votes, such as "no AfD participation", when the nominee is a vandal fighter I view this as one of the strongestreasons to oppose around. We select admins who can help the 'pedia and have good knowledge of process. You can't have that if you dont participate in that process. I like RC patrollers, and do more then a bit of it from time to time, but vandal-fighting is not the be-all and end-all of being a wikipedian, and it does not make you a saint. Go contribute some, go help in the XfD proccesses too. Too many people RC-patrol to inflate edit counts and race toward the perceived goal of adminship like this is a game and their racking up points. - M ask 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was making an example. I don't see any point to users complaining "nominee has not asked for pages to be protected", when the nominee doesn't wish to do that, and has noted that what they want to do wil help the 'pedia. If you're only trying to promote über admins, who will destroy our backlogs in hours, then your plan isn't working, editors are just leaving because they're sick of jumping through hoops, just to become an admin. But we all know, It's not a big deal. H ig hway Return to Oz...  07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vandal-fighting is a necessary activity, and one to which adminship is highly relevant (rollback and block). Why does it matter whether someone who wants to revert and block vandals has contributed to AFDs?  If they indicate any intent to start closing AFDs, then they had better have contributed, but asking people to participate in all the important Wikipedia processes when they only want admin tools to contribute better to one makes little sense. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't matter if we were just giving them rollback, but we're not, were giving them ALL the admin tools. You need not be a crazy-awesome AfD closer, but I'd (and others) would prefer that you have at least some experience with all or almost all areas, not just one. (edited for spelling, typing while standing does not behoove me.) - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some RfAs are getting ridiculous in terms of the volume of nit-picky hypotheticals thrown at candidates. Has anyone yet had the balls to respond along the lines of "I haven't got time to answer all of these questions because I'm busy contributing usefully to Wikipedia"? --Dweller 17:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)