Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 116

The true nature of RfA
Is this. Discuss. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, Courage would make a wonderful admin. I think I'll make me a lovely cup of tea.  Dloh  cierekim  03:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose He seems like a fine user, but he doesn't have enough Help talk: edits, and I'd like to see more participation in AFD. (he comes back a month later) Oppose Too much participation in AFD. szyslak  04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yah, but he remains calm under pressure. Dloh  cierekim  05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not enough edits. -- Renesis (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- This user appears to be two-dimensional. I believe it would add diversity and encourage other two-dimensional editors into the project. Wjhonson (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that this is actually more representative of RFA. --Deskana (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't own any pants that tight. Please don't recall me! - Revolving Bugbear  17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, too much macaroni/not enough/too much cheese/don't like... that's RFA in disguise if I'm not mistaken :)  Majorly  (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is so unfair. I can't see youtube from my PC (corporately restricted).  I wanna get the joke.  Blast it all.   Keeper   |   76  18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What're you drinking this time? - Revolving Bugbear  18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Room temperature Diet Mountain Dew. Nothing mixed in, I promise ;-).  Although, thanks for the perspective.  Carbonated drinks in reverse tend to burn a bit, I guess I can live without youtube until I get home.... Keeper   |   76  18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe in fact that carbonated drinks have on occasion been used as a method of torture. When it starts to fizz in your sinuses, you're in for a world of pain. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any soft drink agency. - Revolving Bugbear  18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So would that be classified as a form of carbonated Waterboarding, and if so, does it, or does it not, constitute torture? If you don't get my allusions here, see the myriad of ANs, ANIs, and Talks about Waterboarding that I refuse to link here..... Keeper   |   76  18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is actually a type of waterboarding. As is my understanding, waterboarding attempts to simulate drowning and bring up the fear-of-imminent-death instincts. Carbonation in the sinuses is simply extremely painful. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * .  To steal a previous comment of my own:  "Thanks for !clearing that up".  Cheers,  Keeper   |   76  19:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I always thought of RfA as more like American Idol. If you're bad you're snow'd, even if you're good you may still have problems. Plus both are annoying and dramatic. Wizardman 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Room-temperature diet Mountain Dew even without fizzy sinuses, is already torture. I foresee a future career for you in either the CIA or as an elementary-school teacher. Wjhonson (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ZOMG, Wjhonson, if only you knew how you just hit a proverbial nail on a proverbial head. If only.   Keeper   |   76  20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss? Remove the link, it's a clear violation of WP:EL. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is? Explain, please. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't we use to have a policy that said "external links on talk pages must have no humour, blamange or trout slapping, not a bit, and no rat!"Wjhonson (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Linking to YouTube, Google Video section. The clip is copyrighted to Cartoon Network and was not uploaded with their consent.  Some organizations now do upload their own content, promo clips and such, and are usually clearly identified as a "Director" or use the name of their company in the title. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I didn't see the copyright bit at WP:EL. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Canvassing on the talk page... — BQZip01 —  talk 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete - Patent copyvio. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 10:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Archival
I wonder if i discussed this before. Do you think it would be easier if i set up MiszaBot? Say 100kb max per archive and threads archive are over 7 days old. Simply south (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't see any reason why not.   jj137  ♠ 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Okay, i've set it up. Simply south (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you add multiple archives by bot, the archive box at the top needs to be the sort that supports multiple archive links (like in other high traffic talk pages). Currently, its a list with descriptions of each manually added, might as well reform that if future archives are going to be bot added. Avruch talk 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After it moves nto the next archive, descriptions can still be added summarising what went on in that archive. I don't really think much needs to change. Btw, I know i reduced from 7d to 5d. Should this be decreased further? Simply south (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As a compromise i have restored 7. Simply south (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Snows, once again
Sorry, I know this has been done to death.

I think it's pretty widely accepted that we shouldn't be having pile-on opposes in snow RfA's. But I've been wondering, is there any point in voicing opinions in the oppose section at all? In my mind, an RfA is about deciding whether we think someone should be an admin; in the case of the snows, it really doesn't make sense to have that discussion at all, which would be the only reason to comment in the support and oppose sections. IMHO, for an RfA that doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, the discussion should really take place on the person's talk page, unless they've already been contacted and have refused to take it down -- then maybe it would make sense to have a few opposes to show them that it's really not going to work. It seems like refraining from opposing might be less painful for them, less of an outright rejection, and it'll spare them the embarrassment. And probably for most people, once they understand the de facto requirements, they wouldn't want a discussion like we have in RfA's anyway, they'd just want to quietly take it back. So my suggestion is this: we refrain from opposing at all (and from moral supports, because they're kind of condescending anyway), at least until they've been contacted about it and had a chance to respond, and just explain to them as nicely as possible on their talk page, or maybe in the discussion section, why it ain't going to work for now. delldot  talk  14:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Certainly not criticizing any specific person or people here


 * How do you know if it will snow if no one comments? Some snow closures happen after some supports get added, because the first supporters didn't find something particularly damning that the first opposers did. Anyway, solution looking for a problem I think. Avruch talk 16:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the really bad cases, like someone with < 500 edits, I will sometimes try to break in to them gently. Sometimes, that approach runs the risk of hurting feelings or biting. I guess that's why we're letting them run longer now. There is no 100 % perfect way, but I agree with Avruch that we really need to let the consensus develop fully before declaring a "snowball". Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, should have been clearer about what I meant. I'm talking about the cases where the RfA is among their first, like, 20 edits, where we absolutely know there's no chance. Cases where nothing needs to be made clear to anyone except them. I feel like most reasonable people wouldn't want to let them run once they understand what the situation is, so it makes sense to me to hold off "discussing" the RfA until they've gotten a chance to respond to a friendly message on their talk page.   delldot on a public computer   talk  01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any way to stop people from opposing. I removed a malformed RfA, with no acceptance statement by the nominee or answers to any of the standard questions, transcluded by a third party, and the first oppose was from someone who shortly after became an adminstrator.  This is an adversarial process and people are poised and ready to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down.  There is also no way to stop people from nominating themselves.  After a discussion on this talk page, Requests for adminship/nominate was changed to try to get potential candidates to actually look at themselves and this process and think before creating their RfA.  I have done no statistical analysis to determine if adding that change reduced the number of (wildly) inappropriate RfA candidates, but it obviously did not reduce that number to zero!  I am beginning to think that barneca's proposal, to create a new rule establishing a (low) minimum number of edits before an RfA, has more merit than I thought initially. Darkspots (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thought might be to require pre-approval of transclusion by a bureaucrat. Lots of people make proposals extending to the authority of a bureaucrat beyond up or down on RfA consensus, but I don't think would really be much of an extension - it would simply prevent bad faith or clearly impossible RfA noms. I don't think its a big enough problem to warrant additional creeping but if I'm mistaken then transclusion by bureaucrats is a possible solution. Avruch talk 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the recent SNOW nomination with unnecessary pile-on opposition: Requests for adminship/Pookeo9. I thank Gromlakh for attempting to provide the candidate with good advice rather than a hit in the face. Acalamari 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The fault is surely that the criteria for a successful RfA are so ill-defined, and nobody very few dare define them for being accused of editcountitis, or whatever the latest craze is. Provide proper guidance to potential candidates and the problem ought to go away. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet there will still be people that read nothing or almost nothing before submitting an RfA as one of their first edits though. To me, our best bet with these folks is not to make more rules, but to foster an understanding within the community that it's not good to be unkind, that we should deal with them with the least amount of embarrassment for the new user.  I feel like the best way to go about that is to come to a general agreement here and then point people to the discussion if we see them failing to do that. Of course, that is if people do agree ;-)  delldot   talk  05:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Relocate tally
Before reading this, please read relocate and remove. I'm not suggesting we remove the tally. Seriously, I'm not.

What I am suggesting is that the tally be moved down to the "General Comments" subheading. At the moment, that section is barely used - it contains a link to the edit summary calculator (anyone in favour of removing that? Another discussion please...), and a template that points to talk/contribs/rfc/rfa/rfb/rfx/rfcookie. Not a big deal.

The tally really shouldn't play that big a part in reviewing an RfA. If it is, there's the 'crat noticeboard report (which appears to have popped on this page too, oh the shame). Sheep voting is discouraged. However, I do value the use of the tally in gauging the state of the RfA, and don't want to remove it. I want it moved down, under the questions, because apart from reviewing contribs (duh!), we really should be giving those more weight.

I hope those who visit this page often will try and put behind them the prejudice of "OMG let's flame discussions about the tally". I also hope that the result of this discussion will be a better RfA template.

Regards, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be of value for an upcoming candidate for adminship to try the new proposed format (i.e. Tally with the General Comments) before selecting it as the default? Do the candidates have discretion in how their request is framed, to some degree? There's latitude in how questions are answered, and I know some candidates have re-formatted questions for readability... might be worth a go.


 * I'm neutral on the subject, except that having the tally at the top helps to explain the consensus that is decided (i.e. a No consensus to promote is much clearer if the tally is right there, rather than with the general comments). Maybe it's moved into place at the top when the request is closed by a Bureaucrat? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it a change that would really make a significant difference? I don't know that moving the tally will change the weight it has in an RfA. On a technical side, does the position of the tally have anything to do with the way the report is set up? Avruch talk 20:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with DHMO's rationale that having the tally on the top, especially for "aged" RFAs (meaning 3-5 days old) can subtlely change someone's willingness to !vote one way or the other. If I see 94/0/1, I may be intimidated to post an oppose for someone that I may have otherwise opposed, or I may do a less thorough job of analyzing the candidate independently.  If I see 8/22/9, I may likely look closer at that candidate.  The law of the Lemmings applies here, as does the Rule of First Impressions.  I would suggest a trial reformatting with the tally in a less prominent place (after the questions).  Once the consensus is reached (successful, unsuccessful, withdrawn, or no consensus), the tally can be moved back to the top.   Keeper   |   76  20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, we could place the tally in three spots, assuming no other changes to the standard RfA. First, it could be the opening line, as it is currently. Second, it could be the first line under "General Comments". Third, it could be the closing line of the entire page, under Neutral. This third idea would permit anyone !voting using a section edit of the !votes section to update the tally to include their vote as they vote, instead of as a separate edit later. I've created a mock RfA to show these alternatives here, for illustrative purposes only. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The only trick is that the "Scheduled to end" time seems out of place without being part of the Tally line, so my example RfA includes it in the moved tally counts. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't put it at the bottom. What would be cool is if it could be updated by an RfABot and have the tally kept in a collapse box ;-) Avruch talk 20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We can do it for arbcom elections, which use the same formatting (i.e. counting with #, indenting to remove from the count). We could also create a subpage for each RfA consisting of a miniature version of the tally report, above, except that there would be one line for that candidate only. It would then be transcluded behind a show/hide link. This would also offer the option of including the Duplicate !vote check, so that anyone seeing a duplicate vote flag could doublecheck the count. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See my test example (copied from yours) for what I mean. Avruch talk 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An additional transcluded subpage might not be necessary for a show-hide, could be a solution though. I definitely think the tally should be bot assisted, I wonder why it isn't already. Avruch talk 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One way to find out - I've posted a request here. I like your formatting, as users can skip past the background information provided there once they are familiar with the candidate - but it's still there to refer to as needed. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re:this: Perhaps you could convince someone to have some conditional code written to the one of the bot-generated reports so the page could be transcluded with an optional parameter. If that parameter were present, then the template would only generate a table with the vote counts for the one user it matched. Then every RFA could have something like (or the equivalent for the other report). Whoever closes it would have to replace this with the final tally, but nobody would have to update it during the live RFA. Gimmetrow 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a question - does Tangobot take the total from the tally in plaintext, or from the actual number of votes by counting them? What would good bot tallying parameters be? Update every half hour? Seems like it might be easy to integrate that task into Tangobot. (Tango's last edit was on the 6th, FWIW). Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tangobot takes the total from the actual number of votes; it doesn't even consider the manual counter. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear God..its hideous !!...Please use User:Dragons flight/RFA summary this as a temp, it is a smaller version of Tangies stats...Oh please have mercy on our eyes !! ...-- Cometstyles 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The closing bureaucrat should add it at the end, on the end.  Majorly  (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like the idea of having it at the end...just doesn't seem right. The collapse box also seems to stand out too much when nothing else in RfA is collapseable, thus drawing attention to itself (and to the tally as a result). I agree with Keeper - Any thoughts on trialling this new placement in future RfAs? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which/whose new placement exactly? Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True that the collapse box draws attention to itself by being colored and whatnot. Still, logically if someone is going to show the box to see the tally they'd put the same (less really) amount of effort into looking for it wherever it goes. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Malinaccier, I still like my version best :) Avurch, I think the collapse box being coloured will make people click it just because they can. And then see the tally, which kinda defeats all purposes. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, your version does seem the best idea so far. Maybe if the collapse box was put at the bottom of the page, which would make it more "right" in my opinion.  Malinaccier (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I boldly made the change - let's see how it goes. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should boldly put it in all the places, and see which one gets updated more often? :-P Betacommand has turned down the idea of a tally-updating bot, btw. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The request was worth making, if only to clarify the issue - as I had wondered why a bot didn't do the updating, as well. No harm done. I agree with DHMO, as well - it's worth a trial in the middle, if only to see whether it's updated or not. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure having 2/3 tallies is a great idea... Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, sometimes my sarcasm doesn't bleed through into text. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 01:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well, having it in the middle will make it harder to find :) I still think at the end is best - it's part of the end summary.  Majorly  (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Results of first trial run: (Lquilter nom) Just a few votes in, and someone moves it back and calls it a malformed RfA. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wondered why the template didn't show the new format, I guess that explains it. Maybe we can have a candidate request the new format and comment out a request that it remain in the new position as a test case, since a request from anyone other than the candidate is apparently ignored. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, just dropping a note by after I saw this discussion. I guess I must be having trouble with my sarcasm as well, as I meant "Malformed" in a joking way. (I'd never oppose someone on the basis of any mistake made in forming the RFA or having a different format. We're all humans, mistakes do happen.) Hopefully I didn't cause too much confusion! Take care and happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's a new thing, still very much in the try it out stage. I've mentioned it to the newest candidate, User:Pb30, so - with a candidate aware of the change - it might stick, at least long enough for a test run. Maybe afterwards, I'll ask the !voters to evaluate it's new placement. We'll see. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

On User:Pb30's RfA, the tally was properly placed and fine, except that Mathbot placed its links above the tally - as shown here. The result was the tally sandwiched between Links and previous RfA's. I've moved it back to the top of the section, but - if this change sticks - that's something we'll have to address with Mathbot's operator(s). Otherwise, so far so good. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, item two: We have the RfA for Undead warrior, withdrawn at 0/9/0. The request was closed as withdrawn by EVula, who added the correct tally to the closing time at the top. However, an older 0/7/0 tally remained with General Comments (per here). Not a major deal, but something else to clarify with the Bureaucrats, if this becomes permanent. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't sure where it was... personally, I really dislike the new location. Just leave it where it was; people are going to sometimes go with the flow on RfAs anyway, the tally doesn't matter one bit in that. No reason to sacrifice the functionality for no reason. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why again are we monkeying with the tally? This has been the subject of needless edit-warring in the past, and it kind of defeats the purpose of having a tally at all to put it where it's hard to see. I look at tallies right at the top of RfAs to get a general idea of how it's going. Grand master  ka  07:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The tally has been moved back to the top in the RfA template, resetting the format to the default. There have been some positive comments, but also some negative comments as well. Not a bad experiment, to my mind. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No big deal? searching for the Holy Grail, the perfect nom evaluation tool
What are the per centages on admins getting into serious difficulties and/or recalled or otherwise desyssoped, particularly for those promoted in the last year? My belief is that I can trust a user with a substantial number of edits and term of experience. Does reality bear this out? Dloh cierekim  23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There were some posts about this not too long ago on WikiEN-l, I'll see if I can find 'em. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not very high if you only count involuntary desysoppings; plenty of admins get into loads of controversy but come through OK though. Keilana | Parlez ici 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the percentages are very low. Keep in mind, in order to be a sysop nowadays, you have to have already earned the respect and trust of the community to pass through an RfA (click on RfA to know what I mean by "recently").  In other words, if you become an admin, you are given more grace (it seems) than a non-admin user because you've already earned the community's trust, probably have allies, and probably know what you're doing.  A recent example that comes to mind is Archtransit.  Mistakes?  Yes.  Desysopped?  No.  Nor should he be, IMO.  I would be surprised if the number that you're looking for is above 1%.   Keeper   |   76  00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just seem to keep seeing oppose rationales that startle me.  Dloh  cierekim  00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I find some of the support rationales even more startling. "He's my mate, of course he should be an admin." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Oh, I completely agree that some of the "oppose" rationales are startling. Take a look at Requests for adminship/BQZip01 for example.  That's a different topic though. The 64,000 question that I think you're asking is "Do we promote them to admin and hope they don't make mistakes?", vs. "Do we oppose their admin candidacy with the hope that by doing so will avoid said mistakes."  Personally, I think the RfA process is bordering on Absurdity TM and is completely out of control.  I don't think it's fixable at the moment though.     Keeper   |   76  00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think it's gone beyond absurdity. It reminds me very much of a 17th century witch trial. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been compared to a trial by fire, a torture chamber, the gallows, and a public dunking chair. Some still bear scarlet letters from their RfA ordeals. So, why do you think it has anything to do with a witch trial :) Majoreditor (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the original question, I would guess that most desysopping happened to very experienced editors. In fact, it almost seems as those who end up abusing the tools (aside from hacked accounts) were those who became too comfortable with the project. So no, I don't think you should trust anybody simply on substantial numbers of edits. -- Renesis (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you quite rightly say, you're guessing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't done any sort of serious analysis, but I have noticed that many of the desysopped admins had RfAs that passed by a very large margin. Perhaps how controversial a candidate is and how likely they are to be desysopped are not so connected after all? Captain   panda  04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you can see for yourself here, so actually, I misspoke, I was not guessing. -- Renesis (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a more systematic study, but I've looked at the RFAs of everyone who's been desysopped (as of last summer I guess) and, while some of their RFAs were near-unanimous, in the RFAs where there were serious objections they were almost always about civility. I never saw one where the only concern raised was lack of experience. This isn't to say experience isn't important, in fact it might mean we're doing a great job of screening against people so unfamiliar with policy and norms that they'd have to be desysopped due to incompetancy. But I think it shows we should really take most seriously the RFA concerns about civility... that's the strongest predictor of eventual desysopping. --W.marsh 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There was an admin survey done some time ago I think, that measured what people want most in a candidate. I think civility topped the list, so w.marsh's claim is surprising, although certainly true. Wizardman  17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim only makes sense if the admins were desysopped for incivility. Otherwise it's a potential false correlation. Along the lines of "Most desysoppped admins were using Windows PCs and transcluded their RfAs between 21:00 and 06:00". How close was the correlation anyway? Statistically significant? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's closer than any other RFA oppose reason correlates to de-sysopping. And a lot of admins were de-sysopped largely for incivility... usually combined with abuse of admin tools. But you obviously can't oppose a non-admin at RFA for misusing admin tools. Your comment comes off as a bit hostile... I just think we should be aware of what RFA concerns show up in people who end up getting de-sysopped. There's no need for rhetoric about Windows PCs and so on. --W.marsh 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Therein lies the problem with charges of "incivility". You misunderstand the point being made and/or resent anyone daring to disagree with you and Bingo! The incivility card gets waved around. Are there in fact any admins in your sample who were desysopped for incivility, as opposed to abusing their admin tools? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I remember why I don't watch this page any more.. sheeeesh. --W.marsh 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You made a very bold claim "But I think it shows we should really take most seriously the RFA concerns about civility... that's the strongest predictor of eventual desysopping" which you now appear to be unabe to substantiate. Sheeeesh indeed. BTW, I found your comment to be a "bit hostile". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a particularly reason you are so concerned about incivility being taken seriously at RFA? It seems there might be. -- Renesis (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Where have I said that incivility ought not to be taken seriously at RfA? Look back at what I have actually said. I am complaining about poor statistical analysis. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The very first thing I said in this thread was that I'd like to see a better study done. Then you attack me over not having perfect statistics... I started out by saying I didn't! --W.marsh 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not the one who made the very bold claim that civility was the "the strongest predictor of eventual desysopping". That was you. And to point out that your conclusion has no basis in verifiable fact is hardly an attack. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I said that is what I think, based on the study I did, which I fully explained was not thorough. I wasn't publishing my thesis and standing ready for a defense... I was just making an observation. That people get jumped on whenever they say anything here is why it's the same people here and nothing ever gets accomplished. --W.marsh 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I'm not going to argue semantics, since you are obviously willing to take every argument to a pointlessly technical level, but it's pretty clear that you are objecting to arguments for the use of the "incivility card," as you call it. -- Renesis (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is clear to me is that you have now descended to the level of making personal remarks, which really is unworthy of you. I am just as entitled to express my opinion as anyone else is, without having you or anyone else extrapolate what I have said into the realms of fantasy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (unindent) An example that comes to mind immediately of an admin being desysopped for incivility, as well as abuse, was Alkivar. In all of his RfAs (with the last one being Requests for adminship/Alkivar 3), civility was the biggest factor for the opposition, including in the successful RfA, and in his arbitration case, incivility while being an admin contributed greatly to his desysopping (as well as, of course, the abuse). I think in this case, civility concerns raised in the RfAs were an indicator to a future desysopping, as the candidate did not appear to address the civility issues from the previous RfAs, and the problems continued, ultimately contributing to the desysopping. I think that W.marsh's finding may have some weight. Acalamari 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I appear to be unwilling to stoop to this level of discourse. WT:RFA is a place where you could say "the sky is blue" and quickly get a condescending "I oppose! You're ignorant!" comment... it's been that for a while and doesn't seem to be changing. --W.marsh 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * W.marsh, you make a good point, but you are missing one fact: the reason that other "RFA concerns" don't show up prominently in those who have been de-sysopped may be because RFA is fairly good at catching other concerns. After all, it is an extremely strict process and I think it errs on the side of failing more users than it should than passing too many users. -- Renesis (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, W Marsh, I think you gave me something i can use as I assess my own assessment of noms. Thanks.  Dloh  cierekim  18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, i took some flack for opposing a nom I considered incivil from his nominator-- a fairly powerful admin at that time. Dloh  cierekim  19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I did address that, though. That people aren't de-sysopped for incompetency probably means we're catching candidates who just don't know what they're doing, for example. --W.marsh 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, you did say that. I read too quickly. However it is probably also things other than incompetence which are caught. -- Renesis (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

. Does anyone else find themselves laughing hysterically at the wonderful irony of incivil bickering happening about whether incivility is the cause of desysopping? Between a sysop and a rollbacker? Anyone? Keeper  |   76  19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And now another sysop trying to make fun of us... that's hardly a step in the right direction. --W.marsh 19:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a curiously all-embracing definition of "incivility". On the other hand it is a word that very few on wp appear to have much understanding of, to be fair to you though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "You" is an ambiguous pronoun - are you (Malleus Fatuarum) referring to me (Keeper) or him (W.marsh?) Keeper  |   76  19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually replying to you, Keeper, as I intended the indent to show. But having said that, I do believe that my comment applies equally to both of you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And PS - Oh come on, I said I was laughing hysterically! That means I thought it was funny!  You should both go "fight it out" on your talkpages.  Shoo. :-)  Keeper   |   76  19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure incivility here on WT:RFA really matters much. It's incivility combined with abuse that leads to desysopping, the Alkivar RFAr is a prime example of that. If you're around long enough you make some bad deletions and blocks, I'm sure I'm no exception. It's just that we don't desysop for a few mistakes... we desysop for a pattern of mistakes and an attitude of not caring, which is often most visible through incivility, and many people who ended up being desysopped in such situations, including Alkivar and Freestylefrappe also pops to mind, had RFAs where the big concern was incivility. As before, this is just my opinion based on my experiences here... I do not have empyrical data in charts ready to back up my observations. Sorry. --W.marsh 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, just to wrap this up, I'd say that there is a world of difference between incivility and abuse, and if you'd said that a history of abuse was a good indicator of eventual desysopping I'd likely have agreed with you, even without any empirical data. But "incivility" is such a floppy concept on wp that seesm to cover everything from a mildly expressed disagreement to outright abuse. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you can't abuse admin tools before becoming an admin... I settled for things people actually can be observed doing prior to adminship. Maybe with the new rollback thing we'll have a new thing to look at. --W.marsh 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) You're obviously quite right, and an abuse of the rollback tool would certainly be a legitimate cause for concern at an RfA. But when I mentioned abuse above I meant personal remarks, cussing, bullying, that kind of thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In depth statistical analysis, adjusted for global climate patterns and the various circadian rhythms of both candidates and voters, demonstrates that the RfA process is a crapshoot and only keeps out the obviously bad candidates and a few good candidates thrown in for randomness. I have based this conclusion on data collected from the last 2 years and extrapolated similar data for the prior 22 years. Furthermore, I have submitted my conclusions to rigorous peer review and as a result have been nominated for the Field's medal and received an endowed chair at Princeton University. Anyone who dares to criticize my conclusions must present notarized proof of at least two doctoral degrees from highly esteemed institutions (to be determined by me). Failure to provide such proof will result in immediate death and/or harsh ridicule in the professors lounge. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Analysis of the cultural relevance of 'civility', its various measurements and definitions and the precise impact on editors at Wikipedia is forthcoming. I expet a Nobel in something. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The foregoing discussion does not meet my definition of "incivil." Testy, maybe. Don't know who refactored the heading, but I concede it is now more on topic then the one I used. Thanks to everyone for helping my understanding of RfA. cheers and (happy) editing! <slides quietly out the doro> Dloh  cierekim  20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal
If what I read there is true, then success should be automatic for any respectable admin candidate, yet this is not so. Requests for adminship is totally rigged in that who gets in or not is not based on skill, policy knowledge, etc. but based upon a popularity contest. 76.29.116.172 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He said that 5 years or so ago, times have changed. It isn't a big deal, but factors such as desysopping being nearly impossible contribute to RfA being difficult for some. Wizardman  14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you say so. What gets one popularity in Wikipedia? If the people who have had good interactions with you in the past vote for you, and the people you've pissed off vote against you... This isn't a playground, so perhaps these feelings are relevant? <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You say it isn't a playground, but you sure make it sound like one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a collaborative project - you can't be an administrator if you can't effectively collaborate with others. If your track record demonstrates that you consistently burn people, and they vote against you in your RfA, then in that sense the 'popularity' votes represent an actual problem. Its like politics: Some people think politics shouldn't be about popularity, but no matter how smart and able you are you can't get shit done if people don't like you. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have strong feelings about this one. :) Being an admin does not make a person "OMG special" (and even in my short tenure I've seen enough admin misbehavior to feel very, very sure of that), but adminship in itself is a very big deal, given that an admin has the ability to make onWiki life miserable for other contributors through misuse (intentional or otherwise) of the tools. In my opinion, a respectable admin candidate needs to be one the community can trust not to make unfortunate choices more often than reasonable human error can excuse. Unfortunately, there's no objective test of that, and different RfA responders seem to have devised widely variant criteria for determining it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that editors' criteria are widely varied is a good thing -- if an RfA candidate passes, it shows he fills a variety of functions adequately and is capable of dealing with and balancing many tasks at once. Of course, some of the criteria themselves approach the land of silly, but in my experience opposes on those kinds of grounds are generally infrequent and are usually outweighed by reasonable supports. - Revolving Bugbear  17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone should creating something shiny and flashing to tell people not to create a section about how "adminship is no big deal" since chances are (probably 95%) that someone did the same thing the month before and the month before, et cetera. John Reaves 18:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Well said.  Keeper   |   76  18:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do better than that, though: Grace notes T § 19:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not bad. Although it should perhaps reference the other common topic.  Difference in bold:

Keeper  |   76  19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we maybe get a left-right flipped version of wikipe-tan shocked so the template is more symmetrical.<just say no to flashing sigs>.  Dloh  cierekim  19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No we can't. Bring it to ArbCom. Any more questions?   Keeper   |   76  19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. What is the airspeed of the European swallow? Dloh  cierekim  23:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, Laden or unladen? Red, no blue!!!! Keeper   |   76  16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tally relocation, part 2
Ultraexactzz made himself a test subject for the tally relocation. As the person who updated the tallies a lot, may be I'm just not used to it, but I felt that it really didn't belong in the bottom "general discussion." Any thoughts?  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I sometimes go around updating the tallies, and it seemed out of place. Could be that I just wasn't used to seeing it there, but I like it at the top. Useight (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I preferred it at the top as well: it seem out of place in the "General comments" section. I have no objection to the change that put the tally at the top again. Acalamari 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having two tallies made things a little interesting, until people got into the habit of updating both. For its purpose here, I agree that it's probably best at the top of the page - but, I think it might not be a bad idea to revisit the idea of moving it if the process (or format) changes dramatically. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I liked it better where it was. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Only a bit of rat in it
Slaps everyone in here with a large wet trout. It is however a very civil trout, and any contrary mention shall be ignored by all right-thinking people. And now for something completely different.Wjhonson (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest removal of this comment in violation of WP:NOLARGETROUTSLAPPING. You have been around long enough to know only small catfish are acceptable IAW WP:SLAPPINGPROTOCOLSFORWIKIPEDIA. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility part deux!
Yes. Perhaps a course in How to approach intense snarkiness with humour instead of tit-for-tat, dog-pile and bite. I recommend all admin candidates should be peppered with impersonal-abuse to see how they handle it in RfA. If they respond with Stop wasting my time you fathead then they're out, if they respond with But you're so cute when you're angry they're in.Wjhonson (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's maybe not such an altogether bad idea. But I'm struggling with your notion of "impersonal abuse". Can you give me an example, to make it clearer? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it will actually be harder to keep the nominators from throwing around the fatheads when snarkiness pops up. Some nominators seem more like mother bears who feel their cubbies are being threatened.  Keeper   |   76  20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They do indeed. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "I recommend all admin candidates should be peppered with impersonal-abuse to see how they handle it..." Why not simply make it policy? There seems to be enough support for it... — BQZip01 —  talk 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to go with the territory. If you've been around for a while, making substantial additions to the encyclopedia, as you obviously have, then you're bound to bump into few disagreements with other editors. I have never been convinced that the incivility card is anything other than the first resort of a kiddie that has lost the argument. Whatever happens with your RfA I hope that you will continue to kick ass. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I kinda meant that sarcastically, but thanks for the positive reinforcement. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I actually was going to simply say "abuse", but than the questioners would probably be temp-banned by noms for NPA. So hmm that doesn't work. Maybe something like ''Your argument is full of sheer nonsense, your position is riddled with bias and tripe, you have failed to properly address any substantive issue which makes me question your dialectic capacity. Address that''Wjhonson (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to say, in all honesty, that does look like very personal-abuse. So maybe not such a great example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one, would love to see that posted by a well respected editor (not a spa, not an IP, not anything like that) on a RfA just to see the fallout. I ♥ Drama. (or should I say !Drama?)  Of course, posting such would be prima facie evidence that the opposer is clueless...  Keeper   |   76  23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Double check please
Requests for adminship/VivioFateFan 2 - can someone with more experience check I've closed this/archived/added to lists properly. Ta. Pedro : Chat  10:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me :) CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No big deal revisited
This is why I've stopped working so hard to weigh a nom. Unless someone can come up with glaring evidence of unreadiness, I support. I review the tak pages and contribs. If I find evidence of readiness, all the better. And I usually do. And if there is a problem, someone comes up with it. Unfortunately, there is no litmus test. Dloh cierekim  19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My basic criteria for supporting is time. If someone actually is sadistic enough to stick around long enough to become an admin, then an admin they should be.  The fact that someone wants to clean up vomit, mop the floor, and lock the doors at night, for free, with all the abuses that come with it, is enough for me.   Keeper   |   76  20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Dloh. Unless there's a big reason to not support, I support.  нмŵוτн τ  19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Binding recall
Has this been proposed before? Apologies if so.

I would like to see a system where candidates can choose to pledge to binding recall, making a clearly defined set of requirements for it to happen (for example, 5 editors, 3 of them admins, all with at least 10,000 edits). Recall as it stands is almost completely meaningless and serves as a political tool to make a candidate look more accountable without actually making him or her more accountable. Recent recall requests that have succeeded caused a lot of drama (I'm thinking of Mercury and Durova, but I'm sure there are others) which could have been helped some by the recall being more straightforward. Obviously we don't want to make recalling admins too easy, but they always have the option of submitting themselves for RFA again, no?

As volunteering for binding recall is exactly that, voluntary, admins who don't like the idea would be free to ignore it. Perhaps there could also be an allowance for removing your pledge to recall, as long as a recall request has not been initiated at the time?

Just a thought. At present I am more disposed to be distrustful of people who claim they'll be open to recall than I am to trust them, as the current system has no guarantees whatsoever! CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a recall process for all admins. Like RfA, almost anyone could nominate, but it would require a solid 80% consensus to de-admin. Otherwise, it would run under the same rules as an RfA? Dloh  cierekim  02:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot. It would also require notice placed on the recalled admin's talkpage and at WP:AN/I. Dloh  cierekim  02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Recall that is not breakable has been suggested too many times to count. The general view is that it would be quite impossible to hold anyone to it. Although, many people do list such circumstances that they would relinquish their mops. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not clear on how a voluntary recall provision with uniform criteria would be any better than what we have now, a voluntary recall provision with criteria that vary by admin. Could you elaborate on what you see as the advantages? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read that. I agree that the present recall provisions are nothing more than a sham. But c'est la vie, the administrators and bureaucrats are in charge of the asylum, so shall it be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to why you think it's a sham. My criteria include a provision that any version of my recall criteria remain in effect for fourteen days after I make any change, which prevents me from modifying my criteria to suit my immediate personal needs.  I guess the question is whether bureaucrats will recognize a recall if the admin who signed on objects; I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (Note also that I'd welcome any suggestions as to what my criteria should be - just create User talk:Sarcasticidealist/Recall if you have any criticisms or suggestions.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do I think it's a sham? Because it's been demonstrated to be a sham many times in the past. Admins changing the rules that they had apparently agreed to, to suit themselves. You might as well ask me why I don't believe in Santa Claus. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: Only some of the admins who have been recalled have made it a sham, but they were desysopped anyways. I hate to dredge up my RfA, but some admins wouldn't have accepted that, my point being that there are some of us open to recall who will entertain requests in an honorable manner. Keilana | Parlez ici 04:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the more important point is that those of us who are not admins have lost all faith in the recall process, and now realize that once an admin always an admin. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. Hopefully someday I'll screw up royally, and a successful recall campaign against me and subsequent de-sysopping of me will help restore your faith. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)::::::::I won't be holding my breath, and neither should you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Malleus, I will be an admin as long as the community has faith in me. I assure you, that if I royally screw up, I will be recalled and desysopped. Hopefully your faith will be restored sometime. Keilana | Parlez ici 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, don't hold your breath. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

An inclusionist bias on RFA?
I saw a user make this comment in one RFA discussion.

That seems pretty absurd. There are some folks, like me, who think that contributing to the mainspace is both an uphill battle and a waste of time, unless you're interested in obscure topics that nobody reads.

I primarily focus on:
 * AfD
 * Mediation
 * Catching inappropriate behavior over at WP:RSN and WP:FTN, and bringing it to the administrators' attention on WP:ANI, if needed.
 * Maintaining and improving policies, guidelines, and other various information pages

To say that this activity is not constructive solely because I'm not contributing to the mainspace is absurd. For one thing, anti-vandalism tools seem to often be used to beef up a user's edit-count to the mainspace, but given the fact that vandalism is already reverted at a rate of no more than a minute, anti-vandalism is one of the most useless things you could do on Wikipedia, at least proportional to how much it increases your edit-count. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, what I just described above are precisely the skills necessary for adminship. It's what they primarily focusing on. Thus, the amount of material you've contributed to the mainspace is pretty irrelevant. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't an inclusionist bias at RFA. As a whole, the community itself is biased towards inclusionism. Spartaz Humbug! 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that if one hasn't actually contributed to mainspace or think it is a waste of time, that raises serious questions about their mediation and dispute resolution skills within Wikipedia, as well as their interpretation of policies and guidelines. –Pomte 08:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...let's see, I note you're a buddhist, well buddhism has some cite needed tags and it was a former Featured Article. Why don't you get some of those referenced? Nice to get it Featured again and an important topic. Get it FA or GA and I'll be happy to support you cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Getting zen to GA or FA standard will be a good way of showing you can negotiate too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"As a whole, the community itself is biased towards inclusionism," duh. Hence the reason it is so particularly important to ignore all rules.

Pomte: Your assertion seems to be a blatant red herring. One's contributions to the mainspace have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to mediate or resolve disputes. What you're saying is sort of like saying in order to be a lawyer or a psychiatrist, you have to be able to know how to build an office with your bare hands. Would you trust the average construction worker with legal documents or your own personal problems?

Keep in mind: I'm not saying administrators or mediators are either lawyers or psychiatrists, simply that there is no other better analogy for what they do and have to deal with.

I do intend on expanding the articles on Buddhism and Zen, since they are, several years after Wikipedia was founded, still in poor condition.

Casliber, I don't intend on ever becoming an administrator. I have offended a certain faction that would never allow it and, in any case, even if they did, I am indifferent.

To quote Socrates, "I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live."

Similar reasoning applies here. It would be frankly insidious for me to suddenly create a false image of myself as a passive communitarian, sympathetic to inclusionism and tolerance for all editors, even trolls, and with a sense of boundless compassion that I do not feel. The idea of grooming oneself through "admin coaching" is particularly perverse, in many ways similar to a political campaign. Editors must make certain that they first totally eliminate any sincere regard for Wikipedia quality. Second, they must learn the ways of wiki-evil, such as colluding on off-wiki IRC with other admins, creating secondary accounts to deal with matters of political or religious controversy, and wiping comments critical of your actions from your talkpage, to obscure archives of past wrongdoing. Finally, they must have a series of pre-packaged answers to the stereotypical questions issued to them and, once they are SysOps (up to a certain point), it doesn't particularly matter whether they abuse their powers or not, because a clever SysOp can abuse his privileges and get away with it. And in any case, "admin accountability" is meaningless, because it is more often than not used to witch-hunt good administrators over silly content disputes. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm...I am an admin, I've used IRC a total of once and have edited from only one account. I don't know your history so I don't know how large a group of people you've offended, but by showing dedication alot more people (like me) who will forgive other faults if there is a bigger net positive. I am not keen on a developing schism between those who wirte and those who administrate. The jobs needn't be that specialised, and there are problems with those being too flippant with deleting material. Given this, realistically, who would prioritise removing trivial articles (which one won't find unless one looks) versus producing quality referenced material on importnat articles in medicine, politics, religion and social issues. And plenty of those who call themselves deletionists do just this. But anyway this discussion could go on ad nauseam and for more time and energy that I want to commit currently. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"trivial articles (which one won't find unless one looks)"

Yes. See Special:Random. Just refresh once or twice.

I just did.


 * VLT Survey Telescope (first result) - Article written about a telescope where notability isn't established, written with a jumble of unpiped institutions in the lead combined with horrible spelling and grammar.
 * Nitocrella slovenica (second result) - Stub about a crab native to Slovenia.
 * Kajetan Georg von Kaiser (third result) - Information about a guy pulled from Catholic Encyclopedia. No references besides another encyclopedia (by citing encyclopedias as sources, this places Wikipedia below the quality of an actual encyclopedia).

&#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Trivial articles... which one won't find unless one looks, which you did, and I don't think any of those are trivial. No idea why you are even pursuing this topic here though.
 * A lawyer who can't convince someone else to build their office for them at a reasonable price shouldn't be a lawyer. The function of a lawyer isn't to build offices, but the good ones should understand the point of view of their clients. An editor who can't stand the uphill battle of building an encyclopedia perhaps shouldn't be a administrator, and one who can't settle or minimize their own disputes perhaps shouldn't be a mediator. Anyone can acquire dispute resolution skills independently, but it's within this context that matters. Having gone through the experience and overcome it helps greatly to understand the complaints, and to discern which are genuine. The best way to understand policy is to apply it and notice mistakes first-hand rather than watching from the sidelines. This comes in very handy for guaging consensus in discussions where the vote count does not reflect the strength of each argument. –Pomte 10:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the 25 articles requirement is unduly onerous. We are building an encyclopedia. I'm not likely to oppose on that basis, but I understand those who do.  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  13:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 25 articles is a lot. According to my userpage, I have created or significantly contributed to 21 different articles, and I think there are about 5 stubs that I don't count, because I've stopped creating stubs, as I think the focus should be on quality, and I think I've helped quite a bit on that front.   Maxim (talk)  16:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If the emphasis was on quality, there would not be an inclusionist bias. Based on this criteria, a strong-willed, immature, arrogant, and petty person who creates 25 horrible articles on Pokemon, Star Trek, or videogames is more fit to be an administrator than a temperate, mature, humble, and kind person who creates 1 great article on science. Based on this, the trustworthiness of administrators resembles that of politicians or policemen in poor countries, without the rule of law (a bit higher, but not by much). In IRC, during a heated discussion, I was once told by an experienced editor (apparently as a subtle threat) that admins could very easily frame people they didn't like for policy violations and then ban them. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not fussed about random articles. All 3 are good and can be improved. Now let me think, what is a more positive way of going about this. Slapping some tags on them or maybe go looking for references oneself? I'd drop a helpful note on the Astronomy wikiproject and look for some others. I get ticked off by editors who place thousands of tags yet refuse to look up any references for anything themselves. I'd prefer a one or more Good Articles to 25 short ones myself. If you have a number of positive interactions with others, and keep disputes focussed on subject matter not personlaity, I think it would be hard for someone to 'frame' you. If someone is hellbent on causing a confrontation and you keep focussed on material and it catches the attention of uninvolved admins, disruptive behaviour is generally apparent. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So what exactly is the propblem? That one person is using a criterion to judge potential admins which you, Zenwhat, don't like? I think the particular statement of the criterion is laughable, but RfA is about whether particular users have the trust of the community to sit in judgement and execution of regular editors. Most people have some sort of shortcut to express what they think is required to gain that trust - how many people will automatically oppose an applicant with 500 edits, or an unclean block log? There is nothing wrong with people in the community saying we won't trust with the authority of adminship people who have not contributed to building the encyclopedia. Argyriou (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing magical about any sort of "X something" criteria. Passing an arbitrary boundary does not suddenly make someone a better admin candidate. Someone with 25 of whatever is not necessarily "better" than someone with 24 of that same thing, all else equal. What is important is large differences. The difference in "betterness" between someone with 24 of something and someone else with 25 in that same thing are not very significant, all else equal; however the difference between someone with 25 of one thing and someone else with 100 of that same thing is significant, all else equal. This reasoning also applies to editcounts, which is better than nothing as a measure of wikiexperience (although it should be used with other measures). I don't think that saying that one user with 2000 edits is more experienced than someone else 1ith 2010 is reasonable, all else equal; However, it's perfectly reasonable to me to say that someone with 20000 edits is more experienced than someone with 2000. Any criteria involving x of something will always implicitely divide users into those who meet the criteria and those who don't. The difference between meeting and not meeting will always be one unit. This gives too much significance to small differences at the expense of large ones To sum it up, large differences matter; little ones don't. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 08:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The numerical limit in "created or significantly contributed to at least 25 articles" criterion is rather arbitrary, and not something I would use, but the sentiment behind it is not at all unreasonable. Administrators are set to manage the encylopedia, and there is a real cause for concern if a candidate has no experience in that area. This concern need not be a deal breaker, several good admins focused mainly on administrative tasks, but it is a real one. Should not a person who enforces WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:DP, WP:NOT, etc. have experience in applying those principles for oneself before taking a position where they are asked to enforce them? Creating and contributing to articles is neither an inclusionist or a deletionist thing to do; it is those contributions which make up the bread and butter of what Wikipedia is all about. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Users such as User:Dfrg.msc have passed RfA with very little work on articles, and very well too. While actually working on articles may help in determining things like consensus in deletion debates and knowing CSD, it's not the sole factor. Studying the Wikipedia pages themselves also helps, and so much article work is not necessary for a good admin. Adminship, remember, is purely technical. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation for new admins?
This may be another one of those suggestions that keeps getting recycled, and if so I apologise.

A few recent events involving new administrators, coupled with the practically useless recall process, has made me wonder whether it might not be a good idea for all new administrators to be required to serve let's say a three-month probationary period, before either being confirmed as an administrator or having the tools removed. That needn't involve the additional "drama" of a confirmation RfA or anything like, perhaps just a few simple rules like, for instance, if an RfC expressing reasonable concerns about that admin's administrative actions is accepted, then the tools are removed without any further formality. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you'll find that anyone is simultaneously willing and able to make this happen. By apparent historical accident, we have crats who can promote but not unpromote.  I doubt arbcom would be interested in saying "Yes, we'll make this so" in the abstract- all you can do is take individual cases to them as they occur.  Friday (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That adds another level of bureaucracy and goes against assuming good faith. Kingturtle (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:AGF. It is simply a prudent precaution thay may prevent some editors being pissed off by incompetent administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. "Assume good faith" does not mean "assume competence".  As a community we have an unfortunately harmful tendency to forget that competence matters.  Good faith alone is not enough.  Friday (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If we do not believe a user has competence with the tools, we would not give it to the editor in question in the first place. — Kurykh  18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But the sad truth is, guessing about competence is nowhere near as good as seeing how someone actually uses the tools.  This is why we'd benefit from a quick and simple way to remove the tools when we see that the promotion was a mistake. Friday (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be far too easy to game probation. You don't run red lights during your driving test. But I agree that it should be easier to remove the tools. That's a different question altogether, though, really ~ Riana ⁂ 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the wording and conditions of the proposal plus the technical realities at this stage surely do not reflect this concept being "quick and simple." — Kurykh  19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec x 2) Sorry, but no. The community speaks through the RfA, and if someone has something to say, he or she has the opportunity to do so. Nobody is prevented from doing so (other than vandals, that is). Forcing new admins to go through a "probationary period" is telling all those who cared about coming here and expressing their opinions "Sorry, but we don't trust your statement when you said "I believe he will be a good admin" and therefore we will watch him closely". Then just make everyone go through the probationary period without having to go through a RfA, and after they pass, they can request RfA. Oh, wait, we have something similar at Admins' school and Editor review. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that you mave misunderstood what I was proposing. There's no "forcing", and having to go through an RfA. It really would be more like a driving test in my mind. The examiner has to see you actually drive to be able to pass you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw damn, you obviously missed my astute driving test analogy before *pouts* "You don't run red lights during your driving test." - unless you're one of those real badasses, I guess. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And you make the test before getting the license, not the way around. That is why I say there are already related pages to handle the preparation. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)No, I didn't miss it, I recycled it. But a better analogy might be starting a new job. Most people would expect there to be a probationary period for that wouldn't they? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh good! I'm not spinning out these Maseratis for nothing y'know ;) We don't do probation, but we do onsite training and apprenticeship. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What if someone refuses to go through this process? I am not against making it optional if the user wishes to, but not forcing it. Nobody can be forced to declare against himself, not even here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When you start a new job, does your new employer give you the choice of whether you want to go through a probationary period or not? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The analogy breaks down at this point because we just don't force people to do things around here. It's not our way. Unless you're openly destructive. Nothing is at stake apart from e-cred; not your salary, or your family's well-being, or the mortgage, or whatev, unlike with a lost job. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, down here that does not happen :-) And if you bring the "But servers are in US", I will bring the "Constitution states you cannot declare against yourself" ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of new admins do a great job, and may make very small errors but are very open to fixing them when pointed out and grow to be excellent administrators. The problem is the very small majority that aren't - but I don't think it's fair to remedy this with something covering every single new admin (it quite simply isn't fair). If there's problems, just deal with it via the usual channels (RfC, and if there's no acceptable response move it to Arbcom).  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In some ways, this is a (cliche 1) solution looking for a problem. I agree the drama could be reduced, but making a (cliche 2) blanket rule to deal with (cliche 3) a bad apple in the basket? (cliche 4) Baby/bathwater. Any other cliches I haven't thought of? :) The few "recent events" are really related to one or two new admin candidates.  So we'll deal with'em and then move along with our encyclopedia building... (cliche 5, and this one especially brings bile and lunch closer to the back of my throat....) adminship is no big deal.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (3x ec, lol) It sounds like a great idea in theory, but in practise I imagine it would be quite unwieldy. We promote a lot of people. Some get it right straight off the bat, and some just never get it. 3 months (I imagine this is an arbitrary figure chosen by you, MF, but I'll go with it for argument's sake) is a fairly long time in an online community. What would the probation involve? Who would oversee it? Who would oversee them? What are the penalties if you act outside the probation? And if someone sucks anyway, they might just push quietly throughout the probation and go crazy afterwards. And there's that whole 'adminship is no big deal' thing...
 * At the end of the day, we AGF. We accept that we're humans doing this as volunteers. We make mistakes, we patch up, we move on. A few unlucky events shouldn't have to make the prospect of RfA and adminship even more daunting for others.
 * IMO ArbCom works, by and large, for bad admins. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that if this were implemented, many admins were be so afraid of messing up that they would end up hardly doing anything.  нмŵוτн τ  18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd say any sensible admin already takes it easy at first, while learning the tools.  Everyone tends to become more bold over time as they gain more experience.  This is desirable and proper. Friday (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, but I think it would go even slower. I mean, my 3 months just ran up about a month ago, and I can definitely say that I would have gone at a much slower pace if I knew I was continuously being watched. Have I done everything perfectly? No, but I learned the little details along the way. I'd feel like Big Brother would be watching... to a far extent. I mean, I was glad people kept an eye and me & helped me out when I needed it, but I felt like they wanted me to succeed & were doing it as a helpful favor. I'd feel like the 3 month thing would make one feel as if he or she was expected to fail, and make him or her afraid that if he or she had one slip up, he or she would be gone.  нмŵוτн  τ  19:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, is your argument that because it would have made you nervous, or more cautious, that probation is a bad idea? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying it would be a bad idea, because new admins would be so nervous and cautious that they wouldn't really do anything. Therefore, it would be difficult to judge an admin's behaviors if he or she doesn't do anything. I mean, are you just saying they can stay in if they don't do anything "bad"? So, if they hardly do anything, they'd be "accepted"?  нмŵוτн τ  19:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Malleus, you misspelled apologize again  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll spell apologise any way I like Keeper76. Today I felt like spelling it the elegant way again. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourry Malleoueous. I alsou apoulogise.  Toodles.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this sounds like an unneeded and cumbersome added level of bureaucracy and instruction creep. I'd rather spend my time editing than supervising. Don't know about anyone else. If someone has a problem with a particular admin, he should discuss the matter. If that discussion is fruitless, a broader discussion at WP:AN or WP:AN/I is the way to go. (Where have I seen ths before?) The answer is discussion and education. Just as with any other editor, we seek to find answers and educate, not revoke privileges. Don't know what particular problems with what particular admins led to this, but were the usual steps taken and found to be fruitless? Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if it was easier to wrench the admin tools out of the hands of obvious incompetents then there would be less need for a probationary period, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing out a case of an "obvious incompetent" who did not lose his adminship? Or are you simply objecting to the amount of work the wrenching took?-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am making a general case for a probationary period for new administrators. I do not have any particular incompetent in mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Abitrary break
'''An analogy by Keeper76. Sure to be longwinded, likely edit conflicted...''' There is a classroom full of students that are well behaved. So well behaved in fact, that the teacher learns through experience to trust the class of students. Trusts them enough, that he in fact will leave the students to work independently, even leaving the room for brief moments because the students will behave. One student acts disruptive with this trust. The student does things without explanation or reason that cause the teacher not to trust said student. Two solutions:

1. Stop trusting the whole class. Don't allow them to work independently, never leave the room. Impose tedious amounts of homework to stifle the students into conformity and "good behavior".

2. Stop the rogue student. Remove him/her from the body of students temporarily. Bring the issues to the parent (s) of the student for involvement. Continue trusting the rest of the class that has done no wrong.

It's an easy analogy really, but I'll spell it out completely.

There is an online community full of admins that are well behaved. So well behaved in fact, that the community of editors learns through experience to trust the admins through RfA. Trust them enough, that the community will leafe the admins to work independently, even unwatchlisting them because they will behave. One admin though acts disruptive with this trust. The admin does things without explanation or reeason that cause the community not to trust said admin. Two solutions:

1. Stop trusting all the admins. Don't allow them to work independently, never leave them unwatchlisted. Impose tedious amounts of bureaucracy to stifle the admins into conformity and "good behavior."

2. Stop the admin. Remove him/her from the body of admins temporarily. Bring the issues to the 'crats and mentors of the admin for involvement. Continue trusting the rest of the admins that have done no wrong.

Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, precisely.  нмŵוτн τ  19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes analogies fail because they don't scale - in this case, your 'classroom' has 1500 students and a constantly evolving cast. The students are chosen in a somewhat haphazard process that can easily miss salient problems, its extremely difficult to assign any students to detention (let alone expel them), they are all anonymous and they can expel younger students or delete desks at will. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But it still works, though. In my mind the scale strengthens the analogy. We are a constantly evolving cast (kids change grades), chosen haphazardly, (kids change towns)  hard to expel, (even more true in real schools) anonymous (teachers can't remember the damn names anyway, so they just call them all "Brittany" and "Jason".) and (gasp!) wielding the power to expel and delete.  Out of the 1500, 1499 of us don't (to use your 1500). Why would we punish (with added bureacracy) 1499 admins (or future admins?)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with this analogy. Fully disagree with this discussion.  Can't we just accept bad eggs, de-sysop them, and move on?  <Insert audible groan here> dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation for new admins (Arbitrary break)
I agree with Keeper, even though the analogy isn't 100%. As the flashing sign below says, I'm about to repeat something already said. There is too great an aura around admins and adminship. Admins are just people. There actions are both reviewable and reversible. We should not ever be treated as infallible or unapproachable. If there is a potential for an abuse of power, then the answer to the potential is to dilute the power by having more admins. We need more not fewer, and we need to ensure that the ones we promote can use the tools beneficially without artificially raising the bar too high. If any of us are actively raising unnecessary obstacles, we should stop. Of course, there is a political dynamic and always will be. The quest for the of illusion of power must take a back seat to the long term need of the project-- for more well qualified admins. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To take that to its logical conclusion, - or reductio ad absurdum depending on your pov - the answer of course would be that every registered editor be given admin powers by default, only taken away if they were abused in some way. I'd be curious to know how the experiment in handing out rollback, for instance has worked out. Has that extra button been taken away from (m)any editors because it's been abused? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's almost silly. Yes, anyone who can show they have sufficient understanding to use the block, protect, and delete buttons correctly and constructively should have it. I totally agree with Mr. Wales on this. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the corollary is that anyone who has demonstrated they don't have the sufficient understanding to use those buttons "correctly and constructively" should have them removed. As in this particular case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And if the malfeasance is that egregious, why not arbcom or an RfDeadmining with a consensus level congruent with what we already have? If it is that bad, would not 75% - 80% of the community support desysopping? Short of that, why not an RfC where the behavior is discussed and come to terms with short of/before necessitating desyssopping? Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Like this one do you mean? One that looks likely to end in some kind of a whitewash job, with an mild slap on the wrist and a recommendation for Archtransit to keep his head down for 6 months? Why would anyone bother to take the trouble? If being an admin is no big deal, then why is it that not being an admin seems to be such a massive deal? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind here Malleus that you stated quite clearly in your intro and in your thread just a paragraph or two above that you didn't have any particular incompetent in mind and now you've named the one we all knew you had in mind. Other than that, do you really believe that the torturous RfC that "we're not talking about" is  a whitewash job?  Slap on the wrist?  (It seems to me that being an admin pays as little as being an editor, with less barnstars and more AN/I threads.)  Keeping his head down for 6 months?  He's losing the bit, most likely.  What would you like to see happen to Arch if not a mild slap on the wrist?  A hard slap across the face?  Life's too short to be dragged around by an online community volunteer job.  I can't imagine something like this IRL. What exactly do you think should happen to him?  (keeping in mind, that I have been to the page we're not talking about and believe he is not a suitable admin (at this time) and should lose the bit).  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

<insert above erlier comment> Aha!! (I did not know what this was all about.) The dispute resolution process was put into play, there was an RfC, and Malleous disagrees with the outcome. Talk about hackneyed, been there before, RfA discussions. Rehashing a community decision with which one disagrees by bringing it here. Wow. If only I'd known. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that this only looks like a solution in search of a problem, but it is not that: the problem is well identified. This proposal is a square peg for a round hole. The round hole, or problem being supposedly searched for, is the difficulty of de-adminning. While the number of bad admins is on the order of magnitude of 15, not 1, out of 1500, most admins don't actually do anything of lasting damage with the tools, and most deserve the trust placed in them, even many whom I, for example, don't trust when they apply. If the problem were about 150 bad admins, solutions which applied to all admins may be appropriate, but when it's 15, solutions should be targeted. Really, it does need to be easier to de-admin, so that those 15 can be got rid of.


 * That's already happened to some extent - I don't recall seeing any policy change, but there seems to be a change in attitude among the admin corps in the past few months that has made it possible to remove more admins for abusive actions than was the case in the past. It's still not perfect, but it's much better than before. Argyriou (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that misses a very important point. There may well only be 15 admins causing serious problems at the moment. But the way that the ranks of the other admins tends to protectively close around them does not set a very good example; rather like protecting one of their own against all the odds. What the administrators are risking by that kind of behaviour is losing the respect of the body of editors. It also depends on how you choose to measure damage. I assume that you mean damage to pages in the encyclopedia? That can be easily fixed. But what about chasing away expert contributors? Does that not count as damage in your eyes? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * <<ec>> I'm afraid I don't know what's going on with the 15. At it's most basic, the admin tools involve simple common sense. The more nuanced the decision, the easier it is to make a mistake. Reasonable people will disagree about the nuances.  The important thing is to know the limits of one's own understanding, with the willingness to keep an open mind. That's why it is important to down play the aura of importance of  admins. I'll bet the one's who are in trouble disagreed strongly with someone else about some point of applying policy and weren't sufficiently into apathy. Admins need to be approachable and willing to accept their own fallibility. Why else are we so interested in question 3? I sthat where we need to focus our screening? On avoiding/resolving conflict?  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a general note to no-one at all, but "1,500" admins is a bit misleading. 1,492 less 299 less another 177 gives us 1,016 active admins on the project at present. Pedro : Chat  11:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pedro. Good to have a hard figure. The ratio of articles to admins continues to increase. That's alot of articles for admins to oversee effectively-- checking for unconstructive edits, researching, improving. We need to retain the admins (and other experienced editors) we have and develop and promote new ones. As to "expert editors," we need more. God knows, there are many articles that need expert attention. However, they need to be thoroughly indoctrinated in consensus buidling and the other principals by wish we work. Experts don't always agree with one another. Sometimes they take the position that because they are experts, they need not cite reliable sources. Then they sometimes to get disagereements over what are or are not reliable, verifiab.le sources. Or introduce their own work as sources. They get overheated in discussions. Yes, we need experts, if they can keep a NPOV and work toward consensus.15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Cheers, :) dlohcierekim's other account 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)